On Monday, 23 June 2014 17:12:47 UTC+1, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 15:23:03 +0100, The Natural Philosopher 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% and yet we still joined the

EC



Meaningless figure that 47% unless you state what it is 47% of.

Assuming the total population, why should those that chose not to

vote be included?

As I understood it at the time at school I was that a referedum was diffent to a voting systems.
The closest I can find on wiki to what our teacher said is.


I didn;t know what a Referendum was at the time could ahave been a piece of cheese so I had to find out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum
"A multiple choice referendum poses the question of how the result is to be determined if no single option receives the support of an absolute majority (more than half) of voters"

of course we didn;t have wiki at the time all I had were teachers.
Perhaps you could tell me the fiffernce between a referedum a ballot a vote
or even a phone in.



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? All the actual votes cast are
counted, including any spoiled papers.

I'd been told a NO vote in a referedum meant you didn;t support a change in the current system. A bit like if yuo don;t switch the TV on to watch teh world cut then are not classed as watching teh world cup, simples.
Of course you'll hear that the UK is gripped by the world cup.



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.

That is one option the other is saying that those that don;t vote are content with the current system, and if yuo really don't lioke the curretn system then vote against it.
Same with most things in life, if you don't like somethimng yuo change it, if happy there';s no need for a change.

On Monday, 23 June 2014 18:01:47 UTC+1, Tim Watts wrote:
On 23/06/14 17:36, Tim Streater wrote:

In article o.uk,

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.



I disagree - many people are just too ungrateful to those who fought for
their right to vote to be bothered.

I wonder who you'd vote for stalin hitler or Mussolini given the choice.

Tough if you don;t like teh choices.


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

Was theire such a thing on the vote to join the EEC I'd heard it was a YES or a NO choice.


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".

That's what the polititions say, which is what they want you to believe.
I did NOT vote in the recent electionj nas there wasn;t a singl;e person ort party I agreed with why should I have to vote for something I don;t agree with ?

On 24/06/14 12:07, whisky-dave wrote:

I wonder who you'd vote for stalin hitler or Mussolini given the choice.

Tough if you don;t like teh choices.

I'd spoil the ballot paper.


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

Was theire such a thing on the vote to join the EEC I'd heard it was a YES or a NO choice.

Presumably drawing a willy was an option?


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".

That's what the polititions say, which is what they want you to believe.
I did NOT vote in the recent electionj nas there wasn;t a singl;e person ort party I agreed with why should I have to vote for something I don;t agree with ?

Spoiled ballots are counted and generally reported - that is a
worthwhile option as it registers disapproval whilst taking away any
possible claim that you were too apathetic to be bothered.

"Bod" wrote in message
...
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,

Nope.

because Farage and the in/out issue debate has been in the news virtually
daily.

Irrelevant to what has driven those who want out of the EU.

Taint Farage.

Farage has forced the hands of the Tories and Labour

Pigs arse he has.

to confront the obvious dissent from many voters regarding the dubious
value of staying in the EU.

That has nothing to do with Farage. There have always
been plenty that never thought it made any sense.

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
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 ?

Corse we do.

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.

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

Nope, it isnt anywhere.

Is a tick a valid vote anayway?

It is in plenty of jurisdictions.

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.

That varys with the jurisdiction.

Adrian wrote:
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...

So far.

On 24/06/2014 12:21, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
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,

Nope.

because Farage and the in/out issue debate has been in the news
virtually daily.

Irrelevant to what has driven those who want out of the EU.

Taint Farage.

Farage has forced the hands of the Tories and Labour

Pigs arse he has.

to confront the obvious dissent from many voters regarding the dubious
value of staying in the EU.

That has nothing to do with Farage. There have always
been plenty that never thought it made any sense.

But he has put it top of UKIP's agenda, which has obviously made a lot
more people think about the merits (or not) of exiting the EU.
In other words, he has brought in a lot of the previously apathetic
voters and given them food for thought and he's done it in a refreshing
way. A lot of people relate to his style. All of the rest of our
politicians have a propensity to not being able to answer a straight
yes/no answer in less than a thousand words.

On Tuesday, 24 June 2014 12:13:25 UTC+1, Tim Watts wrote:
On 24/06/14 12:07, whisky-dave wrote:

I wonder who you'd vote for stalin hitler or Mussolini given the choice.


Tough if you don;t like teh choices.


I'd spoil the ballot paper.

and that would mean what exactly.
If you spoil a paper you've not voted for anyone, same as not going.
Of course they'll tell you it makes a differnce but will they tell you what differnce. They might as well tell you it's secret.

At leat by not turning up they know you havent; voted, where as yuo could have voted for for any of them, they could even add a vote for you once they find a spoilt paper.


