Anyone else looking for another option on 23-06?

I propose a defer option.

The idea is that this will allow time for:

Genuine fact finding about the implications of remain/leave.
Removal of politicians from the debate.
An end to the petty bickering.
Engagement of qualified analysts to assess the impact of remain/leave.
The presentation of the findings in a manner suitable for the populus.

Once all this is complete, then consider setting a referendum date.

One final benefit of this option....
Countries in the Euro zone will have time to realise the gravity
of the migrant situation and will be rebelling and erecting
borders and holding their own referenda. UK will be seen as wise
leaders rather than disruptive deserters just for biding our
time.

Phil


--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

TheChief wrote:

Anyone else looking for another option on 23-06?
I propose a defer option.
The idea is that this will allow time for:
Genuine fact finding about the implications of remain/leave.

How will that happen after being deferred, given it isn't happening now

Removal of politicians from the debate.

How?

An end to the petty bickering.

How?

Engagement of qualified analysts to assess the impact of remain/leave.
The presentation of the findings in a manner suitable for the populus.

Nice theory, but EU isn't going to give us any hints how we'd be treated
if we voted out unless we do actually vote out, it'll just be
opinions/ifs/buts not facts.

Once all this is complete, then consider setting a referendum date.

One final benefit of this option....
Countries in the Euro zone will have time to realise the gravity
of the migrant situation and will be rebelling and erecting
borders and holding their own referenda. UK will be seen as wise
leaders rather than disruptive deserters just for biding our
time.

I think DC *should* have left the referendum as late as possible until
(end of 2017?) to see how various immigrant, financial, terror related
things pan-out in europe.

On 31/05/16 19:39, TheChief wrote:

Anyone else looking for another option on 23-06?

I propose a defer option.

The idea is that this will allow time for:

Genuine fact finding about the implications of remain/leave.

Good luck with that.
Removal of politicians from the debate.

Good luck with that.

An end to the petty bickering.

Good luck with that.

Engagement of qualified analysts to assess the impact of remain/leave.
The presentation of the findings in a manner suitable for the populus.


Good luck with that.

Once all this is complete, then consider setting a referendum date.

One final benefit of this option....
Countries in the Euro zone will have time to realise the gravity
of the migrant situation and will be rebelling and erecting
borders and holding their own referenda. UK will be seen as wise
leaders rather than disruptive deserters just for biding our
time.

Infantile pie in the sky.
You might as well ask for unbiased statements from people whose
businesses and jobs are dependent on the EU, or are threatened by it.

The precautionary principle should be used with the understanding of the
asymmetric choice on offer, To vote leave does not preclude the
possibility of rejoining., TO vote stay, forever precludes Britain ever
existing as an independent sovereign nation ever again.

1000 plus years of history will end.



Phil




--
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have
guns, why should we let them have ideas?

Josef Stalin

In article , TheChief
writes

Anyone else looking for another option on 23-06?

I propose a defer option.

The idea is that this will allow time for:

Genuine fact finding about the implications of remain/leave.
The genuine facts, few in number are already out there amongst all the
estimates opinions and lies.
Removal of politicians from the debate.
Just how would you do that?
An end to the petty bickering.
Ha ha Ha
Engagement of qualified analysts to assess the impact of remain/leave.
They have no more idea than anyone else.
The presentation of the findings in a manner suitable for the populus.

You mean in words of one syllable
Once all this is complete, then consider setting a referendum date.

About 2025 at the earliest.

One final benefit of this option....
Countries in the Euro zone will have time to realise the gravity
of the migrant situation and will be rebelling and erecting
borders and holding their own referenda.
No chance. They will be doing as they are told by the politburo in
Brussels - otherwise lose their regional funding.
UK will be seen as wise
leaders rather than disruptive deserters just for biding our
time.

Couldn't give a **** what they think of us.
Phil



--
bert

TheChief wrote

Anyone else looking for another option on 23-06?

I propose a defer option.

More fool you.

The idea is that this will allow time for:

Genuine fact finding about the implications of remain/leave.

Tisnt going to happen with an issue like this.

Removal of politicians from the debate.

Tisnt going to happen with an issue like this.

An end to the petty bickering.

Tisnt going to happen with an issue like this.

Engagement of qualified analysts to assess the impact of remain/leave.

Not even possible, far too many imponderables on where the EU will
end up and what it will do to a Britain that chooses to leave either.

The presentation of the findings in a manner suitable for the populus.

Tisnt going to happen with an issue like this.

Once all this is complete,

It never will be.

then consider setting a referendum date.

One final benefit of this option....
Countries in the Euro zone will have time to realise the
gravity of the migrant situation and will be rebelling
and erecting borders and holding their own referenda.

Bet few do with referenda.

UK will be seen as wise leaders rather than
disruptive deserters just for biding our time.

Fantasy.

On 31-May-16 7:39 PM, TheChief wrote:

Anyone else looking for another option on 23-06?

I propose a defer option...

Not permitted in the legislation for the referendum. If you want to
defer the referendum, vote leave. In the unlikley event that the leave
campaign wins, the government is not legally required to take us out of
the EU. Instead, they would probably go back to the EU with the result
of the vote and say give us something more, then hold a second
referendum based upon the results of that.


--
--

Colin Bignell

On 01/06/16 09:46, Nightjar wrote:
On 31-May-16 7:39 PM, TheChief wrote:

Anyone else looking for another option on 23-06?

I propose a defer option...

Not permitted in the legislation for the referendum. If you want to
defer the referendum, vote leave. In the unlikley event that the leave
campaign wins, the government is not legally required to take us out of
the EU. Instead, they would probably go back to the EU with the result
of the vote and say give us something more, then hold a second
referendum based upon the results of that.


