Jump to content
  • Welcome to Whats Up Austraila!

    Intuitive, Social, Engaging...Registration is FREE.
    Register Log in


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Jerry_Atrick last won the day on March 3 2018

Jerry_Atrick had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

223 Excellent

About Jerry_Atrick

  • Rank
    Well-Known Member


  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. A better all-round footballer would be hard to find.. RIP
  2. Jerry_Atrick


    Hello squire Time to join in 😉
  3. I couldn't correct my typos in the time allowed... Got to lean to type quicker..
  4. Er... I may have read more into the statement than you were making, given the context of the rest of your post - one of the problems with text only communiction! Apoligies for that! Although, based on the commentary and political wrangling here, I have a slight problem with this statement (which, I admit, has its merits): " If a large majority of parliamentarians were "remainers" (which they were), and they supposedly represent the best interests of their electorates, then you could argue that this matter should never have gone to a referendum in the first place. " Yes.. But.. Listening to a remainer MP senior the the Labour (still with a "u" here) party, she was saying on the one hand, BJ (I prefer that to BoJo for some reason), has no mandate because he wasn't elected by the people (aka a general election). This would imply, and I think pragmatically, that when a country goes to a general election (or a by-election), it really isn't voting for the local MP - it is voting for the party or the leader of the aprty who controls the manifesto. In fact, if there were a general election tomorrow, except for the c. 1/3 of Brexit supporting MPs, if you were a Brexit supporter, who would you vote for? But in the same breath, she said, if you voted for your local MP, andthe local MP supported Remain, then you were voting to remain based on your local MP. I guess, in BJ's seat, maybe, but she was playing arbitrage.. For all other issues and to affirm the PM, you vote for the party/leader; but for Brexit, you really vote for your local MP... You can't 'ave it both ways, luv. This is the problem I have.. Yes, Brexiteers made assertions (not promises) that were stretching rational thinking; but since the loss of the referendum, remainers have forever been doing the same. As I said in another (forums.flyer.co.uk) form, where the Neverendum thread was finally donked by the magazine editor, show me predictions on analysis, not intuition. Also, the Brexit campaign has been investigated for exceeding electoral spending laws.. however, this was a government paid brocher that I understand was distributed to every household at a cost of £9.3m - I wonder if that, combined with the Remainer cost of campaign also tipped the the total Remain budget over the electoral laws.. The leader of the Governement (Daqvid Cameron) and the leader of the Remain Campaign (David Cameron) commissioned costs for both and the leaflet distributed did not exactly present the agruments of Brexiteers and address them.. " I have been critical of Brexiteers in the past... I am equally critical of the cunning plans of Remainers, who, are just as deceptive.. Even the FT has said the cliff edge isn't going to be as abd as portrayed (interesting word - not predicted).. The people were recently asked what they think. The European Parliamentaary elections were run recently and the newly formed Brexit party won around 65% of the vote and the vast majority of the seats.. Admittedly, turnout was low, so there's not too much that can be read into it. However, polling here shows a slight increase in Brexit support... Corbyn has been asking for an election to be called for months.. BJ called his bluff.. Guess what.. Corbyn is using the MP distaste of no deal to block the call of an election (needs something like 65% for vote in the commons to obtain an early election). I think it speaks volumes. I go back to Mr Perry's meme.. it is what parliament here has become... I also think Cameron's parliamentary pension should be pulled. He was not only incompetent or negligent.. he was reckless in not properly taking the refendum to the people and having the planning to back up the leave vote... We seem to have forgot his hand in all this debacle. Re SSM.. Maybe they would have reached the same verditct, but on social conscience issues, why not ask the people.
  5. @Marty_d, I norally agree with much of what you say... And while you are mathematically correct in that 37.2% of the eligible electorate voted to leave, only 34.1% voted to stay.. Puts it into perspective. There will no doubt be a small % (maybe even basis points) of people who couldn't make it for whatever reason - ill, no method of transport, climbing Kilamanjaro (sp?), maybe even perished on the day due to the stress. But as I have said before... people in this country know the electoral rules and they can decide whether or not to participate. Either the 37.8% who didn't turn out were a) so apathetic one can't count them anyway - so the 52/48 stands; or b) were smart enough to know that should Brexit win, it would all go pear shaped and they needn't bother anyway. I fear the former. And while