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

Was theire such a thing on the vote to join the EEC I'd heard it was a YES or a NO choice.



Presumably drawing a willy was an option?


no wonder it's always the dick heads that win.

Would that be seen as a tick or a cross, I also remmeber problems that people might have during a referedum, such as should you put a X or a tick.
Most people put a cross on things they don;t want or like, but sometimes you're asked to tick the one you do like/want.

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".


That's what the polititions say, which is what they want you to believe.

I did NOT vote in the recent electionj nas there wasn;t a singl;e person ort party I agreed with why should I have to vote for something I don;t agree with ?



Spoiled ballots are counted and generally reported -

and means nothing. A spoilt paper can mean anyhting from someone ticking an extar box to someone wiping their arse on it.



that is a
worthwhile option as it registers disapproval whilst taking away any
possible claim that you were too apathetic to be bothered.

That's what they want you to think.
Most vote for the opposition in any election rather than not going or spoiling teh paper which for most is seen a childish, it's like wiping a bogee on a door handle.

On Tuesday, 24 June 2014 13:47:20 UTC+1, Bod wrote:
On 24/06/2014 12:21, Rod Speed wrote:





"Bod" wrote in message

...

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 hasn't. 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 don't buy that either.



Then you must have been living in a cave for the last few months,



Nope.



because Farage and the in/out issue debate has been in the news

virtually daily.



Irrelevant to what has driven those who want out of the EU.



Taint Farage.



Farage has forced the hands of the Tories and Labour



Pigs arse he has.



to confront the obvious dissent from many voters regarding the dubious

value of staying in the EU.



That has nothing to do with Farage. There have always

been plenty that never thought it made any sense.



But he has put it top of UKIP's agenda, which has obviously made a lot

more people think about the merits (or not) of exiting the EU.

That;s the important point before UKIP NO party even wanted to mention the EU as regarding in or out.
Spoiling a ballot paper would NEVER have got us out the EU.
Thre's no mark on a ballot paper you can put to get you out of the EU until UKIP.



In other words, he has brought in a lot of the previously apathetic

voters,

Yes because now they can see a point in votiong someone thinks like they do righty or wrongly).


and given them food for thought and he's done it in a refreshing
way. A lot of people relate to his style. All of the rest of our
politicians have a propensity to not being able to answer a straight
yes/no answer in less than a thousand words.

And if tehy do you can bet they aren't exactly telling the truth, but they still expect your vote.

On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 03:37:41 -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...ies/january/1/
newsid_2459000/2459167.stm

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

sigh

So what was the 1973 referendum result, and why was there a second
referendum in 1975...?

On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 03:41:59 -0700, whisky-dave wrote:

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

Who's this we.

The government, who have a democratic mandate to decide things on the
behalf of the electorate who choose them.

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.

You really do live up to your posting name, don't you?

On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 04:07:21 -0700, whisky-dave wrote:

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

Was theire such a thing on the vote to join the EEC I'd heard it was a
YES or a NO choice.

What other choices would you like?

On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 11:56:17 +0100, Tim Watts 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.

In any significantly different way to you choosing to spend it on Italian
wine in Lidl?

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.

So you're quite happy with people of other nationalities who've chosen to
settle here, I presume? It's merely the ones who haven't - yet - who you
have an issue with?

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.

Is that regardless of where or how the individual chooses to spend their
money, purely on nationality? Would you regard it as better to work
alongside - say - a Pole who was settled in the UK and regarded it as
their home than a Brit ticking off the days until his retirement to Spain?

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.

I'm less than convinced that location has anything to do with competence
and authority to actually resolve issues. I've spoken to plenty of
clueless script-jockeys within the UK, and plenty of highly competent
call centres outside the UK.

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.

I'll tell that to my mate, working in IT for a household name in Central
London, whose job is primarily managing the relationship with the Indian
outsourcing firm's onsite guys. Who are just as much a mix of
nationalities as the guys directly employed by the global - but nominally
US, if you had to pick anywhere - firm.

On 24/06/2014 15:11, whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 24 June 2014 13:47:20 UTC+1, Bod wrote:
On 24/06/2014 12:21, Rod Speed wrote:





"Bod" wrote in message

...

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 hasn't. 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 don't buy that either.



Then you must have been living in a cave for the last few months,



Nope.



because Farage and the in/out issue debate has been in the news

virtually daily.



Irrelevant to what has driven those who want out of the EU.



Taint Farage.



Farage has forced the hands of the Tories and Labour



Pigs arse he has.



to confront the obvious dissent from many voters regarding the dubious

value of staying in the EU.



