In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
the costs of a nuclear deterrent could be shared by
all members.

Which it hasn;t done and should which proves just how useful Eurpore
actiualy is when doing something important.

Of course many would question just how important a nuclear deterrent is.


But those who want out probably consider many of those
countries enemies anyway. ;-)

So why don't we have a nuclear detternt for europe paid for buy the EU
rather than the UK.

You want the EU to pay for something without the UK contributing?
Figures...

--
*IF A PARSLEY FARMER IS SUED, CAN THEY GARNISH HIS WAGES?

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

On 15/04/16 13:39, dennis@home wrote:
It was the yanks that were going to war over Cuba too, they decided it
was fine to have short range nukes in Germany aimed at Russia but it was
worth destruction to stop the same short range missiles in Cuba.


Well that of course was te standard Commie supporters way of looking at it.

You forget that Russia marched across Eastern Europe in the last stages
of the War. 'liberating' the countries, and then at the end, suddenly,
they weren't so 'liberated' after all. They were OCCUPIED, and they
stayed OCCUPIED for 45 years give or take and when their inhabitants
said 'can we have our country back please?' they invaded them all over
again.

I went to E Germany and Czech republic post the wall fall, and I
understand exactly why we had short range tactical nukes pointing at Russia.


The yanks did what they could get away with, and it was very handy for
Europe to have two superpowers somewhat in balance.


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

Karl Marx

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/04/16 13:39, dennis@home wrote:
It was the yanks that were going to war over Cuba too, they decided it
was fine to have short range nukes in Germany aimed at Russia but it
was worth destruction to stop the same short range missiles in Cuba.


Well that of course was te standard Commie supporters way of looking at
it.

You forget that Russia marched across Eastern Europe in the last stages
of the War. 'liberating' the countries, and then at the end, suddenly,
they weren't so 'liberated' after all. They were OCCUPIED, and they
stayed OCCUPIED for 45 years give or take and when their inhabitants
said 'can we have our country back please?' they invaded them all over
again.

So I'd guess you think it OK the US marching across Vietnam, etc? A
country they aren't anyway near?

I went to E Germany and Czech republic post the wall fall, and I
understand exactly why we had short range tactical nukes pointing at
Russia.

You seem to have conveniently forgotten the reasons why germany wad
divided.


The yanks did what they could get away with, and it was very handy for
Europe to have two superpowers somewhat in balance.

Interesting the double standards of the likes of you. The US interferes
where it has no right to and it's protecting itself. With Russia, it's
agression.

--
*Everybody lies, but it doesn't matter since nobody listens*

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

On Friday, 15 April 2016 13:49:40 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
the costs of a nuclear deterrent could be shared by
all members.

Which it hasn;t done and should which proves just how useful Eurpore
actiualy is when doing something important.

Of course many would question just how important a nuclear deterrent is.

yes many would, but many wouldn't know, so I wouldn't ask many.
Only those tnhat know would be asked.

You really on should ask people that are likely to know, after all some believe that carrying a weapon and being willing to use it makes them less likely to be mugged, raped or any other such crime perputrated against them.



But those who want out probably consider many of those
countries enemies anyway. ;-)

So why don't we have a nuclear detternt for europe paid for buy the EU
rather than the UK.

You want the EU to pay for something without the UK contributing?
Figures...

Well the UK paid for the last deterrent so maybe if we stay in the EU shouldn't the EU share the cost of protecting the EU.
Bit radically I know.

On 15/04/2016 09:14, michael adams wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 14/04/2016 16:43, michael adams wrote:

I was simply pointing out which was by far, the biggest waste
of taxpayers money.

Indeed, I much prefer having the nukes...

Indeed. Why waste £ 240 million, of taxpayers money on
an ill-conceived "green" scheme to upgrade Britain's entire
housing stock by installing insulation, and double glazing,

Last time I checked, 14,000 was not "Britain's entire housing stock"...

when for only 758 times as much, (£18.2 billions and counting)
the UK can be granted the privilege of leasing a completely
useless nuclear weapons system from the USA.

http://www.publications.parliament.u...86/986we13.htm

You do realise that defence is one of those few things that has to be
done by central government?

It's impossible to concieve of better value for money than that
really, short of being granted permission to apply to become
the 51st State of the Union.