Exactly. A complete stitch up.

And that is where UKIP come storming ahead in the polls


--
All political activity makes complete sense once the proposition that
all government is basically a self-legalising protection racket, is
fully understood.

Its not going to happen, but of course what might happen is the EU might
give us a better option if we vote to leave, which our Dave assuming he is
still in post, will then sell to us as like leaving but still retaining all
the beneficial bits.
Indeed I'd be surprised if this had not already been agreed ahead of time.
Its what I'd have done in his position.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"TheChief" wrote in message
...
Anyone else looking for another option on 23-06?

I propose a defer option.

The idea is that this will allow time for:

Genuine fact finding about the implications of remain/leave.
Removal of politicians from the debate.
An end to the petty bickering.
Engagement of qualified analysts to assess the impact of remain/leave.
The presentation of the findings in a manner suitable for the populus.

Once all this is complete, then consider setting a referendum date.

One final benefit of this option....
Countries in the Euro zone will have time to realise the gravity
of the migrant situation and will be rebelling and erecting
borders and holding their own referenda. UK will be seen as wise
leaders rather than disruptive deserters just for biding our
time.

Phil


--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

On Wed, 01 Jun 2016 10:26:59 +0100, Brian Gaff wrote:

Its not going to happen, but of course what might happen is the EU might
give us a better option if we vote to leave

They won't.

They'll take a leave vote at face value.

B'sides, anything but "member" or "not member" would require fundamental
treaty change. Damn near all the opt-outs we have have been negotiated at
the time of various implementations.

Remember, Cameron went to the European Council with his negotiating hat
on - to do exactly what you're suggesting would happen post-leave - a few
months back. He came back with almost all that was on his list, more than
was expected, but he's spent all his political capital on that. Going
back for more will not work now.

"Adrian" wrote in message ...

On Wed, 01 Jun 2016 10:26:59 +0100, Brian Gaff wrote:

Its not going to happen, but of course what might happen is the EU might
give us a better option if we vote to leave

They won't.

They'll take a leave vote at face value.

B'sides, anything but "member" or "not member" would require fundamental
treaty change. Damn near all the opt-outs we have have been negotiated at
the time of various implementations.

Remember, Cameron went to the European Council with his negotiating hat
on - to do exactly what you're suggesting would happen post-leave - a few
months back. He came back with almost all that was on his list, more than
was expected, but he's spent all his political capital on that. Going
back for more will not work now.

Even more reason to vote out.

On 01/06/16 10:29, Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 01 Jun 2016 10:26:59 +0100, Brian Gaff wrote:

Its not going to happen, but of course what might happen is the EU might
give us a better option if we vote to leave

They won't.


Bless!

They'll take a leave vote at face value.

Bless!

B'sides, anything but "member" or "not member" would require fundamental
treaty change. Damn near all the opt-outs we have have been negotiated at
the time of various implementations.

Of course, which is why whatever we will be offered will have about as
much intrinsic value as a piece of used Andrex.

Remember, Cameron went to the European Council with his negotiating hat
on - to do exactly what you're suggesting would happen post-leave - a few
months back. He came back with almost all that was on his list, more than
was expected, but he's spent all his political capital on that. Going
back for more will not work now.


HAHA. All that was on his list?

Bless.

There wasn't any list, and what he came back with wasn't legally binding
anyway.

it was worthless.





--
The biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On 01/06/2016 10:29, Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 01 Jun 2016 10:26:59 +0100, Brian Gaff wrote:

Its not going to happen, but of course what might happen is the EU might
give us a better option if we vote to leave

They won't.

They'll take a leave vote at face value.

B'sides, anything but "member" or "not member" would require fundamental
treaty change. Damn near all the opt-outs we have have been negotiated at
the time of various implementations.

Remember, Cameron went to the European Council with his negotiating hat
on - to do exactly what you're suggesting would happen post-leave - a few
months back. He came back with almost all that was on his list, more than

Must have been a very short and unambitious list then ;-)


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 31/05/2016 19:39, TheChief wrote:

Anyone else looking for another option on 23-06?

Yes, get it over and done with...

I propose a defer option.

The idea is that this will allow time for:

Genuine fact finding about the implications of remain/leave.

Who was it who said words to the effect of "sausages and laws, you don't
want to see how either are made"?

The problem here are there are very few "facts" to discover. You will
only learn the true facts of leaving by doing so, since they don't yet
exist. The "facts" of staying we have a slightly better grip on, but
even those a subject to (and likely to) change.

Removal of politicians from the debate.
An end to the petty bickering.

Can't see how you would do that. Even if you could, are you confident
that the civil service would be able to steer through the whole debate
in an unbiased and impartial way?

Engagement of qualified analysts to assess the impact of remain/leave.

That should get you as many opinions as analysts consulted.

The presentation of the findings in a manner suitable for the populus.

Front page ad in the Sun, next to a nice pair of tits?

Once all this is complete, then consider setting a referendum date.

One final benefit of this option....
Countries in the Euro zone will have time to realise the gravity
of the migrant situation and will be rebelling and erecting
borders and holding their own referenda. UK will be seen as wise
leaders rather than disruptive deserters just for biding our
time.




--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 01/06/16 13:50, John Rumm wrote:
On 01/06/2016 10:29, Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 01 Jun 2016 10:26:59 +0100, Brian Gaff wrote:

Its not going to happen, but of course what might happen is the EU might
give us a better option if we vote to leave

They won't.

They'll take a leave vote at face value.