That has nothing to do with Farage. There have always

been plenty that never thought it made any sense.



But he has put it top of UKIP's agenda, which has obviously made a lot

more people think about the merits (or not) of exiting the EU.

That;s the important point before UKIP NO party even wanted to mention the EU as regarding in or out.
Spoiling a ballot paper would NEVER have got us out the EU.
Thre's no mark on a ballot paper you can put to get you out of the EU until UKIP.



In other words, he has brought in a lot of the previously apathetic

voters,

Yes because now they can see a point in votiong someone thinks like they do righty or wrongly).


and given them food for thought and he's done it in a refreshing
way. A lot of people relate to his style. All of the rest of our
politicians have a propensity to not being able to answer a straight
yes/no answer in less than a thousand words.

And if tehy do you can bet they aren't exactly telling the truth, but they still expect your vote.

Indeed.

On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 13:47:20 +0100, Bod wrote:

(of Farage)
A lot of people relate to his style.

A lot of people relate to the Daily Mail's "style".
In 2009/10, a lot of people related to the BNP's "style".

All of the rest of our politicians have a propensity to not being able
to answer a straight yes/no answer in less than a thousand words.

Whereas "our Nige" (the blokey man-in-the-street ex-public-school-
stockbroker and non-"professional politician" despite earning his living
"at the EU trough" for the last fifteen years) confines his inability to
answer a straight question to ten words and a pint.

On 24/06/14 15:02, whisky-dave wrote:

and that would mean what exactly.

Spoilt ballot = dissent

Not going = dissent OR apathy OR some other reason.

Therefore (as I've said enough times before) spoling the ballot is a far
more useful way to "not vote" than not voting.

Think what the news would be like if they had to announce 60% of voters
spoiled their papers?


If you spoil a paper you've not voted for anyone, same as not going.
Of course they'll tell you it makes a differnce but will they tell you what differnce. They might as well tell you it's secret.

At leat by not turning up they know you havent; voted, where as yuo could have voted for for any of them,


they could even add a vote for you once they find a spoilt paper.

With all due respect, ******** they could.

and means nothing. A spoilt paper can mean anyhting from someone ticking an extar box to someone wiping their arse on it.

It means everything. This is not a "hanging chad" scenario where a large
proportion of votes were "spoiled" due to a problematic voting process.

Very few spoiled papers will be accidental as even the thickest chav can
generally follow the big sign that says "put an X in the box".



that is a
worthwhile option as it registers disapproval whilst taking away any
possible claim that you were too apathetic to be bothered.

That's what they want you to think.
Most vote for the opposition in any election rather than not going or spoiling teh paper which for most is seen a childish, it's like wiping a bogee on a door handle.


You might think it's childish. I'm not sure why. It has a specific
purpose in the absence of other options.

In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 04:07:21 -0700, whisky-dave wrote:

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

Was theire such a thing on the vote to join the EEC I'd heard it was a
YES or a NO choice.

What other choices would you like?

I'm puzzled. UKIP want to leave the EU because it compromises the UK's
independence. But when Scotland wants its independence from Westminster
that different.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On 24/06/14 15:28, Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 11:56:17 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:


Because it is leaving our economy.

In any significantly different way to you choosing to spend it on Italian
wine in Lidl?

Because the latter has at least furnished Lidl and their transport chain
with work which is a lot better than nothing.

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.

So you're quite happy with people of other nationalities who've chosen to
settle here, I presume? It's merely the ones who haven't - yet - who you
have an issue with?

Yes. Is it that hard to understand what I said?


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.

Is that regardless of where or how the individual chooses to spend their
money, purely on nationality? Would you regard it as better to work
alongside - say - a Pole who was settled in the UK and regarded it as
their home than a Brit ticking off the days until his retirement to Spain?

I don't know. Is it relevant to the very clearly stated point I made?

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.

I'm less than convinced that location has anything to do with competence
and authority to actually resolve issues. I've spoken to plenty of
clueless script-jockeys within the UK, and plenty of highly competent
call centres outside the UK.

My experience has been the exact opposite with a few exceptions.

Not to mention that that particular job really ought to be being done by
people in this country.

Why? Because at a society level, we need to make sure people are working
if they need to work. In the grand scheme I have a greater allegiance to
Britain than India. I have a greater allegiance to England than
Scotland, though I respect the latter's culture and in particular their
whiskey.

I have more allegiance to the south east than the rest of the country
and I have more allegiance to my village than any other.

It's a natural state of affairs and quite proper. It's how we survived
so long. It is also far more productive. I will do stuff that helps my
village, their school, etc - because I have some "ownership" of the
outcome and a vested interest. I might donate some money to some
particular disaster fund for somewhere far away, be it america, china or
africa. But day to day I cannot get excited about those places - they
are remote, I have no input.