What has any of this got to do with half baked "green deals"?

But there again, even if there are any British taxpayers who
still baulk at wasting, sorry spending £18.2 billions on this

About what the NHS spends in 8 weeks....

wonderful opportunity to lease these useless missiles, as Tim

Why do you think they are useless?

Streater says in a two party system as mainly applies in the
UK the voters always have the chance to vote out of office any
party that supports such a policy. Er, except that both of them
do of course.

It was not always the case[1]... in fact the party that routinely
supported the idea of unilateral disarmament, had to abandon the idea to
make themselves electable, since UK voters were not prepared to abandon
the deterrent.

[1] and with comrade corbyn in charge we are by default back to the same
old policy again, even if its not "official".



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
[1] Mr and Mrs Pillock, what with her being a (former?) MEP and all,
will be trousering several hundred k a year in EU pensions and so
forth. No wonder they're supporting "remain".

And you'll expect Farage to give up his?

--
*If you think this van is dirty, you should try having sex with the driver*

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

On 16/04/16 11:42, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
[1] Mr and Mrs Pillock, what with her being a (former?) MEP and all,
will be trousering several hundred k a year in EU pensions and so
forth. No wonder they're supporting "remain".

And you'll expect Farage to give up his?

No, but then I'm not a kipper.

Nigel has said on many occasions he would be delighted to go back to his
old job, and get right out of politics once we are right out of the EU.

He remains one of the few politicians I almost believe.


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

Ayn Rand.

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

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
[1] Mr and Mrs Pillock, what with her being a (former?) MEP and all,
will be trousering several hundred k a year in EU pensions and so
forth. No wonder they're supporting "remain".

And you'll expect Farage to give up his?

No, but then I'm not a kipper.

Well, name one MEP from your favourite party who is declining to take an
EU pension. And preferably one who isn't so rich it wouldn't matter anyway.

--
*I want it all and I want it delivered

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

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Nigel has said on many occasions he would be delighted to go back to his
old job, and get right out of politics once we are right out of the EU.

He remains one of the few politicians I almost believe.

That's the kiss of death for him, then. Once again.

--
*You can't teach an old mouse new clicks *

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

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Well, name one MEP from your favourite party who is declining to take
an EU pension. And preferably one who isn't so rich it wouldn't matter
anyway.

The number of people in any walk of life who would turn down free dosh
is small.

It's not free dosh. Part of their salary package.

I have a bit more sympathy with MEPs who try to mitigate the
worst effect of the EU by arguing for Britain in EU committees.

Surely the idea of the EU is it works for the benefit of all? Absolutely
no point in it if it is merely a fight between various factions trying to
get the best for their own agenda. There's more than enough of that in the
UK parliament.

But I have none at all for Commissioners, since none of them does
anything useful.

There we differ. Lots of very good thing have come from the EU.

An MEP who is fighting hard to put himself out of a job is Dan Hannan.

Ah. Another kipper lover. Say no more.

--
*Where do forest rangers go to "get away from it all?"

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

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Surely the idea of the EU is it works for the benefit of all? Absolutely
no point in it if it is merely a fight between various factions trying to
get the best for their own agenda. There's more than enough of that in the
UK parliament.

That might be the *idea*, but it's not the reality. When Portugal was
acceding, at the last minute the Greeks demanded another 1B euros to
agree to let them join. Blackmail, IOW. And what do you think happens
in the EU *except* "fight(s) between various factions trying to get the
best for their own agenda". It's no different than in the US congress,
and it's called pork-barrel politics. Of course, the US is another
entity that needs breaking up into its constituent states.

As does the UK by that definition. And England.

If you think that everyone in the EU is actually "working for the
benefit of all", then I've got a bridge to sell you. Why else d'ye
think we want out?

'We'? I'm not sure of the reasons why some of those who want out do. Hear
lots of talk about sovereignty and so on. Understandable if you were part
of the royal family. But of no consequence whatever to the average man in
the street. And of course about the regulations stifling UK industry -
that somehow only apply to the UK and not other member countries.

--
*Why is the word abbreviation so long? *

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

in 1476921 20160416 134307 The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/04/16 11:42, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
[1] Mr and Mrs Pillock, what with her being a (former?) MEP and all,
will be trousering several hundred k a year in EU pensions and so
forth. No wonder they're supporting "remain".

