mrjonno wrote:Majority of the elderly happy to see the country bankrupted for brexit
Truly a generation of sociopaths, why again am I paying taxes to keep these coffin dodgers alive?

A huge majority of older Leave voters say significant damage to the British economy is a “price worth paying” to secure Brexit, research shows.

No fewer than 71 per cent of over-65s are willing for the country to take a big economic hit – and half would accept a member of their own family losing their job.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-leave-voters-uk-economy-damage-yougov-older-pensioners-losing-jobs-income-taxes-a7870871.html

These people are cunts. Fuck em and let's hope they die soon because they sure as shit aren't contributing a thing and they're alright jack because when they worked, they got 3 (and free) pensions.

Scot Dutchy wrote:Barnier was being the super negotiator there has he has been through out. I think it was later when his frustrations were coming to a head did he say that a transitional period would not serve any purpose which was more referring to the present situation.

Citation needed.

Scot Dutchy wrote:Sorry negotiations are not compulsory.

Read it for yourself: Article 218

Art 50 only refers to art 218(3) btw.

It states how everything should happen but no mention of compulsion.

Sorry, they are compulsory; I've already done the requisite reading. If you don't think the Lisbon Treaty is binding on EU states, I'm not sure what else to say to you.

I think it is a reflection of UK society. Every man for himself and bugger the rest.

Tracer Tong wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:Barnier was being the super negotiator there has he has been through out. I think it was later when his frustrations were coming to a head did he say that a transitional period would not serve any purpose which was more referring to the present situation.

Citation needed.

Scot Dutchy wrote:Sorry negotiations are not compulsory.

Read it for yourself: Article 218

Art 50 only refers to art 218(3) btw.

It states how everything should happen but no mention of compulsion.

Sorry, they are compulsory; I've already done the requisite reading. If you don't think the Lisbon Treaty is binding on EU states, I'm not sure what else to say to you.

Show me where did it say it was compulsory. The treaty is binding of course it is that why you sign it but nowhere does it say negotiations are compulsory. Art 50 says nothing nor does art 218(3). The only other reference is to the definition of what a majority vote in art 238(3)(b).

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:Barnier was being the super negotiator there has he has been through out. I think it was later when his frustrations were coming to a head did he say that a transitional period would not serve any purpose which was more referring to the present situation.

Citation needed.

Scot Dutchy wrote:Sorry negotiations are not compulsory.

Read it for yourself: Article 218

Art 50 only refers to art 218(3) btw.

It states how everything should happen but no mention of compulsion.

Sorry, they are compulsory; I've already done the requisite reading. If you don't think the Lisbon Treaty is binding on EU states, I'm not sure what else to say to you.

Show me where did it say it was compulsory. The treaty is binding of course it is that why you sign it but nowhere does it say negotiations are compulsory. Art 50 says nothing nor does art 218(3). The only other reference is to the definition of what a majority vote in art 238(3)(b).

You accept the treaty is binding; you accept that article 50 is part of the treaty; and you accept that article 50 says "...the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State [that is leaving]...". Therefore, negotiations are indeed compulsory.

But I'm sure we'll have to go back and forth a few dozen times before you inevitably accept you're mistaken, and swiftly move on, right?

The trouble is the negotiations regarding the "future framework relationship with union" have not started. We are only at the prep stage. The three demands which have nothing to do with any future agreement.

They are two separate parts.

So, as I predicted, then, only you skipped the admission stage.

Tracer Tong wrote:So, as I predicted, then, only you skipped the admission stage.

What are you talking about? The talks can be called by any side at any time or is that to obvious. You cant force anyone to negotiate. The key word is "shall" not will.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

This a minefield.

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:So, as I predicted, then, only you skipped the admission stage.

What are you talking about? The talks can be called by any side at any time or is that to obvious. You cant force anyone to negotiate. The key word is "shall" not will.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

This a minefield.

No idea what point you're trying to make regarding "will" versus "shall", but it doesn't look very promising. Beyond that, the issue isn't whether anyone can be forced to negotiate (of course they can't), but whether negotiation is obligatory, which it is.

Tracer Tong wrote:
No idea what point you're trying to make regarding "will" versus "shall", but it doesn't look very promising.

I lolled.

Tracer Tong wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:So, as I predicted, then, only you skipped the admission stage.

What are you talking about? The talks can be called by any side at any time or is that to obvious. You cant force anyone to negotiate. The key word is "shall" not will.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

This a minefield.

