Freggyragh

Forgot to mention the key brexit benefit of 2020 — not being part of EU emergency PPE procurement. Proper British week old start-ups got to buy proper knock-off Chinese masks and gowns for the wonderful £350M a week better-off NHS. God Save the King.

Thanks to Brexit a proper Englishman can now dump proper English shit into a proper English river. (Well, the companies are mostly foreign owned, but you get the point). The passports are navy blue again (I know that decision could have been taken without losing 4% of the economy, but nevermind), and now, finally, wine can theoretically be sold in 568ml bottles. (Can't remember that on the side of a bus, maybe it was one of Cameron's great demands?), lots of the skilled forrins have left (so we save money on having things like hospitals actually working), we get to queue longer at airports, keep bureaucrats and red tape producers in business, fatten the profits of roam charging phone companies, and the South of England (and possibly Rwanda) gets the benefit of many, many more refugees. OK, the trade deal situation is laughable, Northern Ireland is no longer a full member of the UK, and Woolley's tungsten bulbs haven't gone back into production — but it's only eight years since the referendum, it's bound to get better in a half-century or so.

Also, I seem to remember 620ml bottles of Vin Jaune on sale last time I was in Paris, so with 620ml being an arbitrary size I'd imagine pint bottles would have possible in the EU anyway.

Because, the world over, wine is drunk and often sold by the glass. In the UK, by law, a standard small glass of wine is 125ml, a medium is 175ml and a large is 250ml. So, the industry standard is 750ml for a bottle of wine, which equals 6 small glasses, and 12 bottles make a case of wine, which is 9 litres. A 'pint of wine' is 568.262ml. So you get 4.546088 small glasses to the pint bottle, and a case is 12 pints (or, 1.5 imperial gallons), 1.80142 US gallons, or 4.54609ml This 'pint of wine' nonsense isn't a benefit to anyone, unless there are people who prefer to drink pints of wine. The EU maintained the standard wine and spirit bottles size regulation in 2004 (other drinks are exempt) purely because everyone understands it — particularly useful for drinkers and the trade, and of course you could always have a Jennie of wine (500ml) if you preferred.

Organised religions first served a purpose after the beginning of agriculture and permanent settlements. Surplus food allowed a priest class to develop, and alongside it a warrior / ruler class. The priest class's primary functions was record-keeping, by developing writing systems or committing to memory information gathered concerning land management, ownership and inheritance, health and diet, and the cycle of the seasons. The priest classes became more powerful as in time they came to be not only conduits for the gathering and dissemination of knowledge beyond the borders of any one kingdom, but controllers of marriages, divorces, inheritance, education, healthcare, diet, and public morals — which made their organisation extremely wealthy. From this position of power, no individual, no matter how powerful, was allowed to contradict the teachings and rulings of the priests. I doubt, even a few centuries ago, if many of the worshippers really believed in the mumbo-jumbo of religion or if fear of hellfire was what got people organised to do things — I think it was the reality of not being able to live free of the church, as well as the social kudos of supporting the church that got things done. As trade and diplomacy developed and empires waxed and waned, the writing skills of priests, their international connections and their collective wealth became evermore important, but that all began to unravel as literacy spread and translations of the great books became available. The printing press was the first great blow against the priest class, as suddenly any literate person had access to the same information as the priests, and the means to publish their own thoughts. During the Reformation and Enlightenment different ideas spread, the priest class fractured and in most states, whilst religion continued to be important, the priest class became less so. During the last three or four centuries, states, science, secular entertainment, secular law courts and secular writing have all eroded the power of religion itself. There was always an element of the Emperor's New Clothes about much of the mumbo-jumbo, which could never survive free-speech and the printing press, nevermind the internet. Work has also changed — few people now work the land. Governments in the West are now mostly chosen by systems that are somewhat democratic, not by rights of inheritance, and Capital often has the final say on how we are governed, not religious leaders. So, here we are, almost in 2024, and we still have a Bishop in Tynwald, and a Head of State crowned by an Archbishop, both from a church with hardly any active members in the Isle of Man. I know two members of Living Hope. Neither have invited me to join (they probably know I'm not interested) or ever said much about it. They're certainly less pushy about their beliefs than vegans, faragists, anti-vaxers, or climate sceptics. I don't see the harm in people getting together for some happy-clappy singing and a preachy sermon, and I'm not bothered that they pay for it. What annoys me is that my people paid into the C of E for five centuries, mostly not by choice, and now the church buildings they built, paid for and maintained are being sold off to pay the salaries and pensions of the very clergy that couldn't them keep going. Morally, those buildings should be vested in their communities.

The UK is nothing like North Korea, in fact its record on human rights and democracy is excellent by comparison. North Korea's border with the prosperous Republic of Korea is separated by a 2.5 mile wide impassable demilitarised zone. The UK's border with its closest European neighbour, the prosperous Republic of Ireland, can be freely crossed. This level of thick would be amusing if it wasn't so widespread.

I hear Johnson, Poole-Wilson and Watty do put in a shift, and Craine has done a bit on the territorial waters project. To be fair, do you really want the rest to be more involved?

You could say all religion is a scam — I mean how anyone has any idea if there is or isn't a god who never shows his face, or a life hereafter. The very idea of making a living out of preaching about things it is impossible to know is preposterous. On the other hand, the music, the ambiance, the fellowship, the meditative rituals and the sense of moral superiority have always appealed to some, and if they see value in it, then fair enough. And they certainly aren't all stupid. Mind you, I'm saying that because no one close to me has been caught up in a grasping, tithing church.

