On 12/02/2015 19:33, Bod wrote:

Where can I buy a straight banana these days or a slightly undersized
apple? I know it's naughty, but the EU says I can't buy them

Does the EU say that? Where?

On 12/02/2015 08:50, Adrian wrote:
On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 04:12:56 +0000, harryagain wrote:

Something on the telly to watch.
http://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/2veprh/
wildly_antiukip_channel_4_docudrama_ukip_the/

The smear campaign continues.

Good to see that you're waiting to actually watch it before condemning it.

Have you stopped to wonder why people might think that UKIP's full of
wierdos, bigots and monomaniacs?

thinks Still, at least you've found your natural home.


Given that TNP and harry like UKIP then its best to vote for anyone else.

On 12/02/2015 20:14, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 12/02/2015 19:17, Rod Speed wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Bod wrote:
I thought we joined the EU for the common market, not the dictatorship
that the EU has developed into.
THAT's what a *lot* of people are miffed about.
The EU has been a dripping tap, slowly but surely getting more and
more
powers over us.

If you think about it, a common market also requires lots of other
things
being equalised, if it is to have any chance of working.

No it does not with the stupid stuff like with the naming
of wines etc or how vacuum cleaners are done.

Where can I buy a straight banana these days or a slightly undersized
apple? I know it's naughty, but the EU says I can't buy them
Will I get prosecuted if I do find one? :-)

No, just burnt at the stake.

Best to make an example of me, I suppose :-)

On 12/02/2015 20:18, Clive George wrote:
On 12/02/2015 19:33, Bod wrote:

Where can I buy a straight banana these days or a slightly undersized
apple? I know it's naughty, but the EU says I can't buy them

Does the EU say that? Where?


Or was it cucumbers!....it was all over the news a lot, many moons ago.

On 12/02/2015 20:21, Dennis@home wrote:
On 12/02/2015 08:50, Adrian wrote:
On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 04:12:56 +0000, harryagain wrote:

Something on the telly to watch.
http://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/2veprh/
wildly_antiukip_channel_4_docudrama_ukip_the/

The smear campaign continues.

Good to see that you're waiting to actually watch it before condemning
it.

Have you stopped to wonder why people might think that UKIP's full of
wierdos, bigots and monomaniacs?

thinks Still, at least you've found your natural home.


Given that TNP and harry like UKIP then its best to vote for anyone else.

Hmm! Is that method your idea of an intelligent way to decide who to
vote for? :-)

Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Capitol
wrote:

And don't tell me that the UKIP strategy is that after 5 years of this
everyone will vote a UKIP govt in then believe me, there'll be nothing
left.

So reelecting Camoron will solve all the problems? I'm with self
sufficiency and UKIP.

Th only way to get a referendum is to elect Cameron with a majority
govt. None of the leftwing (Greens, Labour, Libs, SNP) parties will
support that in a coalition.

And if Cameron gets such a majority and then says that because the EU
has agreed to a rebate of tuppence-ha'penny a year starting in 2050, he
no longer supports a referendum, he'd be dumped as leader the same day.


You really do believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden, don't
you? Camoron will weasel out immediately if he had a majority. The only
hope is UKIP and a change at Westminster.

Tim Streater wrote:
In article , harryagain
wrote:

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

And don't tell me that the UKIP strategy is that after 5 years of this
everyone will vote a UKIP govt in then believe me, there'll be nothing
left.

So reelecting Camoron will solve all the problems? I'm with self
sufficiency and UKIP.

Th only way to get a referendum is to elect Cameron with a majority
govt. None of the leftwing (Greens, Labour, Libs, SNP) parties will
support that in a coalition.

And if Cameron gets such a majority and then says that because the EU
has agreed to a rebate of tuppence-ha'penny a year starting in 2050, he
no longer supports a referendum, he'd be dumped as leader the same day.

Oh? Like the last "cast iron guarantee"?

The party members are giving you a cast iron guarantee sunshine.


What party members, most of them have left.

On 12/02/2015 20:36, Bod wrote:
On 12/02/2015 20:18, Clive George wrote:
On 12/02/2015 19:33, Bod wrote:

Where can I buy a straight banana these days or a slightly undersized
apple? I know it's naughty, but the EU says I can't buy them

Does the EU say that? Where?


Or was it cucumbers!....it was all over the news a lot, many moons ago.

And it's not true. So why claim it is?

On 12/02/2015 19:54, Bod wrote:
On 12/02/2015 19:50, Adrian wrote:
On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 19:18:51 +0000, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:

I have been around since 1950. I have never seen people ion general
more depressed and miserable than the last 5 years.

