On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 20:55:07 +1100, john james wrote:

Who pays Farage ?

We do, dawn it - via the EU.


Charlie.



--
He who throws dirt loses ground.

On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 10:24:32 +0000, Capitol wrote:

The new generation are leaving with great speed, at least, the
productive/creative ones.

citation please.

TIA


Charlie.



--
He who throws dirt loses ground.

On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 20:46:00 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

Because its obvious you are a wog.

Better than being a racist.



--
He who throws dirt loses ground.

On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 10:07:59 +0000, Bob Henson wrote:

Strangely enough


Goodness that a long list, it must be lonely out there!



Charlie.

--
He who throws dirt loses ground.

On 15/02/15 18:46, Charlie wrote:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 20:46:00 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

Because its obvious you are a wog.

Better than being a racist.


probably both.





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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
john james wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
john james wrote:
Always seemed odd that MPs (and governments) are happy to be elected
by a small percentage of those eligible to vote - but want different
rules for others.

There isn't really any viable alternative with MPs except
compulsory voting and that has real downsides too.

Lots of viable alternatives. Getting rid of the first past the post
system, so all those who vote get at least some representation.

That isn't a viable alternative, it means that all governments
are coalitions and most of them are very unstable.

And those that vote for the parties that only get a small
minority of the vote get a lot more say in government
policy than the percentage of the vote they get warrants.

Compulsory
voting with a 'none of the above' option.

That doesn't achieve anything. What are
you going to do if that particular vote is the
majority, not have anyone elected to that seat ?

And so on.

There is no and so on.


Ok then. So explain why compulsory voting (or an absolute majority etc) is
ok when mooted for union matters?

I didn't say that was OK but it does make
some sense when say deciding whether
to go out on strike or return to work.

Some terminal ****wit claiming to be
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
just the pathetic excuse for bull**** that's all it can ever manage.

On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 12:24:50 +1100, john james wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

Ok then. So explain why compulsory voting (or an absolute majority etc)
is ok when mooted for union matters?

I didn't say that was OK but it does make some sense when say deciding
whether to go out on strike or return to work.

And let's not forget that there hasn't been a general election with a
turnout lower than 50% since the war. The nearest was 2001, with a gnat's
under 60% turnout.

http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm

No, that isn't - of course - the same as an absolute majority of the
electorate, but that simply isn't feasible in any multi-choice (rather
than simple yes/no) election. The last time it happened was 1931 - when
the Torys got 55%. It's been near a handful of times - the Tories with
49.7% in 1979 and 1955, whilst Labour have only twice got to 48% or more
- 1966 (48.0%) and 1951 (48.8%)

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

Quite simply, though, unless you completely remove constituency
representation - which nobody's actually suggesting, afaict, you will
always have a difference between the vote share nationally and the number
of seats any party has.

And if you REALLY want a direct correlation between popular vote %age and
seats, remember that the BNP got nearly 2% (12 seats) in the 2010 general
election - and 6% the year before in the Euro elections. Extrapolate that
to a general election, and that's 39 seats.

In article ,
john james wrote:
Ok then. So explain why compulsory voting (or an absolute majority
etc) is ok when mooted for union matters?

I didn't say that was OK but it does make
some sense when say deciding whether
to go out on strike or return to work.

Strikes generally last for a few days at most.

Governments, 5 years?

--
*Red meat is not bad for you. Fuzzy green meat is bad for you.

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

In message , Nightjar
writes
On 12/02/2015 04:12, harryagain wrote:
Something on the telly to watch.

http://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/c..._antiukip_chan
nel_4_docudrama_ukip_the/

The smear campaign continues.

Channel 4 did offer Nigel Farage the chance to reply in an interview
with Jon Snow to be shown after the programme. He has declined the
offer.

But he hasn't been offered the opportunity to see the program before it
is aired.
--
bert

On 16/02/15 13:42, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
john james wrote:
Ok then. So explain why compulsory voting (or an absolute majority
etc) is ok when mooted for union matters?

I didn't say that was OK but it does make
some sense when say deciding whether
to go out on strike or return to work.

Strikes generally last for a few days at most.

Ive seen strikes bring down and outlast governments.

