Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
The EU makes a law nobody likes (HTF did Brussels pass it then?)

Easy, they make it a regulation. Doesn't go near the EU parliament,
so no revision is possible.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 15:57:00 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


But UKIP are the only party close enough to their position to feel a
blanket ban warranted.


That makes no sense at all


Yes, dear. Of course it doesn't.


Its just another spin and lie


Yes, dear. Of course it is.


Good. I think if anyone is watching this thread, they will draw their
own conclusions about your behaviour, which is all that is needed


Yes, they certainly will draw conclusions about the arguments each of us
are putting forward, and how the other responds.

Wonder just why Turnip is so concerned about it being said ex BNP members
are in UKIP. Their aims are very similar. As with all the right wing
they're more likely to squabble over the name and leadership than policies.


I note that two of the remainers are more concerned with abuse than
UKIPs policies. What is it about the policies that you are both afraid of?

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 08:35:58 +0100, tim... wrote:

The EU gangs up on the UK by insisting only the UK follows its
diktats.

no-one claims the EU gangs up on us to do it. We just seem to do it
willingly.

Other EU countries can do as they wish.

Other countries pontificate and try to weasel their way out of rules
they don't like

So your beef appears to be with the UK government.

It is an odd argument.

The EU makes a law nobody likes (HTF did Brussels pass it then?)

dunno

look at the history of the "Olive oil regulations and inspections
regulation" to see how a law that nobody wanted got within a whisker of
being implemented.

If the press hadn't have picked up on it it would have made it over the
finishing line

tim

In article ,
tim... wrote:
The EU makes a law nobody likes (HTF did Brussels pass it then?)

dunno

look at the history of the "Olive oil regulations and inspections
regulation" to see how a law that nobody wanted got within a whisker of
being implemented.

If nobody wanted it, HTF would it have got voted through? Surely not all
MEPs are Kippers who don't turn up or deliberately vote against their
constituent's interests?

If the press hadn't have picked up on it it would have made it over the
finishing line

Then nothing would get passed. No matter what the EU proposes, the
majority of the UK press would be against it.

--
*A backward poet writes inverse.*

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

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 13 June 2016 13:35:22 UTC+1, michael adams wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
wrote:

On Monday, 13 June 2016 09:10:58 UTC+1, Adrian wrote:

Anyway, wtf does "sovereignty" actually _MEAN_?

Oh boy. It means we can vote political parties out of office if we
don't like
what they do.

Such as invading Iraq and using billions of taxpayers money to bail
out the banks, so as to keep paying bankers their million pound bonuses
you mean ?

So which particular, electable, political party was against either of
those things ?


UKIP was against it.

It never had even the remotes possibility of getting to be the govt.

The only party with a leader that tells the truth.

He lied thru his teeth about quitting if he didnt get a seat in
Westminster.

Vote UKIP

That would be a completely wasted vote.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 14/06/16 08:36, Bob Eager wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 00:22:24 -0700, harry wrote:

UKIP was against it.
The only party with a leader that tells the truth.

"I'm going to resign now the election is over"

Which he promptly did.

And didnt the balls to stick with that resignation.

He had said that it made no sense to remain
leader if he couldnt get elected to Westminster
himself. He was right about that.

Just another lying politician.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 14/06/16 10:28, Capitol wrote:
The leavers will be the government. I'm watching with interest to see
how many of Camorons MP supporters jump ship in the next week or so!

Indeed. Its beginning to look as though brexiteers are edging ahead.

The betting odds say something different and
they dont get binary results like that wrong.

How many remainer career backbenchers will 'confess they did it because
they were forced to' and actually in their hearts they wanted out all
along?

Quite a few if the referendum result is to leave and Boris replaces Cameron,
I bet.

I wonder if it will end like the Euro debate, simply never mentioned
again.,

Same with the Scottish referendum. Which the betting odds got right too.

or whether it will be a referendum every year until we vote to stay in...

Can't see that happening once Boris replaces Cameron who
has already said that he won't be the PM in the next election.

On 13/06/2016 13:51, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


You've got to the crux of the matter. Send our country into a lengthy
recession from which it may never recover so you can buy a faster toaster.

Well that's what Gordon Brown achieved by 2008, and strangely enough,
he managed it while we were both in the EU *and* outside the Eurozone.