Blame the banks that invested in toxic debts, not the EU.

A financial sector that a certain ex-commodity trader wants to
deregulate.

A financial sector that is about 10% of the country's GDP.

A financial sector that would almost certainly shift much of their
business to Frankfurt if the UK left the EU.

Why?

Under EU regulatory rules, banks from outside the EU that wish to sell
services to consumers must have a branch within the EU. Many of those
are currently in London and would have to move. Almost 30% of UK banking
assets are foreign banking assets. The ECB would also almost certainly
force clearing houses that deal in Euro dominated trades to relocate
into the eurozone.

--
Colin Bignell

Adrian wrote:
On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 17:29:26 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

but the whole point of leaving the EU is to repair tyhe already ruined
economy.

Which it won't. Quite the opposite.


Opinion, not fact.

I visited Czechoslovakia a year after the wall came down. Britain today
resembles it.

You clearly live in a very different Britain to the one I live in.

Well, I recognise it.

UKIP should not have a policy on everything. In fact it should have
almost no policy on anything. That's not a weakness, that's a
strength.

You can't really believe that can you?

Absolutely6. No policy ion fo9xshubtning, gay marriage, plain wrappings
on cigarettes sod all that.

So what if I actually want my MP or MEP to represent me on those issues?
I should vote for somebody from a non-monomaniacal party? OK, great.

Well you do at the moment.

We are flat broke


No, we aren't. We're a G8 economy, and one of the more successful ones.

We are flat broke and buried in debt, can't you count?

we are being invaded by LEGAL immigrants

No, we aren't. And, even if we were, there are more UK nationals living
elsewhere in the EU than there are EU nationals living here. If the UK
gets rid of "them", surely it is only fair for the EU to get rid of "us",
too?

You really do live in a fairy tale world don't you? We ARE buried in
legal immigrants and each one costs the UK taxpayer at least £10k a
year. Most of the EU living brits are retired and non working, so they
cost their host country nothing. If the working Brits abroad are
returned, I'm quite happy with that, they can contribute to our economy,
not someone elses.

Oh, and if you're conflating non-EU migration, then don't forget that's
something that is ENTIRELY in UK hands.

Not whilst we have a gutless government.

and we have no power to stop anything or change anything because the EU
sets the rules.

Yes, we do, and no, they don't. Even if "they" do, "we" are a substantial
part of "them", always assuming some of "our" elected representatives
actually bothered to do the job they get paid for.

Reality (as seen from outside the pages of the Daily Mail) really isn't
your strong point, is it?

As has been explained to you, the elected representatives have no power
to change legislation, let's get our democracy back.

Nightjar cpb@ wrote:

The recession has absolutely nothing to do with us being in the EU and
leaving will only divorce us from one of our largest overseas markets.
It would be a complete disaster.

Opinion, not fact.

I have been around since 1950. I have never seen people ion general more
depressed and miserable than the last 5 years.

Blame the banks that invested in toxic debts, not the EU.

The banks represent a failure of government, I saw it coming in 2002,
Vince Cable believed Brown was doing the right thing.

I visited Czechoslovakia a year after the wall came down. Britain today
resembles it. Except there is no hope left in Britain.

You obviously live in a different part from me. What I see around me is
businesses expanding and an economy that is growing.

UKIP should not have a policy on everything. In fact it should have
almost no policy on anything. That's not a weakness, that's a strength.

You can't really believe that can you?

Absolutely6. No policy ion fo9xshubtning, gay marriage, plain wrappings
on cigarettes sod all that.

We have a few very urgent problems.

We are flat broke,.

Rubbish. Our national debt is 88% of our GDP, so we don't owe more than
we can pay and the national deficit is set to turn positive within a
couple of years, so we won't end up owning more than we can pay.

we are being invaded by LEGAL immigrants,

Who wouldn't be coming here is the situation were as bad as you make out
and they are far more likely to be making a contribution to the British
economy than native British.

and we
have no power to stop anything or change anything because the EU sets
the rules.

As I said elsewhere, the amount of UK legislation originating from the
EU is 15% to 50%, depending upon how you set the criteria. Even then,
much of that legislation would have been passed by a British government
in very similar form even if we had not been part of the EU.

That
is not enough of a basis to run a country. However, it is not whether
they are any worse, but why should anybody support them over one of
the
mainstream parties unless they were significantly better?


I think no government at all especially no EU government would be
better than what we have.

Anarchy is not better than anything.


Anything is better than what we have now.