Unions and the Labour party and strikes are the reason Margaret Thatcher
got elected, and you know it.


Governments, 5 years?



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

In message , Adrian
writes
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.

But GDP Doesn't represent wealth. It doesn't take into account debt. Our
debt s about £1.4 trillion and now rising at the rate of about £100bn
per annum. That is not sustainable in the long term. And merely
increasing GDP by borrowing more or inflating the public sector doesn't
tackle the problem.
--
bert

On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 14:01:28 +0000, bert wrote:

Channel 4 did offer Nigel Farage the chance to reply in an interview
with Jon Snow to be shown after the programme. He has declined the
offer.

But he hasn't been offered the opportunity to see the program before it
is aired.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015...irst-100-days-
channel-4_n_6686780.html

"Channel 4's head of documentaries Nick Mirsky said... "We did invite
Farage to come and do an interview after the programme in which case he
would have seen it before it went out but he declined."

In message , michael adams
writes

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...

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.*

Indeed. I've held accounts with the same building society continually
now for around the past 40 years. The same actual branch although
obviously the staff and shoffittings change. In order to open a new
account by transferring money from another account to take advantage
of a better interest rate - all accounts are in the same name, same
address, with the same branch, I was first required to provide two
forms of ID.
And this wasn't just the assistant being over-zealous. She actually
showed me, and let me keep, which she shouldn't have done, the
internal checklist they have to follow when opening all
new accounts.


michael adams

...




Local building society refused to accept a cheque made out to my middle
name even though they had it on their records. - so I went next door to
Lloyds and paid it into my current account with them through their
automatic cheque reader - no check whatsoever.
--
bert

In message , Nightjar
writes
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.

Assuming the eurozone survives long enough
--
bert

On 16/02/15 14:01, bert wrote:
In message , Nightjar
writes
On 12/02/2015 04:12, harryagain wrote:
Something on the telly to watch.

http://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/c..._antiukip_chan
nel_4_docudrama_ukip_the/

The smear campaign continues.

Channel 4 did offer Nigel Farage the chance to reply in an interview
with Jon Snow to be shown after the programme. He has declined the offer.

But he hasn't been offered the opportunity to see the program before it
is aired.

From UKIP central

"Nigel Farage accepted an interview from Channel 4 with Jeremy Paxman,
Channel 4 cancelled and later tried to rebook. Nigel by that time had
accepted another invitation."

It really is that simple.



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

In message , Adrian
writes
On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 08:57:04 +0000, The Medway Handyman wrote:

We didn't enter the EU, we joined the Common Market

...which we then helped to turn into the EU.
Which we then failed to prevent turning into the EU
--
bert

In message , Charlie
writes
On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 17:29:26 +0000, 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.


IMHO that says more about you than it does about Britain. You can't
create a general rule because you are and your mates have lost the will
to live!

Maybe because I'm a little older than you, and come from a poor working
class family, my perspective is different. In spite of the all the
politicians who try to ruin it, life today for most people is far better
than it was in 1950.

Like producing a ration book for a bag of sweets
Like a black market in basic foodstuffs
Like totally unprotected tenancies for the Rachmans of the property
world
Like the real threat of nuclear war
Like radio stations closely restricted by governments
Like waiting for months for a shared party line telephone because
politicians ripped off the profits to support a cheap but overmanned
postal system
etc etc
You have 1950 and I'll take 2015!


Charlie.


--
bert

In message , The Medway Handyman
writes
On 12/02/2015 16:31, Bod wrote:
On 12/02/2015 15:58, Tim Watts wrote:
On 12/02/15 14:46, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 12/02/2015 10:53, Tim Watts wrote:

Now - tell me again why UKIP (or any other fringe party) are somehow
worse that all this?...

They want to take us out of the EU for a start.

They probably should - we are getting hamstrung in way too many central
dictacts.

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.


I agreed with the decision to join the Common Market, but not the EU.

And if I'm a member of the EU, why do I have to show a passport to go
from England to France?

Because without it we won't let you back in.
--
bert

On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 14:12:41 +0000, bert wrote:

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.

But GDP Doesn't represent wealth. It doesn't take into account debt.

