On 23/06/2014 12:58, Jethro_uk wrote:

8

I didn;t vote hoping no of the useless b'stards would get in, think I
failed there.

Politicians take the point of view that if you didn't vote, you're happy
with the status quo.


Sounds about right, if you can't even bother to spoil your postal vote
then you must be happy.

On 23/06/2014 15:23, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Today the majority of people WITH an opinion want to LEAVE the EU.


Which bit of the EU do they want to leave?


Also you don't actually know how many want to leave as there hasn't been
a vote. Your opinion is almost certainly biased as you probably don't
talk to anyone that wants to stay and they don't talk to you.

On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 18:40:44 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

TBH the sooner voting is made compulsilary the better.

I'd settle for basic spelling mistakes disbarring people from voting..

I knew it was wrong but the wanted variation of the word wan't in the
spulling chucker and ICBA'd to google it. Actually that spilling is
even further from the mark that I thought it was this morning. Still
CBA'd to look it up though.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 23/06/14 19:01, alan wrote:
On 22/06/2014 18:26, Jabba wrote:

But if Carlsberg did elections...


If they were so good at controlling England football matches, as the
advert suggest, why is England out of the world cup?


Beciuse they aren't in charge: instead it's a a corrupt organisation and
the game wins are sold to the highest bidder.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 19:52:52 +0100, Dave Liquorice wrote:

For "non of the above" there is the option to spoil the ballot.

60% spoiled ballots would send a far more potent message than 60%
no-show as the politicians can wish away the latter as "lazy" or "don't
really care".

+1

I don't think I've ever not voted and I have deliberately spoilt my
ballot once. It was just after we moved and found that the "rules" meant
our vote was where we had been, not where we were and couldn't be moved.
So we got postal votes and spoilt 'em.

IIRC every spoiled paper has to be shown to every candidate personally,
so that they can agree it's definitely spoilt.

So if you REALLY REALLY want "None of the above", it's not a bad option.

On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 21:04:55 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

If they were so good at controlling England football matches, as the
advert suggest, why is England out of the world cup?

Beciuse they aren't in charge: instead it's a a corrupt organisation and
the game wins are sold to the highest bidder.

Is there a single conspiracy theory that you don't buy into?

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 22/06/2014 18:48, ARW wrote:
"jake" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Jun 2014 18:04:05 +0100, "ARW"
wrote:

"Jabba" wrote in message
ldhosting.com...

You're all thick ****s

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...2/Ukip-voters-
feel-disconnected-because-they-cant-send-emails-Chuka-Umunna-says.html





My Mother cannot send an email, is a racist **** and as also is as
thick as
pig ****. But all is not lost has she has never bothered to vote.
Yes she managed to produce you! Amazing.

At least I voted - tactical voting so that UKIP would not win.:-)

Are you happy for the Polish and Bulgarians to take your jobs?

Have you not heard the new pressures from those countries to allow members
of equivalent professional bodies to work in this country?

If it wasn't for the language barrier I would go for the easier SEP
qualification. Lower fees as well.


That's what free markets are. Anything else belongs in communist countries.

--
Adam

Adrian scribbled...


On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 21:04:55 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

If they were so good at controlling England football matches, as the
advert suggest, why is England out of the world cup?

Beciuse they aren't in charge: instead it's a a corrupt organisation and
the game wins are sold to the highest bidder.

Is there a single conspiracy theory that you don't buy into?


He doesn't believe that the longer a Usenet nym is, the dafter the
poster.

In message , Adrian
writes
On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 16:24:08 +0100, Big Les Wade wrote:

No, we wanted to join a common market.

We joined exactly what we voted to join - a group of other European
nations who wanted freedom of movement, freedom of trade, freedom of
capital, freedom of goods between themselves.

Freedom of movement was not part of the deal then. That came later.

Freedom of movement was part of the EC/EEC/EU/
Whateverthehellyouwanttocallit from the very start. Before we joined.

At that time, it was called the European Community (not that there's
much in a name).