So we know what *can* happen (again) if the Remainers win, and those
of us old enough can remember that we got along just fine prior to 1973,
when we joined the common market, the miners forced out a democratically
elected government, slammed the door on cheap meat and dairy imports
from New Zealand and for the next 5 years inflicted an *annual*
inflation rate of between 20 and 25%, and even had to call in the IMF
for an emergency loan in 1976.

dennis@home wrote
Capitol wrote
dennis@home wrote

Well you are bankrupt now anyway as Boris has committed the leavers to
keep paying all the EU funded stuff until 2020.

This is from a bunch of people who have no control over what the
government spends so it must be a personal commitment by the leavers.

The leavers will be the government. I'm watching with interest to see how
many of Camorons MP supporters jump ship in the next week or so!

The government will be whomever gets elected next

And that is almost guaranteed to be Boris because Cameron has
already said that he'll be quitting before the next election and if the
leave vote prevails, he won't be able to renege on that and there is
no possibility what so ever of Corbyn ever getting to be the govt.

and they have no reason to support what the leavers promise.

They do when Boris is driving the bus, you watch.

However a guarantee to pay the cash sounds like a contract to me

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of the fact
that you have never had a ****ing clue how politics works.

and it isn't with the government.

There is no contract, you watch.

On 13/06/2016 16:04, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


The kettle thing is simply lies, since you can't increase the efficiency
of that to any major extent.


Nope. They are trying to reduce power surges when an important sporting
event finishes. Low power kettles means the total power requirement
is spread over a longer period. But we have Dinorwig and one in Scotland
to do that, so it is a pointless directive. They don't drink tea in
Europe so it is equally pointless to them. Only the Germans have coffee
makers on the go all the time, but they have 8 new brown-coal fired
power stations to power those.

On 14/06/16 17:43, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Capitol
wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
The EU makes a law nobody likes (HTF did Brussels pass it then?)
Easy, they make it a regulation. Doesn't go near the EU
parliament, so no revision is possible.

You sure about that? I thought the regulations still had to be passed
by the EU Parliament, at which point they automatically became part of
domestic law. BICBW.

IIRC that is true, but there are about 10,000 regulations a year passed.

No one reads em.


--
Microsoft : the best reason to go to Linux that ever existed.

On 13/06/2016 12:24, dennis@home wrote:


So for example car emissions laws won't have to be complied with?


Err, we *know* that VW diesel cars deliberately don't comply
with emissions laws already. And if the EU knew about it, then
they are keeping quiet.

On 14/06/16 19:26, Andrew wrote:
On 13/06/2016 12:24, dennis@home wrote:


So for example car emissions laws won't have to be complied with?


Err, we *know* that VW diesel cars deliberately don't comply
with emissions laws already.

Actually we know that they DO comply with the *law*.

What we discovered in that case is that the Law was an ass, and VW drove
a passat and horses through it whilst complying with the *letter*


And if the EU knew about it, then they are keeping quiet.


--
If I had all the money I've spent on drink...
...I'd spend it on drink.

Sir Henry (at Rawlinson's End)

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
The EU makes a law nobody likes (HTF did Brussels pass it then?)

dunno

look at the history of the "Olive oil regulations and inspections
regulation" to see how a law that nobody wanted got within a whisker of
being implemented.

If nobody wanted it,

obviously someone wanted it

Likely it was lobbied for by big business at the expense of consumer choice

And some commissioner somewhere bought into it

HTF would it have got voted through?

I don't know the system, but the fact is that most of the proposals made by
commissioners are voted through the EP "on the nod"

Surely not all
MEPs are Kippers who don't turn up or deliberately vote against their
constituent's interests?

If the press hadn't have picked up on it it would have made it over the
finishing line

Then nothing would get passed. No matter what the EU proposes, the
majority of the UK press would be against it.

Two things happened he

No-one (except for the vested interest big business - see above) wanted this
legislation

and

the press noticed it was sleepwalking to being passed.

Most of the things that upset the UK press don't meet the first test.

tim

michael adams wrote
Rod Speed wrote
michael adams wrote
Rod Speed wrote
michael adams wrote

But how many people voted Labour in the expectation
that it would be a Labour Government who would invade
Iraq, carry on with deregulation and bail out banks to the
tune of billions while allowing the bonus culture to remain ?

Irrelevant. The point is that when they **** up badly enough,
they are free to pull the plug on them the next time they vote.
And they did just that.

Except they didn't **** up.