B'sides, anything but "member" or "not member" would require fundamental
treaty change. Damn near all the opt-outs we have have been negotiated at
the time of various implementations.

Remember, Cameron went to the European Council with his negotiating hat
on - to do exactly what you're suggesting would happen post-leave - a few
months back. He came back with almost all that was on his list, more than

Must have been a very short and unambitious list then ;-)



CAMERONS LIST
===============

1/. Have wild boar paté and bottle of Hermitage in Grand Place

2/. Meet up with that red headed foxie-doxy at the **** square hotel (LOL!)

3/. Sit with that dull EU chap, whose name I forget, for hours
discussing trivia.

4/. Pause for publicity shot on way out, hold his damp limp hand and
announced 'major concessions after some tough bargaining' that our aides
arranged last week, knowing they were meaningless

5/. Fly home and bonk My Little Pony again, in case she feels (haha)
that she isn't apple of mine eye, and withdraws daddies cheque book.
Can't have that! Worth lying back shutting eyes and thinking of well -
not England of course - thats a real fantasy ! but the foxy doxy anyway
haha.

(note to self: next time hide the whip from My Little Pony. One nearly
came cropper at the last fence. Who does she think she is? Lester Piggott?


--
Karl Marx said religion is the opium of the people.
But Marxism is the crack cocaine.

In article , Nightjar
writes
On 31-May-16 7:39 PM, TheChief wrote:

Anyone else looking for another option on 23-06?

I propose a defer option...

Not permitted in the legislation for the referendum. If you want to
defer the referendum, vote leave. In the unlikley event that the leave
campaign wins, the government is not legally required to take us out of
the EU. Instead, they would probably go back to the EU with the result
of the vote and say give us something more, then hold a second
referendum based upon the results of that.


Boris suggested that as a possibility right at the start and was shouted
down. Out means Out they cried. But then this is the EU we are talking
about.
Hilarious article in the Telegraph today about the noises coming out of
some European capitals on Brexit. The Germans apparently are keen to
punish us to deter the others on the one hand but not too much as they
do still want to sell us cars.
--
bert

In article , Adrian
writes
On Wed, 01 Jun 2016 10:26:59 +0100, Brian Gaff wrote:

Its not going to happen, but of course what might happen is the EU might
give us a better option if we vote to leave

They won't.

They'll take a leave vote at face value.

B'sides, anything but "member" or "not member" would require fundamental
treaty change. Damn near all the opt-outs we have have been negotiated at
the time of various implementations.

Remember, Cameron went to the European Council with his negotiating hat
on - to do exactly what you're suggesting would happen post-leave - a few
months back. He came back with almost all that was on his list, more than
was expected, but he's spent all his political capital on that. Going
back for more will not work now.
Trouble was it was a very short and insignificant list and did not
include any sort of brake on freedom of movement.
--
bert

On 01/06/2016 14:10, John Rumm wrote:
On 31/05/2016 19:39, TheChief wrote:

Anyone else looking for another option on 23-06?

Yes, get it over and done with...

I propose a defer option.

The idea is that this will allow time for:

Genuine fact finding about the implications of remain/leave.

Who was it who said words to the effect of "sausages and laws, you don't
want to see how either are made"?

The problem here are there are very few "facts" to discover. You will
only learn the true facts of leaving by doing so, since they don't yet
exist. The "facts" of staying we have a slightly better grip on, but
even those a subject to (and likely to) change.

Hi John

Yes the implications of leaving/remaining are speculations at best right
now. What I meant about facts were things like this £350m per week
business. Nearly every commentary on this matter has the £350m mentioned
and then contested. It was established months ago that this was the
gross figure before rebates, but the same revolving conversations are
still repeating this.


Removal of politicians from the debate.
An end to the petty bickering.

Can't see how you would do that. Even if you could, are you confident
that the civil service would be able to steer through the whole debate
in an unbiased and impartial way?

Aren't select committees supposed to do this? Why not have
representatives from each party all tasked with jointly establishing the
known and unknown information to relay to voters?

Engagement of qualified analysts to assess the impact of remain/leave.

That should get you as many opinions as analysts consulted.

True - I guess we would have to "plot the average" for an accurate picture.

The presentation of the findings in a manner suitable for the populus.

Front page ad in the Sun, next to a nice pair of tits?

Now you're talking. This may well reach the audience more likely to
vote, particularly on issues of immigration.

Once all this is complete, then consider setting a referendum date.

One final benefit of this option....
Countries in the Euro zone will have time to realise the gravity
of the migrant situation and will be rebelling and erecting
borders and holding their own referenda. UK will be seen as wise
leaders rather than disruptive deserters just for biding our
time.

On Wednesday, 1 June 2016 14:10:52 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:
On 31/05/2016 19:39, TheChief wrote:

Anyone else looking for another option on 23-06?

Yes, get it over and done with...

If only we could eliminate the liers in this 'debate'

Wouldn;t it be great if we could have the polititions all on a stage with a noose around the neck and the first lie they tell the trap door opens.

of courde we could employ a more resonable method using money but I doubt that would be allowed either.




The problem here are there are very few "facts" to discover. You will
only learn the true facts of leaving by doing so, since they don't yet
exist. The "facts" of staying we have a slightly better grip on, but
even those a subject to (and likely to) change.

We could use previous facts as evidence, I'm pretty sure polititions have been caught lying, as soon as that happens they are sacked and can;t return to politics.


Removal of politicians from the debate.
An end to the petty bickering.

Can't see how you would do that.

Removing ther blatent liers would help, it;s a bit like getting rid of teh drug takers in sport, get rid of them from the sport.