And you'll expect Farage to give up his?

No, but then I'm not a kipper.

Nigel has said on many occasions he would be delighted to go back to his
old job, and get right out of politics once we are right out of the EU.

He remains one of the few politicians I almost believe.

I don't trust the opinion of anyone who thinks the EU issue is black and white.
There are advantages and disadvantages to our membership, and anyone
who thinks otherwise is letting his ideology rule his head.

On 17/04/2016 07:41, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1476921 20160416 134307 The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/04/16 11:42, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
[1] Mr and Mrs Pillock, what with her being a (former?) MEP and all,
will be trousering several hundred k a year in EU pensions and so
forth. No wonder they're supporting "remain".

And you'll expect Farage to give up his?

No, but then I'm not a kipper.

Nigel has said on many occasions he would be delighted to go back to his
old job, and get right out of politics once we are right out of the EU.

He remains one of the few politicians I almost believe.

I don't trust the opinion of anyone who thinks the EU issue is black and white.
There are advantages and disadvantages to our membership, and anyone
who thinks otherwise is letting his ideology rule his head.


Europe has form when it comes to creating world wars. If the EU helps
prevent that, then I'm in. Easy to get complacent but it could all
happen over again

On 17/04/16 07:41, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1476921 20160416 134307 The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/04/16 11:42, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
[1] Mr and Mrs Pillock, what with her being a (former?) MEP and all,
will be trousering several hundred k a year in EU pensions and so
forth. No wonder they're supporting "remain".

And you'll expect Farage to give up his?

No, but then I'm not a kipper.

Nigel has said on many occasions he would be delighted to go back to his
old job, and get right out of politics once we are right out of the EU.

He remains one of the few politicians I almost believe.

I don't trust the opinion of anyone who thinks the EU issue is black and white.
There are advantages and disadvantages to our membership, and anyone
who thinks otherwise is letting his ideology rule his head.

So? UKIP isn't about 'its all bad' its about 'on balance we would be
(far) better off out'.


--
"I am inclined to tell the truth and dislike people who lie consistently.
This makes me unfit for the company of people of a Left persuasion, and
all women"

On 17/04/16 08:25, Stuart Noble wrote:
On 17/04/2016 07:41, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1476921 20160416 134307 The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 16/04/16 11:42, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
[1] Mr and Mrs Pillock, what with her being a (former?) MEP and all,
will be trousering several hundred k a year in EU pensions and so
forth. No wonder they're supporting "remain".

And you'll expect Farage to give up his?

No, but then I'm not a kipper.

Nigel has said on many occasions he would be delighted to go back to his
old job, and get right out of politics once we are right out of the EU.

He remains one of the few politicians I almost believe.

I don't trust the opinion of anyone who thinks the EU issue is black
and white.
There are advantages and disadvantages to our membership, and anyone
who thinks otherwise is letting his ideology rule his head.


Europe has form when it comes to creating world wars. If the EU helps
prevent that, then I'm in. Easy to get complacent but it could all
happen over again

Sop do te Japanese.Should they be part of it?

Anyone can create a world war if they have enough firepower.

Arguably Saudi Arabia is crating a world war right now

The EU has done nothing to prevent war, in fact its made it more likely.





--
"I am inclined to tell the truth and dislike people who lie consistently.
This makes me unfit for the company of people of a Left persuasion, and
all women"

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Of course. But it's going to be more visible and less able to flourish
as a result. Further, you have to go a long time back to find when
parts of England were separate states and so there is more a sense of
togetherness between the various parts. You could argue that the
experiment in joining England and Scotland has failed; the legal
systems were never integrated, f'rinstance.

Well quite. Yet many quote the different legal systems in use in other
parts of the EU being a reason for 'us' to leave. Yet the two in England
and Scotland have co-existed for hundreds of years. And if had caused any
real practical problems would have long since been harmonised.

There are plenty of things where it makes sense to have international
standards. Many manufactured goods. But others where it is simply a part
of culture. And no reason to force a standard.

This is probably the main difference between the ins and outs. The outs
seem to think any EU legislation bad. They'd rather have their own bad
legislation. ;-)

--
*Nostalgia isn't what is used to be.

