Brexit

I entirely agree. I do not know a brexiteer who ever thought Brussels would negotiate in good faith. Brussels intransigence is why Many of us wanted to leave.

But I think May thought too highly of them. She is a remainer who hoped to show Brussels in a good light, but ended up seeing the reality. She accepted the negotiating order. If she had expected talks to fail, why then agree only to talk about things Brussels demanded, not what is important to the UK?
Why overrule davies on the negotiating order? It does not make sense..
I think May is to blame for much of the impasse. We should have walked away 2 years ago when they refused to talk trade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheGrump

A scenario for the 'experts' to discuss.

From day 1, May knew there was no point in negotiating with the EU, who were intent on frustrating the process. Hence preparations for no deal with the EU started in earnest over 2 years ago, and are significantly advanced. Unfortunately too many MPs failed to understand the situation, had their own agendas, and have attempted to prevent no deal. Whether their votes are legally binding is unclear.

Maybe no deal always was meant to be the outcome.

---

Davis has experience both of Brussels and running international business that May does not. He also had reported on Irish border technology before the brexit vote decided our path. So he is the right man for the job.

He would have made a far better fist of it. Not least because he has friends both sides of the house, in such as Tom Watson. May is neither a good tactician, nor a good actor. Worst of all, she is an administrator, not a leader. She has no vision and so cannot motivate others to follow it. She is trying to navigate a path between two opposite visions, which is impossible, it satisfies neither nor her democratic mandate..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graham Breeze

Davis???

If you want to be sure of reaching your destination then make sure you are in the driving seat.

If you just want to be a back seat comedian - join Equity.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oracle

Davis has experience both of Brussels and running international business that May does not. He also had reported on Irish border technology before the brexit vote decided our path. So he is the right man for the job.

He would have made a far better fist of it. Not least because he has friends both sides of the house, in such as Tom Watson. May is neither a good tactician, nor a good actor. Worst of all, she is an administrator, not a leader. She has no vision and so cannot motivate others to follow it. She is trying to navigate a path between two opposite visions, which is impossible, it satisfies neither nor her democratic mandate..

---

Of course May is neither inspirational nor visionary...but May - with all her faults - has ended up in charge because others like Davis chose not to be.

May may have failed but she has done her best according to her (limited) abilities but others like Davis...perhaps he is even now writing his book "What I Would Have Achieved If Only I Had Been In Charge"

I don`t think it would have mattered a jot who was in charge odds of 1 against 27 puts the challenger onto a loser from the start, especially when all their supposed supporters are on a different agenda and purely looking after there own interests and not the country's.

It is my grand children's and the younger generations that will now have to try and rebuild a country that has been destroyed.

The current system of rule is in a shambles and will need rebuilding over decades.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheGrump

A scenario for the 'experts' to discuss.

From day 1, May knew there was no point in negotiating with the EU, who were intent on frustrating the process. Hence preparations for no deal with the EU started in earnest over 2 years ago, and are significantly advanced. Unfortunately too many MPs failed to understand the situation, had their own agendas, and have attempted to prevent no deal. Whether their votes are legally binding is unclear.

Maybe no deal always was meant to be the outcome.

---

I think the General Election fiasco has played a bit part in why we are where we are today. May correctly identified that the majority she inherited from Cameron was not big enough given that there would be a large body of MP's who would try and frustrate Brexit and undermine the Government's position. On the face of it, it made absolute sense to try and get a bigger majority given the opinion polls were showing 20+ percentage point leads. But what followed was probably the worst general election campaign ever with May exposed as a wooden performer. It resulted in her losing even the small majority she previously had.

After that May was severely weakened and the Government was undermined at every turn with remainers like Blair and Clegg rushing to Brussels urging the EU to offer harsh terms so that we might decide to have a second referendum and overturn the first one. Even part of the Cabinet joined in the act, repeatedly saying how bad no-deal would be. Phillip Hammond even refused to release the money required by Government departments to prepare for it. It was reported at the time of the General Election that May was about to sack Hammond. Now she was too weak to do so. The result has been a shambles. The EU (rightly) concluded that we wouldn't leave without a deal and had therefore no incentive to offer a good one. Rather they could offer a bad deal in the hope the decision could be reversed or at the very worst let us leave but on vassal nation terms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graham Breeze

Of course May is neither inspirational nor visionary...but May - with all her faults - has ended up in charge because others like Davis chose not to be.