On 12/02/15 19:50, Adrian wrote:
On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 19:18:51 +0000, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:

I have been around since 1950. I have never seen people ion general
more depressed and miserable than the last 5 years.

Blame the banks that invested in toxic debts, not the EU.

A financial sector that a certain ex-commodity trader wants to deregulate.

A financial sector that is about 10% of the country's GDP.

A financial sector that would almost certainly shift much of their
business to Frankfurt if the UK left the EU.

Odd that it was a lot biogger BEFORE we even ENTERED the EU.

A financial sector operating outside EU jurisdiction would be massively
profitable. And screw Frankfurt forever.



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 12/02/15 19:50, Tim w wrote:
On 12/02/2015 18:30, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/02/15 18:21, john james wrote:
Now - tell me again why UKIP (or any other fringe party) are somehow
worse that all this?

Because they would produce a much more spectacular shambles if the
voters were ever actually stupid enough to let them run the country

And you know this how?


It's a self evident fact. They are a bunch of clowns at best. Nasty
fools at worst.

Ah., so its really just a case of pure bigotry on your part with no
supporting evidence of anything?


Tim W



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

Adrian wrote:

A financial sector that would almost certainly shift much of their
business to Frankfurt if the UK left the EU.

Opinion, not fact. The City is very happy to leave the EU. Money goes
where it is unfettered, that's certainly not Fankfurt. Dubai maybe?

On 12/02/2015 20:57, Capitol wrote:
Adrian wrote:
On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 17:29:26 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

but the whole point of leaving the EU is to repair tyhe already ruined
economy.

Which it won't. Quite the opposite.


Opinion, not fact.

The opinion of most economists and of the Centre for European Reform:

'The alternatives to EU membership are unsatisfactory: they either give
Britain less control over regulation than it currently enjoys, or they
off er more control but less market access. In a referendum, Britain
will have to choose between national sovereignty and unimpeded access
to EU markets. While membership of the EU is as much about broader,
political questions as economics, the economic case for staying in the
Union is strong.'

http://www.cer.org.uk/sites/default/...t_june2014.pdf

....
We are flat broke


No, we aren't. We're a G8 economy, and one of the more successful ones.

We are flat broke and buried in debt, can't you count?

Our national debt is currently 88% of GDP, which is well within the
Micawber Principle. National Deficit is reducing rapidly and is expected
to move into gain within the next year.

we are being invaded by LEGAL immigrants

No, we aren't. And, even if we were, there are more UK nationals living
elsewhere in the EU than there are EU nationals living here. If the UK
gets rid of "them", surely it is only fair for the EU to get rid of "us",
too?

You really do live in a fairy tale world don't you? We ARE buried
in legal immigrants and each one costs the UK taxpayer at least £10k a
year....

Immigrants from the EU contributed £5bn more to the British economy than
they have taken out in benefits. It is immigrants from outside the EU
who cost us money.

http://www.cream-migration.org/files/FiscalEJ.pdf



--
Colin Bignell

Nightjar cpb@ wrote:
On 12/02/2015 19:54, Bod wrote:
On 12/02/2015 19:50, Adrian wrote:
On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 19:18:51 +0000, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:

I have been around since 1950. I have never seen people ion general
more depressed and miserable than the last 5 years.

Blame the banks that invested in toxic debts, not the EU.

A financial sector that a certain ex-commodity trader wants to
deregulate.

A financial sector that is about 10% of the country's GDP.

A financial sector that would almost certainly shift much of their
business to Frankfurt if the UK left the EU.

Why?

Under EU regulatory rules, banks from outside the EU that wish to sell
services to consumers must have a branch within the EU. Many of those
are currently in London and would have to move. Almost 30% of UK banking
assets are foreign banking assets. The ECB would also almost certainly
force clearing houses that deal in Euro dominated trades to relocate
into the eurozone.


AIUI, there are various clearing houses around the world. Don't
fancy the EU's chances of telling China and the USA what to do. Also,
creates real problems for Santander. Boris Johnson doesn't see it as a
problem, I'd guess his expertise is rather better than yours.

"Capitol" wrote in message
o.uk...
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Capitol
wrote:

And don't tell me that the UKIP strategy is that after 5 years of this
everyone will vote a UKIP govt in then believe me, there'll be nothing
left.

So reelecting Camoron will solve all the problems? I'm with self
sufficiency and UKIP.

Th only way to get a referendum is to elect Cameron with a majority
govt. None of the leftwing (Greens, Labour, Libs, SNP) parties will
support that in a coalition.