It's roughly equivalent to the country's salary. And somebody's salary
doesn't take debt into account, either. Is all debt bad? Is having a
mortgage bad?

Our debt s about £1.4 trillion

Net, about 80% of GDP.

If somebody's total debt, including your mortgage, was 80% of their
salary, they wouldn't be exactly in deep ****, would they?

Have a look at this :-
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/73121000/jpg/
_73121362_e509d73f-85b0-4f92-b8a0-ea5f72528641.jpg

and now rising at the rate of about £100bn per annum.

Woo. About 6%, down from a peak of 11%. Like I said, ignore the big scary
numbers... Still not great, sure. But a damn sight better. Good will only
happen once the deficit goes, and there's a surplus, which'll mean the
government can start to reduce off some of the debt.

That is not sustainable in the long term. And merely increasing GDP by
borrowing more or inflating the public sector doesn't tackle the
problem.

You don't quite understand what GDP is, let alone what "deficit" and
"debt" are in this context, do you?

GDP is the total size of the country's economy.
Debt is the amount the government owe.
Deficit is the amount the government spend more than they receive.

So, apart from the subtle detail that "borrowing more" won't do much to
reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio, increasing the public sector - government
spending - is not exactly a great way to reduce the deficit...

The only way in which deficit-to-GDP or debt-to-GDP will reduce is if
either the government spend a lot LESS (not more, as you're suggesting),
or GDP - which primarily comes from the private sector - grows.

On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 14:23:36 +0000, bert wrote:

We didn't enter the EU, we joined the Common Market

...which we then helped to turn into the EU.

Which we then failed to prevent turning into the EU

Have a read of this, going back to 1994.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...ean-elections-
explaining-the-mysterious-british-veto-john-lichfield-writes-the-first-of-
a-series-examining-issues-thrown-up-by-the-european-parliament-
campaign-1438345.html

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Strikes generally last for a few days at most.

Ive seen strikes bring down and outlast governments.

Only if that government wanted it to happen. Any strike can be settled.

Unions and the Labour party and strikes are the reason Margaret Thatcher
got elected, and you know it.

And perhaps the reason she got chucked out on her ear.

Rather like UKIP. A (sadly) large percentage of the country look for a
simplistic reason for problems. And are easily lead by the press, etc.

Thatcher was just easily lead.

--
*DOES THE LITTLE MERMAID WEAR AN ALGEBRA?

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

On 16/02/15 14:45, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Thatcher was just easily lead.

Now I really know you are delusional.


--
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 Thursday, February 12, 2015 at 8:18:00 AM UTC, harry wrote:
Something on the telly to watch.
http://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/c...rama_ukip_the/

The smear campaign continues.

I remember now why I don't read these off-topic threads - it turns out that posters whose views I respect on matters of home maintenance are in fact raving mad.

On 16/02/2015 14:12, bert wrote:
In message , Adrian
....
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.

But GDP Doesn't represent wealth. It doesn't take into account debt. Our
debt s about £1.4 trillion and now rising at the rate of about £100bn
per annum. That is not sustainable in the long term.

Nor is it expected it will be. As a percentage of GDP, our national debt
will probably start to reduce after next year. The national deficit is
reducing and is expected to become a surplus around 2017. Our net
borrowing is reducing - we borrowed about £150bn in 2009 - and is
projected to reach zero around 2019. Of course, that may depend upon who
is in power.

And merely
increasing GDP by borrowing more or inflating the public sector doesn't
tackle the problem.

Borrowing to invest, which can be a major part of our borrowing, helps
to reduce the deficit and if government can increase its assets that can
reduce or avoid borrowing.


--
Colin Bignell

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/02/15 14:45, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Thatcher was just easily lead.

Now I really know you are delusional.

Did you ever meet her? Have a private conversation with her?

Obviously not or you'd know what I'm talking about.

--
*I am a nobody, and nobody is perfect; therefore I am perfect*

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

Nightjar cpb@ wrote:
On 16/02/2015 14:12, bert wrote:
In message , Adrian
...
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.

But GDP Doesn't represent wealth. It doesn't take into account debt. Our
debt s about £1.4 trillion and now rising at the rate of about £100bn
per annum. That is not sustainable in the long term.