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

In article ,
Bob Martin wrote:
Nigel has said on many occasions he would be delighted to go back to his
old job, and get right out of politics once we are right out of the EU.

He remains one of the few politicians I almost believe.

I don't trust the opinion of anyone who thinks the EU issue is black and
white.

True. Or of course Boris, who changed his mind overnight. ;-)


There are advantages and disadvantages to our membership, and
anyone who thinks otherwise is letting his ideology rule his head.

The big problem for the likes of me is knowing who to believe. In general,
I dislike the public 'outers' even more than the public 'inners'.

--
*Do infants enjoy infancy as much as adults enjoy adultery?

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

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Of course. But the question of sovereignty trumps everything.

It's a big word that means precisely nothing.

--
*What hair colour do they put on the driver's license of a bald man? *

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

in 1477095 20160417 092908 Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Stuart Noble
wrote:

On 17/04/2016 07:41, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1476921 20160416 134307 The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 16/04/16 11:42, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
[1] Mr and Mrs Pillock, what with her being a (former?) MEP and all,
will be trousering several hundred k a year in EU pensions and so
forth. No wonder they're supporting "remain".

And you'll expect Farage to give up his?

No, but then I'm not a kipper.

Nigel has said on many occasions he would be delighted to go back to his
old job, and get right out of politics once we are right out of the EU.

He remains one of the few politicians I almost believe.

I don't trust the opinion of anyone who thinks the EU issue is black and
white. There are advantages and disadvantages to our membership, and
anyone who thinks otherwise is letting his ideology rule his head.

Of course. But the question of sovereignty trumps everything.

Why? You need to justify that statement. Certainly not true for me.


Europe has form when it comes to creating world wars. If the EU helps
prevent that, then I'm in. Easy to get complacent but it could all
happen over again

Next one will happen *because* of the EU.

Why? You need to justify that statement. Sounds like nonsense.

On 17/04/2016 11:27, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1477095 20160417 092908 Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Stuart Noble
wrote:

On 17/04/2016 07:41, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1476921 20160416 134307 The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 16/04/16 11:42, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
[1] Mr and Mrs Pillock, what with her being a (former?) MEP and all,
will be trousering several hundred k a year in EU pensions and so
forth. No wonder they're supporting "remain".

And you'll expect Farage to give up his?

No, but then I'm not a kipper.

Nigel has said on many occasions he would be delighted to go back to his
old job, and get right out of politics once we are right out of the EU.

He remains one of the few politicians I almost believe.

I don't trust the opinion of anyone who thinks the EU issue is black and
white. There are advantages and disadvantages to our membership, and
anyone who thinks otherwise is letting his ideology rule his head.

Of course. But the question of sovereignty trumps everything.

Why? You need to justify that statement. Certainly not true for me.


Europe has form when it comes to creating world wars. If the EU helps
prevent that, then I'm in. Easy to get complacent but it could all
happen over again

Next one will happen *because* of the EU.

Why? You need to justify that statement. Sounds like nonsense.

Just look what has happened after allowing third world countries to join
the EU.

Some will take migrants, others won't because accepting Muslims is
against their culture.

The Muslim problem is looking more like the Jewish problem a century ago.

On 17/04/2016 00:39, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

the street. And of course about the regulations stifling UK industry -
that somehow only apply to the UK and not other member countries.

Regulations that stifle our economy may well have similar effects
elsewhere... Although that is not really a part of the debate about
whether we should remain, and more one for general reform of the EU.

Some regulation has impact on the wider world, way beyond the EU. For
example CAP, paying farmers to over produce certain crops etc that then
need to be dumped onto the world market at below cost price. This has a
massive negative effect on developing economies in that it prevents them
developing their own sustainable agriculture through destroying the
market for their produce.

The impact of legislation does depend on sector, and also how the EU
legislation is enacted into the domestic legislation of the member
state. That also assumes that the EU is not subtly targeting its
legislation at a particular country. e.g. Attempting to raise extra
funds from financial services knowing that it will hit the UK harder
than most, or from the automotive industry, thus affecting the Germans
more than others.

