mikeyboy

Andy hopefully see you in the New Year.

Hello Andy The Thule gamers meet every Thursday night at the Isleburgh center at about 1830 to 2130. There is an active Facebook page is you are on that. There is also a Sunday club which also meets at the Isleburgh which mostly plays Games Workshop style games.

Looking at just at the export of cattle is only seeing part of the problem. The major cause of deforestation is the growing of Soya which is used as animal feed.

I use the Northboat a fair amount and think it is pretty good to be honest. The service and food is better and they shut the bar at night now. However I have never used a pod as have never had any problems booking a cabin.

Could be the Brae hotel, they have houses for the employees.

Going to be open on Sunday which is a plus.

The only red tape at present is Excise Duty on the alcohol. For still wine, the first 90 litres you import is tax and duty free.You can only bring in 60 litres of sparkling wine Excise duty free. Well thanks for the info but I will not be ordering anytime soon. Is that the level of discourse here? Somebody points out the facts on one of your bizarre statements and you seemingly think it is funny. I would be embarrassed.

If we ever manage to leave the EU I'd hope nobody in the UK would want to buy their wine, or anything else from them, but if they did, I'd expect the EU to only be willing to sell us bottles of water masquerading as wine. Let the EU leaders drown in their damn wine the way they've carried on. Old Junker (any relative of the JU 88 maker?) is well on his way to doing just that by all appearances. The rest can follow him as quickly as they can. Your comments are just ridiculous!

Hard right I suspect you meant

Strange i though all agreements had to be voted on by all parties,why did "the deal" fail three times I suppose to many the SNP, Libs, Labour and all the other parties would have come up with something better . Lets remember who is calling the tune here and it might seem like a UK political party was in charge but IMHO it was the EU representatives who were in charge all the way through and still are. It would not have made one iota of differ which party was negotiating ,but someone more "powerful" than May would have got us there a lot quicker . If the EU wants us to leave they just have to push us out and close the door ,but there is no sign of that, no they need somewhere for there boats to fish ! The Tories with their DUP allies had a majority! So obviously didn't all vote for Mays deal. The other parties may have come up with a better deal but never got a chance. Come to think of it the SNP proposal was pretty good. What you expect the EU 27 to roll over and give the UK whatever it wants? Maybe you did as that is what Gove etc promised that this would be the easiest deal ever done. Someone more " powerful " , now we just needed to take the negotiations seriously. When did the EU say they wanted us to leave? As for fishing do you honestly think that is all what this is about? But then you maybe do as you think International trade is as easy as nipping to Tesco.

Just asking you to explain your comment. At the time I remember it being in the papers that he was rebuffed but when I looked into it that didn't seem to be the case. Of course he didn't get everything he wanted but that is negotiations for you. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35622105

Yes Cameron started this, but the whole if parliament agreed to proceed I am asking you what changes the EU refused to give to Cameron?

Really what did Cameron not get? The Brexit process has been driven by the Tory party the blame lies squarely at their door

Just to be clear. I agree with this bit the rest is nonsense. "The only real difference of opinion between your average leave and remain voter is that a leave voter believes that the 'collateral damage' in the short term created by leaving will be more than compensated for by the longer term benefits of being rid of Brussels, while the remain voter believes the collateral damage is unreasonable and we will be worse off out than in."

You could say that but you would be wrong.

Sorry had to go to a meeting! I don't think it is patronising to say that people believed lies because people did believe the lies and still do. Often stuff that was debunked years ago is still quoted so obviously this is that case. I agree with your view on the differences between those that voted. Which is why it is really unhelpful to see this constant emotive them and us rhetoric on social media and in certain papers. I just personally can not see how the UK will be better off outside the EU.

Nobody mentioned leaving with no deal at the time. we were promised the easiest deal possible by everybody in the leave campaigns. Even Farage said he would be happy with a Norway style deal. The official leave campaign had a whole section on how No deal and WTO rules were by far the worse option. Strangely the tone only hardened after May realised she had boxed herself in with her Red lines. At that point the EU were offering quite a reasonable compromise that would have allowed continued unrestricted trade. Suddenly it was " No deal is better than a bad deal!"

The reason I wouldn’t have understood it is quite simple. The government sent out a leaflet to every home prior to the vote, headed “a once in a generation decision” and whilst they recommended that we should remain in the EU, it clearly stated “ the referendum is your chance to decide whether we should remain in or leave the European Union. The leaflet went on to say the following: “This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide”. That seems pretty clear to me. No where in this leaflet did it state your vote will only be advisory. I would think that most people reading this leaflet would assume the outcome of the vote would be carried out. As a person who voted to remain, I was disappointed with the result, but as I believe in democracy, I accept the result. I understood and had access to exactly the same information you had access to. Anyway circumstances have moved beyond this now. I suppose if you keep saying it folk might start to believe it, but the reality as nothing came through people’s doors even from the remainers saying it would only be advisory. This was not clear at the time of voting. It is not me saying it, it is just a fact. Nothing to do with remainers. Aye, but sturgeon’s determination to have independence regardless of the majority being against it doesn’t. What do you not understand about this? It was in the manifesto that SNP were voted in on.

Read my second line Situations change!

The reason I wouldn’t have understood it is quite simple. The government sent out a leaflet to every home prior to the vote, headed “a once in a generation decision” and whilst they recommended that we should remain in the EU, it clearly stated “ the referendum is your chance to decide whether we should remain in or leave the European Union. The leaflet went on to say the following: “This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide”. That seems pretty clear to me. No where in this leaflet did it state your vote will only be advisory. I would think that most people reading this leaflet would assume the outcome of the vote would be carried out. As a person who voted to remain, I was disappointed with the result, but as I believe in democracy, I accept the result. I understood and had access to exactly the same information you had access to. Anyway circumstances have moved beyond this now.

Incorrect Sturgeon is acting in a democratic way. SNP had in their manifesto the commitment to hold a second referendum if circumstances drastically changed ie Brexit. Since they were voted in on that manifesto that is democracy in action. Her offer to May to take independence of the table if there was a separate arrangement for Scotland to me was a fair one.

Yes George Cameron made the promise but did not ensure the referendum was legally binding. When he resigned and a new government came in May had no obligation to trigger article 50.

I agree George he did but then resigned so all bets were off. If he had actually intended to carry out Brexit he would have assured that the legislation showed this.

Sorry if you didn't understand it but it was always advisory. No he hasn't been keeping me personally updated but obviously he has been in contact with you on a regular basis.

No we just have to accept that a referendum is advisory unless it specifically says so in the legislation. The only progress that an election would bring is that a no deal Brexit would happen on the sly. Lot of rubbish, the vote was either we stay or leave. That’s what the folk thought they were voting for, no where did it say it was just advisory. If they had made that clear at the time, I for one wouldn’t have bothered. The idea of removing the no deal option must be making the EU negotiators fall about laughing, thinking all their Christmas’s have come at once. What a bunch of useless self serving, overpaid idiots some if our elected members are I think Boris, had he not had his hands tied, may have got a better deal, but whilst I voted to remain in the “advisory” vote, I am now in the view of let’s get out if this shambles now. Sorry the referendum was advisory and that was made clear at the time. How could Boris get a better deal when he wasn't really doing any negotiating? Boris has to come back to parliament on the 19th October and report what progress is being made and if none and looks like we are crashing out then ask for an extension.