Dave Plowman (News) wrote
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.

More fool you. I bet plenty voted to remain because they thought
that the remain vote would win and if there was another vote now
that they know the leave vote won, would vote to leave now.

There are always quite a few who prefer consensus to a **** fight.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
pamela wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
pamela wrote

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.

Trouble is that there is no way to quantify
worse to decide who wins the bet.

But that will be ok because 'we've taken back control'

Of course Westminster gets to decide policy when out of the EU.

"Politics is the art of the possible".

In article ,
pamela wrote:
Demographics show the Leave vote was highly skewed towards the
poorly educated, unqualified and unskilled who have now had a bit
more education since Friday morning's result and may rethink their
unquestioning belief in incredible campaign claims of near
spontaneous improvements in wealth for all and no more immigrants.

Well, quite. If we believe the stories, many voted for the first time in
ages because they thought they had a chance of them getting what was
promised. No point if they knew it was just business as usual, where
everyone talks the talk about improving the conditions of the poorest in
the land - but then don't because they ain't a significant force, votes
wise. And never get heard afterwards anyway.

However, if the overall economy takes a tumble, even less money to spread
around - which always means the poorest suffer the most. Hence shooting
themselves in the foot.

But of course they were daft to think a right wing nationalistic party
gives a stuff for them. They're just out for power. Over everyone. And
anything which take that power away from them - be it Europe, local
councils or trade unions etc is not to be tolerated.

--
*If I agreed with you, we'd both be wrong.

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

pamela wrote:


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

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

The examples you have given all seem to me to be
exactly the kind of "fudges" (if you like to call them that)
indulged in by every democratic country.
The alternative is something like North Korea,
where the "Leader's" views are followed as gospel.

Can you name a democratic country that does not "bend the rules"?

--
Timothy Murphy
gayleard /at/ eircom.net
School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin

Tim Streater wrote:

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.

Do you know what the "EU Commission" is?
The EU Commission hasn't expressed any view on glyphosate,
and the relevant Commissioner has said he is against the ban.
France, Germany and Italy abstained in the vote,
which is equivalent to voting against relaxing the ban.
The European Parliament also voted against relaxing the ban.

I don't think it is at all obvious that the UK government
will allow unrestricted use of glyphosate.
Presumably they will follow the advice of their scientific advisers,
who may well share the views of the FDA in the States.

--
Timothy Murphy
gayleard /at/ eircom.net
School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin

On 29/06/16 01:02, Timothy Murphy wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:

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.

Do you know what the "EU Commission" is?
The EU Commission hasn't expressed any view on glyphosate,
and the relevant Commissioner has said he is against the ban.
France, Germany and Italy abstained in the vote,
which is equivalent to voting against relaxing the ban.
The European Parliament also voted against relaxing the ban.

I don't think it is at all obvious that the UK government
will allow unrestricted use of glyphosate.
Presumably they will follow the advice of their scientific advisers,
who may well share the views of the FDA in the States.

I think that is a pretty large presumption


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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
pamela wrote

Demographics show the Leave vote was highly skewed towards
the poorly educated, unqualified and unskilled who have now had
a bit more education since Friday morning's result and may rethink
their unquestioning belief in incredible campaign claims of near
spontaneous improvements in wealth for all and no more immigrants.

Well, quite. If we believe the stories, many voted for the first time in
ages

Clearly they did given the turnout compared with a general election.

because they thought they had a chance of them getting what was promised.

Or because they decided that they had a clear choice in
a referendum, unlike with a general election, particularly
when the party they prefer hasn’t got a hope in hell of
being the govt.

No point if they knew it was just business as usual, where everyone
talks the talk about improving the conditions of the poorest in the
land - but then don't because they ain't a significant force, votes
wise. And never get heard afterwards anyway.

The referendum was never about the poorest
in the land. That is just more lefty**** bull****.

However, if the overall economy takes a tumble,

It wont, it survived the worst recession since the great
depression fine, with one of the lowest unemployment
rates of the majors in europe. The only real downside
of that was a big spike in the national debt because your
clowns had actually been stupid enough to deregulate
the banks and some of them had to be bailed out by govt.

And you clowns got punished at the ballot box for being that stupid.

even less money to spread around

Even sillier than you usually manage. More money to spread around
because billions don’t have to be sent to the EU every single year.

- which always means the poorest suffer the most.

Even sillier than you usually manage. They 'suffered' much more
when your clowns were actually stupid enough to deregulate the
banks and there had to be cuts to pay for bailing out the banks.

Hence shooting themselves in the foot.

You haven't even established that those most affected
by Britain leaving the EU be any worse off. In fact many
of them will be much better off because there will be far
fewer EU immigrants allowed in to drive down the wages
of 'the poorest of the poor' and to take the houses they
need to live in on benefits.

But of course they were daft to think a right
wing nationalistic party gives a stuff for them.

Nothing to do with any right wing nationalist party, it
become completely irrelevant with Britain out of the EU.

They're just out for power. Over everyone.

Even sillier than you usually manage. UKIP will have no
power whatever over anyone. They can't even manage
to get Farage elected to Westminster with Britain in
the EU, let alone with Britain outside the EU and
UKIP completely and utterly irrelevant politically.

They wont even have any power at all in
the european parliament to allow any EU
legislation once Britain is out of the EU.

And anything which take that power away
from them - be it Europe, local councils or
trade unions etc is not to be tolerated.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

They have no choice on Britain leaving the EU
which completely removes whatever power they
might have had with their MEPs in the EP.

