Ssssssshhhhhh, don't mention Reform.

[aveatry]

only inside greenhouses, not for the planet as you claimed

Didn’t say that though did I.---Notch only seeing what he wants again

 

[JohnD]

I don't think there was a plan, they simply didn't impose caps on the expansion of the EU.

Except, of course, that every existing member has the right to demand new applicants agree to their demands and conditions, or to veto new applicants joining.

For example Spain had to give up its claims on Gibraltar, at UK's insistence.

When UK was a member, it could have vetoed Turkey or Serbia joining. So there was never any risk of millions of Turks coming here against our wishes, as the racists claimed.

So expansion could have been prevented, if that's what existing members wanted.

Of course, we have resigned and thrown away all our rights now, thanks to the Quitters.

 

[JohnD]

Fear not, he cannot lead a government without the confidence of parliament

I see you avoided my question.

Farage elected himself leader, because he is the boss of the company.

Farage owns Reform. The supporters (they are not members) of the company have no power.

 

[Mottie]

For example Spain had to give up its claims on Gibraltar, at UK's insistence.

Perhaps you could let the Spanish know that so they can stop keep asking for it back.

 

[Odds]

That is a sensible argument. But we have to understand why it was thought we needed the immigration. Many would argue that it was the long term consequences of moving to what became known as the Anglo Saxon economic model in the 1980s. We privatised, outsourced, offshored, destroyed unions, let house prices explode and created a hollowed out economy. We probably are richer as a whole, but we may have been happier being poorer and more at ease with ourselves. These are massive and complex questions. Blaming unhappiness on immigration is far too simplistic.

You mean the Liberal model, or as some on here like to call it: Globalisation.

 

[JohnD]

Perhaps you could let the Spanish know that so they can stop keep asking for it back.

EU supports its members.

That used to be us.

Now Spain is a member and we aren't.

 

[MNW67]

You mean the Liberal model, or as some on here like to call it: Globalisation.

It is not a classical liberal model. Many people use the term neoliberalism. I believe the term "Anglo Saxon model" is more precise, because it is more focused on how things were done here and in the USA. And there are obviously strong links to globalisation through the pursuit of free trade.

Anglo-Saxon model - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Mottie]

EU supports its members.

That used to be us.

Now Spain is a member and we aren't.

But according to you they gave it up when they wanted to join. Tough titty.

 

[aveatry]

Aveatry quoted that “1000ppm CO2 is good for plants”

Yep it most definitely is

only inside greenhouses, not for the planet as you claimed

Didn’t say that though did I.---Notch only seeing what he wants again

So yet again notch has been caught out lying - see you gone all shy all of a sudden --been looking for where I said it was good for the planet have you - let me guess you can not find it because I never said it - liar notch lies again.

 

[Lirefighter]

You desperately want to blame immigration for all the problems in this country.

Why?

A = because you are easily persuaded by populism.

Populists need an enemy to rally support, first it was the EU and you fell for that, now you are falling for immigrants being all the problem.

Who will you be blaming next?

By the way did you vote for Thatcher in the 80s? She flogged 1.5m council houses, one of the catalysts for todays housing crisis.

There's a set of temporary traffic lights that have just been placed on a road that I use all the time near my house. They will be there for about 5 weeks, so they say. Traffic is a nightmare!
If we didn't have so many immigrants in this country they wouldn't need to upgrade the sewer system to accommodate the influx and I wouldn't have to sit in a traffic jam for weeks on end.

 

[MNW67]

So yet again notch has been caught out lying - see you gone all shy all of a sudden --been looking for where I said it was good for the planet have you - let me guess you can not find it because I never said it - liar notch lies again.

Was it implied, though?

Anyway, it's made me look into global greening which is something I hadn't heard about before. Another very complex part of the whole picture.

 

[Notch7]

So yet again notch has been caught out lying - see you gone all shy all of a sudden --been looking for where I said it was good for the planet have you - let me guess you can not find it because I never said it - liar notch lies again.

you did claim it

You falsely claimed “we are dangerously close for Earth to not have enough CO2 to sustain plant life (it’s not)
You also falsely claimed that water vapour is far more important in global warming (it’s not)
You also claimed that man made climate change is bolox (that’s false)

You do know that we are dangerously close the earth to not have enough CO2 to sustain plant life.

The ambient level of CO2 in the atmosphere is approximately 400 PPM. At 100 PPM of CO2 the rate of photosynthesis would be stopped completely. At 150 PPM the plants begin to respire, and photosynthesis is stopped. At this low level the plant will no longer be able to obtain CO2 from the atmosphere and photosynthesis is restricted. The plant will eventually use all of the CO2 present, photosynthesis will stop and the plant will die.

The rate of photosynthesis at 350 PPM will be consistent with growing conditions outside of a controlled environment, given that ambient levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are approximately 400 PPM.

With no other limiting factors such as heat, light and nutrients the plants will photosynthesize at a rate consistent with ambient conditions (i.e. outside of the greenhouse). There may be a slight increase in photosynthetic efficiency due to the higher than ambient CO2 level, however this increase will probably be insignificant. The level of 1000 PPM CO2 is very close to the optimum level of CO2 required, given no other limiting factor, 1200 PPM, to allow a plant to photosynthesis at the maximum rate.

 

[Notch7]

Yep it most definitely is

Only inside a greenhouse.

 

[Notch7]

So yet again notch has been caught out lying - see you gone all shy all of a sudden --been looking for where I said it was good for the planet have you - let me guess you can not find it because I never said it - liar notch lies again.

you literally said it here matey:

You have repeatedly made the claim that 1000ppm is the optimum level for plants but you dishonestly neglect to mention that only applies in a greenhouse.

Thing is I never said the 1000ppm was anything to do with climate at all. I just stated that 1000ppm is the optimum co2 level for plants -- and it is. I never mentioned climate or global warming at all.

Aveatry the conspiracy theorist can’t remember what lie he told last.

 

[aveatry]

Was it implied, though?

Nope its notch doing a notch