He can’t even be trusted with a bridge
I see Boris Johnson is still advocating a bridge from Scotland to Ireland. Next it will be the Boris Johnson island airport in the Thames Estuary. I don’t think he is fit to be trusted with our infrastructure – never mind the country.
Need for speed limiters on vehicles
If one plastic straw is one too many in the war against plastic pollution, why isn’t driving at 1mph above the speed limit one too many in the war against climate change?
In a recent climate change report, it said: “All the best scientists in the world, tell us that we only have 11 years to make very fundamental changes in the way we do business, and the way we generate energy.”
Eleven years: three more (men’s) World Cup football tournaments!
To try to make sport absolutely fair we employ VAR football; Hawkeye for tennis; Hot Spot for cricket, and to stop the likes of Usain Bolt from running faster than nature intended, we employ drug testing. So why aren’t we employing speed limiters to stop drivers breaking speed limits? That is, faster than the law intended; driving-up global temperatures, and ultimately ending the human race.
If ‘fair’ drivers ‘employ’ speed limiters, and ‘cheats’ don’t, how can we have fair trade? If drivers can ‘race’ past cyclists when they are riding at the speed limit, (which battery bikes will make possible, especially 20mph), how can we have fair play?
Further, if drivers exceed speed limits, AND use air conditioning, ie. demand more ‘gas’ to stay cool, not only will it amount to unfair/unlawful trade/play, shouldn’t it also amount to ‘pouring petrol on the flames’?
Therefore, since we don’t tolerate arsonists (firebugs), why tolerate (money burning) speeding drivers?
Our Lionesses lost to the USA because VAR ruled that Ellen White was off-side. For what? Running too fast? In short, if we don’t employ speed limiters to make for a fairer human race, it’s odds-on we’ll lose the war against climate change, whereby even self-drive cars won’t work.
Consider the words of futurist, James Lovelock: “Burning fossil fuel is a crazy, daft, and very dangerous thing to do.”
Reasons to break ties to the EU
Your correspondent Phil Cray asks, ‘Will Brexit bring any benefits?’ (Your Say, July 28).
This was hard to answer, because there are dozens of benefits, and I did not want to burden the paper with a thesis-length response.
Here is my super-condensed version, inspired by the late great Tony Benn MP.
After Brexit (what the BBC erroneously calls ‘hard Brexit’), we will not have to pay 18 billion euros to be a member and have a balance of trade deficit with the EU to boot. With the rest of the world, we have a trade surplus, and free of the shackles of EU rules, we will be able to increase that tremendously.
President Trump of the USA is a staunch Anglophile and wants a closer trade agreement. Already the US is our biggest trade partner.
We will be free to set our own laws and veto any decisions of the unaccountable European Court of Justice. There will be less bureaucracy, so beloved of the EU.
We will have the return of the richest fishing grounds in the world - the North Sea. Should we so wish, we can self-define who we classify as ‘asylum seekers’ and choose to make our own criteria for immigration.
There will be no unelected commissioners and presidents of this and that, interfering with our sovereignty.
We will be able to strengthen the historic ties with Canada and Australia, who are our natural friends.
More than anything, we will be free of treaty obligations with the EU when the euro implodes sometime in the next two years. The bond markets are now predicting this, as both Italy and
France will not be able to meet their bond interest payments.
If we are still in the EU when it goes belly up – and there is a 50 per cent chance of this with the present Government – then the UK will be pushed towards bankruptcy.
here are forces at work in the globalist economy who might benefit from our misery.
If it does happen then our Government will collapse and a new regime will have to explain why all the ‘experts’ were once again wrong.