It was called the European Economic Community (EEC) and almost
invariably referred to in the British media as the Common Market.

Then, once we were in, we HELPED to turn it into what it is today. Along
with every other member, the UK could easily have vetoed any membership
application from any country. The UK could easily have vetoed any major
changes to it. The UK chose not to.

Like all state power advocates

...which I'm not...

you're confusing the government of a country with its people.

Not at all. I'm well aware that the government is the democratically
chosen proxy of the people.

*We*, the people, never made these choices

Yes, we did.

because we were never told explicitly what would be the outcome of
Maastricht 1992

Yet the population of the UK had voted overwhelmingly for a party with a
pro-European manifesto in 1987. That party then did what we'd given them
a mandate to do.

Overwhelmingly? Where are your figures to support that claim? A vote for
a manifesto in a general election is for the manifesto as a whole not
for the individual policies.
Government-by-referendum would be astonishingly expensive and dog-slow.
Still, since there's now a legal requirement for a referendum on any
major European treaties, I guess you'll be happier with any such treaties
agreed from now on?

Horse stable door closing bolted after has . Rearrange into a well known
phrase or saying.
Today the majority of people WITH an opinion want to LEAVE the EU.

Do they? Do you have any credible figures to support that?

I found the European parliament election results pretty persuasive.

Only 27% of those who turned out, less than 10% of the electorate as a
whole, voted for the one party arguing to leave the EU?

So how does that compare with your "overwhelming" above?
A party who actively DON'T want to give a referendum on EU membership to
the public. I wonder why that would be, if not a fear of it not going the
way they want it to? Some confidence in that "majority"...

--
bert

In message , Tim Streater
writes
In article , Adrian
wrote:

Government-by-referendum would be astonishingly expensive and
dog-slow.

If that were applied to all matters, yes. But as we know, all elections
are national ones, whether they are called local or European or not.
For something as important as giving away constitutional powers, then,
I assert that governments have no power to do that unless authorised -
and shouldn't have had since the war.

So shouldn't that also apply to giving away powers to Scotland and
Wales?
--
bert

In message , Adrian
writes
On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 17:12:47 +0100, Dave Liquorice wrote:

It's about time you learnt a no-vote doesn't count. Rightly so.

Someone counts em.

What is mean by "no-vote" in this context? A vote for the "no" option or
not bothering to vote at all?

Quite. BIG difference in a referendum. Of course, that's the only time
there is a "yes"/"no" vote...

If people chose not to vote, they also throw away their right to
complain if the result (immediate or long term) isn't to their liking.

*ding*

TBH the sooner voting is made compulsilary the better.

I'm less convinced about that. Abstention has a long and proud tradition
in any and every sphere of voting, and long may it remain. Not voting in
an election is just abstaining. Compulsory voting would require the
addition of a "positive abstention", though - a "None of the above"
option - and no reason not to introduce that without the compulsion.

I suspect there's times where "None of the above" might do very well
indeed - and I also suspect that it'd hit the "protest parties" hard.
On what basis do you judge a vote to be a "protest"? When it doesn't
suit your preconceptions?
--
bert

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 17:12:47 +0100, Dave Liquorice wrote:

It's about time you learnt a no-vote doesn't count. Rightly so.

Someone counts em.

What is mean by "no-vote" in this context? A vote for the "no" option or
not bothering to vote at all?

Quite. BIG difference in a referendum. Of course, that's the only time
there is a "yes"/"no" vote...

If people chose not to vote, they also throw away their right to
complain if the result (immediate or long term) isn't to their liking.

*ding*

TBH the sooner voting is made compulsilary the better.

I'm less convinced about that. Abstention has a long and proud tradition
in any and every sphere of voting, and long may it remain. Not voting in
an election is just abstaining. Compulsory voting would require the
addition of a "positive abstention", though - a "None of the above"
option

No, that is always available by just not bothering to tick any box
on the ballot paper etc.

- and no reason not to introduce that without the compulsion.

I suspect there's times where "None of the above" might do very well
indeed - and I also suspect that it'd hit the "protest parties" hard.

