On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 18:52:31 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , T i m
wrote:


Playing devils advocate there ... no, not DA actually, straight
question, 'what dissatisfaction' did 'we' have with the EU?

Are you nodding off or something?

Here? Sometimes, yes. ;-(

I told you about the Glyphosate
business, and I told you about why I think the EU Commission is
undemocratic.

That's just two issues.

That's right.

Doubtless others will come up with more.

I f'in well hope so, if we are potentially chucking a whole load of
good things away!

Cheers, T i m

On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 17:57:07 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
We're being told any new agreement will be made as part of the Article
50 negotiations. And anyone who thinks we'll get a decent deal (ie,
much better than our present one) is simply barking.

So exactly what is the current deal ?

I hope you hadn't got the nerve to vote.

Boom! ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On 27/06/16 20:12, pamela wrote:
On 12:38 27 Jun 2016, Adrian wrote:

On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 11:53:37 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Which must mean any agreement on trade with the EU made
afterwards must either have none of the above, or hold a second
referendum based on the newly negotiated conditions?

Not possible. Article 50 is a one-way street. As soon as it's
posted, the UK would need to go through the full new-member
accession to stay a member.

The EU is a world master at fudging the rules and, at the drop of a
hat, will invent a new expedient principles which overrides all
previous ones.


If we are out, they don't apply to us.
If we repeal the 1972 act, they cease to apply to us.
We could leave tomorrow with no deal. and if they act the heavy, we
might end up doing just that.

WE are playing nice with them. They aren't playing nice with us.
That is not clever of them.


--
Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend.

"Saki"

On 27/06/16 18:52, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , T i m
wrote:


Playing devils advocate there ... no, not DA actually, straight
question, 'what dissatisfaction' did 'we' have with the EU?

Are you nodding off or something? I told you about the Glyphosate
business, and I told you about why I think the EU Commission is
undemocratic.

That's just two issues. Doubtless others will come up with more.

Renewable obligation
Obligation to house 'travellers'


Those are two biggish issues that have cropped up locally.

--
"Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They
always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them"

Margaret Thatcher

On 27/06/16 19:44, Huge wrote:
On 2016-06-27, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , T i m
wrote:


Playing devils advocate there ... no, not DA actually, straight
question, 'what dissatisfaction' did 'we' have with the EU?

Are you nodding off or something? I told you about the Glyphosate
business, and I told you about why I think the EU Commission is
undemocratic.

You still haven't answered the question as to how the British Electorate
gets rid of a cabinet Minister. For the sake of the argument, let's
assume there's a huge desire from the electorate to remove the Chancellor
of the Exchequer. How does that happen? What process can they use to remove
him? And how is that any different to removing the UK's EU Commissioner?


You can deselect him at local level as they did with Tim 'troffer' Yeo
after a sustained campaign by many people (myself included) usimg real
facts and the local and national press.

YOu can write top your local MP if he is in the same party. 2,000
letters a week saying 'sack the **** or I vote UKIP' gets depressing
after a while

OR in the final analysis, you can actually vote UKIP. And sack the whole
government.

--
"Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They
always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them"

Margaret Thatcher

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Nightjar wrote

I had little doubt what you thought, but I have spoken
to a number of people who have specifically said they
only wanted to register discontent with the EU and would
not have voted leave had they thought it would win.

Surely the important bit is we voted to leave the
EU, For all the reasons so often quoted on here.

Which must mean any agreement on trade with
the EU made afterwards must either have none
of the above, or hold a second referendum
based on the newly negotiated conditions?

Even sillier than you usually manage.

There have been several high up on the leave side on TV etc
over the weekend. And that article from Boris in the Telegraph.
All saying much the same - EU immigration will be allowed,
for those who have jobs to come to, as part of a free trade deal.

They get no say on what the EU is prepared to accept to have a free trade
deal.

And Boris made it very clear that he is never
going to accept the completely free movement
of EU citizens into Britain to get a free trade deal.

And of course we'll conform to all the other EU red tape on trade.

ONLY with trade with the EU which isnt even
the majority of the trade that Britain does.

And pay into the EU budget.

How odd that only 3 of these do that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...ade_agreements

Are you actually claiming that Britain is now so completely
incompetent that it can't do as well as Israel, South Korea etc ?

In other words, pretty well lik e Norway does now.

You don’t know that. Why can't it be pretty well like Israel and South Korea
do instead ?

