Brexit -am I stupid or what

@Verdun, I would link to a couple of tweets that I sent a few days ago to someone claiming to be an environmentalist, but they are not suitable for a family forum.

Climate change is an utter nonsense as far as I am concerned - I am not saying that we don't have to change things, nor that we can't improve things ,but the current reason that we are being bombarded with it is that it is the latest crusade that can be used to fleece us of even more money

 

Well, its all about the maths and time, Lori. If the remainers try to block a no deal their best way would be to call a vote of no confidence in the Governmentwhich gives Boris the power to call a snap election when he wants and as time is getting short he could decide to do so after the 31st October when we leave, according to Article 50, the EU. The ex-Chancellor, sacked by Boris, is trying to say that Boris can't do that...........but he can as it's in the EU rules. That would mean the UK leaving at midnight on 31st October with no deal and operating under WTO rules. I do think Boris would like a good/fair deal with the EU but I don't think that will happen as they have been unco-operative throughout the "negotiations" due to be placed in the driving seat by a Parliament that considered the EU as all powerful and taking the threat of a No Deal BREXIT off the table. But now the No Deal BREXIT is back on the table it's a different matter.

 

Does he? If he does nothing then we exit by default do we not?

As for campaigners and celebs travelling by plane etc I don't have issue with that. They have a bigger voice and audience and make a significant impact in profile raising; yes it's not ideal travelling in fuel hungry modes but how else can they attend from far flung places and be in place in time? Personally I'm not one for campaigning or mass protest

 

Correct - no concept of principle at all. Self-serving, the lot of them

 

It's an example, pete, of how desperate the extremists in the Labour Party and this, obviously, originated from Mcdonnell and his cronie extremists I think most of the Labour voting public do/would not want Corbyn as a Prime Minister and the prospect, in a General Election, would cause a lot of them to vote for another party. I don't think Tom Watson, the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party would back such a stupid plan. He seems to appear less and less on the front bench and, when he does appear, sits there with a stoic, expressionless face and says nothing. So it appears the extremists are running the Labour Party and telling Corbyn what he should do.
Of course the whole suggestion is crackpot and as undemocratic as they come. But that does'nt seem to deter McDonnell and C, as all they want is to be in Government by hook or by crook. Right now, all our MPs can't even decide whether or not to put their pants on in the morning never mind a united decision in Parliament.

 

I think the Labour party know they're going nowhere with Corbyn at the helm and mostly just playing along or distancing themselves from him. Slowly I expect that to increase as when an election is called and they lose there will be the call for him to resign and another leadership battle can commence.

 

I do. Quick Google reveals.....
"Most private jets get less than five miles per gallons (mpg). A 17,000 pound Lear Jet 35, capable of carrying seven people at 485 mph gets about 4 mpg. A Gulfstream G-5 weighs 90,000 pounds is capable of carrying up to 18 people at over 530 mph. Because of its greater size and speed, it gets about 1.3 mpg"

So, Harry and Meghan going on Holiday to Ibiza = 1200 miles (approx)/4mpg = 300 gallons of fuel. Presumably, they are coming back so that doubles to 600 gallons of fuel.

Their flight to Sicily for Google's Climate Camp is 1700 miles (approx)/4mpg = 425 gallons of fuel. Clearly they came back from that, so it doubles to 850 gallons of fuel.

So they have burned through 1150 gallons of fuel in a month (not including fuel used spooling engines up and/or taxiing/sitting on runways)

The above being the best case scenario.

Most months of the year, I use 20 gallons of fuel per month - that may double this month as we have a couple of weeks as a family to have some days away, so that will be 13 x 20 gallons = 260 gallons for a year. So their fuel consumption in a month would run my car for nearly four and a half years, assuming their plane is the most efficient. And yet, I am the evil one for running a V8? All of that is before you move onto their vast homes that require shed loads of power (heat/light/security), the journeys they take domestically by cars (usually Range Rovers), and the lavish parties that they attend or host (air miles of the food and drink, the production of said food and drink, and the containers it comes in, as well as the air miles of the guests).

They are rich - good luck to them, that is not my issue. My issue is that they are preaching at us and expecting us to pay out again and again to make changes that in themselves are not necessarily any better for the environment (sometimes worse). Google themselves are a tech company - so why do they need to have a 'camp' to discuss these things? Have they not heard of Skype? It is virtue signalling, pure and simple, and a growing number of people have had a gutful of it.