For large UK business, the regulator burden is not really an issue - if
they are doing lots of business into the EU, they need to comply with
much of it anyway. For small and medium UK business - most of which
don't do business directly with the EU, its more of a burden. (the shear
volume of legislation (both EU and national) is a burden for small
business, since they don't have the staff to even read the stuff, let
alone comply with it. Keep in mind also the *most* of the UKs businesses
are small and medium sized. They also generate most of the GDP and
employment.

The there is also the way in which EU legislation is integrated into
national law. We do seem to have a habit of "doing it by the book" and
also gold plating it. Others seem to be much better at simply ignoring
the bits that they don't like!




--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
On 17/04/2016 00:39, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

the street. And of course about the regulations stifling UK industry -
that somehow only apply to the UK and not other member countries.

Regulations that stifle our economy may well have similar effects
elsewhere... Although that is not really a part of the debate about
whether we should remain, and more one for general reform of the EU.

Some regulation has impact on the wider world, way beyond the EU. For
example CAP, paying farmers to over produce certain crops etc that then
need to be dumped onto the world market at below cost price. This has a
massive negative effect on developing economies in that it prevents them
developing their own sustainable agriculture through destroying the
market for their produce.

The impact of legislation does depend on sector, and also how the EU
legislation is enacted into the domestic legislation of the member
state. That also assumes that the EU is not subtly targeting its
legislation at a particular country. e.g. Attempting to raise extra
funds from financial services knowing that it will hit the UK harder
than most, or from the automotive industry, thus affecting the Germans
more than others.

For large UK business, the regulator burden is not really an issue - if
they are doing lots of business into the EU, they need to comply with
much of it anyway. For small and medium UK business - most of which
don't do business directly with the EU, its more of a burden. (the shear
volume of legislation (both EU and national) is a burden for small
business, since they don't have the staff to even read the stuff, let
alone comply with it. Keep in mind also the *most* of the UKs businesses
are small and medium sized. They also generate most of the GDP and
employment.

The there is also the way in which EU legislation is integrated into
national law. We do seem to have a habit of "doing it by the book" and
also gold plating it. Others seem to be much better at simply ignoring
the bits that they don't like!

Interestingly, I was in Italy last May and they had implemented the food
allergy requirements on menus while, elevent months later, few UK
establishments have bothered to do so.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On 17/04/16 13:50, John Rumm wrote:
On 17/04/2016 00:39, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

the street. And of course about the regulations stifling UK industry -
that somehow only apply to the UK and not other member countries.

Regulations that stifle our economy may well have similar effects
elsewhere... Although that is not really a part of the debate about
whether we should remain, and more one for general reform of the EU.


If they are adhered to.

Most EU countries ignore regulations, accept that their popliticians are
corrupt, and just trade cash..

Except France and Geremany,for whom the regulations ree made.


regulation has impact on the wider world, way beyond the EU. For
example CAP, paying farmers to over produce certain crops etc that then
need to be dumped onto the world market at below cost price. This has a
massive negative effect on developing economies in that it prevents them
developing their own sustainable agriculture through destroying the
market for their produce.

The impact of legislation does depend on sector, and also how the EU
legislation is enacted into the domestic legislation of the member
state. That also assumes that the EU is not subtly targeting its
legislation at a particular country. e.g. Attempting to raise extra
funds from financial services knowing that it will hit the UK harder
than most, or from the automotive industry, thus affecting the Germans
more than others.

For large UK business, the regulator burden is not really an issue - if
they are doing lots of business into the EU, they need to comply with
much of it anyway. For small and medium UK business - most of which
don't do business directly with the EU, its more of a burden. (the shear
volume of legislation (both EU and national) is a burden for small
business, since they don't have the staff to even read the stuff, let
alone comply with it. Keep in mind also the *most* of the UKs businesses
are small and medium sized. They also generate most of the GDP and
employment.

The there is also the way in which EU legislation is integrated into
national law. We do seem to have a habit of "doing it by the book" and
also gold plating it. Others seem to be much better at simply ignoring
the bits that they don't like!






--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Regulations that stifle our economy may well have similar effects
elsewhere... Although that is not really a part of the debate about
whether we should remain, and more one for general reform of the EU.


If they are adhered to.

Most EU countries ignore regulations, accept that their popliticians are
corrupt, and just trade cash..

Any more of your lies you'd like to get off your chest?

Except France and Geremany,for whom the regulations ree made.

