Brexit again!

Parliament are getting desperate now.

They all realize that May has outplayed them all, and we’re heading full-steam-ahead for a Planned No Deal Brexit for March 29th. (Andrea Leadsom acting behind the scenes, to that end…)
Civil Servants not prepared to toe the line - are likely to be offered early retirement, or the sack with pension revoked - if they continue to “Not do their job” - which is cut the financial ties and payments to the EU by March 29th.

Hammond - has the choice of playing along, or chucking it in himself.
Gove stands ready to take over, if and when that happens. I suspect he’s already writing out how to best spend the £39,000,000,000 he’ll have in what Hammond wants to give away to Brussels…
Once delivered, May can call a snap election for as early as Late April - with Parliamentry Remainers only THEN realizing - that they are gonna get killed at the polls, regardless of what party they currently sit in.

I stand by previous remarkets that the next election is likely to be a six-way split of parties…

Let’s see how many Remoaners are prepared to stand in said snap election on a “We’ll overturn Brexit already done” by that point…

“Not Many” I would suggest.

May only need field alternative candidates as the new official Conservative Party Candidate in those seats currently held by so called “Tiggers”, and they are ALL toast!

There’s not even any point voting UKIP if Brexit is not only done “no deal”, but is SEEN to be done on-time by March 29th.

The MONEY - is the key here.

The other stuff like “closing our borders” - can wait.

Who’s gonna vote against the Tories once they’ve got the hard cash to both cut taxes AND dish out to Schools, the NHS, etc - all at once?

Winseer:
Parliament are getting desperate now.

They all realize that May has outplayed them all, and we’re heading full-steam-ahead for a Planned No Deal Brexit for March 29th. (Andrea Leadsom acting behind the scenes, to that end…)
Civil Servants not prepared to toe the line - are likely to be offered early retirement, or the sack with pension revoked - if they continue to “Not do their job” - which is cut the financial ties and payments to the EU by March 29th.

Hammond - has the choice of playing along, or chucking it in himself.
Gove stands ready to take over, if and when that happens. I suspect he’s already writing out how to best spend the £39,000,000,000 he’ll have in what Hammond wants to give away to Brussels…
Once delivered, May can call a snap election for as early as Late April - with Parliamentry Remainers only THEN realizing - that they are gonna get killed at the polls, regardless of what party they currently sit in.

I stand by previous remarkets that the next election is likely to be a six-way split of parties…

Let’s see how many Remoaners are prepared to stand in said snap election on a “We’ll overturn Brexit already done” by that point…

“Not Many” I would suggest.

May only need field alternative candidates as the new official Conservative Party Candidate in those seats currently held by so called “Tiggers”, and they are ALL toast!

If May ever intended ‘full steam ahead’ for no deal Brexit then what was her BRINO deal put to the house all about and why the need for it if she can supposedly rail road no deal through the Commons without opposition.Or for that matter if she is supposedly a Leaver then why stand on a remain ticket.

As for the 29th March supposedly meaning anything feel free to believe that date including obviously the sell by date of article 50 is set in stone.Not according to parliament nor the ECJ it ain’t.

As for parliament not being inherently majority remain and section 13 of the withdrawal act not giving them everything they need to stop no deal Brexit in its tracks and suddenly going with May’s BRINO deal.Hopefully UKIP would punish that type of naivety with a £ 120 membership fee for anyone who believes that May and Parliament will deliver no deal Brexit on March 29 and then goes crying to UKIP to fix it all when such naivety comes home to roost.As opposed to loads of diversionary bs and stalling of article 50 followed by foregone BRINO which gives the EU Federalists here and on the continent more than they ever dreamed of.On that note you’re making exactly the same deluded mistake now,in trusting May to deliver Brexit,as loads of Leave voters did at the last election and expecting a different outcome. :unamused:

fuser84:

Winseer:

Carryfast:

dozy:
Now the lies of the leave idiots have been exposed , a people’s vote & a continuation of our partnership wit out European friends is the only the only way forward

The only lies were those told by Heath and all the other Federalist rabble to take us into the stinking EU 4th Reich.I’m guessing that the AfD or the FN aren’t part of your circle of European ‘friends’ your definition of friends obviously actually meaning only European Federalist morons.

