International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Non-USA & General Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=98)
-   -   Continuation Brexit: Now What? Magic 8 Ball's up (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=337979)

Dave Rogers 2nd August 2019 02:26 AM

Brexit: Now What? Magic 8 Ball's up
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tolls (Post 12774379)
Of course, having said that, part of them being "fine" includes Johnson remaining PM, and that won't happen is we crash out at the end of October. So he's going to have to do a rather spectacular volte face assuming parliament doesn't force his hand before then.

I suppose, for him, the ideal situation is for Parliament to do exactly that, and for him then to blame Parliament for thwarting his best efforts to leave the EU so he can hang on to power for a while longer in the confusion. Precedent suggests that this can work for about six months.

Dave


Mod InfoThread continued from here.
You can quote or reply to any post from that or any previous part of this thread.
Posted By:zooterkin

The Don 2nd August 2019 02:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lothian (Post 12774381)
Obviously these deals are not better than the ones we currently have. Do you know how long trade deals take to agree? Jesus!! They are the same terms as the EU agreed, rolled over.

Of course any attempt to bring this up and remind the voters that we were promised far better trade deals - not just the same deals rolled over - will be dismissed as being treasonous attempts to derail a no-deal Brexit ?

ohms 2nd August 2019 03:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lothian (Post 12774381)
Yes, yes, yes but look at all the benefits. We have already signed fantastic* trade deals with the Faroe Islands and 11 other areas.

*No. Obviously these deals are not better than the ones we currently have. Do you know how long trade deals take to agree? Jesus!! They are the same terms as the EU agreed, rolled over.

Canada, amongst others, have said they won't be rolling over the CETA terms immediately, they want to wait and see. The reason boils down to them expecting a No Deal Brexit, in which the UK cuts tariffs on most imports. This gives them tariff free access to UK markets while still being able to charge tariffs on UK exports to Canada.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexspence/...-agreement-for
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8985986.html

Captain_Swoop 2nd August 2019 03:43 AM

Lib Dems win by election.
Tories down to majority of 1

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-49200636

Quote:

The Liberal Democrats have won the Brecon and Radnorshire by-election, leaving new PM Boris Johnson with a working majority in Parliament of one.

Jane Dodds overturned an 8,038 majority to beat incumbent Conservative Chris Davies by 1,425 votes.

Mr Davies stood again after being unseated by a petition following his conviction for a false expenses claim.

It was the first electoral test for Mr Johnson just eight days after becoming prime minister.

It is the quickest by-election defeat for any new prime minister since World War Two.

Labour 4th behind Brexit party

Turnout 59.6%, down from 74.6% at the general election, but it is the highest for a by-election since 1997

ceptimus 2nd August 2019 03:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ohms (Post 12774378)
Leaked Whitehall slide on first month of No Deal Brexit :

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/sta...89930477953025


"Possible", "Possible", "Potential", "Could", "May", ... not very sure, are they? And they're right not to be sure given the accuracy of their previous forecasts. More of the same old project fear for the sheep.

jimbob 2nd August 2019 03:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceptimus (Post 12774424)
"Possible", "Possible", "Potential", "Could", "May", ... not very sure, are they? And they're right not to be sure given the accuracy of their previous forecasts. More of the same old project fear for the sheep.

Meanwhile people are actually being made redundant now and their jobs are moving to the EU.

And for what?

Lothian 2nd August 2019 03:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceptimus (Post 12774424)
"Possible", "Possible", "Potential", "Could", "May", ... not very sure, are they? And they're right not to be sure given the accuracy of their previous forecasts. More of the same old project fear for the sheep.

Prior to the Brexit vote the BoE saud the economy would shrink, growth would slow and sterling would fall. At the time IDS and JRM criticised Carney's suggestion that sterling could suffer. The BoE were correct.

And yes he did say 'could'. Forecasts are subject to a number of variables. Following Brexit there was an unprecedented amount of quantitative easing to stave off the worst of the predicted effects.