Engagement of qualified analysts to assess the impact of remain/leave.

That should get you as many opinions as analysts consulted.

I agree I don't think that would work.


The presentation of the findings in a manner suitable for the populus.

Front page ad in the Sun, next to a nice pair of tits?

I thought tits were on page 3 traditionally ..

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/

but on checking you are corect they are indeed quite a variarty of tits on the front page too.

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
Removal of politicians from the debate.
An end to the petty bickering.

Can't see how you would do that. Even if you could, are you confident
that the civil service would be able to steer through the whole debate
in an unbiased and impartial way?

You don't need to read far on here to realise that the politicians don't
have the monopoly on lies and misinformation.

--
*When a man opens a car door for his wife, it's either a new car or a new

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

On Wed, 01 Jun 2016 16:15:32 +0100, bert wrote:

Remember, Cameron went to the European Council with his negotiating hat
on - to do exactly what you're suggesting would happen post-leave - a
few months back. He came back with almost all that was on his list, more
than was expected, but he's spent all his political capital on that.
Going back for more will not work now.

Trouble was it was a very short and insignificant list

No, not really.

and did not include any sort of brake on freedom of movement.

Even trying to negotiate that would have been utterly pointless, not
least because it's one of the four basic freedoms from the Treaty of
Rome, which MASSIVELY predates our joining the EC.

bert wrote:

Trouble was it was a very short and insignificant list and did not
include any sort of brake on freedom of movement.

'cos Germany and Poland made it quite clear there was no point putting
that on the list to start with.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 01/06/16 10:26, Brian Gaff wrote:
Its not going to happen, but of course what might happen is the EU might
give us a better option if we vote to leave, which our Dave assuming he
is
still in post, will then sell to us as like leaving but still retaining
all
the beneficial bits.
Indeed I'd be surprised if this had not already been agreed ahead of
time.
Its what I'd have done in his position.

Of course its been agreed.

Just another conspiracy theory.

But it will be a cosmetic fix only.

Some irrelevant 'concession' that he can hold in his hand and say 'peace
in our time', or the equivalent thereof.

The whole referendum thing only happened because UKIP were making gains
and his puppet masters don't want UKIP,. They don't yet have the goods on
UKIP, so they can't be relied upon to go along with the powers that be.

(Corbyn is now sewn up,. so that's the other base covered. He'll do what
he is told).

More silly conspiracy theory stuff. How odd that the individual who is
most vulnerable to having the goods on him, Boris, didnt get monstered.

So the referendum is there primarily to destroy UKIP by hopefully
demonstrating that most of the UK wants in, and even if a majority want
out, they don't really mean it, they just want some way to satisfy their
Euroscepticism.

Must explain why there was the Scottish one.

I wouldn't be surprised if:

1/. The vote is marginally out,

Not a chance. Have a look at the odds sometime.
They dont get stuff like that wrong because they
go broke if they do.

Dave says it isn't conclusive, but he 'hears you' and spends 6 months
talking inn Brussels and gets 'major concessions' and 'believes this
justifies his decision to stay in the EU'

If he tried that, Boris would replace him.

2/. There is an 'islamic atrocity', the polls flip over to leave by a
landslide

No chance in just 3 weeks, you watch.

and Dave 'suspends the referendum on the grounds of national security' And
then 'discovers' that in fact it wasn't 'Islamic extremists' but a black
op by 'unspecified nasty fascist right wing groups' ('you know, like those
kipper chaps but I never said it') and 'we have to 'join hands' with
Europe to create a national army of occupation to prevent this sort of
thing ever happening and protect our islamic brothers'. UKIP EDL and EDF
are banned, and conspiracy websites with evidence that in fact it was CIA
inspired disappear from the internet. And the next morning there are tanks
in every town centre 'to keep the peace and reassure the population'

Completely off with the ****ing fairies, as always.

Cynical? Moi?

Just completely barking mad.

I only grew up watching it all unfold in the 60s, the 70s, the 80's the
90s....the noughties...

So did we, and saw nothing like that. In fact many of us grew up in the 50s
too.

*NOTHING* in the media is, expect by sheer accident, the accidental news
of what 'just happened'. Not only are the stories manufactured, but the
events themselves are manufactured, *Everything* is monitored by public
opinion polls to see what peoples *perceptions* of it are. Not for what it
actually is. It's not that a few people are lying, *almost everybody is
lying almost all the time*. Either because they are paid to, or are being
blackmailed to, or because they honestly believe that what they have been
told is the truth!

Yeah, yeah, its those damned jews all conspiring in smoke filled rooms
to shaft us all.

Wake up! Smell the coffee! Turn on the TV or read the papers and suspend
disbelief, and every story that you hear see or read about ask yourself
'Why this story? Why this *opinion* on this story? Cui Bono? '

Why if the EU basically doesn't like us, are they so keen for us to stay?
Cui Bono?

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

Even if they did, they need the money, stupid and if Britain did leave
without any bad result from doing that, others might consider that too.

Why if the EU is such a monster that the moment we leave they will cut off
all trade and deny us access to European Airspace - something no other
country except perhaps N Korea does - would we ever want to be part of
them? Cui Bono?

You are being lied to. You know that.

Yep, by the extremists on both sides, That's what they always do.

That's neither remarkable nor even remotely disturbing. It is after all
the normal state of affairs in a so called democracy where lying
convincingly is the natural route to power from the sort of psychopaths
who like power and to whom lying is a way of life.

Of course you never ever do anything like that yourself above, eh ?