So it's pretty easy to understand why people rate their own locality
over and above all others.

I love China - SWMBO is from there. I love Germany, and the baltics and
Switzerland. However, I'd rather my local society looked to itself first
and others second.

There's a huge difference between what I just said and one who actively
despises others.

So yes, it's cool that a slovak person can come and be a network
engineer and get paid 40k or whatever and live here for the time,
spending his money and making the wheels go round.

It's less helpful to our society when his mate turns up, with the aim of
dossing down for 2 years, vastly undercuts the nominal wage for some job
and drives the wages for that trade through the floor.

I would have no argument with the same bloke bringing his family to live
here, and charging the same nominal wage for his work as everyone else.

In the latter case, he's adding a number to the people seeking that type
of work. In the former he's actually causing material damage to our
society. Why? Because once doing a certain job is seen as not being
worthwhile, school leavers will not bother seeking it, there's more
depressed people on benefits and a consequential rise in crime.

Most people could tolerate dossing down in simple accommodation for a
1-2 year stint if it led to better things. No-one wants that to be the norm!

It is a very similar problem to when the English (generally) were buying
loads of houses in Wales as seldom used holiday homes. The English
thought they were cheap and didn't haggle. The net result was twofold -
the supply for locals went down and the price skyrocketed.

I'm with the Welsh on that one. The English buyers (as a whole) behaved
like ****s. If they at least made an effort to negotiate the price to
local norms, it would have been a little less galling.

Now the tables are turned and you have Russian oligarchs doing the same
in Chelsea.

On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 15:57:29 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:

Because it is leaving our economy.

In any significantly different way to you choosing to spend it on
Italian wine in Lidl?

Because the latter has at least furnished Lidl and their transport chain
with work which is a lot better than nothing.

Some minimum-wage local work, and everything else contracted out of
another EU country, to the lowest bidder. Woo.

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.

So you're quite happy with people of other nationalities who've chosen
to settle here, I presume? It's merely the ones who haven't - yet - who
you have an issue with?

Yes. Is it that hard to understand what I said?

I just want to be clear about what you're actually saying.

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.

Is that regardless of where or how the individual chooses to spend
their money, purely on nationality? Would you regard it as better to
work alongside - say - a Pole who was settled in the UK and regarded it
as their home than a Brit ticking off the days until his retirement to
Spain?

I don't know. Is it relevant to the very clearly stated point I made?

Yes. Absolutely central to it - and, if you don't know, then I can only
assume that your true opinion isn't quite what you're claiming it to be.

Not to mention that that particular job really ought to be being done by
people in this country.

Regardless of their nationality?

So it's pretty easy to understand why people rate their own locality
over and above all others.

I love China - SWMBO is from there. I love Germany, and the baltics and
Switzerland. However, I'd rather my local society looked to itself first
and others second.

You live in the SE - you're nearer to France than you are to the North-
East. Which do you have greater "loyalty" to?

So yes, it's cool that a slovak person can come and be a network
engineer and get paid 40k or whatever and live here for the time,
spending his money and making the wheels go round.

It's less helpful to our society when his mate turns up, with the aim of
dossing down for 2 years, vastly undercuts the nominal wage for some job
and drives the wages for that trade through the floor.

Does it make a difference if that mate is Slovak or from Ireland?
Does it make a difference if that Irish mate happens to live a mile north
or a mile south of the border between Eire and the UK?
Would it make a difference if that mate is Scottish today or after a
"Yes" vote in September?

Most people could tolerate dossing down in simple accommodation for a
1-2 year stint if it led to better things. No-one wants that to be the
norm!

Including, I'm sure, the people doing it. So does it make a difference if
that person dossing on a mate's floor and working all hours is from
Warsaw or Walsall?

Tebbitt was wrong, when he suggested people should get "on their bikes"
to find work?

It is a very similar problem to when the English (generally) were buying
loads of houses in Wales as seldom used holiday homes. The English
thought they were cheap and didn't haggle. The net result was twofold -
the supply for locals went down and the price skyrocketed.

....and yet that's within the same country.

And, of course, not just Wales. It's just the same as Londoners in the
Cotswolds or Yorkshire or Cornwall or Provence or Tuscany.

On 24/06/14 15:40, charles wrote:
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 04:07:21 -0700, whisky-dave wrote:

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

Was theire such a thing on the vote to join the EEC I'd heard it was a
YES or a NO choice.

What other choices would you like?

I'm puzzled. UKIP want to leave the EU because it compromises the UK's
independence. But when Scotland wants its independence from Westminster
that different.