On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 17:12:47 +0100 (BST) Dave Liquorice wrote :
If people chose not to vote, they also throw away their right to
complain if the result (immediate or long term) isn't to their
liking. TBH the sooner voting is made compulsilary the better.

We have compulsory voting here (which actually translates to about
90% turnout). It sounds like a good idea but the reality IME is that
each party spends a disproportionate amount of time badmouthing the
other in the hope of gaining from doing so (put simply, if I can
persuade you not to vote for them, they'll have to vote for me)

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on',
Melbourne, Australia www.greentram.com

Tim Streater wrote
Dave Liquorice wrote

If people chose not to vote, they also throw away their right to
complain if the result (immediate or long term) isn't to their liking.

Agree.

TBH the sooner voting is made compulsilary the better.

Disagree. The size of the turnout is a powerful message
to politicians that they better find out why it is low.

Its normally low when the voters are not ****ed off about how things
have currently been done. No message involved what so ever.

It can at times be a message that all the politicians
are irrelevant to what is happening in the real world.

On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 08:56:30 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

Compulsory voting would require the addition of a "positive
abstention", though - a "None of the above" option

No, that is always available by just not bothering to tick any box
on the ballot paper etc.

No mark on a ballot paper is just asking for some one to mark it. OK
shouldn't happen but ...

There would have to be a "No Suitable Canditate" option.

SWMBO'd and myself where wondering if one could form a new political
party called "The No Suitable Candidate Party" and run candiates in a
few elections. Trouble is I have a feeling they would also have to be
prepared to take the seat. Unlike nearly all the other small parties
that pop out of the woodwork come election time.

--
Cheers
Dave.

En el artículo , ARW adamwadsworth@blueyond
er.co.uk escribió:

My Mother cannot send an email, is a racist **** and as also is as thick as
pig ****. But all is not lost has she has never bothered to vote.

I love you too Adam.

Mom xxx

En el artículo , Adrian
escribió:

Is there a single conspiracy theory that you don't buy into?

Ghana's just been fingered for match-fixing.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

On 23/06/2014 22:15, ARW wrote:
"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 22/06/2014 18:48, ARW wrote:
"jake" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Jun 2014 18:04:05 +0100, "ARW"
wrote:

"Jabba" wrote in message
ldhosting.com...

You're all thick ****s

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...2/Ukip-voters-
feel-disconnected-because-they-cant-send-emails-Chuka-Umunna-says.html






My Mother cannot send an email, is a racist **** and as also is as
thick as
pig ****. But all is not lost has she has never bothered to vote.
Yes she managed to produce you! Amazing.

At least I voted - tactical voting so that UKIP would not win.:-)

Are you happy for the Polish and Bulgarians to take your jobs?

Have you not heard the new pressures from those countries to allow
members of equivalent professional bodies to work in this country?

If it wasn't for the language barrier I would go for the easier SEP
qualification. Lower fees as well.


That's what free markets are. Anything else belongs in communist countries.

Many markets are rigged. Legal and accounting professions are two others.

So it seems you are happy to compete with others expecting half your
wage. Fair doos.

On 23/06/2014 20:02, Dennis@home wrote:
On 23/06/2014 15:23, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Today the majority of people WITH an opinion want to LEAVE the EU.


Which bit of the EU do they want to leave?


Also you don't actually know how many want to leave as there hasn't been
a vote. Your opinion is almost certainly biased as you probably don't
talk to anyone that wants to stay and they don't talk to you.


Erm, like him or not, Farage has actually got people talking to each
other about the in/out EU issue. Ukip has at the very least forced the
hand of politicians to listen to a sizeable proportion of the
electorate's dissension.

On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 17:47:27 +0000 (UTC), Adrian wrote:

On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 17:58:58 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:

Only 27%

That ^^ is the relevant figure.

For the purposes of choosing the elected representatives, yes.

of those who turned out, less than 10% of the electorate as a

This ^^ is irrelevant in a democracy that works as ours does.