May may have failed but she has done her best according to her (limited) abilities but others like Davis...perhaps he is even now writing his book "What I Would Have Achieved If Only I Had Been In Charge"

---

I think you need to wind back a little.

We had a Remain PM who said he would stay on, invoke article 50 immediately and see the process through if the UK voted to leave.

He bottled it and ran off.

We then had a Remain majority Tory set of MPs who gradually whittled away (with help from back-stabbing Gove) at the Leaver candidates until we were left with May or Leadsom.

I like Leadsom. A thorough nice lady, but not in my opinion a satisfactory leadership candidate, like May.

Leadsom received the vote of 84 MPs, less than 25%.

She was then lent on not to take it to the membership.

Had Davis entered the contest he might have done better, but I still think the MPs would have gone for May in such a number that the person coming 2nd would have felt the need to step aside.

As far as I am aware, Davis put his name in the hat at the last leader election. He did not get into the final two. I don't recollect him campaigning for it.

As for "bottling it". I cannot agree with Witton. May sidelined him, refused to listen to his advice, even on the most fundamental issue of negotiating order. What was the point in his remaining as a nominal brexit secretary with no responsibility or authority?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graham Breeze

Of course May is neither inspirational nor visionary...but May - with all her faults - has ended up in charge because others like Davis chose not to be.

May may have failed but she has done her best according to her (limited) abilities but others like Davis...perhaps he is even now writing his book "What I Would Have Achieved If Only I Had Been In Charge"

---

There is a lovely quote today in the DT about the loathsome Mike Ashley (Sports Direct) who the Board of Debenhams have prevented from buying for a song and becoming Chief Executive but instead have opted for a pre-packaged deal with administrators:

There were fears (it) would give him the key to the castle and he would then change the locks.

I'm sure this mistrust could equally be applied to a player or few in the Brexit saga.

Nothing to do with it. Other than pointing out the impossibility of an organisation run by a committee of 27 which could be why it is a rampant failure, and also why it cannot negotiate in less than 7 years. The only reason they held firm was they were not asked to concede anything.

Migration and the EU budget show how dysfunctional the EU is. In addition the catastrope caused by the euro, show that the ideologues are happy to cause harm.

All britain had to do was hold fast and be willing to say no. Just like Maggie did, the woman who was not for turning. The remainers never accepted it, deliberately wrecked it, made negotiation impossible so where we are now is their doing. A bright future awaited.

The EU will not exist for your grandchildren. Not in this form. It is fatally flawed.Why do remainers want to be shackled to the titanic as it sinks?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnK

I don`t think it would have mattered a jot who was in charge odds of 1 against 27 puts the challenger onto a loser from the start, especially when all their supposed supporters are on a different agenda and purely looking after there own interests and not the country's.

It is my grand children's and the younger generations that will now have to try and rebuild a country that has been destroyed.

The current system of rule is in a shambles and will need rebuilding over decades.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oracle

As far as I am aware, Davis put his name in the hat

---

I thought you were right, but no.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_C...rship_election

Generally true.
But she could have played a wily game using indicative votes.

Ask the commons "do you want to oppose the negotiating order, do you demand that trade is talked first" The house would never have voted to spend 40 billion before talking trade. So by asking the right leading questions, she could have quelled dissenters without the power to force decisions through.

Which ever way they vote, she can then blame the house. And it would have been the UK stating it as a whole.

By keeping it to herself, she has unfairly been blamed for Barniers intransigence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever

I think the General Election fiasco has played a bit part in why we are where we are today. May correctly identified that the majority she inherited from Cameron was not big enough given that there would be a large body of MP's who would try and frustrate Brexit and undermine the Government's position. On the face of it, it made absolute sense to try and get a bigger majority given the opinion polls were showing 20+ percentage point leads. But what followed was probably the worst general election campaign ever with May exposed as a wooden performer. It resulted in her losing even the small majority she previously had.