On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 01:02:47 +0100, Timothy Murphy
wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:

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.

Do you know what the "EU Commission" is?
The EU Commission hasn't expressed any view on glyphosate,
and the relevant Commissioner has said he is against the ban.
France, Germany and Italy abstained in the vote,
which is equivalent to voting against relaxing the ban.
The European Parliament also voted against relaxing the ban.

I don't think it is at all obvious that the UK government
will allow unrestricted use of glyphosate.
Presumably they will follow the advice of their scientific advisers,
who may well share the views of the FDA in the States.


Bill Wright posted this the other day:

" GLYPHOSATE THE CURRENT POSITION


No doubt you are aware there is considerable attention being paid to
the EU glyphosate renewal. It has been highlighted in the press on a
National and Global level.

Glyphosate as an active substance is due to expire on the 30th June
2016 and so for products to remain on the market into 2017 the AS
approval must be either renewed for up to 15 years or extended for a
shorter period until further studies are evaluated. As the world’s
largest pesticide, glyphosate is very high profile. There is a lot of
pressure coming from NGOs to prevent the renewal. The campaign by the
NGOs has gained a lot of traction politically, despite the fact that
the European Food Safety Authority has concluded that
glyphosate is unlikely to pose hazards to humans.

It is a battle of politics versus science. The EU Commission has tried
to stay out of it by relying on the member states to perform their
role and collectively make the renewal decision. The result is 20 of
the 28 MSs are in favour of renewal, while 7 are abstaining and Malta
is against. Abstaining is counted as a negative and as this group
includes Germany, France and Italy the overall result does not reach
qualified majority (need to represent 65% of EU population, as well
as at least 55% of the member states.

If the qualified majority vote cannot be reached by member states, the
decision will be pushed back on the EU Commission. As the Commission
are not appointed by an election process it is much more likely they
will make a decision based on science rather than politics and take
into consideration the importance of glyphosate to agriculture. This
would either be to renew glyphosate for up to 15 years, or more likely
to extend the current approval for ~18 months until further studies
can be evaluated and Europe has a definitive scientific position.


Regards
The Chemigro Team
"


Seems to say pretty clearly what part the EU Commision don't want to
play in it.

Cheers, T i m

On Tuesday, 28 June 2016 17:07:42 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
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.

What's pretty early ?

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. ;-)

for who it;s only against the working directive for some foreigners
What are the France campagining for working weeks of 35 hours.
what does jamie oliver say.
Not that this is racist in any way.

http://news.sky.com/story/1133928/ja...workers-whinge

In his latest comments, the 38-year-old told Good Housekeeping magazine: "The average working hours in a week was 80 to 100. That was really normal in my 20s. But the EU regulation now is 48 hours, which is half a week's work for me. And they still whinge about it!


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.

Depends what nationality you are does't it.

On Tuesday, 28 June 2016 21:04:01 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"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.

Wow what a seroius problem once in 43 years they'd have to.
if they can;t work out how to do this they could ask some of the local 24 hour shops that are about,it realyl isn't that difficult.
Not every polloing station would need to open for those after say 10pm they'd be fewer just like chemist stores and even vets.


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.

If they knew beforehand but some shift workers don;t always know.
An AUS friend of mine works for a private health care ambulances.
He was working 12 of those 15 open hours.
But lukiuly he wasn't allowed to vote.



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

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

trapped on the motorway for 24 hours.


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.

I just don;t think 15 hours open time is very long for such an important vote,
I'd saynecessarily short, yuo take longer than that looking for bread-mix.



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

See above.

exactly.

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Most were open from pretty early to 10 at night.

What's pretty early ?

Are you saying you couldn't/wouldn't read the polling card you were sent?
If so, how did you know where to vote?

--
*I didn't say it was your fault, I said I was blaming you.

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

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
If they knew beforehand but some shift workers don;t always know.
An AUS friend of mine works for a private health care ambulances.
He was working 12 of those 15 open hours.
But lukiuly he wasn't allowed to vote.

Think it didn't take most 3 hours to vote. Bet he found time to go down
the pub, though.

--
*(on a baby-size shirt) "Party -- my crib -- two a.m

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

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
If they knew beforehand but some shift workers don;t always know.
An AUS friend of mine works for a private health care ambulances.
He was working 12 of those 15 open hours.
But lukiuly he wasn't allowed to vote.

Think it didn't take most 3 hours to vote. Bet he found time to go down
the pub, though.

or, he could have asked for a postal vote.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On Thursday, 30 June 2016 16:35:38 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
If they knew beforehand but some shift workers don;t always know.
An AUS friend of mine works for a private health care ambulances.
He was working 12 of those 15 open hours.
But lukiuly he wasn't allowed to vote.

Think it didn't take most 3 hours to vote. Bet he found time to go down
the pub, though.

No he went home and fell asleep.

On Thursday, 30 June 2016 17:27:29 UTC+1, charles wrote:
In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
If they knew beforehand but some shift workers don;t always know.
An AUS friend of mine works for a private health care ambulances.
He was working 12 of those 15 open hours.
But lukiuly he wasn't allowed to vote.

Think it didn't take most 3 hours to vote. Bet he found time to go down
the pub, though.

or, he could have asked for a postal vote.

yuo have to ask for a postal vote somewhat in advance, he wasn;t working those shifts, the new shifts were given to them the week before the vote although they had nothing to do with the vote.
Postal votes are only OK if you can decide on who you want to vote for in advance rather than wait until you have the information you hope to get towards the end of a such a campaign.