Boris's father who was a stockbroker and true blue pointed
out he'd made a fortune out of being in the EU. Good on him.

Irrelevant to what a majority have voted for.

So can anyone explain why anyone in the Tory party
would want to cock things up for their pals in business?

Because they know what would happen to them at the
next election if they were actually stupid enough to
ignore what the voters have just said in the referendum.

And even you should have noticed that even if Britain
doesn’t get a free trade agreement with the EU because
some fools like Junker want to minimise the risk of others
choosing to leave the EU, that that would have very little
effect Britain's trade with the EU, because what tariff barriers
there still are are quite low now, because that is the current
fashion/fad right thruout the entire world, so there would
be no cock up things for their mates. Yes, some operations
that have chosen to be based in Britain because it is in the
EU will certainly move to some other EU country, but that
is unlikely to have any real effect on any of the Torys' mates.

On 27/06/2016 17:22, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 15:32:07 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

Come to think of it why do you refer to them as immigrants when they are
nearly all migrants.

They are migrants.
They are also immigrants to the UK.
They're also emigrants from their home country.


Most of the Eu migrants don't stay in the UK, they are not immigrants.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 27/06/16 19:44, Huge wrote:
On 2016-06-27, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , T i m
wrote:


Playing devils advocate there ... no, not DA actually, straight
question, 'what dissatisfaction' did 'we' have with the EU?

Are you nodding off or something? I told you about the Glyphosate
business, and I told you about why I think the EU Commission is
undemocratic.

You still haven't answered the question as to how the British Electorate
gets rid of a cabinet Minister. For the sake of the argument, let's
assume there's a huge desire from the electorate to remove the Chancellor
of the Exchequer. How does that happen? What process can they use to remove
him? And how is that any different to removing the UK's EU Commissioner?


You can deselect him at local level

The question being asked was how would the electorate remove the Chancellor
of the Exchequer.

Not how a Chancellor of the Exchequer could be theortically lose his seat in
parliament, as result of being deselected by an emergency meeting of his local
selection committee. Which in any case no way guarentees that he would
lose his Cabinet position straight away. And all of which positions are in the
gift of the PM


YOu can write top your local MP if he is in the same party. 2,000 letters a week saying
'sack the **** or I vote UKIP' gets depressing after a while

Certainly if true that would certainly get depressing. But more likely
because the sort of things that 2,000 UKIP voters are likely to pester
their local MP about are unlikely to concern the unsuitability for Office
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or any other Govt Minister
for that matter.

Dear, dear, me.

Your best friend on the Group Tim Streater has been asked this direct
question, twice now by Huge And he's twice avoided answering
the question; totally ignored it in fact.

Now do you really think the reason Tim Streater did this is because he
couldn't work out an answer for himself ? That he's stupid or something?
And that as his best mate, and the real intellectual on the group, you'd help
him out by answering in his place ?

When in fact all you've done, is achieve precisely the opposite.


michael adams

....

Dave Plowman (News) wrote

We had lots of that on the campaign.

Most experts say remain.
Experts make mistakes.
Therefore experts are always wrong.

Nope, therefore what the experts claim is irrelevant.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Adrian wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote

Which must mean any agreement on trade with the EU made
afterwards must either have none of the above, or hold a
second referendum based on the newly negotiated conditions?

Not possible. Article 50 is a one-way street. As soon
as it's posted, the UK would need to go through the
full new-member accession to stay a member.

We're being told any new agreement will be
made as part of the Article 50 negotiations.

More of your lies. Britain is free to leave the EU
and do what negotiations it likes once outside
the EU, just like the US, China, India, Japan,
Canada, Korea etc etc etc do now.

And anyone who thinks we'll get a decent deal (ie,
much better than our present one) is simply barking.

How odd that all these have.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...ade_agreements

If we do leave with no new agreement - which is very unlikely -

Even sillier than you usually manage if the EU
chooses to try to discourage others from leaving.

negotiations will soon be started to get us back in.

Even sillier than you usually manage. Boris
aint that ****ing stupid, even if you are.

The idea that a Tory government won't get
a free trade deal with the EU is nonsense.

You'll see...

They'd loose much of their funding from business.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

As well as most of their pals.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

This seems to be a problem for the capitalists on here and so on. They
don't seem to realise making money over-rules absolutely everything.

How odd that Boris jumped ship and joined the leavers.

On 27/06/16 21:49, dennis@home wrote:
On 27/06/2016 17:22, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 15:32:07 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

Come to think of it why do you refer to them as immigrants when they are
nearly all migrants.