After that May was severely weakened and the Government was undermined at every turn with remainers like Blair and Clegg rushing to Brussels urging the EU to offer harsh terms so that we might decide to have a second referendum and overturn the first one. Even part of the Cabinet joined in the act, repeatedly saying how bad no-deal would be. Phillip Hammond even refused to release the money required by Government departments to prepare for it. It was reported at the time of the General Election that May was about to sack Hammond. Now she was too weak to do so. The result has been a shambles. The EU (rightly) concluded that we wouldn't leave without a deal and had therefore no incentive to offer a good one. Rather they could offer a bad deal in the hope the decision could be reversed or at the very worst let us leave but on vassal nation terms.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry

I thought you were right, but no.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_C...rship_election

---

I think he tried to get MPs to support his application, maybe he didnt manage to get enough votes to enter the first round? may be wrong. He certainly talked of past leadership aspirations in interviews after he resigned. Maybe he stood against cameron?

EDIT

That is what I, perhaps we, are remembering. He stood against Cameron.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_C...rship_election

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever

After that May was severely weakened and the Government was undermined at every turn

---

I should also add that after the election May lost her two trusted advisers Nick Timothy and Fiona Hilton. They were partly blamed for the poor campaign and Nick Timothy in particular for his part in writing the disastrous manifesto. But Timothy was also a brexiteer and now he was no longer around May relied increasingly on the advice of the remain inclined civil service, particularly Olly Robbins. So I think this is also a reason for the change in her direction and the subsequent sidelining of first Davis and then Raab.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oracle

As far as I am aware, Davis put his name in the hat at the last leader election. He did not get into the final two. I don't recollect him campaigning for it.

As for "bottling it". I cannot agree with Witton. May sidelined him, refused to listen to his advice, even on the most fundamental issue of negotiating order. What was the point in his remaining as a nominal brexit secretary with no responsibility or authority?

---

I said we had a Remain PM..... ie Cameron. He bottled it.

Davis wasn't in the leadership contest in 2015. He last stood in 2005 when he came 1st in the first round, but eventually came 2nd to Cameron.

a bit more attention to detail Mr Oracle :rolleyes:

Where was he in 2016? He is still interested according to this.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/850686...p-theresa-may/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witton Park

I said we had a Remain PM..... ie Cameron. He bottled it.

Davis wasn't in the leadership contest in 2015. He last stood in 2005 when he came 1st in the first round, but eventually came 2nd to Cameron.

a bit more attention to detail Mr Oracle :rolleyes:

---

So I wonder what this case is about.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/11...lish-democrats
The statutory instruments are visible on the schedule in both houses in Hansard on Mar 27. Was it the form of them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witton Park

So taking the polling, there is a majority for No Deal among the public.

---

I'm interested to know why you think this is the case. My interpretation - as I've already stated, is the exact opposite.

PS. Did you see the article a few days ago saying Brexit has cost £66bn already.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...-a8854726.html

I always take these analyses with a pinch of salt. It's clearly had some effect on the economy in terms of less investment and a few business decisions to move work elsewhere. But £66bn is such a staggeringly large amount, I don't believe it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witton Park

We had a Remain PM who said he would stay on, invoke article 50 immediately and see the process through if the UK voted to leave.

He bottled it and ran off.

---

I don't think Brexiteers should complain about Cameron leaving the stage. If he had stayed on to oversee Brexit, I'm sure he would have ensured that it was a true BINO, staying in the Single Market, Customs Union, etc.. Putting Cameron in charge of Brexit would be like asking Jeremy Corbyn to privatise the nationalised industries.

On the subject of the next Tory leader, if you want a committed Brexiteer, Iain Duncan Smith seems to be a really sensible bloke. Oh wait, that's why no-one wants him.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noel

I'm interested to know why you think this is the case.

---

Because 3 polls in the last week said so.