NO, what counts is to try and work out *why* you are being lied to with
*those particular* lies. Cui Bono? Who benefits from a totalitarian
European superstate in nominal charge of a cowed populations who will do
what they are told?

Who is so rabidly bigoted that all they ever want is to pull up
the drawbridge and keep all those unspeakable foreigners out ?

Conversely who benefits from an independent UK free to trade on whatever
terms it likes or can arrive at with the wider world beyond Europe - the
wider world where growth is happening and economies are not stagnating and
misguided immigration policies are not turning it into the default
sinkhole of the middle east?

That fact that the remain campaign is based on fear and lies,

Of course there is nothing like that with you BREXITers with your
fear and lies about Islam, eh ?

should not be an issue, nor indeed the case that the leave campaign is
probably more truthful.

Like hell it is with the rabid bigotry about Islam alone,
let alone the rabid bigotry about the alleged totalitarian
EU that will be sending in the tanks any day now.

You probably don't trust either, and indeed that is the best starting
point there is...

What is important, is 'Cui Bono?' Do you *really* think the EU will 'see
you right'?

The EU is irrelevant on that if Britain chooses to leave.

Or do you think that your aspirations will be met in a more independent
and progressive nation, that has an identity of its own, and is free to
structure regulations to relieve businesses of idiotic red tape.

How odd that it didnt before the EU was even invented.

Do we really *need* 'homeowners packs' 'part P' and all that stuff?

All forced on Britain by the EU eh ? More lies.

could we just not ditch it, ditch solar panel subsidies, ditch windmill
subsidies, ditch a huge raft of EU funded quangos that keep a few good men
as well as heaps of public sector idiots, doing nothing productive at all?

Of course there never was anything like that before the EU was invented, eh
?

In order to make these decisions, first of all you have to give up the
childish notion that one side is telling the truth and the other is lying.

It has always been obvious that both sides lie through their teeth.

Even if it were true, there is no objective yardstick to make that
judgement with. At best you can arrive at a balance of probablities.

More lies.

The second thing is to realise that there is no disinterested unbiased
position. Around 50% of Britain's GDP flows through the public sector, in
one way or another. Around 50% of the population stand to lose in the
short term one way or another, if public sector spending is cut back so
that the other 50% who actually create wealth, get to keep a bit more of
it. Of course that makes the other 50% less than disinterested, too.

All completely irrelevant to leaving the EU. It was arguably
Britain that invented that high level of the public sector.

In 2014 the EU spent ‚¬1,4bn on 'security and citizenship' the third
biggest spend after 'smart and inclusive growth' and 'sustainable growth'
(whatever those are)

The EU total budget was ‚¬142bn in 2014.

Look at the UK GDP however. It's in the trillions. Look at UK government
expenditure

"In the fiscal year ending in 2016, total UK public spending, including
central government and local authorities, was £753.9 billion. In the
fiscal year ending in 2017, total UK public spending is expected to be
£771.9 billion."

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/go...penditure.html

Compare that with the EU.

Who is calling the shots here, and why?

Look at our economy as portrayed by some nameless unpaid we hope wiki
contributor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econom...United_Kingdom

Germany needs our trade more than we need theirs.

There is a bit more to the EU than Germany. Britain needs the exports
to France with Airbus more than France needs what it sells to Britain.

In article , Andy Burns
writes
bert wrote:

Trouble was it was a very short and insignificant list and did not
include any sort of brake on freedom of movement.

'cos Germany and Poland made it quite clear there was no point putting
that on the list to start with.



So you always need a sacrificial lamb.
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
Removal of politicians from the debate.
An end to the petty bickering.

Can't see how you would do that. Even if you could, are you confident
that the civil service would be able to steer through the whole debate
in an unbiased and impartial way?

You don't need to read far on here to realise that the politicians don't
have the monopoly on lies and misinformation.

Indeed not. You have claimed that accolade many times over.
--
bert

On 01/06/2016 18:30, Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 01 Jun 2016 16:15:32 +0100, bert wrote:

Remember, Cameron went to the European Council with his negotiating hat
on - to do exactly what you're suggesting would happen post-leave - a
few months back. He came back with almost all that was on his list, more
than was expected, but he's spent all his political capital on that.
Going back for more will not work now.

Trouble was it was a very short and insignificant list

No, not really.

and did not include any sort of brake on freedom of movement.

Even trying to negotiate that would have been utterly pointless, not
least because it's one of the four basic freedoms from the Treaty of
Rome, which MASSIVELY predates our joining the EC.

Indeed, and it one of the fundamental changes that the EU will have to
make if it is to survive (regardless of if we stay or go)


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Wed, 01 Jun 2016 20:05:11 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

and did not include any sort of brake on freedom of movement.

Even trying to negotiate that would have been utterly pointless, not
least because it's one of the four basic freedoms from the Treaty of
Rome, which MASSIVELY predates our joining the EC.

Indeed, and it one of the fundamental changes that the EU will have to
make if it is to survive (regardless of if we stay or go)

The only people who have an issue with it are the Little Englanders and
various far-right groups. Everybody else recognises that it's a bloody
good thing.

Adrian posted
On Wed, 01 Jun 2016 20:05:11 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

and did not include any sort of brake on freedom of movement.

Even trying to negotiate that would have been utterly pointless, not
least because it's one of the four basic freedoms from the Treaty of
Rome, which MASSIVELY predates our joining the EC.

Indeed, and it one of the fundamental changes that the EU will have to
make if it is to survive (regardless of if we stay or go)

The only people who have an issue with it are the Little Englanders and
various far-right groups. Everybody else recognises that it's a bloody
good thing.

Have you personally asked all these "everybody else"?