They are migrants.
They are also immigrants to the UK.
They're also emigrants from their home country.


Most of the Eu migrants don't stay in the UK, they are not immigrants.

Utter ********


--
"Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social
conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the
windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.) "

Alan Sokal

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 27 June 2016 09:55:09 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 27-Jun-16 9:31 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/06/16 09:25, Nightjar wrote:
On 27-Jun-16 9:14 AM, charles wrote:
In article ,
Nightjar wrote:
On 26-Jun-16 8:56 PM, Phil L wrote:
The petition which attracted the most ever signatures as reported
on
the
BBC, Telegraph and even the front page of the Sunday mirror has
been
revealed to be nothing more than a scam, notorious ****posters
'anonymous'
from the website 4chan bombarded it with thousands of fake
signatures

https://heatst.com/uk/exclusive-brex...rt-it-as-real/



oh dear



Even after the 77,000 fake signatures have been removed, it still
has
over 3.6 million real signatures and it only needs 100,000 to
trigger a
debate. It is a pity that a debate is all that it can produce, now
that
the referendum has been held.

The debate can discuss how to "manage" the result of the referendum.

Most clubs/societies of which I am a member require a 2/3 majority to
change their rules, shouldn't the UK be the same? cf Muirfield Golf
Club.

The enabling legislation certainly should have included criteria for
accepting the result, rather than allowing a simple majority decision.
The problem is that nobody, including I think many of those who voted
to
leave, that leave would win.


That is irrelevant. WE voted leave because we wanted to leave.
If we had though leave would win with a landslide, we would still have
voted leave, or stayed at home.

How DARE you tell me what I thought. Commie ****.



I had little doubt what you thought, but I have spoken to a number of
people who have specifically said they only wanted to register
discontent with the EU and would not have voted leave had they thought
it would win.

That's the way I saw it I was expecting the remain to win by 60/40
which is roughly what happened in my borough of waltham forest.

See, I told you you need to get out more.

In article ,
pamela wrote:
On 12:38 27 Jun 2016, Adrian wrote:

On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 11:53:37 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Which must mean any agreement on trade with the EU made
afterwards must either have none of the above, or hold a second
referendum based on the newly negotiated conditions?

Not possible. Article 50 is a one-way street. As soon as it's
posted, the UK would need to go through the full new-member
accession to stay a member.

The EU is a world master at fudging the rules and, at the drop of a
hat, will invent a new expedient principles which overrides all
previous ones.

Could you give a few examples of what you mean? It's a pretty bold
statement to go unchallenged.

--
*If only you'd use your powers for good instead of evil.

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
whisky-dave wrote

We're being told any new agreement will be made as part of the
Article 50 negotiations. And anyone who thinks we'll get a decent
deal (ie, much better than our present one) is simply barking.

So exactly what is the current deal ?

I hope you hadn't got the nerve to vote.

He was legless all day, as usual.

That's why he wants 24 hour voting.

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
Surely the important bit is we voted to leave the
EU, For all the reasons so often quoted on here.

Which must mean any agreement on trade with
the EU made afterwards must either have none
of the above, or hold a second referendum
based on the newly negotiated conditions?

Even sillier than you usually manage.

Thought it would go over your head.

There have been several high up on the leave side on TV etc
over the weekend. And that article from Boris in the Telegraph.
All saying much the same - EU immigration will be allowed,
for those who have jobs to come to, as part of a free trade deal.

They get no say on what the EU is prepared to accept to have a free
trade deal.

And you can't read either.

--
*Work is for people who don't know how to fish.

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

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 27/06/2016 17:22, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 15:32:07 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

Come to think of it why do you refer to them as immigrants when they are
nearly all migrants.

They are migrants.
They are also immigrants to the UK.
They're also emigrants from their home country.


Most of the Eu migrants don't stay in the UK,

You have no way of knowing what they would
have done if Britain had stayed in the EU.

they are not immigrants.

Corse they are.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Surely the important bit is we voted to leave the
EU, For all the reasons so often quoted on here.

Which must mean any agreement on trade with
the EU made afterwards must either have none
of the above, or hold a second referendum
based on the newly negotiated conditions?

Even sillier than you usually manage.

Thought it would go over your head.

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

There have been several high up on the leave side on TV etc
over the weekend. And that article from Boris in the Telegraph.
All saying much the same - EU immigration will be allowed,
for those who have jobs to come to, as part of a free trade deal.