If a poll gives 44% No Deal, 42% Remain, 14% Don't Know, that is not majority, but if that were to go to the polling booth it would be 51.1% No Deal against 48.9% Remain as the don't knows don't count.

I added

I obviously accept that polling is unreliable, but no one can say with confidence whether there is or isn't a majority for No Deal at the moment among the public. I think it's too close to call with all recent polls being within such a small band that a 2% swing could turn it the other way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noel

PS. Did you see the article a few days ago saying Brexit has cost £66bn already.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...-a8854726.html

I always take these analyses with a pinch of salt. It's clearly had some effect on the economy in terms of less investment and a few business decisions to move work elsewhere. But £66bn is such a staggeringly large amount, I don't believe it.

---

Like you I don't believe it.

Mostly because we have still managed to stay slightly above the EU trend growth.

I have seen a constant stream of forecasts since before the referendum, all relating to Brexit, and the forecasts have been wrong, all too pessimistic.

I do not doubt that some investment decisions have been held back. These decisions will still have to be made and as I worked for a relatively large German owned international company for a number of years I'm pretty sure they would just sit on their hands until they have clarity, unless there is a real pressing need for them to make an urgent decision.

There are a dozen opposing arguments.

It's true that the frustration of Brexit by a sequence of remainers from Miller to the Lords to Yvette cooper has cost uncertainty but blame the right people for that. Remoaners are what cost uncertainty not the principle of Brexit.

Any entrepreneur will tell you kicking in the routine job and spending to create a future costs disruption and money. So all expect some turmoil. But that's what is needed to build the future.

Also blame a completely intransigent EU That refuses to negotiate on trade Is the problem. Theintransigence of EU, the dysfunction of the euro , the inability of 27 to agree on anything meaningful, and an ideology that has self harmed growth is the reason we must leave.
So now calculate the GDP loss caused by being in EU, since EU growth is way below many other leading economies. That is huge.

Whenever you see the exchange rate argument cited as "bad" you can be certain the article you read is remainer b@ll@x. In reality It makes our exports more co petitive and also the economics of manufacture at home. It's why our economy is doing well despite project fear. We need to dissuade importers, or those who spend money abroad. The fact is the reason for German export success is because of a Euro down priced by averaging with the basket case economies.
And so on.

The independent is a remoaners rag, that just sees what it wants to see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noel

I'm interested to know why you think this is the case. My interpretation - as I've already stated, is the exact opposite.

PS. Did you see the article a few days ago saying Brexit has cost £66bn already.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...-a8854726.html

I always take these analyses with a pinch of salt. It's clearly had some effect on the economy in terms of less investment and a few business decisions to move work elsewhere. But £66bn is such a staggeringly large amount, I don't believe it.

---

Let down again by politicians!
New date 31st October

Not fit to organise a piss-up in a brewery!

Hopefully this nonesense will fade eventually from folks’ minds. “Hey can you remember when some people thought we might leave Europe, and screw up people’s lives for five generations because no-one had thought about, or explained how it would actually affect us?” “Err, no . . . “

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Derby Tup

Hopefully this nonesense will fade eventually from folks’ minds. “Hey can you remember when some people thought we might leave Europe, and screw up people’s lives for five generations because no-one had thought about, or explained how it would actually affect us?” “Err, no . . . “

---

Nobody will even look up from their glowing screen to listen...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Derby Tup

Hopefully this nonesense will fade eventually from folks’ minds. “Hey can you remember when some people thought we might leave Europe, and screw up people’s lives for five generations because no-one had thought about, or explained how it would actually affect us?” “Err, no . . . “

---

The trouble is Tup, even your statement is a set of preconceptions in my view ill conceived. "Screw up for five generations" , where is your crystal ball?

I would say many do understand how it will affect us, which is why we see a bright future. We see the future of the EU as a oneway downhill ride. Those who oppose it are those who say "it had not been thought about". Brexiteers knew the EU would be awkward, but EU allowing dogma to trump pragmatism surely is a reason to leave not stay? since no such organisation can ever be successful, and the EU certainly is not.