Nor is it expected it will be. As a percentage of GDP, our national debt
will probably start to reduce after next year. The national deficit is
reducing and is expected to become a surplus around 2017. Our net
borrowing is reducing - we borrowed about £150bn in 2009 - and is
projected to reach zero around 2019. Of course, that may depend upon who
is in power.

And merely
increasing GDP by borrowing more or inflating the public sector doesn't
tackle the problem.

Borrowing to invest, which can be a major part of our borrowing, helps
to reduce the deficit and if government can increase its assets that can
reduce or avoid borrowing.


You seem to be another one who believes in fairies. Until spending
reduces below income all that happens is that you become bankrupt as you
can't pay your debts. The money printing, borrowing process the UK is
involved in,is known as "kicking the can down the road". The USA is
another good case of this, but at least they allowed their property
market to correct. An increase in interest rates for government debt
will cause the whole house of cards to fall.

bert wrote:
Like totally unprotected tenancies for the Rachmans of the property world

What's changed? Tenants have no security and the rents are causing a
property bubble.

bert wrote:

Because without it we won't let you back in.

We don't seem to be very good at this bit!

On 16/02/2015 16:46, Capitol wrote:
Nightjar cpb@ wrote:
....
Nor is it expected it will be. As a percentage of GDP, our national debt
will probably start to reduce after next year. The national deficit is
reducing and is expected to become a surplus around 2017. Our net
borrowing is reducing - we borrowed about £150bn in 2009 - and is
projected to reach zero around 2019. Of course, that may depend upon who
is in power.

....
You seem to be another one who believes in fairies. Until spending
reduces below income all that happens is that you become bankrupt as you
can't pay your debts...

You obviously don't understand either what I wrote or the meaning of
bankrupt.

--
Colin Bignell

On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 16:46:29 +0000, Capitol wrote:

Until spending reduces below income all that happens is that you become
bankrupt as you can't pay your debts.

The UK is a VERY long way from being insolvent, let alone bankrupt. Our
debt-to-GDP ratio isn't even THAT high. Japan's is nearly three times
ours, and the US is over 100%. Germany isn't that far behind us, either.

As a measure of how useful it is as a metric of financial health, Russia
sits at 10%, close to such shiningly healthy economies as Uzbekistan and
Paraguay, with Haiti at 15%.

If the UK really were near-bankrupt, we wouldn't be one of just twelve
countries to have S&P's highest possible credit rating - AAA - nor one of
twelve to have top tier by DBRS, nor one of thirteen top-tier by JCR.

Of those credit ratings who don't put the UK in the top tier, if we were
that deep in the ****, the UK wouldn't be one of four countries to be
just one notch off top (held by twelve countries) in Fitch's ratings - AA
+ below AAA - nor would we be one of three countries to be one notch off
the top tier fifteen in Moody's - AA1 instead of AAA.

Unless, of course, you know something that none of them do? No, thought
not.

On 16/02/15 17:31, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 16:46:29 +0000, Capitol wrote:

Until spending reduces below income all that happens is that you become
bankrupt as you can't pay your debts.

The UK is a VERY long way from being insolvent, let alone bankrupt. Our
debt-to-GDP ratio isn't even THAT high. Japan's is nearly three times
ours, and the US is over 100%. Germany isn't that far behind us, either.

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

"The United Kingdom National Debt is the total quantity of money
borrowed by the Government of the United Kingdom at any one time through
the issue of securities by the British Treasury and other government
agencies.

As of Q1 2013 UK government debt amounted to £1.377 trillion, or 88.1%
of total GDP, at which time the annual cost of servicing (paying the
interest) the public debt amounted to around £43bn, or roughly 3% of GDP."

So we're OK as long as no one calls us on the debt...

Whilst not technically bankrupt, I liken it to a spendaholic jugging a
load of credit cards. Fine as long as nothing upsets the delicate balance...

As a measure of how useful it is as a metric of financial health, Russia
sits at 10%, close to such shiningly healthy economies as Uzbekistan and
Paraguay, with Haiti at 15%.

In my example, we're the "spendaholic", they'd be the "heroin addled
drug users". Fine, we're better than that - but not a hugely useful
comparison.

