Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


churchward last won the day on May 12

churchward had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

682 Excellent


About churchward

  • Birthday 04/11/58

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Previous Fields

  • Occupation
  • Boat Name
    NB Lady Moonlight
  • Boat Location

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • ICQ

Recent Profile Visitors

9,774 profile views
  1. Brexit 2017

    Disagree or not that is how the fact of the referendum act was written to be a simple majority. I do not like weighted votes (especially in a two choice vote) for the simple fact that it gives more importance to one kind of vote than another and all votes should be of equal importance and only those voting should count in my view.
  2. Brexit 2017

    All true about the referendum status but the act was about a simple majority for or against remaining in the EU not weighted in any way nor should it have been. Neither should it have been assumed no one voting was a effective vote for remaining the principle of a voting democracy is that you need to get off your rear end and vote otherwise you will not count. But what must also be remembered now is that leaving the EU has been enshrined in law with the vote and act of parliament passed to enable article 50 to be invoked which is also a legal obligation once declared. The UK legally is way beyond an advisory referendum but of course anything could be reversed with the political and public will in place.
  3. Brexit 2017

    Join them up and make a new canal?
  4. Brexit 2017

    The obly valid reason I can quickly think of is that to do so may compromise a negotiating position to the EU. I am not saying that is correct but it is a possibility.
  5. Trump

    No not cock-eyed. If as you say you accept the purpose of the process it must also follow such a process can end up with a difference between individual votes and the eventual result. It is incompatible to have a collegiate system with wanting to always have a majority of the total vote voting for the winning candidate. So if you accept one you cannot necessarily have the other. Democracy has many definitions here is another: " A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives."
  6. Trump

    Such a comment reveals your lack of understanding of the American Presidential voting system. The process although undoubtedly not perfect (what system in use is?) is designed to stop a portion of the country or state in the Union having too much say in who is president such as California.
  7. classic car show birmingham

    I do not know where you are starting from but it may be worth looking at taking the train to Birmingham International station which is just outside the NEC (you can walk to the halls under cover and the furthest is about 15 mins or so walk away) and you could find the train fare quite cheap and would save the £12 parking fee.
  8. CO2 RISE

    I am not sure about the point you are trying to make but normally CO2 is produced as a by product of another industrial process such as lime production therefore using and capturing CO2 that would otherwise be vented to the atmosphere. see here http://www.uigi.com/carbondioxide.html
  9. Brexit 2017

    I disagree for the following reasons. A Ponzi scheme is defined as A Ponzi scheme (/ˈpɒn.zi/; also a Ponzi game) is a fraudulent investment operation where the operator generates returns for older investors through revenue paid by new investors, rather than from legitimate business activities or profit of financial trading. There have been no promise of impossible returns as people have always been paid their pension so clearly not impossible. A government can only fund anything from taxation and borrowing so when the pension started there was no pot of money to draw from. All that is happening is that the government is paying for its expenditure via current taxation just as everything else is and borrowing when that taxation does not meet demand.
  10. Brexit 2017

    Sorry I did not mean to be critical if that is how it seemed. As far as I know and see it the article 50 deadline is just what you describe a deadline for leaving the EU regardless of what state the negotiations are in. In fact some would say with some validity that if the negotiations are not complete we will leave with no deal. So in that respect the die is indeed cast. However, in practice anything almost could be decided or agreed to including an extension of any time limit but what seems to be unavoidable is that the treaty is exited by the UK 2 years after the triggering of article 50 unless we do something to stop the clock before the deadline. I do believe that we need a vote in parliament depending on what is on offer and what the options are it may also be sensible or necessary to have a referendum (very unlikely it seems just now) on what is approved and what happens next. Lots of "ifs" and "buts" but there are two many variables just now and too little known. On balance though I would say we are leaving ( the treaty and article 50 does not allow for anything else really) but the jury is out on if we leave with any kind of deal and over what time scale to complete it or leave without a deal at all. The possibility of remaining or rejoining seems very remote to me.
  11. Brexit 2017

    The agenda is that democracy has to be served honestly and correctly. The trouble with any vote be that through a post negotiation referendum or a parliamentary vote is what happens if the proposed deal is rejected and can a vote be anything other than a rubber stamp of a Hobson's choice scenario. The latter would not serve democracy at all in my view there must be time for an alternative to be implemented. As well as the options of accept the negotiated deal, remain there should also be the no deal option of just letting the time run out and walk away. It would not serve the UKs interests to show that it was intended to have a remain option in any vote just yet otherwise the EU could just decide that they would make any deal so impossible to accept that the only choice would be to stay in the EU's eyes. However, we do not know any of the concrete terms of the deal or what leeway there is on implementation so very hard to see the conditions of any vote to accept as yet. It is hardly news that there would need to be a parliamentary vote on the deal this has been on the table from the article 50 trigger bill and also many have been saying for quite a while any negotiations will go down to the wire and the last minute. This is common practice for the EU and many other organisations in negotiation. There is a great deal to unfold and reveal itself to us yet.
  12. Brexit 2017

    You're probably right but I wrote not entirely for two main reasons. Firstly that I was not entirely being unkind and secondly a lot of social housing on the continent is not a direct equivalent of council house and unsurprisingly is not called that and with countries like Germany subsidising (social) house building rather than central or local government building their own. It is just a different way of achieving the same thing of course.
  13. Brexit 2017

    That is not entirely true there are plenty of countries in Europe that have a lot of social housing of one kind or another including affluent countries like Germany.
  14. Brexit 2017

    It is nonsense to call the Government Pension a Ponzi scheme. It would need to have fraudulent intent which the Pension clearly has not. What a terrible thing to have done in creating a Pension for all. When it was created they did not start with a pot of money so Pensions had to come out of taxation after all that is all pretty much the government has other than borrowing. Therefore it is no surprise that ongoing the Pension has carried on coming from current taxation.
  15. Brexit 2017

    There is nothing wrong at all with renting and in many countries on the European continent it is often the way the majority live. However, just in much the same way the banks etc. do bad things when they are left to their own devices regulation is needed to protect both tenants and landlords. Although from a UK market perspective it seems regimented the Swedish rental model of regulation works well for them for example. I do not necessarily agree that the main reason for buying a house is to invest. Many feel more comfortable in knowledge they own something rather than rent it. We buy and own most other things and would not normally contemplate renting them. If we leave aside London and other hotspots often buying and the mortgage payments can be similar or not much higher than a monthly rent so some will prefer it. Investment is not a bad thing in any case and there is little reason that a home cannot also be a sound investment too. The two terms are not mutually exclusive at all.