No they don't want to leave for that reason. They want to leave because
its an inefficient way to run a continent and unlike scotland,
devolution is not on offer.


--
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 16:09, Adrian wrote:

Some minimum-wage local work, and everything else contracted out of
another EU country, to the lowest bidder. Woo.

As I said - better than nothing. We have a lot of people who depend on
that minimum wage 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.

So you're quite happy with people of other nationalities who've chosen
to settle here, I presume? It's merely the ones who haven't - yet - who
you have an issue with?

Yes. Is it that hard to understand what I said?

I just want to be clear about what you're actually saying.

OK.

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.

Is that regardless of where or how the individual chooses to spend
their money, purely on nationality? Would you regard it as better to
work alongside - say - a Pole who was settled in the UK and regarded it
as their home than a Brit ticking off the days until his retirement to
Spain?

I don't know. Is it relevant to the very clearly stated point I made?

Yes. Absolutely central to it - and, if you don't know, then I can only
assume that your true opinion isn't quite what you're claiming it to be.

Then let's deal with the medium term rather than the long term. I do not
have figures for how many people emigrate for retirement and take their
money with them. I would assume it's quite a small percentage unless you
have better information?

I do feel fairly sure that while they were here and working, they were
not driving down wages and making certain trades highly unappealing -
and during their time here they were taking a full part in the local
economy.

Not to mention that that particular job really ought to be being done by
people in this country.

Regardless of their nationality?

I see you are trying to lay a subtle trap... So let's clarify it.

Yes - regardless of their nationality and provided they have a right to
work here. However, I will have to add (to address your trap) that the
right to work needs to be curtailed in my opinion and in some cases
where a trade is over subscribed, perhaps it should be limited to people
with British nationality - which brings us back to the whole EU debate
quite squarely.

It's not been a point I'd bothered to consider in the specific case of a
call centres because random polish people (to give an example) don't
usually come to the UK for a couple of years with the idea that they'll
work in RBS's call centre. But yes, if that became a problem, same
solution as for the building trades (which seem to attract a larger
proportion of mobile workers).

So it's pretty easy to understand why people rate their own locality
over and above all others.

I love China - SWMBO is from there. I love Germany, and the baltics and
Switzerland. However, I'd rather my local society looked to itself first
and others second.

You live in the SE - you're nearer to France than you are to the North-
East. Which do you have greater "loyalty" to?

Not France - there's this bit of sea and a huge language barrier in the
way which negates any physical proximity.

So yes, it's cool that a slovak person can come and be a network
engineer and get paid 40k or whatever and live here for the time,
spending his money and making the wheels go round.

It's less helpful to our society when his mate turns up, with the aim of
dossing down for 2 years, vastly undercuts the nominal wage for some job
and drives the wages for that trade through the floor.

Does it make a difference if that mate is Slovak or from Ireland?
Does it make a difference if that Irish mate happens to live a mile north
or a mile south of the border between Eire and the UK?

No - assuming Ireland means Eire.

Would it make a difference if that mate is Scottish today or after a
"Yes" vote in September?

Yes. My take on Scotland is if they want independence, that is their
right and they should be either completely in or completely out and no
half arsing in the middle.

Most people could tolerate dossing down in simple accommodation for a
1-2 year stint if it led to better things. No-one wants that to be the
norm!

Including, I'm sure, the people doing it. So does it make a difference if
that person dossing on a mate's floor and working all hours is from
Warsaw or Walsall?

Walsall is OK as they are part of England and working and functioning
within our society. Ultimately that guys earnings are getting back into
the british economy, which I personally care about more than the Polish
economy.

...and yet that's within the same country.

Are England and Wales the same country. Dare you to say that in Swansea.

And, of course, not just Wales. It's just the same as Londoners in the
Cotswolds or Yorkshire or Cornwall or Provence or Tuscany.


Indeed. That's exactly why I gave my allegiances in a tiered fashion.

Adrian wrote:
I've spoken to plenty of highly competent
call centres outside the UK.


I think you are in a minority of one!

Tim Streater wrote:
We're much closer to the Scots in pretty much everything than to any
European country.

So you'd vote with me for for Scottish independence also?

On 24/06/2014 16:36, Capitol wrote:
Adrian wrote:
I've spoken to plenty of highly competent
call centres outside the UK.


I think you are in a minority of one!

From what I've heard, I agree.
Maybe Adrian is fluent in Urdu or Hindi ;-)

On 24/06/2014 02:51, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
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.

Following the conviction of three people who attempted to fix matches in
the UK.