We had a people’s vote in 2016 you know the one that your lot were happy enough with up until you lost it because the mountain of leave votes meant you couldn’t rig it well enough.

I think we can all see where this argument is heading as so often in the case of Federalism meeting the right of self determination and Nationalism head on throughout history.You can count the former Yugoslavia and the Austro Hungarian Empire and the 3rd Reich and the Soviet Union and Brit rule in Ireland all fitting the definition of Federalism.Now added to by the self appointed EUSSR 4th Reich,like all those,hopefully to be history when Nationalism smashes it one way or another sooner or later.

Perhaps if we ended this daft obsession with “the world’s stage” as a country - we might be able to rule ourselves better - regardless of what country it is, and what side of politics rules it.

If you want to be socialist - then pay for it all yourselves, rather than nick the wealth of other nations to fund it.

The only thing there should NEVER be any room for on the world’s stage today is “Political Expansion”.

The EU is wrong to want to add further nations following the collapse of the USSR.
America is wrong to interfere in the Middle East.
Brazil is wrong to offend sensible decency in the name of “Liberalism”.
Russia is wrong to discourage MORE freedom of movement than it has.
China is wrong to “Great Fireway” it’s internet the way it does.
Africa is wrong to demand independence one minute, and then hold out the begging bowl the next.
Britain is wrong to even treat on the world political scene, - until at least it gets it’s Empire back. We can’t afford it - yet.

So you think there’s no room for political expansion except restoring the British Empire or what? :open_mouth:

Restoring the British Empire - would force those countries already independent of it to STOP asking us for “Foreign Aid”. If we can’t have our Empire back - I’d settle for all the money we still hand these hypocrites to be re-patriated instead. :smiling_imp: If you don’t want to be part of the Empire - then pay your own way in the world!

Why Pay the EU money - for them to waste?
Why pay over Foreign Aid money - for international kiddie prostitution rings to waste?
Why pay over “Foreign Fines” and legal settlements - when we neither respect nor desire their laws over ours?
Why put up with those countries we’ve already beaten fair and square - to have any say whatsoever in our own future as a nation?

We’ve given it all more than 50 YEARS of “playing it their way” - and they’ve abused us, taken our money, not helped us out with “Aid TO the UK” over these years, and in combination “caused Austerity” in this country.
It has long since been the way that Labour - run up a tab - Tories - end up cut cut cutting to pay it back. Then the Left slag off the RIght for “unnecessary Austerity”.

Labour lost the plot - when they bailed out the Banks, rather than throw them all under the bus (as proper capitalism would have demanded!) .
My guess is that the Banks said “You cannot borrow any more money the way you like to - without us” and those idiots in 2008 - went for such a duff deal for the British Taxpayer!
The Tories - probably wouldn’t have been any different, it has to be said.

Here we are with Brexit around the corner - and there are still 48% of people (we’re told) that STILL want us to keep paying Brussels our contributions, and hand over that £39bn for pretty much bugger-all in return…

Who’s gonna still support Remain once Brexit is declared on-time for March 29th, and that 39bn starts getting spent on all manner of useful things to the public by our current government?
Surely “To spend a £39bn windfall” ALONE - is a wish-upon-a-star for ANY government, let alone one that knows it’s future is only possible via ending austerity, and leaving this Left-Wing Empire that has squanded so much of what used to be our Empire, Industrial Base, and Standing in the World these past 50 years.

Imagine this scenario:

March 29th - Brexit is COMPLETED says the PM…
March 30th - £39bn is re-allocated via a fresh budget, which will either be delivered by Hammond (if the reports that he wants to give that to Brussels are in fact false) or Gove - if they are TRUE…
March 31st - Plans are made to increase wages for NHS staff, build several new hospitals, announce plans to government-assist UK phamacueticals, and R&D projects.
April 1st - Theresa May calls a General Election for Thursday 25th April 2019

The platform will be "Vote Labour/Libdem/Tigger to reverse the now already done Brexit, take back that money spent, reverse the pay rises for the NHS staff, cancel all the infrastructure building plans, and announce to the EU that They can have the £39bn to waste on themselves after all.