Corse they did. They stupidly deregulated the banks

So which part of the following 15 word sentence did you have the most
problems with ?

None of it. All that says is that they BOTH
****ed up, not that Labour didn’t **** up.

Labour pursued the exact same policies a Conservative government would
have implemented if in office.

Whether deregulating banks was a good idea or not is irrelevant.

Nope, its how Labour ****ed up very comprehensively indeed and
why they got the bums rush at the ballot box when they had ****ed
up so spectacularly. Something that can't happen with the EU because
no one ever gets to vote those making the policy decisions in or out.

In order to get elected Labour needed to follow the exact same
centrist/right agenda as was initiated by Thatcher.

Because that is what the voters wanted govt wise.

All the politicians got to like that or lump it.

The Conservatives biggest electoral weapon is fear.

Corse Labour never ever does anything like that, eh ?

Older voters are primarily motivated by fear,

BULL****. They are primarily motivated by wanting to
have things done the way they have always been done.

which is why in order to get elected at all Labour needed to distance
themselves as far as possible from their previous policy positions.

All they needed to do was be for what the majority of the voters
wanted, the centrist/right agenda as was initiated by Thatcher.

And that is why Labour hasn’t got a hope in hell of being the govt
any time soon with that fool Corbyn wanting to renationalise almost
everything again. That's the last thing the voters will be buying, you
watch.

On 13/06/2016 14:54, michael adams wrote:

They're not going to re-open the coal mines and start up the British Empire again
are they ?


Germany is building EIGHT new coal-fired powerstations, and no EU
paper-shuffler is going to have any say.


Who never went to a public school, but like their parents held down an ordinary job
before being elected and know what it is to worry about not having enough money
you mean ?


Hmm, Tony Blair sent his kids to an exclusive school. Dianne Abbott sent
her son to a posh private school. Blair and hatty Harperson
both had no problems getting their kids into Bristol Uni, but anyone
applying from a private school was effectively barred.

The Kinnock family are never going to have to worry about money. Despite
being rejected by the UK electorate, Gordon Brown appointed Windbag Neil
as an EU commissioner (= Fat salary, another gold-plated pension and
expenses+++). Soon followed by Glenda, *another* EU commissioner, then
son *and* daughter joined the trough.
Steven then married a Norwegian socialist who used this marriage to
avoid £40,000 a year in taxes. And now NEil has been elevated to the
House of Lords (despite what he said about it when he was an MP) so he
can join the £300/day troughers. We are on the hook for about £6 million
in expenses and pensions for this family.


Never mind you can look forward to another twenty years of Old Etonians
since those clever Conservatives have discovered a way to subvert the Labour
Leadership Election process.

It was the mass dessertion to the SNP in Scotland and UKIP in Labour
heartlands that stopped Labour in their tracks. And as long as the
Labour party is primarily posh, Waitrose/Guardian Islington based,
many of their core supporters are going to keep on voting UKIP.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
None of them unless we CHOOSE to let them. We need to set our own
immigration laws in exactly the same way as the USA or anywhere else
does.


So you are admitting that in practice it makes no difference other than
we get no say in the EU laws we still have to follow.

The USA immigration laws are obviously perfect in practice.

He never said that, JUST that they do get to decide who
they will allow in and who they don’t. Unlike with Britain
which gets no say what so ever with EU citizens.

The US wasn’t actually stupid enough to allow complete
freedom of movement of anyone across the NAFTA area
that is a citizen of a NAFTA country.

So no need for that wall at the Mexican border, then?

They don’t have the moat that Britain does, stupid.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Adrian wrote
On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 08:35:58 +0100, tim... wrote:

The EU gangs up on the UK by insisting only the UK follows its diktats.

no-one claims the EU gangs up on us
to do it. We just seem to do it willingly.

Other EU countries can do as they wish.

Other countries pontificate and try to weasel
their way out of rules they don't like

So your beef appears to be with the UK government.

It is an odd argument.

We'll see...

The EU makes a law nobody likes (HTF did Brussels pass it then?)

By doing it by regulation which not even the EP gets to vote on.

All EU countries other than the UK ignore it.

No one ever said that.

So the EU is at fault.

They obviously are when the regulation isn't wanted by any country.

On 14/06/2016 19:37, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 14/06/16 19:26, Andrew wrote:
On 13/06/2016 12:24, dennis@home wrote:


So for example car emissions laws won't have to be complied with?


