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

On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 20:56:27 +0100, "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

Quite, so *that's* where you get all your news from. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

On 26/06/16 20:56, 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



Well - there you go...

On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 21:50:52 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:

On 26/06/16 20:56, 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



Well - there you go...

Channel 5 news reported that the police were looking into it for possible
fraud.

On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 20:56:27 +0100, 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,

Anyone still stupid enough to trust the kind of crap the BBC has the
audacity to put out under the banner of "news"?

On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 21:50:52 +0100, Tim Watts
wrote:

Well - there you go...

Maybe we don't need any online petition in any case?

What do you think 'people' (ordinary people, not the Brexit Kamikaze
squad) think of Lord Heseltine and his general political and other
opinions?

I've seen him discussing the post referendum process a couple of times
now and he was saying stuff that seemed quite honest, practical and
real world.

He reminded us that Nigel Farage said a couple of months ago that if
it ended up a 52/48 split for Remain, he would hold a second
referendum!

"In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long
way. If the remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it.”

I wonder how fair he is and if he's a man of his word?

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entr...b08d2c56393f12

Heseltine also said that the Brexiteers should be the ones trying to
do any 'negotiation' re the Exit package ('negotiation', hah) as no
one else would have their heart in it.

And then it would all need Ok'ing by the House of Commons and that
would take some doing?

I believe Churchill once said: "“The trouble with committing political
suicide is that you live to regret it.”

https://www.project-syndicate.org/co...patten-2016-06

I have no dog in this fight, I'm just waiting for some good news on
any of this. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

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.

--
--

Colin Bignell

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.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

"Cursitor Doom" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 20:56:27 +0100, 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,

Anyone still stupid enough to trust the kind of crap the BBC has the
audacity to put out under the banner of "news"?

it's being reported by all media

the BBC is far from alone here

tim

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.


--
--

Colin Bignell

On 27/06/16 09:14, 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.
No, it cant.

The debates is constrained to be whether we should hold a second referendum.

My guess is it will be put to the vote inside 20 seconds, and the
overwhelming answer will be 'no'.



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.

If that was the case we would never have joined the common market.

And no law would ever get passed.


--
€œSome people like to travel by train because it combines the slowness of
a car with the cramped public exposure of €¨an airplane.€�

Dennis Miller

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 ****.


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

On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 09:14:08 +0100, 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.

Funny you should say that:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entr...b08d2c56393f12

Farage:

“In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long
way. If the remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it.”

(Assuming he meant it would work both ways, which would only be fair
of course).

Cheers, T i m

p.s. I just heard mention that Germany has a different attitude to
referendums since one was used to make someone too powerful (or some
such). Not sure I fully understand how it's different to what we have
though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_in_Germany

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.

--
--

Colin Bignell

On 27/06/16 09:55, 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.

So you say.
Well they deserve all they get for being stupid. WE now have registered
our displeasure big time, and guess what, the EU is behaving just like
we warned you it would, so registering displeasure cuts no ice anyway.

So they got the right result even so,


--
"What do you think about Gay Marriage?"
"I don't."
"Don't what?"
"Think about Gay Marriage."

On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 09:57:38 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 27/06/16 09:55, Nightjar wrote:
snip

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.

So you say.
Well they deserve all they get for being stupid. WE

By 'we' you mean 17% of those who voted?

now have registered
our displeasure big time,

By 'big time' you mean by a margin of 4% of those who voted?

I wonder why many people now feel the 'Country is divided'?

No, I think you should go along with your savior, Mr Farage:

“In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long
way. If the remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it.”

(That should work both ways of course).

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entr...b08d2c56393f12

snip

So, I wonder if you are co confident that a second referendum would
give the Leaves the same slight edge, or now the country starts to
better understand the full implications of their 'decisions' (and / or
indecision based on apathy and false information) that the Remains
might now meet Mr Farages 2/3 majority threshold?

Cheers, T i m

On 27/06/2016 09:14, 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.


Yes IMHO. Perhaps we need a 2nd petition that we should do nothing that
would cause us to leave the EU before we know the terms we would leave
on. Boris has already said that we should have free access to the EU
markets.


--
Michael Chare

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 27/06/16 10:17, Michael Chare wrote:
On 27/06/2016 09:14, 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.


Yes IMHO. Perhaps we need a 2nd petition that we should do nothing that
would cause us to leave the EU before we know the terms we would leave
on. Boris has already said that we should have free access to the EU
markets.