Vote Conservative - to leave things exactly as they’ve already been done by that point…

Whodya think is gonna win that election?

Why bother to vote UKIP or for Farage’s splinter group? - Brexit is DONE!

Theresa May could stand anyone wearing a Blue Outfit in the places of those errant MPs who will surely be losing their seats, regardless of who wins that election…
She’ll win back a majority, AND have got rid of all the undesirable wets in her own party…

Autumn 2021 - Theresa May has done her five years, and announces that she’s stepping down to retire from Politics.
January 2022 - Andrea Leadsom - whom Theresa May has been grooming to succeed her ever since taking over as PM herself - becomes PM
June 2022 - The Conservative Party wins over 400 seats at the general election, and Andrea Leadsom duly becomes Britain’s THIRD Tory Female Prime Minister.

More Hospitals, Higher Wages, Better R&D, Lower Taxes, Better Roads (because not all of the Brexit dividend got spent just on the NHS…)
What’s been “backslid” upon?

We didn’t get around to kicking out any immigrants, other than the criminal ones. Turns out the country can “live with that”.
You only get to emmigrate to Britain - if you have desired trades and/or enough cash to support yourself - bringing the UK in line with most other countries in the world, especially the Commonwealth ones!

The EU Leftie Empire has collapsed meanwhile, and Tourism flourishes once again on the mainland continent, following individual ex-EU member states - being able to control their own currencies again.
The Ex-Pats don’t lose out - because a devalued local currency - merely pushes up the values of their properties overseas IN that devalued currency.
Defence spending gets increased, and Britain has closer ties with Trump’s America. All nations thinking of “helping themselves” to things like the Malvinos, Gibraltar, etc. - decide to go quietly into the night, and “drop it” - when Britain re-builds it’s shipping fleet again, Fishing, Merchant, and Military.
HS2 - gets scrapped, unless the EU decide they want to pay for it, which they won’t be able to, even if they wanted to.

The EU duly collapses, once it emerges that the entire Eurocurrency is a FRAUD. Turns out they have been printing it out-of-control for years and years, whilst quietly selling off tangible assets in bank vaults, especially in Luxumbourg.

The UK offers to buy all of the EU’s Food mountain stocks - at a firesale price of course - to provide much-needed financial aid.

All those still involved at the top levels of the EU and IMF that has aided and abetted the fraud - end up in Jail, tried by a Swiss court.

Britain, improves it’s relations with the Far East, starts buying the rather tasty North Korean food even (A rival for “Going for a Chinky” - if ever there was one!) whilst relations with Japan get put on the back burner by comparison, still some ire present over their bailing out of Pre-Brexit UK a little bit too hastily…

“My 2020 Vision”.

The EU is duly consigned to the dustbin of History, whilst the rest of the world - takes the ■■■■■

Chinese4.jpg

Well done Winseer!

But what about “Global Warming”?
You can’t ignore that, surely?

Sent from my SM-G361F using Tapatalk

Franglais:
Well done Winseer!

But what about “Global Warming”?
You can’t ignore that, surely?

Sent from my SM-G361F using Tapatalk

There is such a thing as Global Climate Change. There is NO such thing as MAN-MADE climate change. The latter is a hoax, and always was.

Natural Climate Change - comes in cycles, which we can all prepare for. Pretending we can cut down on gweenhouth gathes which will somehow “stop it snowing in siberia” or “flooding in Tsunami Zones” - is sheer poppycock.

IF CO2 emissions WERE responsible for catastrophic climate change - then how come NO regime on Earth, especially the globalists - have embarked upon a policy of “enforced birth control” in third-world countries?
By far the largest source of CO2 - is the exhaled breath of some 7,300,000,000 people on this planet. :bulb: :bulb: :bulb:

Winseer:

Franglais:
There is such a thing as Global Climate Change. There is NO such thing as MAN-MADE climate change. The latter is a hoax, and always was.