Or do you simply define everybody who disagrees that freedom of movement
is a "bloody good thing" as a Little Englander or a member of a
far-right group? That would at least have the merit of making your
statement true, though perhaps not useful.

--
Les

On 01/06/16 20:28, Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 01 Jun 2016 20:05:11 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

and did not include any sort of brake on freedom of movement.

Even trying to negotiate that would have been utterly pointless, not
least because it's one of the four basic freedoms from the Treaty of
Rome, which MASSIVELY predates our joining the EC.

Indeed, and it one of the fundamental changes that the EU will have to
make if it is to survive (regardless of if we stay or go)

The only people who have an issue with it are the Little Englanders and
various far-right groups. Everybody else recognises that it's a bloody
good thing.

In your dreams.

The only people who are for it are brainwashed little Europeaners

Wake Up! Smell the coffee! Leave the EU! Join the real world!

The EU is for losers.


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

Adolf Hitler

On 01/06/16 20:53, Big Les Wade wrote:
Adrian posted
On Wed, 01 Jun 2016 20:05:11 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

and did not include any sort of brake on freedom of movement.

Even trying to negotiate that would have been utterly pointless, not
least because it's one of the four basic freedoms from the Treaty of
Rome, which MASSIVELY predates our joining the EC.

Indeed, and it one of the fundamental changes that the EU will have to
make if it is to survive (regardless of if we stay or go)

The only people who have an issue with it are the Little Englanders and
various far-right groups. Everybody else recognises that it's a bloody
good thing.

Have you personally asked all these "everybody else"?

Or do you simply define everybody who disagrees that freedom of movement
is a "bloody good thing" as a Little Englander or a member of a
far-right group? That would at least have the merit of making your
statement true, though perhaps not useful.

Of course he does, that's the nature of his bigotry. It avoids him
having to actually listen to any argument against the position he has so
much emotional investment in.

"Nah nah ne nah Right wing fascist little englander: *I dont need to
listen to you*".




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

Adolf Hitler

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

On Wed, 01 Jun 2016 16:15:32 +0100, bert wrote:

Remember, Cameron went to the European Council with his negotiating hat
on - to do exactly what you're suggesting would happen post-leave - a
few months back. He came back with almost all that was on his list, more
than was expected, but he's spent all his political capital on that.
Going back for more will not work now.

Trouble was it was a very short and insignificant list

No, not really.

and did not include any sort of brake on freedom of movement.

Even trying to negotiate that would have been utterly pointless, not least
because it's one of the four basic freedoms from the Treaty of Rome, which
MASSIVELY predates our joining the EC.

That ain't the point, really. He should have been asking for root and
branch change to the EU. Such as:

1) A complete end to ever-closer-union.

2) And end to freedom of movement

3) Scrapping the Euro

4) Scrapping to EU parliament and Commission

5) A return to a common market

That was never going to happen. The only way to get that is to
leave the EU and your problem is that nothing even remotely
like most in Britain want that, and you get to like that or lump it.

That would have shown them what our view is.

It isn't the view of the majority in Britain as you will discover on the
23rd.

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

On Wed, 01 Jun 2016 10:26:59 +0100, Brian Gaff wrote:

Its not going to happen, but of course what might happen is the EU might
give us a better option if we vote to leave

They won't.

They'll take a leave vote at face value.

B'sides, anything but "member" or "not member" would require
fundamental treaty change. Damn near all the opt-outs we have have
been negotiated at the time of various implementations.

Remember, Cameron went to the European Council with his negotiating
hat on - to do exactly what you're suggesting would happen post-leave
- a few months back. He came back with almost all that was on his
list, more than was expected, but he's spent all his political capital
on that. Going back for more will not work now.

Cameron asked for ****-all and got ****-all.

No he got less than ****-all
--
bert

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
Even trying to negotiate that would have been utterly pointless, not
least because it's one of the four basic freedoms from the Treaty of
Rome, which MASSIVELY predates our joining the EC.

Indeed, and it one of the fundamental changes that the EU will have to
make if it is to survive (regardless of if we stay or go)

Suppose the EU was suddenly restricted to Germany France and the UK. Would
you still say freedom of movement was a fundamentally bad thing and could
never work?

--
*If you can't see my mirrors, I'm doing my hair*

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
Even trying to negotiate that would have been utterly pointless, not
least because it's one of the four basic freedoms from the Treaty of
Rome, which MASSIVELY predates our joining the EC.

Indeed, and it one of the fundamental changes that the EU will have to
make if it is to survive (regardless of if we stay or go)

Suppose the EU was suddenly restricted to Germany France and the UK. Would
you still say freedom of movement was a fundamentally bad thing and could
never work?

Definitely, keep the buggers out.
The way things are going, we'll sink.

On 01/06/2016 20:28, Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 01 Jun 2016 20:05:11 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

and did not include any sort of brake on freedom of movement.

Even trying to negotiate that would have been utterly pointless, not
least because it's one of the four basic freedoms from the Treaty of
Rome, which MASSIVELY predates our joining the EC.

Indeed, and it one of the fundamental changes that the EU will have to
make if it is to survive (regardless of if we stay or go)

The only people who have an issue with it are the Little Englanders and
various far-right groups. Everybody else recognises that it's a bloody
good thing.

Free movement for the purposes of business and employment makes some
sense when limited to resonable numbers. However when it either becomes
a way to facilitate mass benefit or healthcare tourism, or a way for the
less scrupulous to engage in mass exploitation, its not sustainable.

As the disparity in economic strength of between nations in the union
increases (as new members join), its a problem that gets worse.