Not for the purposes of making claims as to what swathe of society
support a particular party's view.

Abstaining is abstaining - those who abstain cannot be inferred to hold
one view or the other.

They can be inferred not to strongly support one view, though.

Or inferred to hold the view 'none of the above' - the polite version of
telling politicians that they're all corrupt, lying, scheming, conniving
evil filthy scum.
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 21:04:55 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 23/06/14 19:01, alan wrote:
On 22/06/2014 18:26, Jabba wrote:

But if Carlsberg did elections...


If they were so good at controlling England football matches, as the
advert suggest, why is England out of the world cup?


Beciuse they aren't in charge: instead it's a a corrupt organisation and
the game wins are sold to the highest bidder.

Getting a freebie is sometimes called blagging; getting a non-freebie in
football is blatting.
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

Dave Liquorice wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Compulsory voting would require the addition of a "positive
abstention", though - a "None of the above" option

No, that is always available by just not bothering
to tick any box on the ballot paper etc.

No mark on a ballot paper is just asking for some one to mark it.
OK shouldn't happen but ...

Trivially avoidable by ticking them all.

There would have to be a "No Suitable Canditate" option.

Nope, because you can just tick them all.

SWMBO'd and myself where wondering if one could form a new
political party called "The No Suitable Candidate Party" and run
candiates in a few elections.

We have had all of 'Warm Sun Ripened Tomato Party' and 'Party Party Party'
as well.

Trouble is I have a feeling they would
also have to be prepared to take the seat.

No, they are free make an obscene gesture in the
general direction of whoever runs the election.

Unlike nearly all the other small parties that
pop out of the woodwork come election time.

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 23/06/2014 20:02, Dennis@home wrote:
On 23/06/2014 15:23, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Today the majority of people WITH an opinion want to LEAVE the EU.


Which bit of the EU do they want to leave?


Also you don't actually know how many want to leave as there hasn't been
a vote. Your opinion is almost certainly biased as you probably don't
talk to anyone that wants to stay and they don't talk to you.

Erm, like him or not, Farage has actually got people talking to each other
about the in/out EU issue.

No he hasnt. He is actually the RESULT of a significant
number who have never thought it made any sense.

Ukip has at the very least forced the hand of politicians to listen to a
sizeable proportion of the electorate's dissension.

I dont buy that either.

On 24/06/2014 06:16, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 23/06/2014 20:02, Dennis@home wrote:
On 23/06/2014 15:23, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Today the majority of people WITH an opinion want to LEAVE the EU.


Which bit of the EU do they want to leave?


Also you don't actually know how many want to leave as there hasn't been
a vote. Your opinion is almost certainly biased as you probably don't
talk to anyone that wants to stay and they don't talk to you.

Erm, like him or not, Farage has actually got people talking to each
other about the in/out EU issue.

No he hasnt. He is actually the RESULT of a significant
number who have never thought it made any sense.

Ukip has at the very least forced the hand of politicians to listen to
a sizeable proportion of the electorate's dissension.

I dont buy that either.

Then you must have been living in a cave for the last few months,
because Farage and the in/out issue debate has been in the news
virtually daily. Farage has forced the hands of the Tories and Labour to
confront the obvious dissent from many voters regarding the dubious
value of staying in the EU.

On 23/06/14 23:57, Tony Bryer wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 17:12:47 +0100 (BST) Dave Liquorice wrote :
If people chose not to vote, they also throw away their right to
complain if the result (immediate or long term) isn't to their
liking. TBH the sooner voting is made compulsilary the better.

We have compulsory voting here (which actually translates to about
90% turnout). It sounds like a good idea but the reality IME is that
each party spends a disproportionate amount of time badmouthing the
other

That does not seem so different to the UK...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...New_Danger.gif

in the hope of gaining from doing so (put simply, if I can
persuade you not to vote for them, they'll have to vote for me)


You still have the option of spoiling the paper I assume ?

On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 03:54:43 +0100, Fredxxx wrote:

Have you not heard the new pressures from those countries to allow
members of equivalent professional bodies to work in this country?

