On 20/04/2017 08:22, Broadback wrote:
It has hardly been declared, already I am bored with it, the "pundits"
telling us, over and over, what is going to happen. In fact I was bored
with it an hour after I heard.

Surely I am not alone?


Not at all.


It's all ********.





--
Adam

On 20/04/2017 20:39, Rod Speed wrote:
Broadback wrote

It has hardly been declared, already I am bored with it, the "pundits"
telling us, over and over, what is going to happen. In fact I was
bored with it an hour after I heard. Surely I am not alone?

You could always set fire to yourself outside the houses of parliament
to liven things up a bit.



Has that not been done before?

--
Adam

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Roger Hayter
wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 20/04/17 08:22, Broadback wrote:
It has hardly been declared, already I am bored with it, the
"pundits"
telling us, over and over, what is going to happen. In fact I was
bored
with it an hour after I heard. Surely I am not alone?
It will give whoever put May into power a virtual dictator power.

Especially as local short-lists will be supplined by central
government.

Its a totalitarian takeover by the tories, UKIP smashed by tory moles,
liberal democrats smashed bu Cleggless' ambition.. Labour smashed by
hard left lunacy, and you will elect only candidates chosen by The
Party.

I would be surprised now if Brexit will ever be achieved.

Democracy in Britain is probably dead.

Wanting a degree of social cohesion and fairness along the lines of
Sweden, for instance, isn't "hard left". I find it most amusing that
everyone including the BBC is telling me I can't vote for Corbyn because
he is Not Appropriate and people of importance (Keith Vaz do they
mean?) won't accept him becoming Prime Minister.

I've not heard anyone saying that about Corbyn. His problem is that, as
a leader, he is useless. All he knows how to do is hold up a mike and
harangue a crowd. As a PM, he'd be a disaster, and that means there is
no credible opposition (hasn't been since he got in) and no credible
alternative government.

You have no basis whatever for saying that. It is indeed hard to lead a
a socialist party whose MPs are 90% Blairite opportunists, but do you
really have any evidence apart from the popular press that he could not
lead a party of like-minded people?

Trouble is that there is no party of like minded people for him to lead.

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
Tim Streater wrote:

snip
And yes to the egregious
EU Arrest Warrant.

Mrs May fully intends to keep the European
Arrest Warrant when we leave the EU,

You don’t know that.

it is one of the coded messages in her letter.

Fantasy.

Helps to keep us all under control, doesn't it?

Even sillier than you usually manage.

Tim Streater wrote:


I thought I might summon the energy to point out the dishonesty of
calling multiple referenda to achieve the EU loyalist result one wants
an "EU trick". It is, of course, the trick of various sovereign
governments of independent EU states which themselves (said governments)
wish to achieve a pro-EU answer. In other words, cynical trick it might
be but the EU is *not* responsible for it; except to the extent of
it being a highly undesirable organisation to belong to.

There - fixed that for you.

Of course the second referenda in question were organised by the
sovereign govts. But there was EU pressure to do so. After the Irish
rejected Lisbon the first time, EU officials were heard to say that the
EU project "can't be held up by a little country".

Indeed. The Irish then had the same choice as all of us. Get the
treaty approved or leave the EU. But they had that free, sovereign
choice.

--

Roger Hayter

Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Roger Hayter
wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:

snip
And yes to the egregious
EU Arrest Warrant.

Mrs May fully intends to keep the European Arrest Warrant when we leave
the EU, it is one of the coded messages in her letter. Helps to keep us
all under control, doesn't it?

We need to be rid of it.

Yes, and the one-sided extradition treaty with the US. But we won't by
voting Tory or UKIP or LIb Dem. I haven't asked the other parties.


--

Roger Hayter

ARW wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Broadback wrote

It has hardly been declared, already I am bored with it, the "pundits"
telling us, over and over, what is going to happen. In fact I was
bored with it an hour after I heard. Surely I am not alone?

You could always set fire to yourself outside the
houses of parliament to liven things up a bit.

Has that not been done before?

Sure, but it obviously needs to be done again now
that everyone is howling about how boring it all is.

He's unlikely to be able to manage to kill Tezza or Jezza
but probably could manage to set fire to himself.

On 20/04/17 19:27, Roger Hayter wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Roger Hayter
wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 20/04/17 08:22, Broadback wrote:
It has hardly been declared, already I am bored with it, the "pundits"
telling us, over and over, what is going to happen. In fact I was bored
with it an hour after I heard. Surely I am not alone?
It will give whoever put May into power a virtual dictator power.

Especially as local short-lists will be supplined by central government.

