Comments by "M R" (@emm_arr) on "Inside David Davis' office - with Caroline Flint" video.

  1.  Albert Pike  Stupid shitpost again, Al.
    4
  2. We really do not, and the EU Treaty and WTO rules mandate a hard border.
    3
  3. Mental stuff, Al. Another shitpost!
    2
  4. Nobody has accused Davis of being a party intellectual since he became a minister. It's a serious allegation and not one that should be repeated without evidence.
    2
  5.  @jonathaneddy  You would look a bit mad if you did that. P.27 proposes technology that could be used, but by no means is this all available (in particular RFID chips on all goods in transit). It's merely a framework document - and not ready for launch on April Fools day.
    1
  6.  @jonathaneddy  No system exists to implement this technology to a border with those specifications - and none will be in time, so it's clearly not a falsehood. Read p.27. Volume? So what? There is no system. I'd say it has everything to do with the lack of a system. So would you if you thought about it.
    1
  7.  @jonathaneddy  "might have something to do with this not being ready for March 29th...but I doubt you'd see that" God knows why because I told you that explicitly in the post you just replied to.
    1
  8.  @jonathaneddy  In practical terms, it is not possible until implemented and RFID is routinely used in transport. And those are also facts.
    1
  9. ​ @jonathaneddy  I can repeat things if you need, but this is now the second occasion where you are wilfully being a bit silly about what I have posted. It's silly, nitpicky and disingenuous.
    1
  10.  @jonathaneddy  "but I'm wise to these sort of diversions" But not wise enough to understand my posts properly. Disingenuous.
    1
  11.  @jonathaneddy  "says the man who refers to a Norway/Sweden model as a way to divert from the painful truth ..." That is disingenuous to the point of being untruthful. "I can hear you squirming" You can't at all. "and it's delicious." Is that not your problem here? You're arguing from your heart and not your head. That's why you're failing to read my posts properly and being disingenuous to the point of dishonesty. That's delicious? It's puerile.
    1
  12.  @jonathaneddy  "says the man who refers to a Norway/Sweden model" Take a BS test. Where did I do that? I can now fairly and honestly call that out as a lie. Are you going to stop being silly and disingenuous?
    1
  13.  @jonathaneddy  Still at it. I referred to the specs there and no more - as is clear from my posts. Disingenuous or genuinely dishonest? Hard to say.
    1
  14.  @jonathaneddy  "Direct answer please." Here you go again ... I referred to the specs there and no more - as is clear from my posts. "Once you answer that I'd be happy to move onto the substance of the issues" I already did, but you are still being a disingenuous child about this all. You're failing to read my posts properly and being disingenuous to the point of dishonesty. It's such obvious stuff.
    1
  15.  @jonathaneddy  I see your silly game. The page I referred to was p.27 but bore the page number of 25. The technical specs. "What is it about the specs that concerns you?" Nothing concerns me. I am pointing out your silly little acts of disingenuity. "Obviously you think there is a technical reason why smart borders won't work." No. That's an outright lie. See my posts above for why this can't be used.
    1
  16. "We could have two referendums. As it happens, it might make more sense to have the second referendum after the renegotiation is completed." Jacob Rees-Mogg said this on 24 October 2011 in Parliament. He's now unhappy that this is out there for the public to see. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm111024/debtext/111024-0003.htm#11102441000297
    1
  17.  Albert Pike  Great shitpost, Al!
    1