If it wasn't for the language barrier I would go for the easier SEP
qualification. Lower fees as well.

Equal professional bodies, of course, would require equal qualifications.

That's what free markets are. Anything else belongs in communist
countries.

Many markets are rigged.

And you seem happy to ensure they remain rigged - in your favour.

Legal and accounting professions are two others.

So it seems you are happy to compete with others expecting half your
wage. Fair doos.

Protectionism belongs in the era of union dinosaurs.

Why SHOULD somebody pay you twice the fair market rate for the same
quality of work? Just because you happen to have been born in one
particular corner of one particular continent?

On 24/06/14 08:00, Adrian wrote:

Why SHOULD somebody pay you twice the fair market rate for the same
quality of work? Just because you happen to have been born in one
particular corner of one particular continent
that has a much higher cost of living than the other corner.


There, fixed that for you.

You see the problem is that the migrant workers are artificially cheap.

If you come from the *general* baltic region in 2000 odd, you come from
a country where a litre of beer is 50p and everything else is
correspondingly as cheap. Not so much now with the general blatic
region, but I expect it is with respect to some of the other parts of E
Europe.

As you area short term migrant, you can live with bunking up in a doss
house with 10 of your mates on the cheap whilst saving your dosh for a
greater cause (and it does apply outwards, think Auf Weidersein Pet" (sp).

On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 15:12:09 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

Dave Liquorice wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Compulsory voting would require the addition of a "positive
abstention", though - a "None of the above" option

No, that is always available by just not bothering
to tick any box on the ballot paper etc.

No mark on a ballot paper is just asking for some one to mark it.
OK shouldn't happen but ...

Trivially avoidable by ticking them all.

There would have to be a "No Suitable Canditate" option.

Nope, because you can just tick them all.

SWMBO'd and myself where wondering if one could form a new
political party called "The No Suitable Candidate Party" and run
candiates in a few elections.

We have had all of 'Warm Sun Ripened Tomato Party' and 'Party Party Party'
as well.

Trouble is I have a feeling they would
also have to be prepared to take the seat.

No, they are free make an obscene gesture in the
general direction of whoever runs the election.

Unlike nearly all the other small parties that
pop out of the woodwork come election time.



--
Cheers
Dave.

On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 15:12:09 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

Compulsory voting would require the addition of a "positive
abstention", though - a "None of the above" option

No, that is always available by just not bothering
to tick any box on the ballot paper etc.

No mark on a ballot paper is just asking for some one to mark it.
OK shouldn't happen but ...

Trivially avoidable by ticking them all.

With some of the complicated proportinal representation systems out
there I wouldn't be surprised to find that a valid vote in some cases

Is a tick a valid vote anayway? The instructions tell you to use a
cross and shows a little image of one just in case you don't know
what a cross is.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 08:21:12 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:

Why SHOULD somebody pay you twice the fair market rate for the same
quality of work? Just because you happen to have been born in one
particular corner of one particular continent

that has a much higher cost of living than the other corner.

I was assuming that the person taking your job would be living in the
same area as you...

If you come from the *general* baltic region in 2000 odd, you come from
a country where a litre of beer is 50p and everything else is
correspondingly as cheap.

Have you ever been to any of the accession states? Yes, some things are
cheaper - but no WAY are they anywhere NEAR cheaper-enough to compensate
for the local salaries.

B'sides, if you're living and working in the UK, it's kinda difficult to
pop to the corner shop for a litre of 50p beer. Unless, of course, that
corner shop happens to be in the UK selling 50p beer. In which case, why
can't anybody else also go there?

As you area short term migrant, you can live with bunking up in a doss
house with 10 of your mates on the cheap whilst saving your dosh for a
greater cause (and it does apply outwards, think Auf Weidersein Pet"
(sp).

Whereas, of course, if you're "indigenous" you have a god-given right to
live in comfort without having to do more than the _absolute_ bare
minimum to earn it?