No idea what point you're trying to make regarding "will" versus "shall", but it doesn't look very promising. Beyond that, the issue isn't whether anyone can be forced to negotiate (of course they can't), but whether negotiation is obligatory, which it is.

Dont know the difference?

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:So, as I predicted, then, only you skipped the admission stage.

What are you talking about? The talks can be called by any side at any time or is that to obvious. You cant force anyone to negotiate. The key word is "shall" not will.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

This a minefield.

No idea what point you're trying to make regarding "will" versus "shall", but it doesn't look very promising. Beyond that, the issue isn't whether anyone can be forced to negotiate (of course they can't), but whether negotiation is obligatory, which it is.

Dont know the difference?

Yeah, I know it, to the extent one exists at all. I look forward to explaining your point, anyway.

Not sure what the difference in English is but in Czech it states: "sjedná a uzavře" (shall negotiate and conclude) which cannot be interpreted in any other way than its compulsory.

No, no, that's surely not right. They wouldn't do that ...

So we'll notice that this meeting was conveniently held after the General Election....when will working folk learn you cannot trust Tories?

https://twitter.com/GillianGMartin/stat ... 1229993984

tuco wrote:Not sure what the difference in English is but in Czech it states: "sjedná a uzavře" (shall negotiate and conclude) which cannot be interpreted in any other way than its compulsory.

Not in Dutch. Zullen (if possible) and willen (compulsory).

You still haven't explained what you were trying to get at when you compared "will" and "shall", and how this relates to your view that negotiations between the EU and Britain in the matter of 'Brexit' aren't obligatory.

Scot Dutchy wrote:

tuco wrote:Not sure what the difference in English is but in Czech it states: "sjedná a uzavře" (shall negotiate and conclude) which cannot be interpreted in any other way than its compulsory.

Not in Dutch. Zullen (if possible) and willen (compulsory).

Shall doesn't mean "if possible". It means ... well, shall. And it also means will.

The difference between shall and will is who you are referring to, ie I shall, you will. That's it. They both *mean* the same thing.

I worry this is going to end up another 'the Dutch definition of liberal isnt the same as the British definition' argument.

Matt_B wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:Ya wash the sink with chlorine, kills salmonella, don't cha know. Less salmonella spread, don't cha know?

Maybe you should be paying more attention to chemistry than physics in this case?

I think you should be the one studying your chemistry. The chlorine levels in tap water (typically around 5ppm) are not anything like what you'd need to neutralize the bacteria. The sterilizing solutions used for chicken have up to 200ppm free chlorine, and the treatment takes several minutes.

Really? 200 ppm is the limit of where the chlorine bath begins to affect the meat. 50 ppm is the guide line set by the FSIS for maximum effectiveness in the baths at 1Co with a 5 ppm residual.

Matt_B wrote:Note that this doesn't necessarily kill all the bacteria, it just reduces it to acceptable levels.

Which is the point, if there are acceptable levels of salmonella.

Matt_B wrote:Also, again, it's the aerosols that are the prime culprit for spreading it around your kitchen.

Bullshit. Slap an unwashed un-dried chicken onto your cutting board and go to parting it out and you just transferred a good part of whatever salmonella there was on and inside that chicken to your work surface. It's all over your hands too, and you have to wash the cutting board now getting those "aerosols" all over anyway.

Matt_B wrote: No matter how thorough you are with cleaning the sink you will not get rid of them.

Not if you don't slop water all over the place. What's so hard about putting a chicken or chicken parts in the sink to open the package? Rinsing the packaging off while in the sink and disposing of it? Then rinsing the chicken under the tap and patting it dry with paper towels while still in the sink?

We dont have chlorine or fluorine in our tap water. We just have tap water with a few minerals and we dont want chlorinated chicken or pumped up beef on hormones but this as nothing to do with Brexit.

ronmcd wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:

tuco wrote:Not sure what the difference in English is but in Czech it states: "sjedná a uzavře" (shall negotiate and conclude) which cannot be interpreted in any other way than its compulsory.

Not in Dutch. Zullen (if possible) and willen (compulsory).

Shall doesn't mean "if possible". It means ... well, shall. And it also means will.

The difference between shall and will is who you are referring to, ie I shall, you will. That's it. They both *mean* the same thing.

I worry this is going to end up another 'the Dutch definition of liberal isnt the same as the British definition' argument.

This is the trouble working in various languages. They differ in nuances.