Its a totalitarian takeover by the tories, UKIP smashed by tory moles,
liberal democrats smashed bu Cleggless' ambition.. Labour smashed by
hard left lunacy, and you will elect only candidates chosen by The Party.

I would be surprised now if Brexit will ever be achieved.

Democracy in Britain is probably dead.

Wanting a degree of social cohesion and fairness along the lines of
Sweden, for instance, isn't "hard left". I find it most amusing that
everyone including the BBC is telling me I can't vote for Corbyn because
he is Not Appropriate and people of importance (Keith Vaz do they
mean?) won't accept him becoming Prime Minister.

I've not heard anyone saying that about Corbyn. His problem is that, as
a leader, he is useless. All he knows how to do is hold up a mike and
harangue a crowd. As a PM, he'd be a disaster, and that means there is
no credible opposition (hasn't been since he got in) and no credible
alternative government.

You have no basis whatever for saying that. It is indeed hard to lead a
a socialist party whose MPs are 90% Blairite opportunists, but do you
really have any evidence apart from the popular press that he could not
lead a party of like-minded people?

Corbyn is like the pied piper oh Hamlyn really./


--
"Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social
conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the
windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.) "

Alan Sokal

Tim Streater presented the following explanation :
In article , Roger Hayter
wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Roger Hayter
wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:

snip
And yes to the egregious
EU Arrest Warrant.

Mrs May fully intends to keep the European Arrest Warrant when we leave
the EU, it is one of the coded messages in her letter. Helps to keep us
all under control, doesn't it?

We need to be rid of it.

Yes, and the one-sided extradition treaty with the US.

+1

+ 1 more

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
So why wasn't there a third referendum then? or fourth? Or fifth?
Either you believe that you have a referendum and abide by the result
or don't bother.

Sigh. That referendum was *not* the will of the people. To be certain it
was, it would need a majority of those eligible to vote. It's rather
typical of weasel politicians. Require just a simple majority on something
as important as this - but require a 2/3rds majority in parliament to
change a fixed term parliament. When MPs are employed, and that vote is in
their work place.

And of course a simple binary choice was nonsense. Especially since even
those in power who wanted out can't agree on what terms are acceptable.

And only a complete idiot thinks this country can do well without a trade
and services agreement with the EU.

--
*Preserve wildlife - Go pickle a squirrel*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 21/04/2017 10:09, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Roger Hayter
wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:


I thought I might summon the energy to point out the dishonesty of
calling multiple referenda to achieve the EU loyalist result one wants
an "EU trick". It is, of course, the trick of various sovereign
governments of independent EU states which themselves (said
governments)
wish to achieve a pro-EU answer. In other words, cynical trick it
might
be but the EU is *not* responsible for it; except to the extent of
it being a highly undesirable organisation to belong to.

There - fixed that for you.

Of course the second referenda in question were organised by the
sovereign govts. But there was EU pressure to do so. After the Irish
rejected Lisbon the first time, EU officials were heard to say that the
EU project "can't be held up by a little country".

Indeed. The Irish then had the same choice as all of us. Get the
treaty approved or leave the EU. But they had that free, sovereign
choice.

So why wasn't there a third referendum then? or fourth? Or fifth?
Either you believe that you have a referendum and abide by the result
or don't bother.

The Irish had a referendum. There was a result. That should have been
the end of the matter.


We had a general election in ~1927 why have we had one since?

You are like UKIP/SNP keep going until you get the result you want and
then its fixed but not before.

Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Roger Hayter
wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:


I thought I might summon the energy to point out the dishonesty of
calling multiple referenda to achieve the EU loyalist result one wants
an "EU trick". It is, of course, the trick of various sovereign
governments of independent EU states which themselves (said governments)
wish to achieve a pro-EU answer. In other words, cynical trick it might
be but the EU is *not* responsible for it; except to the extent of
it being a highly undesirable organisation to belong to.

There - fixed that for you.

Of course the second referenda in question were organised by the
sovereign govts. But there was EU pressure to do so. After the Irish
rejected Lisbon the first time, EU officials were heard to say that the
EU project "can't be held up by a little country".

Indeed. The Irish then had the same choice as all of us. Get the
treaty approved or leave the EU. But they had that free, sovereign
choice.

So why wasn't there a third referendum then? or fourth? Or fifth?
Either you believe that you have a referendum and abide by the result
or don't bother.

The Irish had a referendum. There was a result. That should have been
the end of the matter.

Why? I can see why the winners of the first one would prefer that but
I can't see any logical or democratic reason why it shouldn't be
repeated if a government feels that an ill-advised decision has been
made. Neither in theory nor in practice is there a reason why a single
referendum should be sacrosanct any more than a single general election
(which can be repeated immediately if a majority of MPs feel that the
results are not conducive to stable government).