--
Colin Bignell

On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 16:33:27 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:

Then let's deal with the medium term rather than the long term. I do not
have figures for how many people emigrate for retirement and take their
money with them. I would assume it's quite a small percentage unless you
have better information?

There are more British citizens living elsewhere in the EU than citizens
of other EU states living here. The usual counter to that is, of course,
that "most are retired".

Not to mention that that particular job really ought to be being done
by people in this country.

Regardless of their nationality?

I see you are trying to lay a subtle trap...

No, not at all.

So let's clarify it.

Yes - regardless of their nationality and provided they have a right to
work here. However, I will have to add (to address your trap) that the
right to work needs to be curtailed in my opinion and in some cases
where a trade is over subscribed

Decided by whom?

perhaps it should be limited to people with British nationality - which
brings us back to the whole EU debate quite squarely.

Well, quite. And should that limitation be to _locals_? Would a Londoner
get preference for a job in Belfast over somebody from Dublin?

It's not been a point I'd bothered to consider in the specific case of a
call centres because random polish people (to give an example) don't
usually come to the UK for a couple of years with the idea that they'll
work in RBS's call centre. But yes, if that became a problem, same
solution as for the building trades (which seem to attract a larger
proportion of mobile workers).

Call centres are just one example of a low-skill, low-pay, high-turnover
job.

You live in the SE - you're nearer to France than you are to the North-
East. Which do you have greater "loyalty" to?

Not France - there's this bit of sea and a huge language barrier in the
way which negates any physical proximity.

So 20 miles of water is a big issue to you? Even though there's nearly 2m
of your countrymen across a wider bit of water? Your own linquistic
failures should decide whether somebody else gets a job or not?

So yes, it's cool that a slovak person can come and be a network
engineer and get paid 40k or whatever and live here for the time,
spending his money and making the wheels go round.

It's less helpful to our society when his mate turns up, with the aim
of dossing down for 2 years, vastly undercuts the nominal wage for
some job and drives the wages for that trade through the floor.

Does it make a difference if that mate is Slovak or from Ireland?
Does it make a difference if that Irish mate happens to live a mile
north or a mile south of the border between Eire and the UK?

No - assuming Ireland means Eire.

Even though a citizen of Eire is a foreign national? Yet the other
person, who grew up one mile away but the other side of a border, is a
British citizen?

Would it make a difference if that mate is Scottish today or after a
"Yes" vote in September?

Yes.

Interesting. Even if they haven't actually visited Scotland since that
referendum and weren't qualified (by dint of lack of residence) to vote
in it?

My take on Scotland is if they want independence, that is their
right and they should be either completely in or completely out and no
half arsing in the middle.

And I'd agree on you with that.

Most people could tolerate dossing down in simple accommodation for a
1-2 year stint if it led to better things. No-one wants that to be the
norm!

Including, I'm sure, the people doing it. So does it make a difference
if that person dossing on a mate's floor and working all hours is from
Warsaw or Walsall?

Walsall is OK as they are part of England

How about Cardiff? Edinburgh? Edinburgh now-versus-2015? Dublin?

...and yet that's within the same country.

Are England and Wales the same country.

Only since 1284...

Dare you to say that in Swansea.

I'll be in Wales for the evening in an hour or two. I've already been
once today. Wales is, quite literally, the other side of the road in this
village.

And, of course, not just Wales. It's just the same as Londoners in the
Cotswolds or Yorkshire or Cornwall or Provence or Tuscany.

Indeed. That's exactly why I gave my allegiances in a tiered fashion.

So you're just against population migration at all?

I was born in London, although my parents (one from the Lakes via
Bristol, the other from the Fens) were living in Sheffield at the time. I
went back to London to uni, stayed around Hertfordshire for years, and
now live in the Welsh borders. Where should my "allegiance" be to? Would
it make _any_ difference at all if I'd been born in Paris to parents from
Hamburg (one from Rome via Dublin, the other from Amsterdam), and been to
uni in Madrid? Does it make a difference that SWMBO's father was from
London but mother from Stockholm?

On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 16:48:15 +0100, Bod wrote:

I've spoken to plenty of highly competent
call centres outside the UK.

I think you are in a minority of one!

From what I've heard, I agree.
Maybe Adrian is fluent in Urdu or Hindi ;-)

Nope, not at all.

The last outside-the-UK call centre I spoke to were very helpful and
friendly - going by his accent, he was Dutch, although the (car parts
supplier) company is French.

On 23/06/2014 17:35, Tim Streater wrote:
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.

Since 1688, the Consitituion is what Parliament says the Constitution is
and they can change it at will by passing an appropriate law.

--
Colin Bignell

On 24/06/2014 08:54, Adrian wrote:
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.