If the UK really were near-bankrupt, we wouldn't be one of just twelve
countries to have S&P's highest possible credit rating - AAA - nor one of
twelve to have top tier by DBRS, nor one of thirteen top-tier by JCR.

Ah - S&P the reliable and unbiased credit assessment agency...

Of those credit ratings who don't put the UK in the top tier, if we were
that deep in the ****, the UK wouldn't be one of four countries to be
just one notch off top (held by twelve countries) in Fitch's ratings - AA
+ below AAA - nor would we be one of three countries to be one notch off
the top tier fifteen in Moody's - AA1 instead of AAA.

Unless, of course, you know something that none of them do? No, thought
not.

On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 17:48:39 +0000, Tim Watts wrote:

As of Q1 2013 UK government debt amounted to £1.377 trillion, or 88.1%
of total GDP, at which time the annual cost of servicing (paying the
interest) the public debt amounted to around £43bn, or roughly 3% of
GDP."

Net debt is a more useful metric, because other people also owe us money.

As a measure of how useful it is as a metric of financial health,
Russia sits at 10%, close to such shiningly healthy economies as
Uzbekistan and Paraguay, with Haiti at 15%.

In my example, we're the "spendaholic", they'd be the "heroin addled
drug users". Fine, we're better than that - but not a hugely useful
comparison.

Perhaps you missed the subtle point that they have very low debt...

If the UK really were near-bankrupt, we wouldn't be one of just twelve
countries to have S&P's highest possible credit rating - AAA - nor one
of twelve to have top tier by DBRS, nor one of thirteen top-tier by
JCR.

Ah - S&P the reliable and unbiased credit assessment agency...

Are all the others equally so-much-wronger-than-random-bloke-on-
t'internet? Makes you wonder how they stay in business, doesn't it?

On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 18:12:09 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

Notwithstanding any of this, I'd still like to see our debt being
reduced for a few years, by running a surplus.

Apart from the two Eds, and various (other?) no-hope loony-fringers, I
don't think anybody's seriously suggesting otherwise.

We're paying far too much in interest. What happens if global interest
rates start to go up? Presumably existing debt stays at the rate that
it was borrowed at, but new debt would start to become rather
expensive, ISTM.

Plus some of the existing debt would come due for repayment, and need to
be re-funded - naturally, that would be at higher rates.

On 16/02/2015 14:45, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Strikes generally last for a few days at most.

Ive seen strikes bring down and outlast governments.

Only if that government wanted it to happen. Any strike can be settled.

Only if the workers agree.

On 16/02/2015 16:51, Capitol wrote:
bert wrote:

Because without it we won't let you back in.

We don't seem to be very good at this bit!

We are better at it than France, I have never had my passport checked by
the French.
They always check it on the way back.

On 16/02/2015 18:12, Tim Streater wrote:
....
Notwithstanding any of this, I'd still like to see our debt being
reduced for a few years, by running a surplus...

Actually, all that will do to begin with is to reduce the amount we need
to borrow each year. Current estimates are that we will start to show a
profit around 2017 and stop borrowing more around 2019. After that, we
will be able to start reducing the debt, although GDP growth should have
already started to reduce it as a percentage of GDP. That is assuming
that we stay in the EU and don't convert an economy currently growing at
2.6% to one that is shrinks by about 2.25%.

--
Colin Bignell

Nightjar cpb@ wrote:

That is assuming
that we stay in the EU and don't convert an economy currently growing at
2.6% to one that is shrinks by about 2.25%.


I think you have that assumption back to front.

Dennis@home wrote:
On 16/02/2015 16:51, Capitol wrote:
bert wrote:

Because without it we won't let you back in.

We don't seem to be very good at this bit!

We are better at it than France, I have never had my passport checked by
the French.
They always check it on the way back.

We were commenting on the UK. The USA does it much better than us.

On 16/02/2015 22:52, Capitol wrote:
Dennis@home wrote:
On 16/02/2015 16:51, Capitol wrote:
bert wrote:

Because without it we won't let you back in.

We don't seem to be very good at this bit!

We are better at it than France, I have never had my passport checked by
the French.
They always check it on the way back.

We were commenting on the UK. The USA does it much better than us.

That's a coincidence, so was I.