--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Thursday, 2 June 2016 00:33:16 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
Even trying to negotiate that would have been utterly pointless, not
least because it's one of the four basic freedoms from the Treaty of
Rome, which MASSIVELY predates our joining the EC.

Indeed, and it one of the fundamental changes that the EU will have to
make if it is to survive (regardless of if we stay or go)

Suppose the EU was suddenly restricted to Germany France and the UK. Would
you still say freedom of movement was a fundamentally bad thing and could
never work?

The same ******s would be in charge, working back towards the position we are in now

On Wednesday, 1 June 2016 19:45:16 UTC+1, jjk wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 01/06/16 10:26, Brian Gaff wrote:
Its not going to happen, but of course what might happen is the EU might
give us a better option if we vote to leave, which our Dave assuming he
is
still in post, will then sell to us as like leaving but still retaining
all
the beneficial bits.
Indeed I'd be surprised if this had not already been agreed ahead of
time.
Its what I'd have done in his position.

Of course its been agreed.

Just another conspiracy theory.

But it will be a cosmetic fix only.

Some irrelevant 'concession' that he can hold in his hand and say 'peace
in our time', or the equivalent thereof.

The whole referendum thing only happened because UKIP were making gains
and his puppet masters don't want UKIP,. They don't yet have the goods on
UKIP, so they can't be relied upon to go along with the powers that be.

(Corbyn is now sewn up,. so that's the other base covered. He'll do what
he is told).

More silly conspiracy theory stuff. How odd that the individual who is
most vulnerable to having the goods on him, Boris, didnt get monstered.

So the referendum is there primarily to destroy UKIP by hopefully
demonstrating that most of the UK wants in, and even if a majority want
out, they don't really mean it, they just want some way to satisfy their
Euroscepticism.

Must explain why there was the Scottish one.

I wouldn't be surprised if:

1/. The vote is marginally out,

Not a chance. Have a look at the odds sometime.
They dont get stuff like that wrong because they
go broke if they do.

Dave says it isn't conclusive, but he 'hears you' and spends 6 months
talking inn Brussels and gets 'major concessions' and 'believes this
justifies his decision to stay in the EU'

If he tried that, Boris would replace him.

2/. There is an 'islamic atrocity', the polls flip over to leave by a
landslide

No chance in just 3 weeks, you watch.

and Dave 'suspends the referendum on the grounds of national security' And
then 'discovers' that in fact it wasn't 'Islamic extremists' but a black
op by 'unspecified nasty fascist right wing groups' ('you know, like those
kipper chaps but I never said it') and 'we have to 'join hands' with
Europe to create a national army of occupation to prevent this sort of
thing ever happening and protect our islamic brothers'. UKIP EDL and EDF
are banned, and conspiracy websites with evidence that in fact it was CIA
inspired disappear from the internet. And the next morning there are tanks
in every town centre 'to keep the peace and reassure the population'

Completely off with the ****ing fairies, as always.

Cynical? Moi?

Just completely barking mad.

I only grew up watching it all unfold in the 60s, the 70s, the 80's the
90s....the noughties...

So did we, and saw nothing like that. In fact many of us grew up in the 50s
too.

*NOTHING* in the media is, expect by sheer accident, the accidental news
of what 'just happened'. Not only are the stories manufactured, but the
events themselves are manufactured, *Everything* is monitored by public
opinion polls to see what peoples *perceptions* of it are. Not for what it
actually is. It's not that a few people are lying, *almost everybody is
lying almost all the time*. Either because they are paid to, or are being
blackmailed to, or because they honestly believe that what they have been
told is the truth!

Yeah, yeah, its those damned jews all conspiring in smoke filled rooms
to shaft us all.

Wake up! Smell the coffee! Turn on the TV or read the papers and suspend
disbelief, and every story that you hear see or read about ask yourself
'Why this story? Why this *opinion* on this story? Cui Bono? '

Why if the EU basically doesn't like us, are they so keen for us to stay?
Cui Bono?

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

Even if they did, they need the money, stupid and if Britain did leave
without any bad result from doing that, others might consider that too.

Why if the EU is such a monster that the moment we leave they will cut off
all trade and deny us access to European Airspace - something no other
country except perhaps N Korea does - would we ever want to be part of
them? Cui Bono?

You are being lied to. You know that.

Yep, by the extremists on both sides, That's what they always do.

That's neither remarkable nor even remotely disturbing. It is after all
the normal state of affairs in a so called democracy where lying
convincingly is the natural route to power from the sort of psychopaths
who like power and to whom lying is a way of life.

Of course you never ever do anything like that yourself above, eh ?

NO, what counts is to try and work out *why* you are being lied to with
*those particular* lies. Cui Bono? Who benefits from a totalitarian
European superstate in nominal charge of a cowed populations who will do
what they are told?

Who is so rabidly bigoted that all they ever want is to pull up
the drawbridge and keep all those unspeakable foreigners out ?

Conversely who benefits from an independent UK free to trade on whatever
terms it likes or can arrive at with the wider world beyond Europe - the
wider world where growth is happening and economies are not stagnating and
misguided immigration policies are not turning it into the default
sinkhole of the middle east?

That fact that the remain campaign is based on fear and lies,

Of course there is nothing like that with you BREXITers with your
fear and lies about Islam, eh ?

should not be an issue, nor indeed the case that the leave campaign is
probably more truthful.

Like hell it is with the rabid bigotry about Islam alone,
let alone the rabid bigotry about the alleged totalitarian
EU that will be sending in the tanks any day now.

You probably don't trust either, and indeed that is the best starting
point there is...

What is important, is 'Cui Bono?' Do you *really* think the EU will 'see
you right'?