Have you? I spent a week in Romania and I didn't see a tractor or a van
in any rural area.

Do you have any idea how backward these countries are/were?

Why not let the Chinese in? They would be happy for employment at £1-2
per hour and happy to send a large proportion of that back home.

On 24/06/14 17:02, Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 16:33:27 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:

I see you are trying to lay a subtle trap...

No, not at all.

I wouldn't blame you if it was - it's a good way of seeing how coherent
and argument is

So let's clarify it.

Yes - regardless of their nationality and provided they have a right to
work here. However, I will have to add (to address your trap) that the
right to work needs to be curtailed in my opinion and in some cases
where a trade is over subscribed

Decided by whom?

The government - it's very much their domain.


perhaps it should be limited to people with British nationality - which
brings us back to the whole EU debate quite squarely.

Well, quite. And should that limitation be to _locals_? Would a Londoner
get preference for a job in Belfast over somebody from Dublin?
Belfast is in the UK. Dublin is not. That's all there is to it in my book...

For what reason do nations exist and have borders, if not so they can
run as they see fit. If everyone thought the same way, we'd have a
single world government and no borders.

It's not been a point I'd bothered to consider in the specific case of a
call centres because random polish people (to give an example) don't
usually come to the UK for a couple of years with the idea that they'll
work in RBS's call centre. But yes, if that became a problem, same
solution as for the building trades (which seem to attract a larger
proportion of mobile workers).

Call centres are just one example of a low-skill, low-pay, high-turnover
job.

Yep. Many who work in one hope they will be able to move on to better
things. However, the job is a job and people need the money at some time
or another...

You live in the SE - you're nearer to France than you are to the North-
East. Which do you have greater "loyalty" to?

Not France - there's this bit of sea and a huge language barrier in the
way which negates any physical proximity.

So 20 miles of water is a big issue to you?

And the fact it is another country with their own rules and language.

Even though there's nearly 2m
of your countrymen across a wider bit of water? Your own linquistic
failures should decide whether somebody else gets a job or not?

I'm going to ignore that as not key to my argument.

So yes, it's cool that a slovak person can come and be a network
engineer and get paid 40k or whatever and live here for the time,
spending his money and making the wheels go round.

It's less helpful to our society when his mate turns up, with the aim
of dossing down for 2 years, vastly undercuts the nominal wage for
some job and drives the wages for that trade through the floor.

Does it make a difference if that mate is Slovak or from Ireland?
Does it make a difference if that Irish mate happens to live a mile
north or a mile south of the border between Eire and the UK?

No - assuming Ireland means Eire.

Even though a citizen of Eire is a foreign national? Yet the other
person, who grew up one mile away but the other side of a border, is a
British citizen?

Don't blame me - the southerners wanted independence from teh UK and
they got it.

Would it make a difference if that mate is Scottish today or after a
"Yes" vote in September?

Yes.

Interesting. Even if they haven't actually visited Scotland since that
referendum and weren't qualified (by dint of lack of residence) to vote
in it?

"Yes" with the assumption that we were talking about a resident scot and
not an ethnic scot who happens to be resident somewhere else and obtains
"grandfather" rights to work in England or Wales or N Ireland

My take on Scotland is if they want independence, that is their
right and they should be either completely in or completely out and no
half arsing in the middle.

And I'd agree on you with that.

Most people could tolerate dossing down in simple accommodation for a
1-2 year stint if it led to better things. No-one wants that to be the
norm!

Including, I'm sure, the people doing it. So does it make a difference
if that person dossing on a mate's floor and working all hours is from
Warsaw or Walsall?

Walsall is OK as they are part of England

How about Cardiff? Edinburgh? Edinburgh now-versus-2015? Dublin?

Cardiff is part of the UK, ditto Edinburgh now. You're just being picky
and you know it.

...and yet that's within the same country.

Are England and Wales the same country.

Only since 1284...

Dare you to say that in Swansea.

I'll be in Wales for the evening in an hour or two. I've already been
once today. Wales is, quite literally, the other side of the road in this
village.

And, of course, not just Wales. It's just the same as Londoners in the
Cotswolds or Yorkshire or Cornwall or Provence or Tuscany.

Indeed. That's exactly why I gave my allegiances in a tiered fashion.

So you're just against population migration at all?

No, just mass temporary migration. We've always been open to migration
but the EU "open borders" system with right to work everywhere is a new
and previously untested situation.

On 24/06/14 17:22, Tim Watts wrote:

No, just mass temporary migration.

Anyway, this has been a useful discussion because I have finally
clarified to myself what I don't like about the EU:

"Mass temporary migration".