people say we should have 2/3 majority for these things, the law is the law.. and... well.. that is the way it is... everyone knows it.. Also, regardless, even on fundamental issues, surely having the majority of people's voices dismissed does seem a little odd... Although I take the point, if afterwards, Britain decided they wanted to rejoin, they would probably have to bend over red rover to do it. Also, voter turnout was the highest for quite some time I am led to believe. By how much I am not sure.. Regardless, on that basis it is the most legitimately represented proportion.. Representing it as 37.2% is mathematically correct, but disingenous at best. And I can guarnatee, I am no right-winger.. but I am a legal positivist accept the democratic decisions (except if the outcome would be repugnant to civility - hey - if a country wants to vote itself to oblivion - so be it - though I never believed it would be that bad and an article in the Financial Times yesterday was quoting Mark Carney, governor of the BoE as saying their doomsday forecasts of a no deal Brexit were over-egged somewhat). With respect to Chunnel delays - they are already there.. They check passports already - and guess what - they have them in Aus, too.. automatic passport readers. Oh, no doubt, the EU will be belligerent at first, as they had articulated in their aviation policy - all EASA licences held by pilots certified by British AMEs were immediately not going to be recognised, and G Reg planes, despite complying more fully than any other EU nation to Part M (and now Part M Lite), were suddenly going to be not recognised at all. Contrast that with the CAA approach which was to grant somethng like a 2 year period of recognition of non UK domiciled EASA licenced pilots the same privileges they have now (i.e. to fly G registered aircraft). I would expect the delays into the Chunnel to be on the way into Europe.. for a bit.. until Mr Frenchman has had enough and bitterly complains to his MP... who then stages a boycott of the French Parliament dining room's Fois Gras.. Sacre Bleu... The Port of Calais has already stated that there will be no delays in a No Deal Brexit - not the press, not BoJo, etc.. But the guy who runs it said it... So commerce will flow freely (if more expensively).. People will still flow freely. Although, If I were a betting man, any Eastern European passported person will have to have a visa. On the other issues - Yes - there will be some companies that move either some or all of their operations to Europe. I work in Investment Banking (unf not as an Investment Banker); and part of my job is working with the Brexit teams. The masses of job moves to Europe promised by the remain campaign - minimal - maybe 5 - 10K.. I can tell you, there are three European banks with the Investment Banking operations headquartered in London. And they have no plans to repatriate it. ESMA (the European Securities & Markets Authority) has mandated larger investment banks have to have more than a skeleton staff in Europe - so some operational staff were moved.. but by and large, they have recruited locally.. There have been some companies that have moved lock, stock and barrel to Europe, but even Vauxhall, owned by Renault, have said they will close plants that become unprofitable - but there is no sign of moving. The issues at the moment stem from a protracted dilly-dallying aka uncertaintly rather than Brexit itself. As for people being fed lies and not told of the problems - well, in Aussie parlance, that is a furphy, too.. These are the things Remainers have claimed.. I have posted here before how a) how can a campaign group and not a political party running for pwoer make any promises; b) BoJO said they "could" put £360m into the NHS and, yes, a deal with the EU would be easy (well, it would, if parliament let the negotiators get on with it, rather than insist it was to be dragged out in public - as an analogy - the TTTP was being negotiated with the US was kept so secret, that discussion papers weren't allowed to be taken out of the negotiation rooms.. how can anyone have a reasonable negotiation strategy when they have to make everythign public?... As for the backstop.. A pollie here read out aloud the section of the Good Friday agreement that pertains to the Irish Border.. and it only talks to prohibiting the military from guarding the border or enforcing border controls - it does not say there has to be free movement between the border. The very people who are proposing that this would be a resurgence of violence as the Good Friday agreement is based on free movement are actually stoking the violence should there be no resolution but to put in immgration officers.. Fair Dinkum you couldn't make it up. Pollies don't understand what will happen as their heads are so tunnel visioned on what they think intuitively.. As I have asked on many occasions - how much more will that packet of Dutch Bacon cost me (truth be told, I only buy it in Holland.. there's an old saying that a country only exports its crap ).. And for how long? And does the UK even have to slap on tarrifs, as the WTO has some grace period when coing out of a trade agreement - apparently. It has alread been reported that the claims about cancer drugs not coming