FWIW I agree it would be wrong to repeat *our* Brexit referendum, unless
there is a major change in world circumstances, because the views on
both sides are so entrenched and another close result would lead to
severe dissatisfaction whoever won, but other referenda in other
countries which were more about detailed negotiating points might have
been more amenable to reasonable discussion and changing of minds.

I don't accept there is any a priori reason why repeated referenda are
always undemocratic.





--

Roger Hayter

On 21/04/17 11:04, Roger Hayter wrote:
FWIW I agree it would be wrong to repeat *our* Brexit referendum, unless
there is a major change in world circumstances, because the views on
both sides are so entrenched and another close result would lead to
severe dissatisfaction whoever won,

I think the picture is that there is a minority on both sides who are
entrenched, and a huge number or 'might change their minds if' people in
the middle. All the polls show that the floating voters are floatig
slowly to the brexit side, as the sky has failed to fall and May is
universally upbeat about the positive opportunities even as the BBC and
the Guardian continue to feature Remoaners, and limp dims, as if
either still have any relevance.

I suspect what could happen is May cuts a crap deal which amounts to
staying in in all but name, and we then get a referendum between staying
in in all but name, and staying in.

For me the only key point is that whatever deal is struck UK parliament
retains sovereignty and the power to change any part of that deal if it
doesn't like it.


--
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on
its shoes.

On 21/04/2017 11:04, Roger Hayter wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Roger Hayter
wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:


I thought I might summon the energy to point out the dishonesty of
calling multiple referenda to achieve the EU loyalist result one wants
an "EU trick". It is, of course, the trick of various sovereign
governments of independent EU states which themselves (said governments)
wish to achieve a pro-EU answer. In other words, cynical trick it might
be but the EU is *not* responsible for it; except to the extent of
it being a highly undesirable organisation to belong to.

There - fixed that for you.

Of course the second referenda in question were organised by the
sovereign govts. But there was EU pressure to do so. After the Irish
rejected Lisbon the first time, EU officials were heard to say that the
EU project "can't be held up by a little country".

Indeed. The Irish then had the same choice as all of us. Get the
treaty approved or leave the EU. But they had that free, sovereign
choice.

So why wasn't there a third referendum then? or fourth? Or fifth?
Either you believe that you have a referendum and abide by the result
or don't bother.

The Irish had a referendum. There was a result. That should have been
the end of the matter.

Why? I can see why the winners of the first one would prefer that but
I can't see any logical or democratic reason why it shouldn't be
repeated if a government feels that an ill-advised decision has been
made. Neither in theory nor in practice is there a reason why a single
referendum should be sacrosanct any more than a single general election
(which can be repeated immediately if a majority of MPs feel that the
results are not conducive to stable government).

FWIW I agree it would be wrong to repeat *our* Brexit referendum, unless
there is a major change in world circumstances, because the views on
both sides are so entrenched and another close result would lead to
severe dissatisfaction whoever won, but other referenda in other
countries which were more about detailed negotiating points might have
been more amenable to reasonable discussion and changing of minds.

That's why a second referendum should be done, to make sure that the
majority really did want out and that it wasn't just a protest by the
people who thought that leave would never win.

You will be amazed by how many have changed their minds either way.

And it is a somewhat important matter.

On 21/04/2017 11:29, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 21/04/17 11:04, Roger Hayter wrote:
FWIW I agree it would be wrong to repeat *our* Brexit referendum, unless
there is a major change in world circumstances, because the views on
both sides are so entrenched and another close result would lead to
severe dissatisfaction whoever won,

I think the picture is that there is a minority on both sides who are
entrenched, and a huge number or 'might change their minds if' people in
the middle. All the polls show that the floating voters are floatig
slowly to the brexit side, as the sky has failed to fall and May is
universally upbeat about the positive opportunities even as the BBC and
the Guardian continue to feature Remoaners, and limp dims, as if
either still have any relevance.

I suspect what could happen is May cuts a crap deal which amounts to
staying in in all but name, and we then get a referendum between staying
in in all but name, and staying in.

For me the only key point is that whatever deal is struck UK parliament
retains sovereignty and the power to change any part of that deal if it
doesn't like it.



Like it already had before brexit you mean!

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
So why wasn't there a third referendum then? or fourth? Or fifth?
Either you believe that you have a referendum and abide by the result
or don't bother.

Sigh. That referendum was *not* the will of the people. To be certain it
was, it would need a majority of those eligible to vote.

Everyone eligible had the opportunity to vote.