They get no say on what the EU is prepared to accept to have a free
trade deal.

And you can't read either.

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 21:49:10 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

Come to think of it why do you refer to them as immigrants when they
are nearly all migrants.

They are migrants.
They are also immigrants to the UK.
They're also emigrants from their home country.

Most of the Eu migrants don't stay in the UK, they are not immigrants.

An immigrant is a migrant into a country.
An emigrant is a migrant out of a country.
Both immigrants and emigrants are migrants.
All migrants are both immigrants and emigrants.

Whether you wish to ascribe some meaning to "immigrant" other than
"migrant into the country" is another question entirely.

in 1500657 20160627 090929 Nightjar wrote:
On 26-Jun-16 8:56 PM, Phil L wrote:
The petition which attracted the most ever signatures as reported on the
BBC, Telegraph and even the front page of the Sunday mirror has been
revealed to be nothing more than a scam, notorious ****posters 'anonymous'
from the website 4chan bombarded it with thousands of fake signatures

https://heatst.com/uk/exclusive-brex...port-it-as-rea
l/

oh dear



Even after the 77,000 fake signatures have been removed, it still has
over 3.6 million real signatures and it only needs 100,000 to trigger a
debate. It is a pity that a debate is all that it can produce, now that
the referendum has been held.

The pollsters should go out again and ask "how would you vote NOW?"

On 28/06/16 08:07, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1500657 20160627 090929 Nightjar wrote:
On 26-Jun-16 8:56 PM, Phil L wrote:
The petition which attracted the most ever signatures as reported on the
BBC, Telegraph and even the front page of the Sunday mirror has been
revealed to be nothing more than a scam, notorious ****posters 'anonymous'
from the website 4chan bombarded it with thousands of fake signatures

https://heatst.com/uk/exclusive-brex...port-it-as-rea
l/

oh dear



Even after the 77,000 fake signatures have been removed, it still has
over 3.6 million real signatures and it only needs 100,000 to trigger a
debate. It is a pity that a debate is all that it can produce, now that
the referendum has been held.

The pollsters should go out again and ask "how would you vote NOW?"

Exactly the same.


--
"Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They
always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them"

Margaret Thatcher

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 28/06/16 08:07, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1500657 20160627 090929 Nightjar wrote:
On 26-Jun-16 8:56 PM, Phil L wrote:
The petition which attracted the most ever signatures as reported on
the
BBC, Telegraph and even the front page of the Sunday mirror has been
revealed to be nothing more than a scam, notorious ****posters
'anonymous'
from the website 4chan bombarded it with thousands of fake signatures

https://heatst.com/uk/exclusive-brex...port-it-as-rea
l/

oh dear



Even after the 77,000 fake signatures have been removed, it still has
over 3.6 million real signatures and it only needs 100,000 to trigger a
debate. It is a pity that a debate is all that it can produce, now that
the referendum has been held.

The pollsters should go out again and ask "how would you vote NOW?"

Exactly the same.

Quite a few who didnt vote to leave because they had decided
that the majority wouldnt, would IMO vote to leave now.

On 28/06/2016 10:05, Chris Hogg wrote:


The whole petition was a fraud, and the votes cast were by automated
bots using false signatures. It can safely be ignored.
http://tinyurl.com/jm7w8wr


While you may write a script to sign you also have to verify the email
they send.
They check the emails so you need an email address for each signature.
So your scrip needs to wait for the email which can take several hours
and then click on that too.
It seems a lot of effort to create 33000 valid *anonymous* email
addresses and run a script to sign it as one of the people claimed he
did in half an hour.

Of course if he owned a domain then it would be easy to use a catch all
address but then he is going to get a knock on the door for fraud.

They have removed a lot of false sigs but several million sigs still remain.

On 28/06/16 11:04, dennis@home wrote:
On 28/06/2016 10:05, Chris Hogg wrote:


The whole petition was a fraud, and the votes cast were by automated
bots using false signatures. It can safely be ignored.
http://tinyurl.com/jm7w8wr


While you may write a script to sign you also have to verify the email
they send.
They check the emails so you need an email address for each signature.
So your scrip needs to wait for the email which can take several hours
and then click on that too.

Golly dennis. And that's exactly what the python script used, DOES.

Source is on GIT somewhere


It seems a lot of effort to create 33000 valid *anonymous* email
addresses and run a script to sign it as one of the people claimed he
did in half an hour.