Err, we *know* that VW diesel cars deliberately don't comply
with emissions laws already.

Actually we know that they DO comply with the *law*.

What we discovered in that case is that the Law was an ass, and VW drove
a passat and horses through it whilst complying with the *letter*

No they deliberately cheated on the tests and are having to pay a lot to
fix the cars that don't comply in all EU countries.
The final costs have yet to be determined.

And if the EU knew about it, then they are keeping quiet.

On 14/06/2016 19:24, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

IIRC that is true, but there are about 10,000 regulations a year passed.

Yet more brexit lies, there are only about 11500 regulations in total.

On 13/06/2016 21:42, michael adams wrote:

In fact the only people who are really happy with the way
things are going Govt.wise at present are my fellow wrinklies.
Those with private health insurance at least. The Grey Vote.
All former beneficiaries of free university education in their
time, and nowadays courted by both political parties
with triple locked state pensions.

Idiot. Only the top 5% went to University, with full grant, in the
60's and 70's. I didn't. I went out and got a job, did an HNC with
day release and worked my way up. As a freelance computer programmer
shafted by IR35, I had to hand over 40% tax + 11% Employees NI +
12.8% employers NI (no upper limit) to the one-eyed scottish bully.
I decided that we needed to get out of the EU the day that Gob****e
appointed Windbag Kinnock as an EU commissioner.

Even the civil service like NERC and the Met Office had BUPA
membership for their government employees (who also had a
non-contributory final salary pension).


Years ago there were semi- serious discussions about euthenising
anyone selfish enough to be still taking up room at the age of
65. While not going quite that far, for fairly obvious reasons,

Like, you too, would have to get the chop perhaps ?

I certainly think wrinklies should be disbarred from voting in
referendums whose outcomes could have serious repercussions
maybe over the next 50 years.

Including the ones who were (maybe still are) in the top 25% of
taxpayers, the group that subsidise the rest of society ?.


Please don't answer this with more of your silly points,
I'm bored to death with all this already.

Then stop posting such pointless socialist crap.


michael adams

...

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
dennis@home wrote
The Natural Philosopher wrote

Every time someone passed judegment on UKIP I have
to rub my eyes and wonder who this 'UKIP' is because
its certainly not the party I've been a member of for years.

You don't know what the UKIP supporters are like around here.
Therefore you can't possibly write off what others say.
You are just showing how closed your mind is to any reality that gets
in the way of your beliefs. Sounds like you are very religious to me.

Turnip is the only UKIP member in his village. So his only communication
with others is via the party literature and press etc.

Bet that's a lie on both counts.

It is strikingly obvious he's never been to a
meeting in an area with lots of UKIP supporters.

Didn’t realise that Farage only shows up at
meetings in areas with **** all UKIP supporters.

They'd eat him for breakfast.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 12:57:11 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

No it is not! I accept that some UKIP supporters may not be bigots
from the NF but you don't accept that some are.

wait, two, three
"But UKIP are the only party who explicitly bar ex-BNP etc members"

That's because they're the only ones who need to.

Yet another bigoted lie from the other resident lefty****

chuckle
You're so predictable. It's almost as if there's a tiny handful of stock
phrases that you resort to when you realise you're bang to rights on
something.

BTW, I'm still not a lefty.

;-) The laugh is Rees-Turnip has proably never even met a true lefty.
There are certainly non on here.

Bull****, you are one of them yourself with your union ****.

I did know a few from my union days -
at conferences, etc. Actually rather rare.

Only if you have silly ideas about what a 'true lefty' is.

Do you even admit that Corbyn is ?

On 13/06/2016 13:48, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Ever been to Germany? That is the largest EU country. Where they are far
more law abiding in general than the UK.

In 20 years time the UK will have overtaken them.
In 20 years time Merkels dumb decision to welcome anyone will result
in Germany being as lawless as parts of Belgium, France and Britain are
now. Ask the young women of Cologne and other towns what they think
about 'law abiding'.

The typical EU against poor little England response. Despite UK MEPs
voting in favour of about 80% of EU stuff. And the even weirder notion
that each and every EU country has more in common with the others than the
UK. Which you'd know is total ******** if you'd ever set foot outside the

You only need to see the way the new countries vote in Eurovision to
see where their sympathies lie - not with us. Remember, Eurovision
is the closest thing we get to an annual referendum on European
'cooperation'.