You have absolutely no way of being sure of that.


Their fault if they
choose not to exercise it.

You'd likely be saying something very different if the referendum had gone
the other way. Farage did.

And only a complete idiot thinks this country can do well without a
trade and services agreement with the EU.

Most of the world manages it. There's nothing magic about having such
an agreement.

Most of the world hasn't just left a long standing partnership.

I see the meeja are doing scare stories about how lots of food imports
might have massive tariffs if we end up with WTO. These clowns overlook
that such tariffs would be imposed by *us*, and we don't *have* to
impose them.

You're one of those who thinks the money needed to run a country grows on
trees, then? And you can be pretty certain all those Tories in rural areas
will seek to protect their local agriculture.

--
*To err is human. To forgive is against company policy.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Why? I can see why the winners of the first one would prefer that but
I can't see any logical or democratic reason why it shouldn't be
repeated if a government feels that an ill-advised decision has been
made.

The government has no business having a view (or pressing it, at any
rate). And it's not up to them to pronounce that the people have made
"an ill-advised decision".

You need a better understanding of who serves whom.

Ah. Now I'm beginning to understand you. Remind us of which planet you
grew up on?

--
*I used to have an open mind but my brains kept falling out *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Roger Hayter wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Roger Hayter
wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:


I thought I might summon the energy to point out the dishonesty of
calling multiple referenda to achieve the EU loyalist result one wants
an "EU trick". It is, of course, the trick of various sovereign
governments of independent EU states which themselves (said governments)
wish to achieve a pro-EU answer. In other words, cynical trick it might
be but the EU is *not* responsible for it; except to the extent of
it being a highly undesirable organisation to belong to.

There - fixed that for you.

Of course the second referenda in question were organised by the
sovereign govts. But there was EU pressure to do so. After the Irish
rejected Lisbon the first time, EU officials were heard to say that the
EU project "can't be held up by a little country".

Indeed. The Irish then had the same choice as all of us. Get the
treaty approved or leave the EU. But they had that free, sovereign
choice.

So why wasn't there a third referendum then? or fourth? Or fifth?
Either you believe that you have a referendum and abide by the result
or don't bother.

The Irish had a referendum. There was a result. That should have been
the end of the matter.

Why? I can see why the winners of the first one would prefer that but
I can't see any logical or democratic reason why it shouldn't be
repeated if a government feels that an ill-advised decision has been
made. Neither in theory nor in practice is there a reason why a single
referendum should be sacrosanct any more than a single general election
(which can be repeated immediately if a majority of MPs feel that the
results are not conducive to stable government).

FWIW I agree it would be wrong to repeat *our* Brexit referendum, unless
there is a major change in world circumstances, because the views on
both sides are so entrenched and another close result would lead to
severe dissatisfaction whoever won, but other referenda in other
countries which were more about detailed negotiating points might have
been more amenable to reasonable discussion and changing of minds.

I don't accept there is any a priori reason why repeated referenda are
always undemocratic.






Just wait for the next one in 2060!

In article , Roger Hayter
writes
Tim Streater wrote:


I thought I might summon the energy to point out the dishonesty of
calling multiple referenda to achieve the EU loyalist result one wants
an "EU trick". It is, of course, the trick of various sovereign
governments of independent EU states which themselves (said governments)
wish to achieve a pro-EU answer. In other words, cynical trick it might
be but the EU is *not* responsible for it; except to the extent of
it being a highly undesirable organisation to belong to.

There - fixed that for you.

Of course the second referenda in question were organised by the
sovereign govts. But there was EU pressure to do so. After the Irish
rejected Lisbon the first time, EU officials were heard to say that the
EU project "can't be held up by a little country".

Indeed. The Irish then had the same choice as all of us. Get the
treaty approved or leave the EU.
...and don't get a bail out.
But they had that free, sovereign
choice.


--
bert

On 21/04/17 12:58, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
So why wasn't there a third referendum then? or fourth? Or fifth?
Either you believe that you have a referendum and abide by the result
or don't bother.

Sigh. That referendum was *not* the will of the people. To be
certain it
was, it would need a majority of those eligible to vote.

Everyone eligible had the opportunity to vote.

You have absolutely no way of being sure of that.
Their fault if they
choose not to exercise it.

You'd likely be saying something very different if the referendum had
gone
the other way. Farage did.

Oy. **** off with that. I've already said I'd expected Remain to win
60:40, and that if they did, what would be the point in arguing about
it. And give over conflating me with St Nige, OK?

And only a complete idiot thinks this country can do well without a
trade and services agreement with the EU.