The EU is irrelevant on that if Britain chooses to leave.

Or do you think that your aspirations will be met in a more independent
and progressive nation, that has an identity of its own, and is free to
structure regulations to relieve businesses of idiotic red tape.

How odd that it didnt before the EU was even invented.

Do we really *need* 'homeowners packs' 'part P' and all that stuff?

All forced on Britain by the EU eh ? More lies.

could we just not ditch it, ditch solar panel subsidies, ditch windmill
subsidies, ditch a huge raft of EU funded quangos that keep a few good men
as well as heaps of public sector idiots, doing nothing productive at all?

Of course there never was anything like that before the EU was invented, eh
?

In order to make these decisions, first of all you have to give up the
childish notion that one side is telling the truth and the other is lying.

It has always been obvious that both sides lie through their teeth.

Even if it were true, there is no objective yardstick to make that
judgement with. At best you can arrive at a balance of probablities.

More lies.

The second thing is to realise that there is no disinterested unbiased
position. Around 50% of Britain's GDP flows through the public sector, in
one way or another. Around 50% of the population stand to lose in the
short term one way or another, if public sector spending is cut back so
that the other 50% who actually create wealth, get to keep a bit more of
it. Of course that makes the other 50% less than disinterested, too.

All completely irrelevant to leaving the EU. It was arguably
Britain that invented that high level of the public sector.

In 2014 the EU spent ‚¬1,4bn on 'security and citizenship' the third
biggest spend after 'smart and inclusive growth' and 'sustainable growth'
(whatever those are)

The EU total budget was ‚¬142bn in 2014.

Look at the UK GDP however. It's in the trillions. Look at UK government
expenditure

"In the fiscal year ending in 2016, total UK public spending, including
central government and local authorities, was £753.9 billion. In the
fiscal year ending in 2017, total UK public spending is expected to be
£771.9 billion."

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/go...penditure.html

Compare that with the EU.

Who is calling the shots here, and why?

Look at our economy as portrayed by some nameless unpaid we hope wiki
contributor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econom...United_Kingdom

Germany needs our trade more than we need theirs.

There is a bit more to the EU than Germany. Britain needs the exports
to France with Airbus more than France needs what it sells to Britain.

Another Wodders morph!

On Wednesday, 1 June 2016 17:01:08 UTC+1, thescullster wrote:
On 01/06/2016 14:10, John Rumm wrote:
On 31/05/2016 19:39, TheChief wrote:

Anyone else looking for another option on 23-06?

Yes, get it over and done with...

I propose a defer option.

The idea is that this will allow time for:

Genuine fact finding about the implications of remain/leave.

Who was it who said words to the effect of "sausages and laws, you don't
want to see how either are made"?

The problem here are there are very few "facts" to discover. You will
only learn the true facts of leaving by doing so, since they don't yet
exist. The "facts" of staying we have a slightly better grip on, but
even those a subject to (and likely to) change.

Hi John

Yes the implications of leaving/remaining are speculations at best right
now. What I meant about facts were things like this £350m per week
business. Nearly every commentary on this matter has the £350m mentioned
and then contested. It was established months ago that this was the
gross figure before rebates, but the same revolving conversations are
still repeating this.


Removal of politicians from the debate.
An end to the petty bickering.

Can't see how you would do that. Even if you could, are you confident
that the civil service would be able to steer through the whole debate
in an unbiased and impartial way?

Aren't select committees supposed to do this? Why not have
representatives from each party all tasked with jointly establishing the
known and unknown information to relay to voters?

Engagement of qualified analysts to assess the impact of remain/leave.

That should get you as many opinions as analysts consulted.

True - I guess we would have to "plot the average" for an accurate picture.

The presentation of the findings in a manner suitable for the populus.

Front page ad in the Sun, next to a nice pair of tits?

Now you're talking. This may well reach the audience more likely to
vote, particularly on issues of immigration.

Once all this is complete, then consider setting a referendum date.

One final benefit of this option....
Countries in the Euro zone will have time to realise the gravity
of the migrant situation and will be rebelling and erecting
borders and holding their own referenda. UK will be seen as wise
leaders rather than disruptive deserters just for biding our
time.





There is NO information.

Only speculation.

On Thu, 02 Jun 2016 02:48:02 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

However when it either becomes a way to facilitate ... healthcare
tourism

Which forgets, of course, that the ONLY reason that the NHS doesn't
recharge foreign residents for their care is because it CHOOSES not to.

Remember the EHIC card? Which allows other EU healthcare systems to
recharge the NHS for your treatment? Yes, that. The NHS could recharge
residents of other EU countries for their care here.

But it chooses not to.

Why? Would it cost more to administer than it would bring in? I don't
know. But... the only thing stopping them from doing so is internal
policy.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 2 June 2016 00:33:16 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
Even trying to negotiate that would have been utterly pointless, not
least because it's one of the four basic freedoms from the Treaty of
Rome, which MASSIVELY predates our joining the EC.

Indeed, and it one of the fundamental changes that the EU will have to
make if it is to survive (regardless of if we stay or go)

Suppose the EU was suddenly restricted to Germany France and the UK.
Would
you still say freedom of movement was a fundamentally bad thing and could
never work?

The same ******s would be in charge,

Another lie, a tiny subset of the current ******s would be in charge.

working back towards the position we are in now

Not even possible if that was all that was in the EU.

On 02/06/2016 07:09, harry wrote:


8


There is NO information.

Only speculation.


Yet everything you and TNP say starts with "Will" and ends with
"guaranteed" or similar words. Even when they are the opposites.