As well as these?

--
*If you think nobody cares about you, try missing a couple of payments *

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

On 16/04/2016 13:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
He remains one of the few politicians I almost believe.

I believe that when Corbyn says something is good he honestly thinks it
is. I seriously believe that Corbyn is also one of those rare creatures
- an honest politician with morals and principles.

That doesn't stop me disagreeing with him.

Andy

On 17/04/2016 11:40, Fredxxx wrote:

Just look what has happened after allowing third world countries to join
the EU.

Some will take migrants, others won't because accepting Muslims is
against their culture.

The Muslim problem is looking more like the Jewish problem a century ago.

I'm struggling to see a similarity between Judaism in 1916 and Islam
today. Perhaps you could explain?

Andy

On Thursday, 14 April 2016 16:06:37 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 14/04/2016 15:42, tabbypurr wrote:
On Thursday, 14 April 2016 15:32:18 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:

Russia was never likely to start a nuclear war.

You're certainly humorous. Russia tried to start a nuclear war in
1983. Just one person saved the day, thank god. Russia planned for
and even intended to partly survive nuclear war.

Who do you think was going to press the button in '83.

Stanislav Petrov.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_S...alarm_incident

snip junk


NT

On Saturday, 16 April 2016 18:29:10 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:

Surely the idea of the EU is it works for the benefit of all?

Does anyone these days believe it does?

Absolutely
no point in it if it is merely a fight between various factions trying to
get the best for their own agenda. There's more than enough of that in the
UK parliament.

exactly, it's as you put it pointless


But I have none at all for Commissioners, since none of them does
anything useful.

There we differ. Lots of very good thing have come from the EU.

Yup, but too much crap with it. Part of the problem is of the UK's making. If you don't get invovled in saying no to things, they happen without your say.

The other part of the problem is tht the EU is doing things that affect all without participants' agreement. Had it been set up more sanely there wouldn't be the problems - policies should only be passed when the participant countries agree with them. Whatever the original agenda, it has become a power grab.


NT

On 17/04/16 23:37, wrote:
The other part of the problem is tht the EU is doing things that
affect all without participants' agreement. Had it been set up more
sanely there wouldn't be the problems - policies should only be
passed when the participant countries agree with them. Whatever the
original agenda, it has become a power grab.

Those who have studied it, claim it always was.

http://www.jamescarver.org.uk/downloads/Britain's%20Suicide%20Note%2020130315.pdf

--
How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.

Adolf Hitler

On Sunday, 17 April 2016 21:56:23 UTC+1, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 16/04/2016 13:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
He remains one of the few politicians I almost believe.

I believe that when Corbyn says something is good he honestly thinks it
is. I seriously believe that Corbyn is also one of those rare creatures
- an honest politician with morals and principles.

So he won't win then will he.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 16/04/16 11:42, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
[1] Mr and Mrs Pillock, what with her being a (former?) MEP and all,
will be trousering several hundred k a year in EU pensions and so
forth. No wonder they're supporting "remain".

And you'll expect Farage to give up his?

No, but then I'm not a kipper.

Nigel has said on many occasions he would be delighted to go back to his
old job, and get right out of politics once we are right out of the EU.

He also claimed that if he didnt get elected to Westminster,
he'd get right out of politics and lied thru his teeth about that.

He remains one of the few politicians I almost believe.

More fool you after that result.

"Stuart Noble" wrote in message
...
On 17/04/2016 07:41, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1476921 20160416 134307 The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 16/04/16 11:42, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
[1] Mr and Mrs Pillock, what with her being a (former?) MEP and all,
will be trousering several hundred k a year in EU pensions and so
forth. No wonder they're supporting "remain".

And you'll expect Farage to give up his?

No, but then I'm not a kipper.

Nigel has said on many occasions he would be delighted to go back to his
old job, and get right out of politics once we are right out of the EU.

He remains one of the few politicians I almost believe.

I don't trust the opinion of anyone who thinks the EU issue is black and
white.
There are advantages and disadvantages to our membership, and anyone
who thinks otherwise is letting his ideology rule his head.


Europe has form when it comes to creating world wars.

And less than full world wars too.

If the EU helps prevent that, then I'm in.

True.