Most of the world manages it. There's nothing magic about having such
an agreement.

Most of the world hasn't just left a long standing partnership.

So what.

I see the meeja are doing scare stories about how lots of food imports
might have massive tariffs if we end up with WTO. These clowns overlook
that such tariffs would be imposed by *us*, and we don't *have* to
impose them.

You're one of those who thinks the money needed to run a country grows on
trees, then? And you can be pretty certain all those Tories in rural
areas
will seek to protect their local agriculture.

The rural areas are already competing with imports. And I don't know of
any farmers who are producing French wine, italian cheese, etc etc, all
of which avoid tariffs at the moment and which the meeja was saying
would suddenly have large tariffs on them.

Meanwhile NZ lamb and Aussie wines, which have substantial tariffs on
them now, could be made cheaper if *we* chose to make them so -
something we can't do at the minute since these are subject to the EU
external tariff.

Bring it on. Oz and NZ wines as good as their lamb.

Maybe we van get IXL jam again too.


--
The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all
private property.

Karl Marx

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Most of the world manages it. There's nothing magic about having such
an agreement.

Most of the world hasn't just left a long standing partnership.

So what.

Jesus H Christ. Most developed countries - ie those large enough to be a
worthwhile trading partner to us after we leave the EU - are already in
agreements with other countries. Those agreements can make it very
difficult for the likes of us to muscle in. In exactly the same way as the
US etc can't reach an agreement with the EU.

Perhaps you've not noticed the distinct lack of countries indicating their
desire to form a trade etc agreement with the UK after we've finally left
the EU and are free to enter one?

But carry on believing in your fantasies.

--
*With her marriage she got a new name and a dress.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
You're one of those who thinks the money needed to run a country grows
on trees, then? And you can be pretty certain all those Tories in rural
areas will seek to protect their local agriculture.

The rural areas are already competing with imports. And I don't know of
any farmers who are producing French wine, italian cheese, etc etc, all
of which avoid tariffs at the moment and which the meeja was saying
would suddenly have large tariffs on them.

Are those what you consider 'food'? French wine part of your basic
sustenance? Italian cheese the only type you'll eat?

Meanwhile NZ lamb and Aussie wines, which have substantial tariffs on
them now, could be made cheaper if *we* chose to make them so -
something we can't do at the minute since these are subject to the EU
external tariff.

You seem to have moved the goalposts to lamb now. Something you obviously
think not produced in the UK.

But yet again you've totally missed the bigger picture. Of course we can
import anything we want from anywhere, tarrif free, after leaving the EU.
But to earn the money to do so means exporting things, goods or services.
And the quid pro quo would be the country we import from tarrif free
taking (some of) our exports tarrif free too. It would be good to hear
about all those killer products made in the UK that other countries can't
wait to get their hands on.

--
*Of course I'm against sin; I'm against anything that I'm too old to enjoy.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 22:56:20 +0100, bert wrote:

In article , Bob Eager
writes
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 19:28:00 +0100, Roger Hayter wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:

snip
And yes to the egregious EU Arrest Warrant.

Mrs May fully intends to keep the European Arrest Warrant when we
leave the EU, it is one of the coded messages in her letter. Helps to
keep us all under control, doesn't it?

I'm waiting for her to label those who campaign for Labour/LibDem
'terrorists'. And then round them up.

And the Greens. Don't forget the Greens.

I try to.

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 21/04/17 14:06, Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 22:56:20 +0100, bert wrote:

In article , Bob Eager
writes
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 19:28:00 +0100, Roger Hayter wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:

snip
And yes to the egregious EU Arrest Warrant.

Mrs May fully intends to keep the European Arrest Warrant when we
leave the EU, it is one of the coded messages in her letter. Helps to
keep us all under control, doesn't it?

I'm waiting for her to label those who campaign for Labour/LibDem
'terrorists'. And then round them up.

And the Greens. Don't forget the Greens.

I try to.

Who are the Greens?


--
Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its proper
name. They must face the full meaning of that which they are advocating
or condoning; the full, exact, specific meaning of collectivism, of its
logical implications, of the principles upon which it is based, and of
the ultimate consequences to which these principles will lead. They must
face it, then decide whether this is what they want or not.

Ayn Rand.

On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 17:47:10 +0100, alan_m wrote:

Why do we need to vote? The political 'experts' already know the
result.

Because we elect MPs. Not like a presidential election, although
Theresa increasingly believes she is one.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Most of the world manages it. There's nothing magic about having such
an agreement.

Most of the world hasn't just left a long standing partnership.

So what.

Jesus H Christ. Most developed countries - ie those large enough to be a
worthwhile trading partner to us after we leave the EU - are already in
agreements with other countries.