Not everybody is as crap at coding as you are Dense

Of course if he owned a domain then it would be easy to use a catch all
address but then he is going to get a knock on the door for fraud.


gmail. As many addresses as you want for free.


They have removed a lot of false sigs but several million sigs still
remain.

Because they haven't proved they are false, yet



--
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on
its shoes.

In article ,
Chris Hogg wrote:
The whole petition was a fraud, and the votes cast were by automated
bots using false signatures. It can safely be ignored.

Odd. I know of several who have signed it. It's perfectly possible that
there are false signatures, of course.

But it takes someone with their head firmly in the sand to think you
couldn't get over 100,000 genuine ones, given how many are convinced the
vote was swayed on the basis of lies told by the Leave side. Who have
subsequently admitted they were lies too.

--
*Work is for people who don't know how to fish.

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

On Monday, 27 June 2016 23:23:55 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 27 June 2016 09:55:09 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 27-Jun-16 9:31 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/06/16 09:25, Nightjar wrote:
On 27-Jun-16 9:14 AM, charles wrote:
In article ,
Nightjar wrote:
On 26-Jun-16 8:56 PM, Phil L wrote:
The petition which attracted the most ever signatures as reported
on
the
BBC, Telegraph and even the front page of the Sunday mirror has
been
revealed to be nothing more than a scam, notorious ****posters
'anonymous'
from the website 4chan bombarded it with thousands of fake
signatures

https://heatst.com/uk/exclusive-brex...rt-it-as-real/



oh dear



Even after the 77,000 fake signatures have been removed, it still
has
over 3.6 million real signatures and it only needs 100,000 to
trigger a
debate. It is a pity that a debate is all that it can produce, now
that
the referendum has been held.

The debate can discuss how to "manage" the result of the referendum.

Most clubs/societies of which I am a member require a 2/3 majority to
change their rules, shouldn't the UK be the same? cf Muirfield Golf
Club.

The enabling legislation certainly should have included criteria for
accepting the result, rather than allowing a simple majority decision.
The problem is that nobody, including I think many of those who voted
to
leave, that leave would win.


That is irrelevant. WE voted leave because we wanted to leave.
If we had though leave would win with a landslide, we would still have
voted leave, or stayed at home.

How DARE you tell me what I thought. Commie ****.



I had little doubt what you thought, but I have spoken to a number of
people who have specifically said they only wanted to register
discontent with the EU and would not have voted leave had they thought
it would win.

That's the way I saw it I was expecting the remain to win by 60/40
which is roughly what happened in my borough of waltham forest.

See, I told you you need to get out more.

Not mixing with those people that are being called racist is difficult
and I haven't been to many of the places that voted leave so strongly.

On Tuesday, 28 June 2016 00:47:55 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
whisky-dave wrote

We're being told any new agreement will be made as part of the
Article 50 negotiations. And anyone who thinks we'll get a decent
deal (ie, much better than our present one) is simply barking.

So exactly what is the current deal ?

I hope you hadn't got the nerve to vote.

He was legless all day, as usual.

That's why he wants 24 hour voting.

I don;t think it;s too unreasonable to have a whole day when people can vote.
People queued longer for glastonbury than the poll stations were open.

People cue for their iphones longer than that too, so it shows what's impotant in life doesn't it.

In article ,
pamela wrote:
The EU is a world master at fudging the rules and, at the drop
of a hat, will invent a new expedient principles which
overrides all previous ones.

Could you give a few examples of what you mean? It's a pretty
bold statement to go unchallenged.

Putting aside the wriggling of Greece, the Grexit negotiations were
not exactly a master class that showed the EU following the rules.

It would seem the 'leave' lot learned a lot from Greece. Say anything that
comes into your head (like we are going to end austerity) then discover
when push comes to shove that you can't simply walk away from your
obligations hoping to get your own way in everything.

French politicians pressed hard to save their exposed banks by
proposing all sorts of new interpretations of rules to provide
unprecedented generosity to Greece (which included making the UK
partly liable for ECB debt incurred to pay off Greece's debt.

Last month, the EU gave France leeway yet again on the 3% of GDP debt
rule and the reason was "because it is France".

And Cameron got some concessions too at his negotiations a few months ago.
And example of the EU inventing new rules to be expedient?

These are the sorts of thing I mean when I say fudging the rules.

Well, the obvious one now would be to force Article 50 into operation.
Backdated to the day after the referendum. Or should they now fudge the
rules so the UK can dither about too?