And if Cameron gets such a majority and then says that because the EU
has agreed to a rebate of tuppence-ha'penny a year starting in 2050, he
no longer supports a referendum, he'd be dumped as leader the same day.


You really do believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden, don't you?
Camoron will weasel out immediately if he had a majority. The only hope is
UKIP and a change at Westminster.

+ my vote

Nightjar cpb@ wrote:
On 12/02/2015 20:57, Capitol wrote:
Adrian wrote:
On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 17:29:26 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

but the whole point of leaving the EU is to repair tyhe already ruined
economy.

Which it won't. Quite the opposite.


Opinion, not fact.

The opinion of most economists and of the Centre for European Reform:

'The alternatives to EU membership are unsatisfactory: they either give
Britain less control over regulation than it currently enjoys, or they
off er more control but less market access. In a referendum, Britain
will have to choose between national sovereignty and unimpeded access
to EU markets. While membership of the EU is as much about broader,
political questions as economics, the economic case for staying in the
Union is strong.'

http://www.cer.org.uk/sites/default/...t_june2014.pdf

In the view of EU paid economists. Economists said there would not be a
banking crisis. I'd sooner make my own future.
...
We are flat broke


No, we aren't. We're a G8 economy, and one of the more successful ones.

We are flat broke and buried in debt, can't you count?

Our national debt is currently 88% of GDP, which is well within the
Micawber Principle. National Deficit is reducing rapidly and is expected
to move into gain within the next year.

To repeat.
We are flat broke and buried in debt, can't you count?

we are being invaded by LEGAL immigrants

No, we aren't. And, even if we were, there are more UK nationals living
elsewhere in the EU than there are EU nationals living here. If the UK
gets rid of "them", surely it is only fair for the EU to get rid of
"us",
too?

You really do live in a fairy tale world don't you? We ARE buried
in legal immigrants and each one costs the UK taxpayer at least £10k a
year....

Immigrants from the EU contributed £5bn more to the British economy than
they have taken out in benefits. It is immigrants from outside the EU
who cost us money.

I see you are misquoting propaganda again. The cost of an unemployed
Briton is at least £10K per year. 1 million immigrant workers costs
£10Bn, so that is a net loss of £5Bn, which the British taxpayers have
to find.

http://www.cream-migration.org/files/FiscalEJ.pdf

On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 20:57:24 +0000, Capitol wrote:

but the whole point of leaving the EU is to repair tyhe already ruined
economy.

Which it won't. Quite the opposite.

Opinion, not fact.

Of course it's opinion. As is your opinion that the opposite would be
true,

I visited Czechoslovakia a year after the wall came down. Britain
today resembles it.

You clearly live in a very different Britain to the one I live in.

Well, I recognise it.

You're actively looking for it. In fact, you're spinning everything you
see through a filter of expectation to try to prove your bias.

We are flat broke

No, we aren't. We're a G8 economy, and one of the more successful ones.

We are flat broke and buried in debt, can't you count?

Yes, I can. Which is why I know that we aren't flat broke.

The economy's not great - sure - because of a global mire, which (yes)
the UK was partly responsible for. But it's nowhere near as bad as most
of our competitors, and it's improving rapidly.

Ignore big scary numbers with lots of zeroes, and look at %ages of GDP.
The deficit is still present but down hugely, and debt is large but
manageable.

On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 21:18:45 +0000, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:

'The alternatives to EU membership are unsatisfactory: they either give
Britain less control over regulation than it currently enjoys

I particularly like the suggestions that we should be more like
Switzerland or Norway.

On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 21:04:34 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

A financial sector that a certain ex-commodity trader wants to
deregulate.

A financial sector that is about 10% of the country's GDP.

A financial sector that would almost certainly shift much of their
business to Frankfurt if the UK left the EU.

Odd that it was a lot biogger BEFORE we even ENTERED the EU.

Forty years ago.

And, no, it wasn't.

On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 21:03:44 +0000, Capitol wrote:

I think no government at all especially no EU government would be
better than what we have.

Anarchy is not better than anything.

Anything is better than what we have now.

Ask your average Syrian or Somali whether they agree.

On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 21:06:22 +0000, Capitol wrote:

Opinion, not fact.

Odd. TNP has used that very phrase several times in a very close time
period to you saying that.

A suspicious mind might think sock.

On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 21:34:09 +0000, Capitol wrote:

I see you are misquoting propaganda again. The cost of an unemployed
Briton is at least £10K per year. 1 million immigrant workers costs
£10Bn, so that is a net loss of £5Bn, which the British taxpayers have
to find.