But not with the EU.

Thanks for confirming you simply don't understand the implications of
leaving the EU to our economy. Sincerely hope getting back 'sovereignty'
pays the bills. Perhaps someone would explain just how.

--
*If horrific means to make horrible, does terrific mean to make terrible?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 21/04/2017 13:27, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
You're one of those who thinks the money needed to run a country grows
on trees, then? And you can be pretty certain all those Tories in rural
areas will seek to protect their local agriculture.

The rural areas are already competing with imports. And I don't know of
any farmers who are producing French wine, italian cheese, etc etc, all
of which avoid tariffs at the moment and which the meeja was saying
would suddenly have large tariffs on them.

Are those what you consider 'food'? French wine part of your basic
sustenance? Italian cheese the only type you'll eat?

Meanwhile NZ lamb and Aussie wines, which have substantial tariffs on
them now, could be made cheaper if *we* chose to make them so -
something we can't do at the minute since these are subject to the EU
external tariff.

You seem to have moved the goalposts to lamb now. Something you obviously
think not produced in the UK.

But yet again you've totally missed the bigger picture. Of course we can
import anything we want from anywhere, tarrif free, after leaving the EU.
But to earn the money to do so means exporting things, goods or services.
And the quid pro quo would be the country we import from tarrif free
taking (some of) our exports tarrif free too. It would be good to hear
about all those killer products made in the UK that other countries can't
wait to get their hands on.


Especially the ones the EU stops us from selling. LOL.

On 20/04/17 08:22, Broadback wrote:
It has hardly been declared, already I am bored with it, the "pundits"
telling us, over and over, what is going to happen. In fact I was bored
with it an hour after I heard. Surely I am not alone?

I'm not a betting man, but I just got onto Betfair and put a few quid on
various outcomes relating to how few seats labour will get.

On 21/04/17 22:37, Tim Watts wrote:
On 20/04/17 08:22, Broadback wrote:
It has hardly been declared, already I am bored with it, the "pundits"
telling us, over and over, what is going to happen. In fact I was bored
with it an hour after I heard. Surely I am not alone?

I'm not a betting man, but I just got onto Betfair and put a few quid on
various outcomes relating to how few seats labour will get.
The trouble with that is iobe is tempted to be unrealistically mean to
Corbyn.

Betting should IMHO only be done on things whose outcome is of purely
academic interest, like who will wind the Boat race. I mean, who gives a
****? Even though I went to one of the universities.

--
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for
the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the
truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Joseph Goebbels

Roger Hayter posted
Tim Streater wrote:
The Irish had a referendum. There was a result. That should have been
the end of the matter.

Why? I can see why the winners of the first one would prefer that but
I can't see any logical or democratic reason why it shouldn't be
repeated if a government feels that an ill-advised decision has been
made.

If a second referendum is permitted, then some members of the political
elite have to take the decision as to whether it is going to happen, and
that decision will be influenced by those person's political views. This
defeats the object of the referendum, which is to guide policy by the
people's political views, not those of an elite.

If the establishment is going to disallow referendum outcomes with which
they disagree there is no point in having a referendum at all.

I can't understand how this isn't completely obvious to anyone.

--
Jack

On 22/04/17 06:31, Handsome Jack wrote:
If the establishment is going to disallow referendum outcomes with which
they disagree there is no point in having a referendum at all.


Oh, they are like show trials and te European parliament. They give an
impression of democracy.

The point about the referendum was to engage huge amounts of money in
negative PR and get all the media on board to create a massive scare
story so we would vote to stay, thus seeing off UKIP and the
Eurosceptics until it was too late.

It backfired massively.

I can't understand how this isn't completely obvious to anyone.

Your confusion arises from the mis-perception that democracy is, in te
eyes of the establishment, anything more than an expensive nuisance - a
sort of national theatre show - that engages the consciousness of the
chattering classes and the Pee-Pull in an irrelevant demonstration of
emotional outpourings, while the actual decisions are quietly taken
elsewhere and if they imply legislation, its slid through on the QT.

I will always think that despite his orders, Cameron, and maybe some
others, deliberately cocked this one up, as a last act of rebellion
against the puppet masters who had put him there.

You only have to look how the internal party processes were manipulated
to erect Corbyn, May and Paul Nuttall*, to see how politics really
works. They are no ones first choices at all, except the few behind te
scenes who control the party apparatus.

And who controls them?

But I digress. This referendum was never supposed to go this way, hence
'it was all a huge mistake' etc. etc. And that meme is being pushed
through channels and eventually becomes the war cry of the lefty****s
here, who actually think, they thought of it themselves. That's how
well controlled they are.