Because vegan and vegetarian 'burgers', 'sausages' and 'roasts' are generally disappointing — usually made in factories at least a week before they are sold on in supermarkets — expensive, unloved units of food. Vegetarians I know who care about their health and tastebuds mostly cook from scratch. I have to admit that well made vegetarian fare, particularly based on vegetarian food cultures is pretty good (though often a bit heavy on ghee and paneer for me). I have opinions on veganism too, but I have learnt from experience that it is best to keep them to myself.

The bill that was actually passed is very different to the proposals, and lags behind the welfare regs of many EU countries. The headline part of the regs is the ban on live animal exports to the Mainland of Europe (but not to Ireland). Which is going to change things very little. The only part of the UK that exports a significant number of live animals to the EU is Northern Ireland (sheep to Spain). They will all have to be driven down to Dublin now (which was happening anyway thanks to brexit). No regs on the welfare in countries that export meat to the UK, and nothing significant to improve welfare on UK farms. A nothing burger then, like all 'brexit benefits'. But you go on & pop on your union-jack waistcoat and cheer it to the rafters.

You really shouldn't confuse 'Jewish' with 'Zionist'.

80% of the UK's animal welfare legislation comes from the EU. When an EU member, the UK shared 80% of its animal welfare legislation with the EU and trade agreements with non-EU countries required those countries to match or exceed EU welfare rules. Leaving the CAP gave the UK an opportunity to use subsidies as well as laws as a means of encouraging better welfare. That hasn't happened, and won't happen. Some EU countries have banned live export, farrowing cages and battery hens, the UK has not. In fact, it has put UK farmers into direct competition with countries with far lower welfare standards, many of which use farrowing and veal cages, restrictive feedlots, growth hormones and the growth promoter ractopamine, do not use anaesthetic for de-beaking, de-toeing, tail-docking, tooth-pulling, castration, and de-horning, and do not require regular veterinary welfare visits to farms. The idea that the UK, having put its food producers into competition with countries with far lower welfare standards than the EU will legislate for better animal welfare standards than the EU is ridiculous — they are already suffering with the loss of their biggest market and can't recruit workers. Please stop reading spiv / toff propaganda and use your own brain.

There were, no doubt, some English people who voted for 'sovereignty, unaware that every international treaty, especially trade deals, involves compromise, not just the Single Market deal. However, the main arguments the spivs and toffs used in 2016 were: 1. It would be better for the NHS. 2. The UK would control its borders better. 3. Immigration would be better controlled. 4. Trade deals would be better. The sovereignty argument, that the English would be able to make their own laws, was always bottom of the list. This was always the flakiest argument, but the most difficult to refute without giving detailed analysis of all the UK's international commitments. The only significant exercise of sovereignty taken so far is to allow the ruination of English waterways by the foreign owned water companies. So, brexit has failed to deliver on points 1, 2, 3 & 4, and although a bit of sovereignty has been exercised it is, literally, shit. Reminder of the leave campaign: http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html Now that all the bunkum about an EU superstate, Turkey joining etc., etc., has also been seen as bogus, and the huge financial hit predicted by the Yellowhammer Report is in full swing, the spivs & toffs can no longer put the blame for their failures on the EU, so they're pinning it on asylum seekers. Of course, asylum seekers are not exactly popular anywhere in Europe. If the EU brings in tighter restrictions and in turn fewer immigrants make it to England, who will be blamed next?

I wish Moorhouse was one of my MHKs. I reckon if I was stuck at the bottom of a well on a Saturday night and had 1% left on my phone, if I called him to see if he could get a rope, I reckon he would. If I only had MHKs' numbers in my phone and Moorhouse didn't answer, I think I'd probably try Christian, Faragher, Poole-Wilson, Caine, Edge, Allison, Peters or Watterson. I think I'd be worried that some of the others would either not answer, or would use up my battery telling me how important and busy they are and how just getting rope isn't as straightforward as I might think, or suggest I contact someone else. Am I being harsh?

I doubt it's bureaucracy and taxes. Bookkeeping & payroll are easier and cheaper than ever with modern software, and there's only personal income tax to calculate for small & medium sized businesses. Rates & service charges could, probably should, be looked at, but it doesn't take a genius to see that unrealistic rents and terms, sky-high utility charges and the miserable post-brexit labour market, business sentiment and import / export situation are the main factors.

No. It's seven years since the referendum, so now that Project Fear is Project Here, it's about time we started to asses the impact. I am half wishing for another seven years of pain, so that when we rejoin we do so unanimously. Then again, maybe there are still leavers around who still believe in it?

Good luck to Bushys, it's not easy opening a restaurant in a town with no food retailers bar Tesco and the Coop.

The blighting of Peel with the eye-sore granite in place of parking has been horrific for businesses, and ruined the look of the place.

Well, the DOI have devastated Peel and done some damage to Ramsey. What did Tillyard do that was more bone-headed than pedestrianising a ghost town?

I've edited my post. Ramsey isn't quite as vibrant as it was, but it hasn't been ruined like Castletown.

One of my first jobs was in Castletown. It was a very busy little town, full of independent traders and out of town visitors all year round. It had a great fish mongers, a good little butchers, a couple of little bakeries, a laundrette, a health food shop, two record shops, two busy chemists and more. It was a really friendly, bustling place with lots of community spirit. I had to go there last week — to see an old friend. I left very upset. It has clearly been 'regenerated' by clowns who couldn't accept a Manx market town for what it was, and turned it into a ghost town. You can blame brexit, the war in Ukraine, the awful government in England or whatever, but this is really down to a terrible lack of sympathy from the commissioners for a traditional town that relies on passing trade.

Little Englander nationalism.

The only thing a town like Peel needs is parking, decent transport links, and grants for sympathetic improvements to retail buildings. The only thing the government has done is replace parking spaces with completely inappropriate Chinese granite.