I think it’s too early to say to be honest, it’s only 200 years since the industrial revolution, less than three average human lifespans. It would seem logical to me though that burning fossil fuels every single day which took millions of years to be formed might have a detrimental effect and might not be sustainable in the long term.

Winseer:
IF CO2 emissions WERE responsible for catastrophic climate change - then how come NO regime on Earth, especially the globalists - have embarked upon a policy of “enforced birth control” in third-world countries?
By far the largest source of CO2 - is the exhaled breath of some 7,300,000,000 people on this planet. :bulb: :bulb: :bulb:

The whole ridiculous theory has its origins in Carl Sagan’s 2 + 2 = 5 conclusions that it’s the CO2 composition of Venus’ atmosphere that cooked the planet.

Maybe Franglais could give us some typical projected temperature figures on planet Earth given exactly the same atmospheric composition as we have now but with a pressure at ground level of 90 times that which we have now.Bearing in mind the usual graduation of around 5 degrees F difference in temperature per 1,000 feet in altitude.Here’s a clue it has nothing to do with the altitude measurement.Oh wait might as well also move planet Earth 26 million miles closer to the Sun as part of the question.

Sunday morning… the devil makes work for idle hands…

Carryfast:
The whole ridiculous theory has its origins in Carl Sagan’s 2 + 2 = 5 conclusions that it’s the CO2 composition of Venus’ atmosphere that cooked the planet.

Carl Sagen started it all?
Global climate change was being investigated before Queen Victoria took her throne.
Joseph Fourier was talking about human influence on climate, (not because of truck engines!) in 1824.
Eunice Newton Foote researched the “Greenhouse Effect” of carbon dioxide and had a paper presented in 1856.
By 1896 it was quantified that a doubling of the earth`s CO2 would result in a global rise of 5/6 deg.C.

Carryfast:
planet Earth given exactly the same atmospheric composition as we have now but with a pressure at ground level of 90 times that which we have now.

Bit like proposing a system where there is no gravity, but things fall to earth just the same…
If the pressure has changed then the composition must have changed. At 90 times more pressure there will be no water vapour, and both nitrogen and oxygen would be supercritical fluids…
And further, assuming any temperature gradient would remain unchanged in these vastly changed conditions…ridiculous.

Harry Monk:
I think it’s too early to say to be honest, it’s only 200 years since the industrial revolution, less than three average human lifespans. It would seem logical to me though that burning fossil fuels every single day which took millions of years to be formed might have a detrimental effect and might not be sustainable in the long term.

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ … 800kyr.svg
Look at that. 800,000 years of CO2 concentrations with a magnification over the past one thousand years.
{I dunno why “human lifespans” is a good time unit to measure atmospheric change? Or why 3 isn`t enough of them? :smiley:}

Winseer:
There is such a thing as Global Climate Change. There is NO such thing as MAN-MADE climate change. The latter is a hoax, and always was.

Natural Climate Change - comes in cycles, which we can all prepare for. Pretending we can cut down on gweenhouth gathes which will somehow “stop it snowing in siberia” or “flooding in Tsunami Zones” - is sheer poppycock.

IF CO2 emissions WERE responsible for catastrophic climate change - then how come NO regime on Earth, especially the globalists - have embarked upon a policy of “enforced birth control” in third-world countries?
By far the largest source of CO2 - is the exhaled breath of some 7,300,000,000 people on this planet.

Most of that leaves me speechless…hard to believe of a gobby git like me I know…
I guess the figures about human breathing are part of the 97.3% of statistics that are made-up on the spot?
Humans breath out about 500litres of CO2 a day, about 1kg.
“Back of a ■■■ packet” arithmetic says that`s 7,500 k.tonnes a day or 2.8 billion t per annum.
Scientific American reckons about 38 billion tons of CO2 are produced by industry each year.
So, breathing by people although significant, is still less than 10% of CO2 sources.

