On 27 Jul 2019, Pamela wrote (in article ):
They will revert to blaming the socialists.
- Vote on answer
- posted
4 years ago
Re: The Coward Barnier
Loading thread data ...
- Vote on answer
- posted
4 years ago
They are already laying the ground works to blame the ones that voted stay for sabotaging the UK.
They certainly won't take any blame for things that go wrong.
- Vote on answer
- posted
4 years ago
Makes a lot more sense to not have a general election with the risk that involves. End up with a better deal than the brexit in name only that May got, or a no deal brexit.
But there is no chance of the current parliament agreeing to do that.
Doesn?t work like that.
No he wouldn?t because there would be no crime committed, let alone be charged and convicted of having done one.
- Vote on answer
- posted
4 years ago
A better bet would be a free trade agreement with the EU that doesn?t constrain any other later free trade agreements with anyone else, but its unlikely that the EU -will agree to that given that other current members would want that too.
Even if the no deal brexit turns out to be a disaster and the voters dump the Tories for that reason, that?s no worse than losing govt straight after a no deal brexit.
There is no point in risking a snap election result like May got.
No point in a snap election just after a no deal brexit. Makes a lot more sense to wait till there has to be an election by which time it will have been seen that the no deal brexit worked fine and see him with another tory majority and no need to pander to the DUP.
- Vote on answer
- posted
4 years ago
Not legally possible. Not legally possible to have a law that says the PM must resign, or leave the country etc either.
No need to do either.
That?s obvious.
- Vote on answer
- posted
4 years ago
They can *both* go to hell as far as I'm concerned. There's only one person I trust and that's our proven true-believer, Nigel.
- Vote on answer
- posted
4 years ago
You've completely missed the point.
The red diesel is used for heating and is purchased on an agreed propulsion vs electrical generation/heating.
The new rules will require two tanks, and in some instances where this isn't practical will encourage use of LPG.
If you're happy to heat your home at road duty fuel rates then so be it. Also if you're happy to pay elevated prices for electricity.
You're showing your ignorance when claiming the likes of narrow boats are propelled by "powerful engines of several hundred horsepower". They tend to be very small low power diesel engines. Some are propelled by battery banks.
Your level of ignorance indicates you're a 'remainer'.
- Vote on answer
- posted
4 years ago
went in one of those battery boats in Amsterdam a couple of yeara go, Nice & quiet
- Vote on answer
- posted
4 years ago
Indeed. Under 50 BHP typically. A small car, like a Smart Car would typically be more than that.
- Vote on answer
- posted
4 years ago
Most have a fuel consumption of ~1 litre per hour.
A litre of diesel is 39.5MJ and corresponds to about 10kW over the hour.
Assume an efficiency of 25% means the actual power output will be around
2.5kW or 3.3BHP. Of course some of that power goes to heating the boat and/or hot water.As you intimate most have a max output of less than 50BHP.
Only an idiot would say, "a whacking great pleasure boat with powerful engines of several hundred horsepower".
Its ironic that big boats on the sea will still use red diesel!
- Vote on answer
- posted
4 years ago
I hope they'll have woken up and moved on to blaming *Globalists* by then or we're totally f***ed.
- Vote on answer
- posted
4 years ago
A (now deceased) friend lived on a barge. I recall him explaining the engine to me. The ?secret? is they don?t go very fast and run the engines at (near) optimal power output. His was and old boat but with modern engine controls, it must be much easier to get the engine running at the sweet spot.
- Vote on answer
- posted
4 years ago
Why would narrow boats need that much power, they are supposed to be limited to 4mph IIRC.
- Vote on answer
- posted
4 years ago
The only time they need any power is on a river. And that is mainly down to perceived risk rather than necessity.
- Vote on answer
- posted
4 years ago
Even so, even the longest ones would be limited to under 12 knots* by the hull length limitation (sometimes known as the bow wave limit I believe) .
12 knots isn?t exactly fast, even for a boat.
- the 12 knot number is a theoretical maximum based on the length at the water line. It is probably rather optimistically high. (One of the projects I worked on involved ship dynamics- this bit seems to have stuck after 30 + years.)
- Vote on answer
- posted
4 years ago
Even he doesnt undersatnd the current legal position with brexit Fortunately the AG does.
- Vote on answer
- posted
4 years ago
narrow boats were designed for one horsepower propulsion :)
>- Vote on answer
- posted
4 years ago
I thought there was a 7mph limit on rivers?
- Vote on answer
- posted
4 years ago
Sssh, don't tell the river that!
- Vote on answer
- posted
4 years ago
The key words were ?would be?. Ships and boats which have hulls that displace water (No, I?m not suggesting there are other types, it is just the way the definition works) have a physical limitation on their max speed based on their length at the water line. I confess I can?t remember exactly why- it was 30 + years back and, while I learned about it, I didn?t even need that detail at the time - something to do with the bow wave. The calculation ?stuck? in my head, it is a simple formula 1.34*Sqt(L). L is in ft, speed in knots. It isn?t precise, more a guide, even the constant (1.34) varies a bit depending on the reference book etc. The RN use when assessing unknown vessels (I often worked with the RN).