Easy to get complacent but it could all happen over again

I doubt it. Essentially because nukes make world wars unthinkable now.

And we weren't actually stupid enough to try to ****
Germany over for losing the most recent one and in
fact the Marshall Plan very effectively ensured that
them and the Japs wouldn’t want to start another.

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 17/04/2016 11:27, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1477095 20160417 092908 Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Stuart Noble
wrote:

On 17/04/2016 07:41, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1476921 20160416 134307 The Natural Philosopher

wrote:
On 16/04/16 11:42, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
[1] Mr and Mrs Pillock, what with her being a (former?) MEP and
all,
will be trousering several hundred k a year in EU pensions and so
forth. No wonder they're supporting "remain".

And you'll expect Farage to give up his?

No, but then I'm not a kipper.

Nigel has said on many occasions he would be delighted to go back to
his
old job, and get right out of politics once we are right out of the
EU.

He remains one of the few politicians I almost believe.

I don't trust the opinion of anyone who thinks the EU issue is black
and
white. There are advantages and disadvantages to our membership, and
anyone who thinks otherwise is letting his ideology rule his head.

Of course. But the question of sovereignty trumps everything.

Why? You need to justify that statement. Certainly not true for me.


Europe has form when it comes to creating world wars. If the EU helps
prevent that, then I'm in. Easy to get complacent but it could all
happen over again

Next one will happen *because* of the EU.

Why? You need to justify that statement. Sounds like nonsense.

Just look what has happened after allowing third world countries to join
the EU.

That isnt what produced two world wars.

Some will take migrants, others won't because accepting Muslims is against
their culture.

It ain't that, they wont even let them transit their country.

The Muslim problem is looking more like the Jewish problem a century ago.

That isnt what produced even one world war.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, 17 April 2016 21:56:23 UTC+1, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 16/04/2016 13:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
He remains one of the few politicians I almost believe.

I believe that when Corbyn says something is good he honestly thinks it
is. I seriously believe that Corbyn is also one of those rare creatures
- an honest politician with morals and principles.

So he won't win then will he.

He won't win because even the most stupid voter has
noticed that nationalisation of everything doesn't work.

On 22/04/2016 07:06, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 17/04/2016 11:27, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1477095 20160417 092908 Tim Streater
wrote:
In article , Stuart Noble
wrote:

On 17/04/2016 07:41, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1476921 20160416 134307 The Natural Philosopher

wrote:
On 16/04/16 11:42, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
[1] Mr and Mrs Pillock, what with her being a (former?) MEP
and all,
will be trousering several hundred k a year in EU pensions and so
forth. No wonder they're supporting "remain".

And you'll expect Farage to give up his?

No, but then I'm not a kipper.

Nigel has said on many occasions he would be delighted to go back
to his
old job, and get right out of politics once we are right out of
the EU.

He remains one of the few politicians I almost believe.

I don't trust the opinion of anyone who thinks the EU issue is
black and
white. There are advantages and disadvantages to our membership, and
anyone who thinks otherwise is letting his ideology rule his head.

Of course. But the question of sovereignty trumps everything.

Why? You need to justify that statement. Certainly not true for me.


Europe has form when it comes to creating world wars. If the EU helps
prevent that, then I'm in. Easy to get complacent but it could all
happen over again

Next one will happen *because* of the EU.

Why? You need to justify that statement. Sounds like nonsense.

Just look what has happened after allowing third world countries to
join the EU.

That isnt what produced two world wars.

Creating ill feeling amongst countries does. Giving employment to
foreigners from developing ****ries over the indigenous population and
depressing wages exacerbates the ill feeling.

Some will take migrants, others won't because accepting Muslims is
against their culture.

It ain't that, they wont even let them transit their country.

The Muslim problem is looking more like the Jewish problem a century ago.

That isnt what produced even one world war.

Jewish haters voting in Hitler helped, in very much the same way the
right wing parties in Europe are receiving votes because of their stance
against Muslims.

The apologist Burford will confirm.

On Friday, 22 April 2016 10:23:22 UTC+1, Fredxxx wrote:
On 22/04/2016 07:06, Rod Speed wrote:
"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...

The Muslim problem is looking more like the Jewish problem a century ago.

That isnt what produced even one world war.