Franglais:
Sunday morning… the devil makes work for idle hands…

Carryfast:
The whole ridiculous theory has its origins in Carl Sagan’s 2 + 2 = 5 conclusions that it’s the CO2 composition of Venus’ atmosphere that cooked the planet.

Carl Sagen started it all?
Global climate change was being investigated before Queen Victoria took her throne.
Joseph Fourier was talking about human influence on climate, (not because of truck engines!) in 1824.
Eunice Newton Foote researched the “Greenhouse Effect” of carbon dioxide and had a paper presented in 1856.
By 1896 it was quantified that a doubling of the earth`s CO2 would result in a global rise of 5/6 deg.C.

Carryfast:
planet Earth given exactly the same atmospheric composition as we have now but with a pressure at ground level of 90 times that which we have now.

Bit like proposing a system where there is no gravity, but things fall to earth just the same…
If the pressure has changed then the composition must have changed. At 90 times more pressure there will be no water vapour, and both nitrogen and oxygen would be supercritical fluids…
And further, assuming any temperature gradient would remain unchanged in these vastly changed conditions…ridiculous.

Leave it our everyone knows that Sagan kicked off the bat zb theories in a big way all based on the transfer of conditions applying on Venus to Earth and that CO2 composition was the factor.

users.tpg.com.au/users/mpaine/Co … house.html

Also never heard of the cylinder charge of a diesel engine turning into a super critical fluid and it’s certainly heated under compression to hotter than the average temp of bleedin Venus.

Carryfast:

Franglais:
Sunday morning… the devil makes work for idle hands…

Carryfast:
The whole ridiculous theory has its origins in Carl Sagan’s 2 + 2 = 5 conclusions that it’s the CO2 composition of Venus’ atmosphere that cooked the planet.

Carl Sagen started it all?
Global climate change was being investigated before Queen Victoria took her throne.
Joseph Fourier was talking about human influence on climate, (not because of truck engines!) in 1824.
Eunice Newton Foote researched the “Greenhouse Effect” of carbon dioxide and had a paper presented in 1856.
By 1896 it was quantified that a doubling of the earth`s CO2 would result in a global rise of 5/6 deg.C.

Carryfast:
planet Earth given exactly the same atmospheric composition as we have now but with a pressure at ground level of 90 times that which we have now.

Bit like proposing a system where there is no gravity, but things fall to earth just the same…
If the pressure has changed then the composition must have changed. At 90 times more pressure there will be no water vapour, and both nitrogen and oxygen would be supercritical fluids…
And further, assuming any temperature gradient would remain unchanged in these vastly changed conditions…ridiculous.

Leave it our everyone knows that Sagan kicked off the bat zb theories in a big way all based on the transfer of conditions applying on Venus to Earth and that CO2 composition was the factor.

users.tpg.com.au/users/mpaine/Co … house.html

Also never heard of the cylinder charge of a diesel engine turning into a super critical fluid and it’s certainly heated under compression to hotter than the average temp of bleedin Venus.

Carl Sagan wrote that the earth has about 90 atmospheres of CO2, but that it is embedded in rocks. He says that increases in temp can cause some of this to be released, and cause a runaway feedback system, where extra CO2 increases greenhouse effects, and temp, hence more CO2 release.
Nowhere, has anyone, spoken about 90 atmospheres of pressure, well, no-one except you.

A diesel may have a compression ratio of 15/1 or 20/1. (so, 20bar, maybe a little more)
Cylinder pressure may peak around 200bar. Because of the high temperatures that you correctly point to, the gases I gave as examples won`t necessarily be fluids of any description.

The state of a gas depends on temp and pressure, and I should have stated my assumption, that you were discussing a start point of STP. Then I assumed you were proposing a steady state of 90bar. I can see now why you chose that 90bar figure, and … I`ll just leave it there.