Of course the BoE are just giving their view. Happy for you to bring in quotes from people who think that immediate after brexit the pound will soar and the economy with get a huge boost. I would be delighted to hear what Keith on Facebook has to say,

Tolls 2nd August 2019 04:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers (Post 12774384)
I suppose, for him, the ideal situation is for Parliament to do exactly that, and for him then to blame Parliament for thwarting his best efforts to leave the EU so he can hang on to power for a while longer in the confusion. Precedent suggests that this can work for about six months.

Dave

I fully expect that that is precisely his plan.
Force Parliament to stop it, then go to the country proclaiming that he need s a majority to get Brexit through.

And the odds of that being successful probably depend on whether he strikes a deal with Farage. Except I can't see Farage wanting to play second fiddle to Johnson, so I wouldn't expect any deal to survive the 5 weeks or so of an election campaign.

catsmate 2nd August 2019 04:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop (Post 12774425)
Lib Dems win by election.
Tories down to majority of 1

The pressure on Mary Lou increases...

catsmate 2nd August 2019 05:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceptimus (Post 12774424)
"Possible", "Possible", "Potential", "Could", "May", ... not very sure, are they? And they're right not to be sure given the accuracy of their previous forecasts. More of the same old project fear for the sheep.

Still denigrating the experts because they reveal the painful truths brexiteers don't want to hear.
:rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbob (Post 12774426)
Meanwhile people are actually being made redundant now and their jobs are moving to the EU.

And for what?

Blue passports, made in France.

Archie Gemmill Goal 2nd August 2019 05:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceptimus (Post 12774424)
"Possible", "Possible", "Potential", "Could", "May", ... not very sure, are they? And they're right not to be sure given the accuracy of their previous forecasts. More of the same old project fear for the sheep.

Project fear what what sheep? These are briefings for government not facebook posts from Brexiteer loons.

JoeMorgue 2nd August 2019 05:01 AM

//referencing various statements made about what is and isn't a country//

The idea that the fact that you used to be a country makes a... political unit (the language is obviously going to get a little fuzzy) different from all other equivalent political units rather non-convincing.

This is the Texas Mentality here in the states. "We're a special state because we used to be a country." No you aren't buckaroo.

ceptimus 2nd August 2019 05:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbob (Post 12774426)
Meanwhile people are actually being made redundant now and their jobs are moving to the EU.

And for what?

And that never happened before Brexit?

People always have been, and continue to be, made redundant in every country in the world. How are you going to blame those redundancies on Brexit?

ceptimus 2nd August 2019 05:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12774459)
Project fear what what sheep? These are briefings for government not facebook posts from Brexiteer loons.

Who do you think leaked it, and why?

Dave Rogers 2nd August 2019 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceptimus (Post 12774424)
"Possible", "Possible", "Potential", "Could", "May", ... not very sure, are they?

And, if course, if they had been very sure, you'd be saying "They're obviously exaggerating because they couldn't possibly know that for certain."

(That doesn't apply, naturally, to predictions like "There will be no downside, only a considerable upside," or "It will be the easiest deal in history," because reasons.)

Dave

3point14 2nd August 2019 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers (Post 12774497)
And, if course, if they had been very sure, you'd be saying "They're obviously exaggerating because they couldn't possibly know that for certain."

(That doesn't apply, naturally, to predictions like "There will be no downside, only a considerable upside," or "It will be the easiest deal in history," because reasons.)

Dave


The uneducated prefer ******** certainty over accurate descriptions that allow for the real world. That's why this **** works.

Anyone being properly uncertain about the future is lambasted, as above. Anyone demonstrating unreasonable certainty is believed by idiots because that's how chimp brains work.

The Don 2nd August 2019 06:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceptimus (Post 12774461)
And that never happened before Brexit?