*and some other party whose name and 'leader' escapes me..hopefully
permanently.

--
All political activity makes complete sense once the proposition that
all government is basically a self-legalising protection racket, is
fully understood.

On 22/04/2017 06:31, Handsome Jack wrote:
Roger Hayter posted
Tim Streater wrote:
The Irish had a referendum. There was a result. That should have been
the end of the matter.

Why? I can see why the winners of the first one would prefer that but
I can't see any logical or democratic reason why it shouldn't be
repeated if a government feels that an ill-advised decision has been
made.

If a second referendum is permitted, then some members of the political
elite have to take the decision as to whether it is going to happen, and
that decision will be influenced by those person's political views. This
defeats the object of the referendum, which is to guide policy by the
people's political views, not those of an elite.

If the establishment is going to disallow referendum outcomes with which
they disagree there is no point in having a referendum at all.

I can't understand how this isn't completely obvious to anyone.


You have a referendum where the outcome is split near 50/50 where lies
were told by both parties and where it was expected that one side would
win whatever happened so its completely obvious that a lot of the votes
would be cast as protest votes by people that didn't actually expect
them to count just as is done in by-elections.

In article ,
Handsome Jack wrote:
If a second referendum is permitted, then some members of the political
elite have to take the decision as to whether it is going to happen, and
that decision will be influenced by those person's political views. This
defeats the object of the referendum, which is to guide policy by the
people's political views, not those of an elite.

If the establishment is going to disallow referendum outcomes with which
they disagree there is no point in having a referendum at all.

I can't understand how this isn't completely obvious to anyone.

Because the referendum didn't have a majority of those eligible to vote.
Just a rather small majority of those who did.

You don't get the choice of paying a council tax bill etc. So why is
something so important as this voluntary?

--
*Do they ever shut up on your planet?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
You have a referendum where the outcome is split near 50/50 where lies
were told by both parties and where it was expected that one side would
win whatever happened so its completely obvious that a lot of the votes
would be cast as protest votes by people that didn't actually expect
them to count just as is done in by-elections.

If lies are told by both parties what are you complaining about.

Depends how powerful those lies were. And over what period they were told
- so some come to believe they are true.

For example, the lie told by Farage about there being millions of Turks
about to come to the UK has rather more influence than mentioning an
emergency budget after a vote to leave. And so on.

The vast majority of the popular press just loved any stories that showed
the EU in a poor light. True or false didn't matter. And unlike such
things about UK politics, the EU wasn't really in any position to refute
them.


And
you are talking cock about what is obvious and what is not.

--
*Honk if you love peace and quiet.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 22/04/2017 11:38, Tim Streater wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:

On 22/04/2017 06:31, Handsome Jack wrote:
Roger Hayter posted
Tim Streater wrote:
The Irish had a referendum. There was a result. That should have been
the end of the matter.

Why? I can see why the winners of the first one would prefer that but
I can't see any logical or democratic reason why it shouldn't be
repeated if a government feels that an ill-advised decision has been
made.

If a second referendum is permitted, then some members of the
political elite have to take the decision as to whether it is going
to happen, and that decision will be influenced by those person's
political views. This defeats the object of the referendum, which is
to guide policy by the people's political views, not those of an elite.

If the establishment is going to disallow referendum outcomes with
which they disagree there is no point in having a referendum at all.

I can't understand how this isn't completely obvious to anyone.


You have a referendum where the outcome is split near 50/50 where lies
were told by both parties and where it was expected that one side
would win whatever happened so its completely obvious that a lot of
the votes would be cast as protest votes by people that didn't
actually expect them to count just as is done in by-elections.

If lies are told by both parties what are you complaining about. And
you are talking cock about what is obvious and what is not.


What is obvious to an intelligent person may not be obvious to you.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Handsome Jack wrote:
If a second referendum is permitted, then some members of the
political elite have to take the decision as to whether it is going
to happen, and that decision will be influenced by those person's
political views. This defeats the object of the referendum, which is
to guide policy by the people's political views, not those of an
elite.

If the establishment is going to disallow referendum outcomes with
which they disagree there is no point in having a referendum at all.

I can't understand how this isn't completely obvious to anyone.

Because the referendum didn't have a majority of those eligible to vote.
Just a rather small majority of those who did.

In which other UK elections is this taken into account? People knew
what the rules were.

Which other UK election is as important as this one?

Parliament saw fit to impose a greater than simple majority rule on a vote
to change the fixed term parliament. Saw fit to vote on how union strike
ballots etc are conducted. Now either a simple majority of those who can
be bothered to vote is jut fine for everything - or it's not.