Carryfast:

Winseer:
IF CO2 emissions WERE responsible for catastrophic climate change - then how come NO regime on Earth, especially the globalists - have embarked upon a policy of “enforced birth control” in third-world countries?
By far the largest source of CO2 - is the exhaled breath of some 7,300,000,000 people on this planet. :bulb: :bulb: :bulb:

The whole ridiculous theory has its origins in Carl Sagan’s 2 + 2 = 5 conclusions that it’s the CO2 composition of Venus’ atmosphere that cooked the planet.

Maybe Franglais could give us some typical projected temperature figures on planet Earth given exactly the same atmospheric composition as we have now but with a pressure at ground level of 90 times that which we have now.Bearing in mind the usual graduation of around 5 degrees F difference in temperature per 1,000 feet in altitude.Here’s a clue it has nothing to do with the altitude measurement.Oh wait might as well also move planet Earth 26 million miles closer to the Sun as part of the question.

I’ve read that book, and the concept of “Runaway Greenhouse Effect” requires at the same time “another catastrophic event to set fire to the world’s vegetation”.

If the Permian period of geological history for example had a much richer Oxygen content in the atmopshere than now, and then some “great fire” started, then not only do we get a drop in Oxygen levels from the mass combustion, but also a rapid gain in atmopheric CO2, - but with the greenery unable to “breath it back” for the Earth, because it has already gone up in flames!
Sea temperatures climb to around 60 celcius in due course, and Earth saw it’s worse extinction event ever, especially among Sea Life.

If we build up CO2 THESE days however - Greenery will proliferate to compensate, bringing back down CO2 levels, and increasing O2 levels. Our Ecosystem is balanced better than most people realize.

“Catastrophic Climate Change” - therefore requires a natural event that is way beyond Mankind’s reach to even simulate by comparison.

The Earth is closer to the Sun in January than it is in July as well btw, so summers in the southern hemisphere - have been rather more severe than the same latitude north for some time… The winters are colder as well of course.

If we ever have a wildfire planet-wide - THEN and only then - is this planet in danger of another extinction-level-event.
That puts “Extra-Terrestrial Impact” such as an Asteroid or Comet - STILL “Favourite” to bring an end to life as we know it on this planet.

The Chinese building a new smog-belching factory in Chungking on the other hand - might make a few fresh trees grow somewhere in Central America - and that’s about it.

Our ECOSYSTEM is NOT under threat from Mankind’s actions. It has been over 200 years since the industrial revolution - and we start to worry about things that are happening due to longer cycles, rather than something we did back in the 19th century. No one was counting the CO2 output during the world wars of the 20th Century… Funny how life didn’t end in Y2K as well, because there were plenty of people who mistakenly thought that it MUST. :unamused:

The best way to prepare for higher tides - is to build your house on higher ground.
The best way to prepare for hotter summers - is to buy an air con unit.
The best way to prepare for harsher winters - is to wrap up warm, and lobby for lower energy bills.

“Pretending it is all Mankind’s fault, and is preventable” - comes across as a superstition at best. A “New Age Religion” if you will, and a total fraud with pseudo-scientists as their acolytes.

Canute.jpg

Trying to sell my own views to the Green Lobby though - is like me asking them to stop being cruel to vegetables - themselves included. :stuck_out_tongue:

bloomberg.com/news/articles … y-for-time
Teresa may kicks the can down the road…again…

Franglais:

Carryfast:

Franglais:
Sunday morning… the devil makes work for idle hands…

Carryfast:
The whole ridiculous theory has its origins in Carl Sagan’s 2 + 2 = 5 conclusions that it’s the CO2 composition of Venus’ atmosphere that cooked the planet.

Carl Sagen started it all?
Global climate change was being investigated before Queen Victoria took her throne.
Joseph Fourier was talking about human influence on climate, (not because of truck engines!) in 1824.
Eunice Newton Foote researched the “Greenhouse Effect” of carbon dioxide and had a paper presented in 1856.
By 1896 it was quantified that a doubling of the earth`s CO2 would result in a global rise of 5/6 deg.C.

Carryfast:
planet Earth given exactly the same atmospheric composition as we have now but with a pressure at ground level of 90 times that which we have now.