Jewish haters voting in Hitler helped, in very much the same way the
right wing parties in Europe are receiving votes because of their stance
against Muslims.

There's a rather large difference between the agendas of these 2 groups.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islami...and_the_Levant
You couldn't make it up.


NT

In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
Creating ill feeling amongst countries does. Giving employment to
foreigners from developing ****ries over the indigenous population and
depressing wages exacerbates the ill feeling.

But not to those who benefit from those immigrants.

If you removed all immigrants, the country would grind to a halt. The
notion that there are UK nationals who would fill all the jobs left vacant
is nonsense.

--
* I like you. You remind me of when I was young and stupid

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

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 22/04/2016 07:06, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 17/04/2016 11:27, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1477095 20160417 092908 Tim Streater
wrote:
In article , Stuart Noble
wrote:

On 17/04/2016 07:41, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1476921 20160416 134307 The Natural Philosopher

wrote:
On 16/04/16 11:42, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
[1] Mr and Mrs Pillock, what with her being a (former?) MEP
and all,
will be trousering several hundred k a year in EU pensions and
so
forth. No wonder they're supporting "remain".

And you'll expect Farage to give up his?

No, but then I'm not a kipper.

Nigel has said on many occasions he would be delighted to go back
to his
old job, and get right out of politics once we are right out of
the EU.

He remains one of the few politicians I almost believe.

I don't trust the opinion of anyone who thinks the EU issue is
black and
white. There are advantages and disadvantages to our membership, and
anyone who thinks otherwise is letting his ideology rule his head.

Of course. But the question of sovereignty trumps everything.

Why? You need to justify that statement. Certainly not true for me.


Europe has form when it comes to creating world wars. If the EU helps
prevent that, then I'm in. Easy to get complacent but it could all
happen over again

Next one will happen *because* of the EU.

Why? You need to justify that statement. Sounds like nonsense.

Just look what has happened after allowing third world countries to
join the EU.

That isnt what produced two world wars.

Creating ill feeling amongst countries does.

Nope. Much more is involved with WORLD wars.

Giving employment to foreigners from developing ****ries over the
indigenous population and depressing wages exacerbates the ill feeling.

But wasn’t involved in what produced two WORLD wars.

Some will take migrants, others won't because accepting Muslims is
against their culture.

It ain't that, they won't even let them transit their country.

The Muslim problem is looking more like the Jewish problem a century
ago.

That isnt what produced even one world war.

Jewish haters voting in Hitler helped,

Nope. He got in because Germany was in such a
desperate situation economically that many of the
voters decided that they had nothing to lose and that
he might well be able to do something about that.

He did too, doing precisely what FDR did in the US,
massive govt deficit spending that got the economy
going again.

Nothing whatever to do with jewish haters.

in very much the same way the right wing parties in Europe are receiving
votes because of their stance against Muslims.

They don’t have any possibility of ever driving the bus.

UKIP couldn’t even managed to get Farage elected.

The apologist Burford will confirm.

Burford is completely irrelevant.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Fredxxx wrote

Creating ill feeling amongst countries does. Giving employment to
foreigners from developing ****ries over the indigenous population
and depressing wages exacerbates the ill feeling.

But not to those who benefit from those immigrants.

If you removed all immigrants, the country would
grind to a halt. The notion that there are UK nationals
who would fill all the jobs left vacant is nonsense.

They would if they would lose their benefits if they didn’t.

On 22/04/2016 10:33, wrote:
On Friday, 22 April 2016 10:23:22 UTC+1, Fredxxx wrote:
On 22/04/2016 07:06, Rod Speed wrote:
"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...

The Muslim problem is looking more like the Jewish problem a century ago.

That isnt what produced even one world war.

Jewish haters voting in Hitler helped, in very much the same way the
right wing parties in Europe are receiving votes because of their stance
against Muslims.

There's a rather large difference between the agendas of these 2 groups.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islami...and_the_Levant
You couldn't make it up.

Agreed their stances are very different where each group is/was hated
for different reasons.

In the 1930's there was little welfare, and so perhaps you can see why
Jews were hated so much. Much like bankers in the late 2000's. Many
banks have Jewish origins, hastily hidden post WW2.

Are you going to disagree that the rise of the right wing elements in
the EU is enhanced by Muslim refugees entering their coutries?