--
*When it rains, why don't sheep shrink? *

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

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 09:14 27 Jun 2016, charles wrote:

In article ,
Nightjar wrote:
On 26-Jun-16 8:56 PM, Phil L wrote:
The petition which attracted the most ever signatures as
reported on the BBC, Telegraph and even the front page of the
Sunday mirror has been revealed to be nothing more than a
scam, notorious ****posters 'anonymous' from the website
4chan bombarded it with thousands of fake signatures

https://heatst.com/uk/exclusive-brex...endum-petition
-a-4-chan-prank-bbc-report-it-as-real/

oh dear



Even after the 77,000 fake signatures have been removed, it
still has over 3.6 million real signatures and it only needs
100,000 to trigger a debate. It is a pity that a debate is all
that it can produce, now that the referendum has been held.

The debate can discuss how to "manage" the result of the
referendum.

Most clubs/societies of which I am a member require a 2/3
majority to change their rules, shouldn't the UK be the same?
cf Muirfield Golf Club.

Such a strong majority has the likelihood of not changing for a
reasonable period of time.

The 50% threshold makes for a knife-edge balance. I suspect if the
referendum were re-run today the Leave vote may have already dropped
by 2% which would give the opposite outcome.

I wouldn't bet on it. I've met quite a few folks since Thursday and not one
reckons they voted to stay. Every one also said "they did the correct thing"
/ "time we stood on our own 2 feet" etc.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Chris Hogg wrote:
The whole petition was a fraud, and the votes cast were by automated
bots using false signatures. It can safely be ignored.

Odd. I know of several who have signed it. It's perfectly possible that
there are false signatures, of course.

But it takes someone with their head firmly in the sand to think you
couldn't get over 100,000 genuine ones, given how many are convinced the
vote was swayed on the basis of lies told by the Leave side. Who have
subsequently admitted they were lies too.

Don't fret, Dave. The result is bound to be overturned somehow or other.

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
That's why he wants 24 hour voting.

I don;t think it;s too unreasonable to have a whole day when people can
vote. People queued longer for glastonbury than the poll stations were
open.

Most were open from pretty early to 10 at night. If you worked such hours
so that you couldn't make it, complain to the EU court as it's against the
working time directive. ;-)

However, in a few short years be prepared to work any hours you're told
to. As is only right. For those who voted out.

--
*A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kickboxing.

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

In article ,
pamela wrote:
The 50% threshold makes for a knife-edge balance. I suspect if the
referendum were re-run today the Leave vote may have already dropped
by 2% which would give the opposite outcome.

If those who voted on the basis of stopping/getting rid of immigrants have
been following what the leave lot are now saying, I'd guess it would be a
much smaller turnout. Even before the EU contribution going to the NHS or
to remove VAT on fuel lies were shown to be just that.

And I can't see any 'remainers' changing their vote due to the aftermath.

--
*If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate *

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

In article ,
pamela wrote:
On 13:41 28 Jun 2016, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
pamela wrote:
The EU is a world master at fudging the rules and, at the
drop of a hat, will invent a new expedient principles which
overrides all previous ones.

Could you give a few examples of what you mean? It's a pretty
bold statement to go unchallenged.

Putting aside the wriggling of Greece, the Grexit negotiations
were not exactly a master class that showed the EU following
the rules.

It would seem the 'leave' lot learned a lot from Greece. Say
anything that comes into your head (like we are going to end
austerity) then discover when push comes to shove that you can't
simply walk away from your obligations hoping to get your own
way in everything.

French politicians pressed hard to save their exposed banks by
proposing all sorts of new interpretations of rules to provide
unprecedented generosity to Greece (which included making the
UK partly liable for ECB debt incurred to pay off Greece's
debt.

Last month, the EU gave France leeway yet again on the 3% of
GDP debt rule and the reason was "because it is France".

And Cameron got some concessions too at his negotiations a few
months ago. And example of the EU inventing new rules to be
expedient?

That's a good example. You could add the deal with the Turks to
hold the migrants back in return for visa fre access. There must
be hundreds if not thousands of other examples.

Eh? You don't expect them to act on circumstances? Many would say they
didn't act fast or far emough.

These are the sorts of thing I mean when I say fudging the
rules.

Well, the obvious one now would be to force Article 50 into
operation. Backdated to the day after the referendum. Or should
they now fudge the rules so the UK can dither about too?