Bit like proposing a system where there is no gravity, but things fall to earth just the same…
If the pressure has changed then the composition must have changed. At 90 times more pressure there will be no water vapour, and both nitrogen and oxygen would be supercritical fluids…
And further, assuming any temperature gradient would remain unchanged in these vastly changed conditions…ridiculous.

Leave it our everyone knows that Sagan kicked off the bat zb theories in a big way all based on the transfer of conditions applying on Venus to Earth and that CO2 composition was the factor.

users.tpg.com.au/users/mpaine/Co … house.html

Also never heard of the cylinder charge of a diesel engine turning into a super critical fluid and it’s certainly heated under compression to hotter than the average temp of bleedin Venus.

Carl Sagan wrote that the earth has about 90 atmospheres of CO2, but that it is embedded in rocks. He says that increases in temp can cause some of this to be released, and cause a runaway feedback system, where extra CO2 increases greenhouse effects, and temp, hence more CO2 release.
Nowhere, has anyone, spoken about 90 atmospheres of pressure, well, no-one except you.

A diesel may have a compression ratio of 15/1 or 20/1. (so, 20bar, maybe a little more)
Cylinder pressure may peak around 200bar. Because of the high temperatures that you correctly point to, the gases I gave as examples won`t necessarily be fluids of any description.

The state of a gas depends on temp and pressure, and I should have stated my assumption, that you were discussing a start point of STP. Then I assumed you were proposing a steady state of 90bar. I can see now why you chose that 90bar figure, and … I`ll just leave it there.

I can also see why you think that the inlet charge of a diesel is all about compression ratio.Let’s get this right you think that the inlet charge is the same and therefore pressure created under compression when turning over an engine on the starter motor,as that when it’s actually running at 1,500 rpm under full load and turbo boost.While the charge obviously is at a steady state when the piston is at top dead centre on the compression stroke.If not what happens if we stop the engine with the piston at TDC does the charge all then turn into a supercritical fluid. :unamused:

The fact is it’s the pressure of the atmosphere combined with the distance from the Sun which cooked Venus.Not the composition of its atmosphere.

Franglais:
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
Teresa may kicks the can down the road…again…

What a surprise.But at least it should help to dispel the delusions of those who’ve bought the lie ( again ) that remainer May will deliver Brexit.

Carryfast:

Franglais:
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
Teresa may kicks the can down the road…again…

What a surprise.But at least it should help to dispel the delusions of those who’ve bought the lie ( again ) that remainer May will deliver Brexit.

But all she has to do is…nothing*…and Voila!

*(and prevent parliament from acting)

Franglais:

Carryfast:
What a surprise.But at least it should help to dispel the delusions of those who’ve bought the lie ( again ) that remainer May will deliver Brexit.

But all she has to do is…nothing*…and Voila!

*(and prevent parliament from acting)

She can’t ‘prevent parliament from acting’ because section 13 of the withdrawal act states that an implementation Act is required to actually trigger and ratify the withdrawal act.IE the withdrawal act is just a non binding statement of intent until the further implementation act has been passed …by parliament.While article 50 can be extended or revoked at will and with Juncker’s and the ECJ’s support.What could possibly go wrong for Brexit and the Leave side.

Carryfast:
the charge obviously is at a steady state when the piston is … on the compression stroke.If not what happens if we stop the engine with the piston … does the charge all then turn into a supercritical fluid. :unamused:

Edit ’ at the point of ignition’.

Carryfast:

Franglais:

Carryfast:
What a surprise.But at least it should help to dispel the delusions of those who’ve bought the lie ( again ) that remainer May will deliver Brexit.

But all she has to do is…nothing*…and Voila!

*(and prevent parliament from acting)

She can’t ‘prevent parliament from acting’ because section 13 of the withdrawal act states that an implementation Act is required to actually trigger and ratify the withdrawal act.IE the withdrawal act is just a non binding statement of intent until the further implementation act has been passed …by parliament.While article 50 can be extended or revoked at will and with Juncker’s and the ECJ’s support.What could possibly go wrong for Brexit and the Leave side.