--
*Why isn't 11 pronounced onety one? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
For example, the lie told by Farage about there being millions of Turks
about to come to the UK has rather more influence than mentioning an
emergency budget after a vote to leave. And so on.

There you go obsessing about Our Nige. Again.

Are you really so naive as to think he didn't have a big influence of the
outcome? He was UKIP. As seen by them falling apart without him.

--
*Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
The vast majority of the popular press just loved any stories that
showed the EU in a poor light. True or false didn't matter. And unlike
such things about UK politics, the EU wasn't really in any position to
refute them.

Plenty of people in the UK who *could* *have*, if they'd been of a mind
to.

Just how? Set up their own newspaper in competition with all the popular
anti EU press?

Plenty of Remainer MEPs. And nothing to stop the meeja inviting EU
people to comment.

Why would the Mail or Express invite an 'EU person' to comment on their
lies?

And then there was £9M of our dosh spent on Gumment
Remain propaganda.

The anti EU press had been telling their lies for years. Not something
that can be discredited overnight.

--
*I didn't drive my husband crazy -- I flew him there -- it was faster

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 22/04/17 12:39, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
You have a referendum where the outcome is split near 50/50 where
lies were told by both parties and where it was expected that one
side would win whatever happened so its completely obvious that a
lot of the votes would be cast as protest votes by people that
didn't actually expect them to count just as is done in by-elections.

If lies are told by both parties what are you complaining about.

Depends how powerful those lies were. And over what period they were told
- so some come to believe they are true.

For example, the lie told by Farage about there being millions of Turks
about to come to the UK has rather more influence than mentioning an
emergency budget after a vote to leave. And so on.

There you go obsessing about Our Nige. Again.

The vast majority of the popular press just loved any stories that showed
the EU in a poor light. True or false didn't matter. And unlike such
things about UK politics, the EU wasn't really in any position to refute
them.

Plenty of people in the UK who *could* *have*, if they'd been of a mind
to. Plenty of Remainer MEPs. And nothing to stop the meeja inviting EU
people to comment. And then there was £9M of our dosh spent on Gumment
Remain propaganda.

The pronblem with the EU, is thast stripped down to the bare minimum,
you have to ask the question 'what can the EU do that 27 countries
acting together could not, at far less cost?'

And the answer is of course a deafening silence, apart from a small wee
voice saying' well a customs union, like er., doing one deal with
another country instead of 27'

But even that is utter crap, because in te time it takes to do one deal,
as many of thr 27 countries as gave a **** could have struck independent
deals.

The fact is the EU is a ponderous incompetent monolithic elephant, and
only exists because it got big enough to throw its weight around., Its a
ghastly way to run Europe, and now it obvious to all and sundry that it
its so.

any or all of the EU nations can agree quickly on anything that is to
everyone's advantage like e.g., a common standard for TV transmission or
electrical voltages, or sharing police and security information. Or even
respecting each others driving licenses and public health schemes.. The
fact is the EU was there to make thoroughly UNpopular decisions that
would NEVER have been agreed upon ... mandatory.


In other words, if its good to cooperate, nothing post brexit stops us.
If its bad, we now don't have to.



--
"I guess a rattlesnake ain't risponsible fer bein' a rattlesnake, but ah
puts mah heel on um jess the same if'n I catches him around mah chillun".

On 22/04/2017 14:08, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 22/04/17 12:39, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
You have a referendum where the outcome is split near 50/50 where
lies were told by both parties and where it was expected that one
side would win whatever happened so its completely obvious that a
lot of the votes would be cast as protest votes by people that
didn't actually expect them to count just as is done in by-elections.

If lies are told by both parties what are you complaining about.

Depends how powerful those lies were. And over what period they were
told
- so some come to believe they are true.

For example, the lie told by Farage about there being millions of Turks
about to come to the UK has rather more influence than mentioning an
emergency budget after a vote to leave. And so on.

There you go obsessing about Our Nige. Again.

The vast majority of the popular press just loved any stories that
showed
the EU in a poor light. True or false didn't matter. And unlike such
things about UK politics, the EU wasn't really in any position to refute
them.

Plenty of people in the UK who *could* *have*, if they'd been of a mind
to. Plenty of Remainer MEPs. And nothing to stop the meeja inviting EU
people to comment. And then there was £9M of our dosh spent on Gumment
Remain propaganda.

The pronblem with the EU, is thast stripped down to the bare minimum,
you have to ask the question 'what can the EU do that 27 countries
acting together could not, at far less cost?'


Bargaining power


--
Cheers, Rob