Let's play make-believe, shall we?

You are an employer. You have a relatively generic job that needs
filling. Two people, equally able and equally motivated have applied.

One has strong connections with the local area and good communication
skills.
The other has few local connections, and relatively poor communication
skills.

Which would you give the job to?

Now, if the second one is consistently getting the job over the first
one, then might that be because the first one is lacking in ability and/
or motivation?

So what you're suggesting is that British business should ham-string
itself by being restricted to hiring only from the second-rate candidates?

On 12/02/2015 21:05, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/02/15 19:50, Tim w wrote:
On 12/02/2015 18:30, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/02/15 18:21, john james wrote:
Now - tell me again why UKIP (or any other fringe party) are somehow
worse that all this?

Because they would produce a much more spectacular shambles if the
voters were ever actually stupid enough to let them run the country

And you know this how?


It's a self evident fact. They are a bunch of clowns at best. Nasty
fools at worst.

Ah., so its really just a case of pure bigotry on your part with no
supporting evidence of anything?


meh.

There's tons of evidence. I don't have to document it for you just
because you play dumb. Try googling 'UKIP embarrassment' for folly, then
'ukip policy' for something more nasty. They are ****s.

tim W

On 12/02/2015 21:34, Capitol wrote:
Nightjar cpb@ wrote:
On 12/02/2015 20:57, Capitol wrote:
Adrian wrote:
On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 17:29:26 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
....
...
We are flat broke


No, we aren't. We're a G8 economy, and one of the more successful ones.

We are flat broke and buried in debt, can't you count?

Our national debt is currently 88% of GDP, which is well within the
Micawber Principle. National Deficit is reducing rapidly and is expected
to move into gain within the next year.

To repeat.
We are flat broke and buried in debt, can't you count?

I can, but is fairly obvious that you have no understanding of the subject.


Immigrants from the EU contributed £5bn more to the British economy than
they have taken out in benefits. It is immigrants from outside the EU
who cost us money.

I see you are misquoting propaganda again...

I am quoting from an impartial report by an independent organisation
that investigates the effects of migration. Immigrants from the EU pay
more in taxes than they receive in benefits.

http://www.cream-migration.org/files/FiscalEJ.pdf



--
Colin Bignell

On 12/02/2015 21:36, Adrian wrote:
On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 21:18:45 +0000, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:

'The alternatives to EU membership are unsatisfactory: they either give
Britain less control over regulation than it currently enjoys

I particularly like the suggestions that we should be more like
Switzerland ...


Have our neighbours report us for using the wrong colour of bin bag?

--
Colin Bignell

"Capitol" wrote in message
o.uk...
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Capitol
wrote:

And don't tell me that the UKIP strategy is that after 5 years of this
everyone will vote a UKIP govt in then believe me, there'll be nothing
left.

So reelecting Camoron will solve all the problems? I'm with self
sufficiency and UKIP.

Th only way to get a referendum is to elect Cameron with a majority
govt. None of the leftwing (Greens, Labour, Libs, SNP) parties will
support that in a coalition.

And if Cameron gets such a majority and then says that because the EU
has agreed to a rebate of tuppence-ha'penny a year starting in 2050, he
no longer supports a referendum, he'd be dumped as leader the same day.


You really do believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden, don't you?
Camoron will weasel out immediately if he had a majority.

The only hope is UKIP and a change at Westminster.

There is no chance that UKIP will ever be the govt, you watch.

"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 12/02/2015 19:54, Bod wrote:
On 12/02/2015 19:50, Adrian wrote:
On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 19:18:51 +0000, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:

I have been around since 1950. I have never seen people ion general
more depressed and miserable than the last 5 years.

Blame the banks that invested in toxic debts, not the EU.

A financial sector that a certain ex-commodity trader wants to
deregulate.

A financial sector that is about 10% of the country's GDP.

A financial sector that would almost certainly shift much of their
business to Frankfurt if the UK left the EU.

Why?

Under EU regulatory rules, banks from outside the EU that wish to sell
services to consumers must have a branch within the EU.

That isn't the same thing as shifting much of their business to Frankfurt.

Many of those are currently in London and would have to move.

Nope, just have a branch within the EU.

Almost 30% of UK banking assets are foreign banking assets.

But not necessarily EU assets.

The ECB would also almost certainly force clearing houses that deal in
Euro dominated trades to relocate into the eurozone.

Bull****.

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 12/02/15 17:53, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/02/15 17:50, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I have been around since 1950. I have never seen people ion general more
depressed and miserable than the last 5 years.