On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 08:40:43 +0100, Dave Liquorice wrote:

Is a tick a valid vote anayway? The instructions tell you to use a cross
and shows a little image of one just in case you don't know what a cross
is.

Clarity and unambiguity are the only requirements.

On 23/06/14 21:37, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 21:04:55 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

If they were so good at controlling England football matches, as the
advert suggest, why is England out of the world cup?

Beciuse they aren't in charge: instead it's a a corrupt organisation and
the game wins are sold to the highest bidder.

Is there a single conspiracy theory that you don't buy into?


should have put a smiley in.

However what you do not seem to understand is that if something can be
bent for profit, it will be.



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 24/06/14 08:40, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 15:12:09 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

Compulsory voting would require the addition of a "positive
abstention", though - a "None of the above" option

No, that is always available by just not bothering
to tick any box on the ballot paper etc.

No mark on a ballot paper is just asking for some one to mark it.
OK shouldn't happen but ...

Trivially avoidable by ticking them all.

With some of the complicated proportinal representation systems out
there I wouldn't be surprised to find that a valid vote in some cases

Is a tick a valid vote anayway? The instructions tell you to use a
cross and shows a little image of one just in case you don't know
what a cross is.


I see a profitable sideline in humorous stickers that could be applied
across the ballot paper:

http://www.troll.me/images/futurama-...politician.jpg

On 24/06/14 08:54, Adrian wrote:

Whereas, of course, if you're "indigenous" you have a god-given right to
live in comfort

Yes - or at least I want to compete with my peers and not a load of
people to whom our pay is worth 2-4 times more by the time they get most
of it home.

without having to do more than the _absolute_ bare
minimum to earn it?

Never said that...


Do you want an indian outsourcing firm to take your job? Even more
extreme example.

On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 23:41:34 +0100, bert wrote:

because we were never told explicitly what would be the outcome of
Maastricht 1992

Yet the population of the UK had voted overwhelmingly for a party with a
pro-European manifesto in 1987. That party then did what we'd given them
a mandate to do.

Overwhelmingly? Where are your figures to support that claim?

I'd call a _majority_ of a sixth of the total number of seats fairly
"overwhelming", wouldn't you?

A vote for a manifesto in a general election is for the manifesto as a
whole not for the individual policies.

I said that the population voted overwhelmingly for a party with that
manifesto. Or, if you want to be nitpicky about it, that policy within
their manifesto.

Only 27% of those who turned out, less than 10% of the electorate as a
whole, voted for the one party arguing to leave the EU?

So how does that compare with your "overwhelming" above?

Since UKIP still only have one third of UK EU parliamentary seats, and
precisely zero Westminster seats...

On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 11:02:30 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:

Whereas, of course, if you're "indigenous" you have a god-given right
to live in comfort

Yes - or at least I want to compete with my peers

Some of them.

and not a load of people

Your peers

to whom our pay is worth 2-4 times more by the time they get most of it
home.

But that person has "taken" your job. They kinda need to live here for
that, so they're kinda by definition spending their money here - at
least, as far as the basic cost of living is concerned.

Anyway, why is what somebody else chooses to spend their pay on so
important to you? Would you like it if your employer insisted on seeing a
record of your monthly expenditure, and based your pay on what they
thought you spent (according to their view) "wisely"?

without having to do more than the _absolute_ bare minimum to earn it?

Never said that...

It was certainly implied.

OK, so you're quite happy for rewards to be in proportion to the work
required, and for the free market to set the rate for those rewards?

No, wait. You want protectionism based on nationality.

Do you want an indian outsourcing firm to take your job? Even more
extreme example.

Why is the origin of the firm relevant?
In fact, come to that, when did India join the EU?

On Monday, 23 June 2014 15:02:58 UTC+1, Fredxxx wrote:
On 23/06/2014 14:47, whisky-dave wrote:

On Monday, 23 June 2014 12:58:30 UTC+1, Jethro_uk wrote:

On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 03:50:36 -0700, whisky-dave wrote:


snip googled mess


I didn;t vote hoping none of the useless b'stards would get in,

think I



failed there.