I have little doubt that the EU and the Tory government will do
all they can to fudge the terms of UK's exit in such a way that it
ends up being very different from the Brexit that was promoted in
the referendum campaign and closer to what we already have today.

Of course. The most important bit is not to hit the pockets of their pals
in the city. Who also fund the Tory party.

As an example, Merkel today said future British free trade access
to Europe will require free movement of people. In a masterpiece
of fudging, we could sign up to that and still be out of the EU.

I'll happily take a bet with anyone we'll end up with a deal worse than
the one we had. But that will be ok because 'we've taken back control'

"Politics is the art of the possible".

--
*Virtual reality is its own reward *

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

On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 17:05:42 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

That's why he wants 24 hour voting.

I don;t think it;s too unreasonable to have a whole day when people can
vote. People queued longer for glastonbury than the poll stations were
open.

Most were open from pretty early to 10 at night.

ALL were open from 7am to 10pm.

But, apparently, 15hrs isn't enough. Plus the options for a postal or
proxy vote.

On 27/06/2016 21:49, dennis@home wrote:
On 27/06/2016 17:22, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 15:32:07 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

Come to think of it why do you refer to them as immigrants when they are
nearly all migrants.

They are migrants.
They are also immigrants to the UK.
They're also emigrants from their home country.


Most of the Eu migrants don't stay in the UK, they are not immigrants.

evidence ?.

Every week a coach full of Roma people arrives at Victoria coach station
and they head for Sheffield with their 5,6,7 kids in tow. All over
eastern europe they and their kith and kin have been discriminated
against since time began. In the UK they get immediate housing, money
and school places. These people are not going home any time soon.
Why would they ??.

In case you hadn't noticed their has been a *huge* increase in the
birthrate since 2005, and the newly arrived are responsible for this
increase. With the lure of child benefit, 'free' schooling, tax
credits and housing benefit to (massively) supplement their minimum
wage income, why would they want to 'return'.

By contrast, 477,000 retired British people are living elsewhere in the
EU, where their UK tax-payer-funded pensions are spent on the local
economy, *not* on our economy. If they also have additional income and
pensions, the local tax system also gets a slice, again money lost
to the UK taxpayer.

How many non UK EU nationals have opted to retire in the UK and spend
their EU pensions here ?. No idea, but a lot less than 477,000.

On 28/06/16 19:57, pamela wrote:
On 16:50 28 Jun 2016, bm wrote:


"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 09:14 27 Jun 2016, charles wrote:

In article ,
Nightjar wrote:
On 26-Jun-16 8:56 PM, Phil L wrote:
The petition which attracted the most ever signatures as
reported on the BBC, Telegraph and even the front page of
the Sunday mirror has been revealed to be nothing more than
a scam, notorious ****posters 'anonymous' from the website
4chan bombarded it with thousands of fake signatures

https://heatst.com/uk/exclusive-brexit-2nd-
referendum-petition-a-4-chan-prank-bbc-report-it-as-real/

oh dear



Even after the 77,000 fake signatures have been removed, it
still has over 3.6 million real signatures and it only needs
100,000 to trigger a debate. It is a pity that a debate is
all that it can produce, now that the referendum has been
held.

The debate can discuss how to "manage" the result of the
referendum.

Most clubs/societies of which I am a member require a 2/3
majority to change their rules, shouldn't the UK be the same?
cf Muirfield Golf Club.

Such a strong majority has the likelihood of not changing for a
reasonable period of time.

The 50% threshold makes for a knife-edge balance. I suspect if
the referendum were re-run today the Leave vote may have
already dropped by 2% which would give the opposite outcome.

I wouldn't bet on it. I've met quite a few folks since Thursday
and not one reckons they voted to stay. Every one also said
"they did the correct thing" / "time we stood on our own 2 feet"
etc.

Maybe you haven't seen the papers or heard radio interviews of
people who now say they only voted Leave as a protest vote or
other who say "I didn't realise this meant we would actually
leave". Strewth! I know, I know.

Maybe you haven't seen what's on the cutting floor of the ten thousand
they had to interview before they found those

I thought you were merely naive. Now I think you are a troll



--
"Women actually are capable of being far more than the feminists will
let them."