over in time are grossly exaggerated and a senior Airbus exec claimed that if there is no deal, Airbus wings made in the UK would suddenly no longer be compliant when outside the EU. It took a day for the pressure to mount to the point where Airbus had to retract that one.. So, if we are talking lies, it happens on both sides. BTW as I work a long way out of London and Bristol is not too far away from where I live I have been looking for work there.. I have noticed Airbus job vacancies have been increasing - could be because people are movingback to Europe or it could be because they don't intend to close the factories down - or both! I do agree with your prediction re not coming out on the 31st. People forget, we had the European elections only a couple of months ago which handed the Brexit Party a clear majority in the UK (although I can't agree with them turning their backs on whatever the national anthem of the EU is). I think, despite the horror week for BoJo, if he was to go to the polls and say, "Rabbit Rabbit, I am going to take Britain out of the EU if you elect me.. and I can tell you, the bubonic plague will return and decimate you all as a result".. he will take a landslide - except for Scotland - who Ironcially cite the exact same arguments for leaving the Union as Brexiteers do for leaving the EU.. yet they want to stay in the EU.. WOrk that one out. (p.s. Philosophically, despite what I wrote, I am a supporter of remaining with Europe. However, a recently elected Memeber of the European Parliament (MEP) wrote after his first day in the job that it is paralysed in bureuacracy and he was disappointed with the whole institution. .and they support it here.
  6. I agree with @old man emu - Unf, as this has made the headlines, the regulator would be accused of being remiss for not at least investigating the event; though the fella in the chair I guess would only be an accomplice and who knows who Stig is? If they didn't investigate it, it may send a signal to the nutters out there that they can do stupid stuff and put public in harms way. Rational people wouldn't think that, but nutters would take the leap of faith from non-threatening to threatening. I hope, if anything comes of it, it is just a warning...
  7. I agree, and it also has liberated commerce (something it was not originally designed for). I was listenting to a radio show here where an Aussie entreprenuer stated the internet has reduced the barriers to entry of a global market so much, that it is cheaper to do that than set up in a local market (i.e. bricks and mortar - or even clicks and mortar). However, it also comes with serious dangers - more than just spreading fake info. Cybersecurity issues cost billions in fraud and when it hits a person struggling to make ends meet, the human cost can be tragic. The Dark web, which is basically a layered VPN allows serious crime to flourish with extremely litte risk of being caught. Again, listening on the radio, I learned there was this thing called snuff videos, where a video is made showing how the absolute bastards kidnap a youg woman and then sexually and physically torture her to death.. The videos show the whole lot. Apparently these videos are paid (in bitcoin) to be watched by a lot of people. And, of course there are the paedophile rings, etc. WIth this technology, all sorts of these crimes are very difficult for law enforcement to catch. But even outside the dark web, there are threats. In our day, we used to get excited at finding a playboy magazine, but it was pretty hard to get your hands on hard-core porn. Proponents of a censor-less web say it is up to the parents.. well, it is easy for these proponents as they know the risks, what is going on, and all the tools and how to use them to manage the risk. However, many parents of the current generation are still clueless about these things and all kids have to do is get a VPN on their device and boom - all parental controls have been avoided. And yes, we can put parental controls stopping the downloading of software, but, at least in my case, my son has defeated it every time, because of environmental factors I hadn't thought of that provided weaknesses.. and I was a professional IT geek! In the end I gave up and have resorted to education (he is close to 18, anyway). Infact some device manufactuers (Apple) had an architecture that postively allowed kids to switch off any parental controls Finally under pressure, they have not stopped this, but installed their own rudimentaty controls that can't be switched off. VPNs are another example - they were developed basically to allow remote workers to work securely over the internet and not allow criminals to infiltrate their work over the net and steal things like sensitive data, etc. Now, they are used to hide tracks and a trail and make detection of anything impossible - a perfect environment for criminals and very nasty people to flourish in plying their trade - an unintended consequence. Regulators also are very slow to catch up. At least here, the courts are not afraid to step in and continue to develop the common law; In other countries it is not so and we have to wait on an increasingly and frustratingly slow political process that is self-serving to catch up.
  • Create New...