The biggest disagreement between remainers and leavers, is that remainers measure EU in terms of continuity of a stable present. Many Leavers see it disintegrating so the measurement of benefits from the status quo is therefore a false paradigm. Rats and sinking ships. Lifeboats and the titanic are closer to our vision.

All I can say is: if everyone held the remoaner view of uncertainty ,everyone would certainly be bankrupt, because no entrepreneur would ever have a vision or accept the uncertainty that comes with following the vision!
Those who have written out a cheque for six or seven figures and have mortgaged the home for starting a business, are those who wonder why leaving the EU is considered such a risk! Walking across the road is a risk!

If none accepted uncertainty, we would have a nation of unemployed permanent job seekers and no entrepreneur willing to employ them. There would be no entrepreneurs. And becaue there would be no private sector, nor would there be funding for the public sector. Britain and the MPs are far too social security minded. They draw a guaranteed salary and pension and cannot conceive of the real world which is nothing like that.

The entire economy relies on a few who have the vision to take the risk. They see singapore and think "that could be us". Ask Dyson. I would hate to live with a remoaner. They see the problem in everything and the opportunity in nothing. They are such miserable people!

Oh no.
Another 6 months of Hugh Edwards asking Laura Kuenssberg "What is your take on the latest developments Laura" and off she goes on her biased remoaner sympathetic ramblings. She needs sacking along with those other two biased remoaner presenters, Fiona Bruce and Emily Maitliss.

Where are Sue Lawley and Selina Scott when you need them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Llani Boy

Oh no.
Another 6 months of Hugh Edwards asking Laura Kuenssberg "What is your take on the latest developments Laura" and off she goes on her biased remoaner sympathetic ramblings. She needs sacking along with those other two biased remoaner presenters, Fiona Bruce and Emily Maitliss.

Where are Sue Lawley and Selina Scott when you need them?

---

I wonder who is the most biased BBC remoaner journalist. Personally I'd plump for its Europe Editor Katya Adler, who is based in Brussels. She really has gone native. Its not that much of a surprise since she used to host numerous events for the European Commission.

The BBC seems to have abandoned any pretence at impartiality on Brexit as demonstrated by its repeated remain heavy guest composition on Question Time and other programmes. It was good to see Charles Moore call it out on last week's Question Time when yet again he was the only panellist who had voted to leave.

Confirmation bias is a fascinating subject. Those who want to see brexit as a cost, happily accept any view that confirms their preconception. They readily buy into project fear. In this case read the article and you see such as the IMF quoted or in this case rating agency Standard and Poors.

That is the VERY SAME Standard and Poors that rated junk investments in sub prime property as A+ grade bank collateral directly causing the explosion of toxic assets in 2007. SP are responsible for crashing banks. Why should I listen to them?

Or The same IMF that missed 2007 coming completely. The property bubble got no mention in their reports of the previous years. The same Bank of England that was asleep at the wheel in the UK during the same period.
Carney has now thankfully given up on project fear. He too was discredited.

Meanwhile a blind man on a running horse could see 2007 coming. Just as it is in Australia and China in property now. I can point at videos in 2005 that explained exactly what would happen why and when accurate to a month! Some of us did well out of predicting it!

These commentators such as ratings agencies are all discredited. Why does anyone listen to them? Answer: because they agree with an apriori assumption. It is called confirmation bias.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witton Park

Like you I don't believe it.

Mostly because we have still managed to stay slightly above the EU trend growth.

I have seen a constant stream of forecasts since before the referendum, all relating to Brexit, and the forecasts have been wrong, all too pessimistic.

I do not doubt that some investment decisions have been held back. These decisions will still have to be made and as I worked for a relatively large German owned international company for a number of years I'm pretty sure they would just sit on their hands until they have clarity, unless there is a real pressing need for them to make an urgent decision.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever

I wonder who is the most biased BBC remoaner journalist. Personally I'd plump for its Europe Editor Katya Adler, who is based in Brussels. She really has gone native. Its not that much of a surprise since she used to host numerous events for the European Commission.