And I have no shame in saying that - I believe it is a destructive force
on our local (UK) economy. It's good for other people's economies and I
begrudge noone for personally making good on the opportunity - but I
would rather our government put a stop to it.

There's a reason other desirable countries (eg Australia, New Zealand,
Canada) encourage immigration, but do so in a tightly controlled manner.


If you think open borders are a good idea, why not go the whole hog and
let everyone from China and everywhere else have a go here.

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
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.



What makes you think they are working for half my wage?

--
Adam

In article ,
Capitol wrote:
Adrian wrote:
I've spoken to plenty of highly competent
call centres outside the UK.


I think you are in a minority of one!

I will add to that minority. The best call centre I have ever spoken to
was in the Philippines.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On 24/06/14 18:58, ARW wrote:

What makes you think they are working for half my wage?


You were on a big job in London recently weren't you?

What's the deal with sparkies? Are there lots of EU workers in that
profession?

I hear a lot of accents on the various building sites near where I work
- but I cannot associate then with any particular trades.

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 24/06/14 18:58, ARW wrote:

What makes you think they are working for half my wage?


You were on a big job in London recently weren't you?

What's the deal with sparkies? Are there lots of EU workers in that
profession?

I hear a lot of accents on the various building sites near where I work -
but I cannot associate then with any particular trades.


Well the Bulgarians are the new plasterers. But not at half the price.

The Polish are big into plumbing (but we had a Brummie team on the London
job).

African immigrants still seem to be the favoured choice as labourers.

It's slightly different up north - but changing.

--
Adam

On 24/06/14 21:00, ARW wrote:
"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 24/06/14 18:58, ARW wrote:

What makes you think they are working for half my wage?


You were on a big job in London recently weren't you?

What's the deal with sparkies? Are there lots of EU workers in that
profession?

I hear a lot of accents on the various building sites near where I
work - but I cannot associate then with any particular trades.


Well the Bulgarians are the new plasterers. But not at half the price.

The Polish are big into plumbing (but we had a Brummie team on the
London job).

Interesting. A lot of poles seem to be into the domestic handyman
business around the SE - including plumbing (fit a kitchen, bathroom,
that sort of thing).

African immigrants still seem to be the favoured choice as labourers.

It's slightly different up north - but changing.


In 1986 in York (uni) the most prevalent foreign nationals were some
yanks and a few canadians. And Albert from Hong Kong.

Even our (ethnically) korean mate was actually a brummie.

Pretty sure that is no longer the case...

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 24/06/2014 12:21, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
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,

Nope.

because Farage and the in/out issue debate has been in the news
virtually daily.

Irrelevant to what has driven those who want out of the EU.

Taint Farage.

Farage has forced the hands of the Tories and Labour

Pigs arse he has.

to confront the obvious dissent from many voters regarding the dubious
value of staying in the EU.

That has nothing to do with Farage. There have always
been plenty that never thought it made any sense.

But he has put it top of UKIP's agenda,

Because it was getting so much controversy.

which has obviously made a lot more people think about the merits (or not)
of exiting the EU.

I dont believe that. I dont believe that many
take much notice of any politician at all.

That's why the voter turnout in elections is so pathetic.

In other words, he has brought in a lot of the previously apathetic voters
and given them food for thought

I dont believe that either. All he has done is provide
someone the worst of the rabid bigots can vote for.
And when he hasnt managed even a single Westminster
seat, that is VERY graphic evidence of how few of them
there are.

Yes, there will always be some of the least employable
who find it impossible to get a job when lots of foreigners
show up and are prepared to work a lot harder than the
worst of the unemployable locals are, but thats about
the only group someone like that appeals to.

and he's done it in a refreshing way.

Bull****.

A lot of people relate to his style.

Plenty more realise that he is just another lying politician.

All of the rest of our politicians have a propensity to not being able to
answer a straight yes/no answer in less than a thousand words.

Bull****.

On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 17:20:18 +0100, Fredxxx wrote:

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.

Have you? I spent a week in Romania and I didn't see a tractor or a van
in any rural area.

In 2012, I spent a month in Romania. And a month in Albania. And about
three months across the former Yugoslavia...

Do you have any idea how backward these countries are/were?

Yes, thank you.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , charles
wrote:

In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 04:07:21 -0700, whisky-dave wrote:

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

Was theire such a thing on the vote to join the EEC I'd heard it was
a
YES or a NO choice.

What other choices would you like?

I'm puzzled. UKIP want to leave the EU because it compromises the UK's
independence. But when Scotland wants its independence from Westminster
that different.

We're much closer to the Scots in pretty much everything than to any
European country.

That's very arguable with where people choose to live when they
decide that somewhere else other than england is better than england.