Obviously. A Tory government run riot cutting the living standards of all
but the richest. That has been their vision since Thatcher.

you really are a card. 15 years of Blair and 40 years of the EU has
destroyed peoples will to live.

It was worst under Blair.

I'd say so.

Compare the amount of regulation on daily living now to the 1970s or earlier. It's
destroying my will to live.

We had a story in the local paper just before Xmas where a law firm was advising
employers (and practising themselves) not to have alcohol fuelled Xmas parties as
"employers were liable for their employees if anyone did anything bad". For christs
sake. When I was in the civil service, an Xmas party involved a jolly good time and a
certain amount of arse related photocopying.

No body minded and the women were as game as the blokes for some serious joking. Noone
shagged anyone and noone acted in an offensive way because, well, people could get
mashed without starting a fight...


But the situation you describe isn't the result of regulation, but of the abolition
of regulation. Regulations against advertising by solictors, and regulations
against no win no fee arrangements.

Prior to this very few people, certainly outside of a union and with a very strong case,
would ever have the resources to sue their employer, their doctor or anyone
else. Or would have the faintest idea about the rights and wrongs of their
particular case and how they could go about pursuing it.

Nowadays you can't turn on theTV without being bombarded by adverts by ambulance
chasing firms of solicitors inviting you to sue the arse off anyone who
may have wronged you in any way. While the acceptance rate may be low
the fact that they can afford to advertise on TV must mean that the amount
of compo flying around must be hitting some people pretty hard in the
pocket.

Although it maybe goes without saying, that as in USA, the elected representatives
mainly resposnible for this de-regulation were not short of lawyers among their ranks.


michael adams

....

Capitol wrote
Adrian wrote
The Natural Philosopher wrote

but the whole point of leaving the EU is to repair tyhe already ruined
economy.

Which it won't. Quite the opposite.

Opinion, not fact.

Leaving the EU is unlikely to do much for the British economy.

I visited Czechoslovakia a year after the wall came down. Britain today
resembles it.

You clearly live in a very different Britain to the one I live in.

Well, I recognise it.

Nope, just claim that, a different matter entirely.

UKIP should not have a policy on everything. In fact it should have
almost no policy on anything. That's not a weakness, that's a
strength.

You can't really believe that can you?

Absolutely6. No policy ion fo9xshubtning, gay marriage, plain wrappings
on cigarettes sod all that.

So what if I actually want my MP or MEP to represent me on those issues?
I should vote for somebody from a non-monomaniacal party? OK, great.

Well you do at the moment.

We are flat broke

No, we aren't. We're a G8 economy, and one of the more successful ones.

We are flat broke

Nope.

and buried in debt,

Plenty of others have much more debt.

can't you count?

we are being invaded by LEGAL immigrants

No, we aren't. And, even if we were, there are more UK nationals living
elsewhere in the EU than there are EU nationals living here. If the UK
gets rid of "them", surely it is only fair for the EU to get rid of "us",
too?

You really do live in a fairy tale world don't you?

We'll see...

We ARE buried in legal immigrants

Have fun explaining why they show up in
Britain which according to you is flat broke.

and each one costs the UK taxpayer at least £10k a year.

Bull****.

Most of the EU living brits are retired and non working, so they cost
their host country nothing. If the working Brits abroad are returned, I'm
quite happy with that,

But they obviously wouldnt be.

they can contribute to our economy, not someone elses.

The reason most of them have left is because that isn't possible in Britain.

And that has been true for more than a hundred years now.

Oh, and if you're conflating non-EU migration, then don't forget that's
something that is ENTIRELY in UK hands.

Not whilst we have a gutless government.

Still not imposed by the EU.

and we have no power to stop anything or change anything because the EU
sets the rules.

Yes, we do, and no, they don't. Even if "they" do, "we" are a substantial
part of "them", always assuming some of "our" elected representatives
actually bothered to do the job they get paid for.

Reality (as seen from outside the pages of the Daily Mail) really isn't
your strong point, is it?

As has been explained to you, the elected representatives have no power to
change legislation,

That hasnt been 'explained', its been CLAIMED, a
different matter entirely. And its a lie with anywhere
from 50% to 80% of the legislation anyway.

let's get our democracy back.

Voting for UKIP isn't going to do that, essentially
because hardly anyone else will do that.

"Capitol" wrote in message
o.uk...
Nightjar cpb@ wrote:

The recession has absolutely nothing to do with us being in the EU and
leaving will only divorce us from one of our largest overseas markets.
It would be a complete disaster.

Opinion, not fact.