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 27 June 2016 23:23:55 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 27 June 2016 09:55:09 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 27-Jun-16 9:31 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/06/16 09:25, Nightjar wrote:
On 27-Jun-16 9:14 AM, charles wrote:
In article ,
Nightjar wrote:
On 26-Jun-16 8:56 PM, Phil L wrote:
The petition which attracted the most ever signatures as
reported
on
the
BBC, Telegraph and even the front page of the Sunday mirror has
been
revealed to be nothing more than a scam, notorious ****posters
'anonymous'
from the website 4chan bombarded it with thousands of fake
signatures

https://heatst.com/uk/exclusive-brex...rt-it-as-real/



oh dear



Even after the 77,000 fake signatures have been removed, it still
has
over 3.6 million real signatures and it only needs 100,000 to
trigger a
debate. It is a pity that a debate is all that it can produce,
now
that
the referendum has been held.

The debate can discuss how to "manage" the result of the
referendum.

Most clubs/societies of which I am a member require a 2/3 majority
to
change their rules, shouldn't the UK be the same? cf Muirfield
Golf
Club.

The enabling legislation certainly should have included criteria
for
accepting the result, rather than allowing a simple majority
decision.
The problem is that nobody, including I think many of those who
voted
to
leave, that leave would win.


That is irrelevant. WE voted leave because we wanted to leave.
If we had though leave would win with a landslide, we would still
have
voted leave, or stayed at home.

How DARE you tell me what I thought. Commie ****.



I had little doubt what you thought, but I have spoken to a number of
people who have specifically said they only wanted to register
discontent with the EU and would not have voted leave had they thought
it would win.

That's the way I saw it I was expecting the remain to win by 60/40
which is roughly what happened in my borough of waltham forest.

See, I told you you need to get out more.

Not mixing with those people that are being called racist is difficult
and I haven't been to many of the places that voted leave so strongly.

That last is what I meant about you needing to get out more.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 28 June 2016 00:47:55 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
whisky-dave wrote

We're being told any new agreement will be made as part of the
Article 50 negotiations. And anyone who thinks we'll get a decent
deal (ie, much better than our present one) is simply barking.

So exactly what is the current deal ?

I hope you hadn't got the nerve to vote.

He was legless all day, as usual.

That's why he wants 24 hour voting.

I don;t think it;s too unreasonable to have a whole day when people can
vote.

Trouble is you would need two crews manning the polling stations
if you have 24 hour voting. IMO it makes a lot more sense for those
who can't get to the polling station in the hours that they are
currently open for to postal vote or vote early, before the last day.

People queued longer for glastonbury than the poll stations were open.

Sure, but the show doesnt run for 24 hours continuously.

People cue for their iphones longer than that too,

You are free to queue outside the polling station for
as long as you like too. You were talking about how
long you can actually vote for, not queue for.

so it shows what's impotant in life doesn't it.

See above.

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 09:14 27 Jun 2016, charles wrote:

In article ,
Nightjar wrote:
On 26-Jun-16 8:56 PM, Phil L wrote:
The petition which attracted the most ever signatures as
reported on the BBC, Telegraph and even the front page of the
Sunday mirror has been revealed to be nothing more than a
scam, notorious ****posters 'anonymous' from the website
4chan bombarded it with thousands of fake signatures

https://heatst.com/uk/exclusive-brex...endum-petition
-a-4-chan-prank-bbc-report-it-as-real/

oh dear



Even after the 77,000 fake signatures have been removed, it
still has over 3.6 million real signatures and it only needs
100,000 to trigger a debate. It is a pity that a debate is all
that it can produce, now that the referendum has been held.

The debate can discuss how to "manage" the result of the
referendum.

Most clubs/societies of which I am a member require a 2/3
majority to change their rules, shouldn't the UK be the same?
cf Muirfield Golf Club.

Such a strong majority has the likelihood of not changing for a
reasonable period of time.

The 50% threshold makes for a knife-edge balance. I suspect if the
referendum were re-run today the Leave vote may have already dropped
by 2% which would give the opposite outcome.

Or 2% who didn’t vote to leave because they thought the remainers
would prevail might well vote to leave now that is clear that a majority
do want to leave.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
pamela wrote

These are the sorts of thing I mean when I say fudging the rules.

Well, the obvious one now would be to force Article 50 into operation.

Not possible. The EU gets no say on when that happens.

Backdated to the day after the referendum.

Not even possible.

Or should they now fudge the rules so the UK can dither about too?

That is what the rules say, that Britain determines when it invokes Article
50.

No fudging involved.

On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 20:01:47 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I thought you were merely naive. Now I think you are a troll


Welfare dependent benefit junkie more like.