People always have been, and continue to be, made redundant in every country in the world. How are you going to blame those redundancies on Brexit?

They're only blamed on Brexit when the companies making the redundancies specifically mention Brexit as a major factor in the decision.

A much bigger issue is that companies are also choosing to make investment, and create jobs, in other countries when that investment could realistically have come to the UK had we remained in the EU.

The financial services industry has provided excellent examples of both of these with jobs being lost and with new initiatives being set up in Dublin, Paris and Frankfurt instead of London.

Foreign Direct Investment has taken a significant hit since the Brexit referendum vote.

Quote:

London remained the part of the UK that attracted the largest amount of investment. However, even the capital was hit by the decline with the number of jobs created by foreign investment falling by 14 per cent compared with March 2018 and by 28 per cent compared with 2017.*

Elsewhere the fall was even more stark. In Scotland and the Yorkshire and Humber regions the number of jobs created as a result of foreign investment more than halved in the year ending in March.
https://www.ft.com/content/6416a20a-...b-30c211dcd229

It's sadly ironic that the parts of the country which voted Leave are the ones being hit hardest by the implications of their actions. :(

Tolls 2nd August 2019 06:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceptimus (Post 12774462)
Who do you think leaked it, and why?

Irrelevant to the contents of the document.

The Don 2nd August 2019 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3point14 (Post 12774503)
The uneducated prefer ******** certainty over accurate descriptions that allow for the real world. That's why this **** works.

Anyone being properly uncertain about the future is lambasted, as above. Anyone demonstrating unreasonable certainty is believed by idiots because that's how chimp brains work.

I think the message also has to align with what they want to hear. Someone stating unequivocally that Brexit will be utterly dire will also be ignored whereas someone offering guarded assurances of a successful Brexit will tend to be believed.

To be fair it cuts both ways. I'd be more inclined to examine critically, claims that Brexit will be a resounding success (or at the other end of the scale, that it would be so dire that martial law will be declared and internment camps set up) than I would claims that it will be a pain in the rear but that civilisation will not come to an end.

catsmate 2nd August 2019 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Don (Post 12774507)
They're only blamed on Brexit when the companies making the redundancies specifically mention Brexit as a major factor in the decision.

A much bigger issue is that companies are also choosing to make investment, and create jobs, in other countries when that investment could realistically have come to the UK had we remained in the EU.

The financial services industry has provided excellent examples of both of these with jobs being lost and with new initiatives being set up in Dublin, Paris and Frankfurt instead of London.

True. You can't build office space in the Docklands fast enough for the influx.
Sweet jeebus but I'm going to have to do fewer lunches in G*****...

Archie Gemmill Goal 2nd August 2019 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3point14 (Post 12774523)
How does the one follow from the other?

One does not follow from the other. They are two separate but linked pieces of information.

Quote:

Can you show me where this is coming from? Some document or statute that shows that what you say above has any significance in international law or diplomacy?
https://researchbriefings.parliament.../CDP-2018-0171

What significance would you want it to have in international law? There is no need for it to have any significance in international law or diplomacy. You might as well as what significance does Man City's status as Premiership Champions have in international law.

Quote:

What effect do you think your statement has? What weight does it apply to your argument?
The effect is self explanatory. Sovereignty lies with the Scottish people, it is up to the Scottish people to determine what it's government is and how they are governed. Ergo any government which has been soundly rejected by the people of Scotland has no legitimacy to govern the people of Scotland.

Quote:

I'm afraid I just don't get it, It just seems to me like meaningless bluster. It clearly means something to you and I'd just like to know what and from which authority or academic source you derive the information to form your opinion.
Well yes... you can think whatever you like as I keep saying. Your opinion is of no importance to me.