I have been around since 1950. I have never seen people ion general more
depressed and miserable than the last 5 years.

Blame the banks that invested in toxic debts, not the EU.

The banks represent a failure of government, I saw it coming in 2002,
Vince Cable believed Brown was doing the right thing.

I visited Czechoslovakia a year after the wall came down. Britain today
resembles it. Except there is no hope left in Britain.

You obviously live in a different part from me. What I see around me is
businesses expanding and an economy that is growing.

UKIP should not have a policy on everything. In fact it should have
almost no policy on anything. That's not a weakness, that's a
strength.

You can't really believe that can you?

Absolutely6. No policy ion fo9xshubtning, gay marriage, plain wrappings
on cigarettes sod all that.

We have a few very urgent problems.

We are flat broke,.

Rubbish. Our national debt is 88% of our GDP, so we don't owe more than
we can pay and the national deficit is set to turn positive within a
couple of years, so we won't end up owning more than we can pay.

we are being invaded by LEGAL immigrants,

Who wouldn't be coming here is the situation were as bad as you make out
and they are far more likely to be making a contribution to the British
economy than native British.

and we
have no power to stop anything or change anything because the EU sets
the rules.

As I said elsewhere, the amount of UK legislation originating from the
EU is 15% to 50%, depending upon how you set the criteria. Even then,
much of that legislation would have been passed by a British government
in very similar form even if we had not been part of the EU.

That
is not enough of a basis to run a country. However, it is not whether
they are any worse, but why should anybody support them over one of
the
mainstream parties unless they were significantly better?


I think no government at all especially no EU government would be
better than what we have.

Anarchy is not better than anything.


Anything is better than what we have now.

Nope, anarchy like was seen in the recent riots
would be MUCH worse than what you have now.

On 12/02/2015 23:31, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 12/02/2015 19:54, Bod wrote:
On 12/02/2015 19:50, Adrian wrote:
On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 19:18:51 +0000, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:

I have been around since 1950. I have never seen people ion general
more depressed and miserable than the last 5 years.

Blame the banks that invested in toxic debts, not the EU.

A financial sector that a certain ex-commodity trader wants to
deregulate.

A financial sector that is about 10% of the country's GDP.

A financial sector that would almost certainly shift much of their
business to Frankfurt if the UK left the EU.

Why?

Under EU regulatory rules, banks from outside the EU that wish to sell
services to consumers must have a branch within the EU.

That isn't the same thing as shifting much of their business to Frankfurt.

Not as long as London stays within the EU, although, if we left, they
might choose Paris instead of Frankfurt.

Many of those are currently in London and would have to move.

Nope, just have a branch within the EU.

After which, the branch in London is unlikely to be needed.

Almost 30% of UK banking assets are foreign banking assets.

But not necessarily EU assets.

Not EU assets at all, which is why the foreign banks would need to move
them to an EU country.


The ECB would also almost certainly force clearing houses that deal in
Euro dominated trades to relocate into the eurozone.

Bull****.

The British Government is already in dispute with the ECB over its
location policy and is taking it to the European Court of Justice over
it. If we leave the EU we would have no say in the matter.


--
Colin Bignell

On 12/02/2015 20:36, Bod wrote:
On 12/02/2015 20:18, Clive George wrote:
On 12/02/2015 19:33, Bod wrote:

Where can I buy a straight banana these days or a slightly undersized
apple? I know it's naughty, but the EU says I can't buy them

Does the EU say that? Where?

It never did, but the British interpretation of the regulations resulted
in some strange consequences that didn't happen in the rest of the EU.

Or was it cucumbers!....it was all over the news a lot, many moons ago.

The regulations were later repealed due to representations to the EU by
farmers, growers and retailers.

--
Colin Bignell

"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 12/02/2015 23:31, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 12/02/2015 19:54, Bod wrote:
On 12/02/2015 19:50, Adrian wrote:
On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 19:18:51 +0000, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:

I have been around since 1950. I have never seen people ion general
more depressed and miserable than the last 5 years.

Blame the banks that invested in toxic debts, not the EU.

A financial sector that a certain ex-commodity trader wants to
deregulate.

A financial sector that is about 10% of the country's GDP.

A financial sector that would almost certainly shift much of their
business to Frankfurt if the UK left the EU.

Why?

Under EU regulatory rules, banks from outside the EU that wish to sell
services to consumers must have a branch within the EU.

That isn't the same thing as shifting much of their business to
Frankfurt.

Not as long as London stays within the EU,

And when it chooses to leave too.

although, if we left, they might choose Paris instead of Frankfurt.