On 13/06/2016 19:06, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 18:31:07 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

There isn't an EU law on dog fouling either.

But there could be.

Bring.
It.
On.

Most councils already have it in some form. Our local police
are a bit miffed that many of the complaints received by
community bobbies are dog-**** related.

In London laws on cyclists ignoring one-way streets and red lights
is more of a priority.

On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 20:35:39 +0100, Andrew wrote:

Ever been to Germany? That is the largest EU country. Where they are
far more law abiding in general than the UK.

In 20 years time the UK will have overtaken them.

By what measure?

Don't forget that Germany's population is nearly 25% larger than the UK's.

In 20 years time Merkels dumb decision to welcome anyone will result in
Germany being as lawless as parts of Belgium, France and Britain are
now.

Riiight.

You only need to see the way the new countries vote in Eurovision to see
where their sympathies lie - not with us. Remember, Eurovision is the
closest thing we get to an annual referendum on European 'cooperation'.

chuckle
You're serious?

On 14/06/16 20:05, dennis@home wrote:
On 14/06/2016 19:37, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 14/06/16 19:26, Andrew wrote:
On 13/06/2016 12:24, dennis@home wrote:


So for example car emissions laws won't have to be complied with?


Err, we *know* that VW diesel cars deliberately don't comply
with emissions laws already.

Actually we know that they DO comply with the *law*.

What we discovered in that case is that the Law was an ass, and VW drove
a passat and horses through it whilst complying with the *letter*

No they deliberately cheated on the tests

Dennis, they passed the tests.


and are having to pay a lot to
fix the cars that don't comply in all EU countries.

The cars all complied with the tests.


The final costs have yet to be determined.


That's the only thing you got right.



--
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 13/06/2016 21:51, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 20:42:12 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

There isn't an EU law on dog fouling either.

But there could be.

Bring.
It.
On.

Jesus H.

Do you think that the same law should apply in the middle of Dartmoor as
in the Middle of Berlin?

Yes, I do think people should take their ****ing revolting dog**** home
wherever they are.

I'd prefer the people who hang their dog-poo parcels on hedges and
gates would simply leave it where fido left it.

I think disposable nappies should be banned by the EU. That might
make people think more carefully about having 4,5,6,,7,8 kids.

last nights 24 hours in A&E a Portly Portuguese woman complaining
of stomach pains. She had 2-year old twins with her, and 3 previous
kids now over 20. Guess what ?. Another sprog for HM UK taxpayer
to support. And she even quoted an old-portuguese-wives proverb that
basically says one child is lonely, 2 ok, 3 ENOUGH.

On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 19:26:47 +0100, Andrew wrote:

So for example car emissions laws won't have to be complied with?

Err, we *know* that VW diesel cars deliberately don't comply with

North American

emissions laws already.

The other proven faking relates to Japanese emission testing.

We do not know that ANYBODY has faked EU emissions testing results.

Now, that might be a case of "yet" - I cannot believe that VW's engineers
are uniquely duplicitous AND uniquely incompetent - but that's another
question entirely.

As, of course, is whether the UK would do anything but continue to
conform to EU type approval regulations, when they're rapidly becoming
the global standard, with Japanese and US regs being about the only
exceptions.

On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 20:05:56 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

Err, we *know* that VW diesel cars deliberately don't comply with
emissions laws already.

Actually we know that they DO comply with the *law*.

What we discovered in that case is that the Law was an ass, and VW
drove a passat and horses through it whilst complying with the *letter*

No they deliberately cheated on the tests

The tests applicable to the North American standards.

and are having to pay a lot to fix the cars that don't comply in all EU
countries. The final costs have yet to be determined.

They are choosing to do that, because it's cheaper to do that than suffer
the marketing consequences.

On 14/06/2016 17:19, Capitol wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
The EU makes a law nobody likes (HTF did Brussels pass it then?)
Easy, they make it a regulation. Doesn't go near the EU parliament,
so no revision is possible.

And regulations immediately become law in all the member states. No
local implementation at all.

whisky-dave wrote
Adrian wrote
dennis@home wrote

No it is not! I accept that some UKIP supporters may not
be bigots from the NF but you don't accept that some are.

wait, two, three
"But UKIP are the only party who explicitly bar ex-BNP etc members"

That's because they're the only ones who need to.