Quote:

Can anyone not emotionally invested in the topic please tell me if I'm making any sense here? Because the answers I'm getting just don't seem to fit the question I'm asking. Am I asking it wrong?
Perhaps you are asking the wrong question? you seem to be unable to see anything in terms other than international law. Are you a lawyer by any chance? They tend to have this problem.

ceptimus 2nd August 2019 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Don (Post 12774507)
They're only blamed on Brexit when the companies making the redundancies specifically mention Brexit as a major factor in the decision.

People are always asked by the media to explain why they're making people redundant, and at the moment, of course, Brexit is one of the main things they can blame. Brexit uncertainty probably really is having an effect, and even if it isn't the people claiming that it is might honestly believe that to be the case. If the referendum losers had accepted the result then that uncertainty would have been eliminated, so they must carry a lot of the blame for dragging out the uncertainty to the present and beyond.

If Brexit wasn't happening then there would be something else to blame: the downturn in the global car market, Trump's policies on tariffs, Climate change, or whatever.

Lothian 2nd August 2019 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceptimus (Post 12774603)
People are always asked by the media to explain why they're making people redundant, and at the moment, of course, Brexit is one of the main things they can blame. Brexit uncertainty probably really is having an effect, and even if it isn't the people claiming that it is might honestly believe that to be the case. If the referendum losers had accepted the result then that uncertainty would have been eliminated, so they must carry a lot of the blame for dragging out the uncertainty to the present and beyond.

If Brexit wasn't happening then there would be something else to blame: the downturn in the global car market, Trump's policies on tariffs, Climate change, or whatever.

Accepted what result? In what way did people vote to leave? Did they vote for a soft brexit as laid out in the Vote leave literature and campaign or a hard brexit as adopted by brexiteers since the election?

Dave Rogers 2nd August 2019 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceptimus (Post 12774603)
If the referendum losers had accepted the result then that uncertainty would have been eliminated, so they must carry a lot of the blame for dragging out the uncertainty to the present and beyond.

Did you fail to notice that a lot of the reason for the current level of uncertainty is nothing to do with not accepting the result of the referendum, but is largely the result of Crobyn's soft Brexiteers and the ERG's hard-line Brexiteers repeatedly voting against May's compromise deal? This hasn't been a rearguard action by remainers; it's been internecine squabbles between Brexiteers because none of them can agree with each other about what kind of Brexit they actually want. If any of them had had an ounce of sense or the slightest ability to compromise, we'd have left the EU in March. A lot of the time remainers have just been sitting back, watching them fight amongst themselves, and laughing.

Dave

ceptimus 2nd August 2019 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lothian (Post 12774610)
Tie the Scottish Government up in court cases. Possibly withhold Treasury funding,

I don't understand why Sturgeon's calling for more referendums. She's already chosen to ignore the results of the 2014 and 2016 referendums - why should we have any confidence that she'd accept the result of any future loser's referendum on Brexit, or a re-run of the 'once in a generation' Scottish Independence referendum of just five years ago?

ceptimus 2nd August 2019 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers (Post 12774623)
Did you fail to notice that a lot of the reason for the current level of uncertainty is nothing to do with not accepting the result of the referendum, but is largely the result of Crobyn's soft Brexiteers and the ERG's hard-line Brexiteers repeatedly voting against May's compromise deal? This hasn't been a rearguard action by remainers; it's been internecine squabbles between Brexiteers because none of them can agree with each other about what kind of Brexit they actually want. If any of them had had an ounce of sense or the slightest ability to compromise, we'd have left the EU in March. A lot of the time remainers have just been sitting back, watching them fight amongst themselves, and laughing.

Dave

No. If the losers had accepted the result, Brexit would be done by now. The problem is that we have a remain parliament, a remain civil service, and until very recently, a remain government headed by a remain PM.

zooterkin 2nd August 2019 09:57 AM

Mod WarningDerail on what constitutes a country, and whether Scotland is one, moved to AAH. If you wish to discuss that, please take it to a new thread.
Posted By:zooterkin

Archie Gemmill Goal 2nd August 2019 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceptimus (Post 12774733)
I don't understand

I'm not surprised.