Or just have a branch in the EU somewhere and carry
on regardless with none of their business shifted anywhere.

Many of those are currently in London and would have to move.

Nope, just have a branch within the EU.

After which, the branch in London is unlikely to be needed.

The branch in the EU doesnt have to be the one that does the business.

Almost 30% of UK banking assets are foreign banking assets.

But not necessarily EU assets.

Not EU assets at all, which is why the foreign banks would need to move
them to an EU country.

No they would not. There is no requirement to do that.

The ECB would also almost certainly force clearing houses that deal in
Euro dominated trades to relocate into the eurozone.

Bull****.

The British Government is already in dispute with the ECB over its
location policy and is taking it to the European Court of Justice over it.
If we leave the EU we would have no say in the matter.

How odd that not all clearing houses that deal in Euro
dominated trades have relocated into the eurozone.

In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 21:18:45 +0000, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:

'The alternatives to EU membership are unsatisfactory: they either give
Britain less control over regulation than it currently enjoys

I particularly like the suggestions that we should be more like
Switzerland or Norway.

build more mountains

--
From KT24 in Surrey

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On 12/02/15 23:36, michael adams wrote:

But the situation you describe isn't the result of regulation, but of the abolition
of regulation. Regulations against advertising by solictors, and regulations
against no win no fee arrangements.

Fair point -

I was however thinking of stuff like:

Part P
Part L
DBS/CBR checks even if you are just a parent helper at a school under
more or less constant supervision
Having to send gawd knows how many documents off to join a new
bank/credit card/etc
Having to "prove my identity" to my own solicitor on a regular basis.
and many many more

I was also annoyed the other night when I watched a programme about the
HSBC money laundering - and there was (I think) a taxman saying "and
there's no good reason someone could want to withdraw x-100,000 in cash".

Whilst I hate the tax fiddlers, that really ****ed me off. "No good
reason???!!" Well, yes there is a good reason - it's their money and
they can take it about how they like. Only at the point they fail to pay
their taxes, do they break the law.

What he really meant was "We hate it when you make it hard to spy on
everyone".

Makes me want to take my savings out, convert to gold kruggerands and
hide them literally all over the place.



Prior to this very few people, certainly outside of a union and with a very strong case,
would ever have the resources to sue their employer, their doctor or anyone
else. Or would have the faintest idea about the rights and wrongs of their
particular case and how they could go about pursuing it.

Nowadays you can't turn on theTV without being bombarded by adverts by ambulance
chasing firms of solicitors inviting you to sue the arse off anyone who
may have wronged you in any way. While the acceptance rate may be low
the fact that they can afford to advertise on TV must mean that the amount
of compo flying around must be hitting some people pretty hard in the
pocket.

Although it maybe goes without saying, that as in USA, the elected representatives
mainly resposnible for this de-regulation were not short of lawyers among their ranks.


michael adams

...

On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 00:09:51 +0000, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:

A financial sector that would almost certainly shift much of their
business to Frankfurt if the UK left the EU.

Why?

Under EU regulatory rules, banks from outside the EU that wish to sell
services to consumers must have a branch within the EU.

That isn't the same thing as shifting much of their business to
Frankfurt.

Not as long as London stays within the EU, although, if we left, they
might choose Paris instead of Frankfurt.

Unlikely, Paris is definitely an also-ran as a financial centre, compared
to London. Hell, most of the French living in London (London has the
fifth or sixth-biggest French population of any world city - including
all those in France) are here because they work in financial services.

After which, the branch in London is unlikely to be needed.

Because, after all, UKIP don't want barriers to trade with Europe, so
there would be absolutely no need for an extra-EU financial centre so
close to Frankfurt.

On 13/02/15 08:06, Tim Watts wrote:
On 12/02/15 23:36, michael adams wrote:

But the situation you describe isn't the result of regulation, but of
the abolition
of regulation. Regulations against advertising by solictors, and
regulations
against no win no fee arrangements.

Fair point -

I was however thinking of stuff like:

Part P
Part L
DBS/CBR checks even if you are just a parent helper at a school under
more or less constant supervision
Having to send gawd knows how many documents off to join a new
bank/credit card/etc
Having to "prove my identity" to my own solicitor on a regular basis.
and many many more

Oh - and ANPR cameras.
Internet spying.


As a followup - Boiling Frog comes to mind.

I have a long memory and it horrifies me how much state interferance
there is now compared to 1975. But the new generation do not know any
better.

On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 11:40:38 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Can you write though?

Strong political argument there!


Charlie.



--
He who throws dirt loses ground.