As I understand it (?) section 13 refers to an agreement on withdrawal terms, ie. ‘the deal’.
If there is no agreement on the deal then we leave on March 29th with no deal, ie. crashout/hard Brexit.
So if nothing is done by May or Parliament we exit. Hence May stalling all the while is a definite ploy.

IMHO that is the worst possible outcome for our country, but maybe you differ.

The chances of it happening may not be great, but seeing the “ship of government” veering from tack to tack does mean an accident could always happen. Government happens by catastrophe as much as concencus unfortunately.

Sent from my SM-G361F using Tapatalk

A guy goes to visit his local Ladcrooks bookmakers every single day, during which time he spends £100 on bets, and if he gets any small wins of less than £1000 - he re-bets until it has all gone.
One day, the manager of Ladcrooks puts a Turnstile up, and charges £10 for entry.
Each day thereafter, the guy still gets to walk out of the place totally skinto, - but he leaves slightly earlier now - because he’s got a tenner less to lose before he’s done.

Concerned friends think this guy is a mug, but try as they might - they cannot convince him to not go there any more, especially since he now pays for the entry.
He pays them no heed however. On petitioning the manager of the shop, - the manager tells the friends and family to ‘get lost’ in no uncertain terms…
Friends decide to take matters into their own hands, by handing a petition in at the local council to have the licence revoked, thus running the establishment out of town.

Our Guy is up in arms, but isn’t prepared to travel to the next town to find an “alternative”, as he doesn’t like public transport, nor have any transport of his own.
Thus, he is forced to give up gambling, and despite the pain and heartache - is instantly £700 per week better off as a result.

THIS analogy - appears to be the stance of Remainers, convinced that they, we - EVERYONE will somehow be hurt by “no longer paying to be part of a trading club that should be free”. We tried the “don’t want to pay” arugment, and got told “No”. NO Reforms.
“Leaving” was the only other thing we could do.
“Leaving” cannot cost the guy, nor his family and friends anything other than “Effort” and “Time” in getting as far as they’ve got.
“Staying” - doesn’t make our guy any worse off, as he’s leaving -£700 just a few minutes earlier each time. Such an argument “Staying doesn’t make us worse off” - isn’t an argument FOR Staying though!
All the money lost - goes straight into the bookmaker’s pocket, where ultimately it will be moved and booked as profit off-shore (as many bookmakers do already) - and thus even the tax revenues from said “commerce” - do not go for the benefit of the local community. Our balance of payments as a nation - gets poorer by the hour when you muptiply “money going abroad” by the thousands of businesses in this country, mainly the larger ones - who hold no regard whatsoever for the local communities they operate in. Brexit is the FRIEND of Small to medium businesses, but the ENEMY of those who like the legal protections of expensive lawyers who cannot be got around by some cheapo legal aid brief.

We’re leaving the EU, because staying IN is a bad idea, whilst leaving - has little or no downside.

Too few of UK citizens understand how the concepts of Gambling, Debt, and Profit/Loss work in our day and age. Perhaps if more of us did - we wouldn’t have shysters pretending to be “pillars of the community” running rings around both the citizens, and our lawmakers whom ALSO alas take the "I’m not a betting person but…" Line…

RISK MANAGEMENT - is therefore the “Must-Have” skill for the future.

Franglais:
As I understand it (?) section 13 refers to an agreement on withdrawal terms, ie. ‘the deal’.
If there is no agreement on the deal then we leave on March 29th with no deal, ie. crashout/hard Brexit.
So if nothing is done by May or Parliament we exit. Hence May stalling all the while is a definite ploy.

With parliament being clearly majority remain it will obviously do what it thinks provides the best chance of keeping us tied to the EU.Which in this case means it either voting for May’s BRINO deal ( likely ) or voting to refuse no deal either of which mean remain by default.The only way in which we could possibly end up with no deal Brexit is if parliament votes in favour of it ( unlikely ).

IE section 13 obviously provides the remainers with a perfect opportunity to vote down no deal Brexit.While March 29th is certainly not set in stone regarding anything in this case including the ability to extend or revoke article 50.