Quote:

She's already chosen to ignore the results of the 2014 and 2016 referendums
Last I checked Scotland isn't independent so the 2014 result is implemented in full. In 2016 Scotland voted to remain the EU. So she is trying to implement that result to. It's the Tory government who don't respect that result.

Odd that you insist we have a Remainer parliament and yet also that the last election was won by Leaver parties. The majority of MPs want to leave. They just can't agree how. Blame the DUP and the ERG for refusing to vote to leave when given multiple opportunities.

Lothian 2nd August 2019 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceptimus (Post 12774743)
No. If the losers had accepted the result, Brexit would be done by now. The problem is that we have a remain parliament, a remain civil service, and until very recently, a remain government headed by a remain PM.

We don't have a remain parliament. If the ERG voted for May's brexit deal we would be out. It is the brexiteers who have stopped us leaving.
The civil service is neutral. They simply follow the orders of thier minister. In any case the civil service do not have the power to keep us in or take us out if the EU. They effect the decisions of parliament they don't make them.
The Government is a leave government as you repeatedly make clear each time you claim that a vote for the Tory party equated to a vote to leave. May was a Leave PM. She agreed a deal to leave with the EU. It is not her fault that brexiteers stopped her taking the UK out of the EU.

0/5 but one day you will get something right. Don't give up yet.

Jack by the hedge 2nd August 2019 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers (Post 12774623)
Did you fail to notice that a lot of the reason for the current level of uncertainty is nothing to do with not accepting the result of the referendum, but is largely the result of Crobyn's soft Brexiteers and the ERG's hard-line Brexiteers repeatedly voting against May's compromise deal? This hasn't been a rearguard action by remainers; it's been internecine squabbles between Brexiteers because none of them can agree with each other about what kind of Brexit they actually want. If any of them had had an ounce of sense or the slightest ability to compromise, we'd have left the EU in March. A lot of the time remainers have just been sitting back, watching them fight amongst themselves, and laughing.

Dave

All true except for the laughing bit. You can't enjoy the schadenfreude when you know they're dragging us all down with them.

Jack by the hedge 2nd August 2019 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceptimus (Post 12774743)
No. If the losers had accepted the result, Brexit would be done by now. The problem is that we have a remain parliament, a remain civil service, and until very recently, a remain government headed by a remain PM.

Fantasy. I know Leavers will keep blaming others forever but the logjam is Leave vs Leave, not Leave vs Remain.

ceptimus 2nd August 2019 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lothian (Post 12774786)
We don't have a remain parliament. If the ERG voted for May's brexit deal we would be out.

Have you checked your numbers on that? Perhaps you should.

It only requires the DUP to vote against a deal, plus the opposition, and it's defeated. Add to that the Tory remainers: Clarke, Grieve, and company (though, of course some of them DID vote for remainer May's rotten deal). The ERG were powerless to vote through a deal - even one they liked - providing the opposition and the DUP continued to vote against.

ceptimus 2nd August 2019 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12774776)
Last I checked Scotland isn't independent so the 2014 result is implemented in full.

Can't you read? I said Sturgeon ignored the result - not the UK government. She wanted a vote from her own people to support what she wanted, and when they voted against her, she immediately began campaigning for another vote.

Of course, as long as the SNP exists, and Scotland remains part of the UK, the SNP will continue to campaign for referendums on independence. It won't matter how many times they lose - they'll always find some excuse for another try. Independence for Scotland is what their party's all about - the clue is in their party's name.

erwinl 2nd August 2019 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge (Post 12774811)
Fantasy. I know Leavers will keep blaming others forever but the logjam is Leave vs Leave, not Leave vs Remain.

It must be so frustrating, being a brexiteer, never getting your way, despite having almost all political parties trying to act out that policy you want. Yet it is also so refreshing, being a brexiteer, never ever having to bear any responsibility or even do anything at all, except for pointing at others that you say have failed you.