Are you sure that's true

Yep.

or is it that they are as good at covering such things up

Not even possible to do that with that.

as Jimmy, stuart, cyril covering up their paedo tendancies ?

Not even possible to cover up BNP and NF tendencys.

Some are just better at covering things up

Not even possible to cover up BNP and NF tendencys.

On 13/06/2016 13:28, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
Anyway, wtf does "sovereignty" actually _MEAN_?

It's a term invariably used by those who don't know what it means.

It means the government that we elect, creates our laws and enforces
them, and we decide who comes here and who can take up residence
and or employment. We decide who is a 'refugee'.

If we don't like them, we can vote them out within 5 years.

On 14/06/2016 20:48, Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 20:05:56 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

Err, we *know* that VW diesel cars deliberately don't comply with
emissions laws already.

Actually we know that they DO comply with the *law*.

What we discovered in that case is that the Law was an ass, and VW
drove a passat and horses through it whilst complying with the *letter*

No they deliberately cheated on the tests

The tests applicable to the North American standards.

They also fail the EU ones.


and are having to pay a lot to fix the cars that don't comply in all EU
countries. The final costs have yet to be determined.

They are choosing to do that, because it's cheaper to do that than suffer
the marketing consequences.


They don't have much option if they want to avoid bigger fines.

On 13/06/2016 10:01, Another John wrote:

Further "The main issue" depends on which particular Brexiteer you're
talking to. The Leave camp is made up of disparate, and potentially
antagonistic, troops of self-interested bigots. Should the Leave Camp
"win" (and you might), this will become instantly apparent, and we will
have chaos, if not anarchy.

Are you mean like the miners strikes of 1973 and 1983.

The only chaos will be in Europe as Italy and one or two others also
decide to call a refendum. Then Angela Merkel will *have* to accept
reforms to the EU, including contraints on 'free movement'.

Todays C4 news interviewed a Polish girl who had opened a cafe in
Southampton. She thought the NHS was awful, impossible to get an
appointment !!, and that the Polish private healthcare system was
actually better.

On 13/06/2016 11:59, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/06/16 10:01, Another John wrote:
The Leave camp is made up of disparate, and potentially
antagonistic, troops of self-interested bigots.

Well there you go.

You have in that single sentence revealed yourself to be exactly what
you accuse others of.

Do you REALLY think any of the hundred plus EU funded organisations that
have come out in favour of the EU, are doing it out of the goodness of
their hearts or because it will benefit the nations plebs?

Government is bug business, there are profits to be made and pensions
and careers to be protected.



The entire Pillock Kinnock family have enriched themselves at the EU
trough and now seem to have a combined income and pension entitlements
that even Slotgob and Tone would be jealous of.

On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 20:52:51 +0100, Andrew wrote:

Anyway, wtf does "sovereignty" actually _MEAN_?

It's a term invariably used by those who don't know what it means.

It means the government that we elect, creates our laws and enforces
them, and we decide who comes here and who can take up residence and or
employment. We decide who is a 'refugee'.

Just like now, y'mean?

On 14/06/2016 08:57, dennis@home wrote:
On 14/06/2016 08:14, harry wrote:


Anarchy lies with the EUSSR.
About to collapse.
Unemployment, dud banks, riots and rape and pillage in the streets.
Already.
We don't want to be anywhere near the final financial armageddon.
They will suck us dry trying to prop up the rotting corpse.



You do understand what will result if that does happen?

The channel is easier to cross than the med for the refugees.
I suppose you think we will need machine guns along the coast.

Except that most of them are migrants and will be returned to
France immediately, just like they were up to the day that
Tony Blair grabbed power. And France took them back without
question.

On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 20:55:17 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

No they deliberately cheated on the tests

The tests applicable to the North American standards.

They also fail the EU ones.

That's never been shown. Seriously, it hasn't. The whole scandal - if you
actually dig into the reality, rather than the shock-and-awe headlines -
is over the US testing.

On 13/06/2016 14:16, michael adams wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .

Why would we have to comply with EU car emission laws for cars owned by
UK citizens.

I thought the idea behind EU car emission laws was to protect children and other
vulnerable people living in towns from having to breathe in too much **** whenever
they walk outside their front door.

How naive !!!. If it is common knowledge that diesel engines emit a
nastier form of pollution, surely any concerned person would ignore
the financial bribe and tax subsidy and buy a cleaner petrol engined
car, wouldn't they ?.. Did they eck.