The BBC seems to have abandoned any pretence at impartiality on Brexit as demonstrated by its repeated remain heavy guest composition on Question Time and other programmes. It was good to see Charles Moore call it out on last week's Question Time when yet again he was the only panellist who had voted to leave.

---

Adam Boulton - does "All Out Politics" at 9:00am every morning on Sky News - totally blatant to the extent it's could almost be classed as comedy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oracle

The independent is a remoaners rag, that just sees what it wants to see.

---

That as maybe, but this wasn't an Independent-led story. The findings were also reported by other media outlets if you care to google it.

But I largely agree, yes Brexit has and will cost. But it's probably not 66bn. And yes, long-term there may be an argument for going through the pain we are currently self-inflicting.

Again it comes back to what you think will happen in the long-term. You, like many Brexiteers seem very certain of the future. I'm yet to be convinced, but perhaps another 100 pages of discussion and you'll win me round. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oracle

I would hate to live with a remoaner. They see the problem in everything and the opportunity in nothing. They are such miserable people!

---

Your posts rarely make me laugh out loud, but this is pure gold, Oracle. Miserable like me? Not happy and fun-loving like you? :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noel

Your posts rarely make me laugh out loud, but this is pure gold, Oracle. Miserable like me? Not happy and fun-loving like you? :)

---

And I laughed at Noel's laughing at Oracle...what a wonderful world, where (nearly) everyone is happy, it is inside the EU!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noel

Your posts rarely make me laugh out loud, but this is pure gold, Oracle. Miserable like me? Not happy and fun-loving like you? :)

---

I said it because of the absurdity of it: I would certainly rather be on a hill, than talking about remoaning!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graham Breeze

And I laughed at Noel's laughing at Oracle...what a wonderful world, where (nearly) everyone is happy, it is inside the EU!

---

Except for the 40 percent youth unemployment in many of the countries. But they of course dont count! -
Far better buying Bianchi bikes is made easy, than riding over the corpses of the suicide unemployed. How thoughtless of people to leave them. They should be hidden from Brexiteers, in case they make an issue of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graham Breeze

And I laughed at Noel's laughing at Oracle...what a wonderful world, where (nearly) everyone is happy, it is inside the EU!

---

Is that a North Korean type of happiness Graham?

Oh dear. I've got Louis Armstrong in my head now. I'll think of Oracle and play some Leonard Cohen while I look for an open razer.:(

Which bit of the EU's "we will not re-negotiate" do Westminster MP's pretend to not understand?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Llani Boy

Oh no.
Another 6 months of Hugh Edwards asking Laura Kuenssberg "What is your take on the latest developments Laura" and off she goes on her biased remoaner sympathetic ramblings. She needs sacking along with those other two biased remoaner presenters, Fiona Bruce and Emily Maitliss.

Where are Sue Lawley and Selina Scott when you need them?

---

Serious question? Is there an unbiased TV news station or newspaper where you can get the view (calmly and sensibly) from? Are they all bias? Taking the position of Leave or Remain? I really would like to start buying that newspaper and watching that TV news station.

I will just say though that on this tread I usually do get both sides and most manage to get their point across without insulting either "Leave voters" or "Remain voters".

Quote:

---

the 40 percent youth unemployment in many of the countries

---

name one?
https://www.statista.com/chart/3644/...ing-in-europe/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oracle

Except for the 40 percent youth unemployment in many of the countries. But they of course dont count! -
Far better buying Bianchi bikes is made easy, than riding over the corpses of the suicide unemployed. How thoughtless of people to leave them. They should be hidden from Brexiteers, in case they make an issue of it.

---

But Oracle, I went to Greece last year to do my bit for their economy prompted by all you had posted about their dire state of affairs!

Actually it is finally having Campagnolo equipment, after SRAM and Shimano, that has made me so happy. When I was a boy on my humble Carlton I used to gaze at a Campag.10 speed, just dreaming...

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in today's DT says "Italy is one small shock away from a sovereign default of global scale" so I think buying a Bianchi is almost a humanitarian act of kindness.

Hurt of Ilkley.