Samson 2nd August 2019 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lothian (Post 12774786)
We don't have a remain parliament. If the ERG voted for May's brexit deal we would be out. It is the brexiteers who have stopped us leaving.
The civil service is neutral. They simply follow the orders of thier minister. In any case the civil service do not have the power to keep us in or take us out if the EU. They effect the decisions of parliament they don't make them.
The Government is a leave government as you repeatedly make clear each time you claim that a vote for the Tory party equated to a vote to leave. May was a Leave PM. She agreed a deal to leave with the EU. It is not her fault that brexiteers stopped her taking the UK out of the EU.

0/5 but one day you will get something right. Don't give up yet.

The proper question is if there is a remain plebescite after the organic education exercise of the last 3 years.
How about:
Ask the EU for an extension while a referendum is held asking one question.

Should Britain revoke article 50?

This would save a lot of bother because we all know the answer, and it won't be rinse and repeat in my humble opinion.

Degeneve 2nd August 2019 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceptimus (Post 12774424)
"Possible", "Possible", "Potential", "Could", "May", ... not very sure, are they? And they're right not to be sure given the accuracy of their previous forecasts. More of the same old project fear for the sheep.

These statements looks quite mild in comparison to what Rees-Mogg just said: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ent...=share_twitter

ceptimus 3rd August 2019 02:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Degeneve (Post 12775385)
These statements looks quite mild in comparison to what Rees-Mogg just said: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ent...=share_twitter

"just said" ? That was over a year ago.

jeremyp 3rd August 2019 02:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceptimus (Post 12774743)
No. If the losers had accepted the result, Brexit would be done by now.

No it wouldn't. The British Parliament has had a majority of MPs largely in favour of getting Brexit done since the referendum occurred. The reason it hasn't been done is entirely the fault of the Brexiteers' incompetence and inability to understand that Britain was not in a position to dictate terms.

Don't blame the people who told you it would be a bad idea when it turns out to be a bad idea.

Quote:

The problem is that we have a remain parliament, a remain civil service, and until very recently, a remain government headed by a remain PM.
That's demonstrably false. The government negotiated a deal to leave. They didn't stop Brexit. Parliament didn't stop Brexit. The Civil Service didn't stop Brexit.

Archie Gemmill Goal 3rd August 2019 02:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceptimus (Post 12774889)
Can't you read? I said Sturgeon ignored the result - not the UK government. She wanted a vote from her own people to support what she wanted, and when they voted against her, she immediately began campaigning for another vote.

Which is not ignoring the result. The result was implemented by the Scottish Government who did not start negotiating with the UK government on independence. You seem incapable of reasoned thought.

Quote:

Of course, as long as the SNP exists, and Scotland remains part of the UK, the SNP will continue to campaign for referendums on independence. It won't matter how many times they lose - they'll always find some excuse for another try. Independence for Scotland is what their party's all about - the clue is in their party's name.
Which is nothing to do with 'ignoring the result of the referendum'. Unless of course you also think Farage et al ignored the results of elections when people repeatedly voted for parties who did not want to leave the EU and they didn't go away and shut up?

jeremyp 3rd August 2019 02:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12774776)
I'm not surprised.
In 2016 Scotland voted to remain the EU.

This is not correct. Scotland didn't vote for anything. The referendum was not decided by the regions/countries, it was a direct vote by each individual voter.

That said, we do know that nearly 2/3 of voters living in Scotland voted to Remain and in 2014, a major argument for staying in the UK was that, with Independence, Scotland would be leaving the EU and would have to reapply for membership. Even without the knowledge that the majority of people in Scotland are Remainers, the UK leaving the EU is a major change in the political landscape and it justifies another "once in a generation" vote.

If Brexit occurs, I think the only way to stop a Scottish vote for independence is to not allow them a referendum. That would be rank hypocrisy, of course.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:49 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2015-19, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.