Politicians take the point of view that if you didn't vote, you're

happy with the status quo.



I wish I could believe that as I think IIRC the vote to go into the

EC in 1973/4 was 47% less than 50% and yet we still joined the EC



Total crap. A majority of those that had an opinion and voted wanted to
join the EU.

So it seems, but I was told at school that referedums were differnt to ballots or anything else that's why they had a diufernt name attached to them.
But I was at school so couldn't vote anyway.


It's about time you learnt a no-vote doesn't count. Rightly so.

Doesn;t count as what ....

On Monday, 23 June 2014 14:57:19 UTC+1, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 06:47:04 -0700, whisky-dave wrote:



I wish I could believe that as I think IIRC the vote to go into the EC

in 1973/4 was 47% less than 50%



Nope - 67.2% of those who voted said "Yes".



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

United_Kingdom_European_Communities_membership_ref erendum,_1975

You can't even get the year right.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...00/2459167.stm

we joined in 1973 after being rejected in 63, 67.

On Monday, 23 June 2014 15:52:32 UTC+1, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 15:23:03 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:



No, we wanted to join a common market.



We joined exactly what we voted to join - a group of other European

nations who wanted freedom of movement, freedom of trade, freedom of

capital, freedom of goods between themselves. At that time, it was called

the European Community (not that there's much in a name).



Then, once we were in, we HELPED to turn it into what it is today. Along

with every other member, the UK could easily have vetoed any membership

application from any country.

Who's this we.
Is it the same we that could have stopped jummiy savile ?


The UK could easily have vetoed any major
changes to it. The UK chose not to.

A few peolpe decided not to.


Today the majority of people WITH an opinion want to LEAVE the EU.



Do they? Do you have any credible figures to support that?

UKIP support and all thos elikie me that don;t support UKIP
and don't support labour or con-lib because we are inteligent enough to not trust them.

On 24/06/14 11:25, Adrian wrote:

But that person has "taken" your job. They kinda need to live here for
that, so they're kinda by definition spending their money here - at
least, as far as the basic cost of living is concerned.

But they are not - they are living as cheaply as possible with the
intent to take the money home.

Anyway, why is what somebody else chooses to spend their pay on so
important to you?

Because it is leaving our economy.

It's not important to ME personally. There are a fair few eastern
european and other EU folk doing my type of work right where I work.

The difference between my colleagues and a highly mobile migrant worker
is they are all settled here and being paid the same as me - that I have
no problem with.

I'm still good enough at my work to compete with them on *equal* terms.


However, how does your average builder or plumber or sparky feel when he
is facing competition in UNEQUAL terms?

And worse than that, relatively little of the money they make
recirculates to other local businesses, unlike what I make which mostly
does, eventually.


Would you like it if your employer insisted on seeing a
record of your monthly expenditure, and based your pay on what they
thought you spent (according to their view) "wisely"?

Utterly irrelevant - addressed above.

without having to do more than the _absolute_ bare minimum to earn it?

Never said that...

It was certainly implied.

No it wasn't. You may have read that, but I did not intend it.

OK, so you're quite happy for rewards to be in proportion to the work
required, and for the free market to set the rate for those rewards?

No, wait. You want protectionism based on nationality.

Where the nationalities have highly disparate economies, yes.

Do you want an indian outsourcing firm to take your job? Even more
extreme example.

Why is the origin of the firm relevant?

Because it's the most common other example of loss of local work based
on an unlevel playing field. Not to mention the impact of service. Or do
you enjoy speaking to random far flung call centres about your mobile
phone, electricity, internet etc. I know I don't because I know I'm
dealing with a script jockey with no local knowledge. This has been
bourne out in my personal experience. I'd rather ring the RBS and speak
to a scottish bloke who actually has a connection with the bank, than
ring HSBCs bloody awful call centre.



In fact, come to that, when did India join the EU?

As the outsourcing firms do not need their employees to leave the home
country (for the most part) they can offer their trade as easily as an
EU member (with free travel conditions) can. This makes it a comparable
scenario.