Boris can say what he likes and so can you, but if this referendum is
betrayed, you will be putting a UKIP government in power.


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

T i m wrote
Tim Watts wrote

Well - there you go...

Maybe we don't need any online petition in any case?

What do you think 'people' (ordinary people, not the Brexit Kamikaze
squad) think of Lord Heseltine and his general political and other
opinions?

That he is just another completely senile silly old fart way past his useby
date.

I've seen him discussing the post referendum process
a couple of times now and he was saying stuff that
seemed quite honest, practical and real world.

And very few 'people' would even remember who he was.

He reminded us that Nigel Farage said a couple
of months ago that if it ended up a 52/48 split
for Remain, he would hold a second referendum!

Farage would never have any say whatever on that.

"In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long
way. If the remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it."

I wonder how fair he is and if he's a man of his word?

He doesn't get any say whatever on that, so his word is completely
irrelevant.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entr...b08d2c56393f12

Heseltine also said that the Brexiteers should be the ones trying
to do any 'negotiation' re the Exit package ('negotiation', hah)
as no one else would have their heart in it.

And that is why he got flushed where he belongs, to
the senile old farts home called the House of Lords.

And then it would all need Ok'ing by the House
of Commons and that would take some doing?

I believe Churchill once said: ""The trouble with committing
political suicide is that you live to regret it."

No political suicide has been committed.

https://www.project-syndicate.org/co...patten-2016-06

I have no dog in this fight,

Obvious lie.

I'm just waiting for some good news on any of this. ;-(

We've already had that. The voters made an obscene gesture
in the general direction of the establishment and voted to leave.

"T i m" wrote in message
...
I wonder why many people now feel the 'Country is divided'?

Suppose the result had been 52% remain and 48% leave, still with Scotland
voting Remain in each district and still with most non-city, non-university
parts of England voting Leave. Maybe if several hundred more people in
Scotland had voted Remain and several hundred fewer in England had voted
Leave.

The country would still be divided and there would still be about 50% of the
UK population who were unhappy with the result.

An issue such as "leave/remain in EU" *is* a divisive issue. There is no way
around it.


It is a crying shame that we were not given a way of registering our extreme
dissatisfaction with remaining part of the EU, while not actually voting to
leave it. Maybe if that had been possible it would have given Cameron
further ammunition to get the issues debated in the EU parliament, with
other countries putting forward their views too. Maybe the EU would have
found that there was overwhelming contempt for the EU, on issues of
immigration and sovereignty, and that it was not just "a few whinging Brits"
rocking the boat.

Mind you, having seen the arrogance and contempt in the responses of senior
EU officials (as opposed to heads of state in member countries) maybe they
wouldn't have listened and would have carried on in their own sweet way - in
which case we definitely did the right thing in leaving, if we recognised
that the battle was lost even before the referendum.

On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 09:57:38 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 27/06/16 09:55, 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.

So you say.
Well they deserve all they get for being stupid. WE now have registered
our displeasure big time, and guess what, the EU is behaving just like we
warned you it would, so registering displeasure cuts no ice anyway.

So they got the right result even so,

Like a punter betting on a horse /not/ to win, & when it does..."Oh, but
Mr Bookmaker I /didn't/ mean it! Can I have my money back?"
"Nah, /you/ laid the bet, there's the result."

On 27/06/16 10:47, NY wrote:
we recognised that the battle was lost even before the referendum.

Exactly

I have no problem with an EU, or Europe, or Europeans,

My problem is with THIS EU.


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

On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 10:47:24 +0100, NY wrote:

It is a crying shame that we were not given a way of registering our
extreme dissatisfaction with remaining part of the EU, while not actually
voting to leave it. Maybe if that had been possible it would have given
Cameron further ammunition to get the issues debated in the EU parliament,
with other countries putting forward their views too. Maybe the EU would
have found that there was overwhelming contempt for the EU, on issues of
immigration and sovereignty, and that it was not just "a few whinging
Brits" rocking the boat.

IMO that is a /big/ "Maybe".
Juncker has said that there would /not/ be any further negotiations, &
some weeks ago Der Spiegel quoted one of the EU Commissioners as saying:
"If the UK votes to remain in the EU, the British should stop doing the
things that have irritated the rest of Europe for years: special requests,
self-pity and wretched haggling over every last detail."
IMO the threat was already there, so just voting "extreme dissatisfaction
with the EU" would /not/ have made any difference. It was either IN or OUT.

Mind you, having seen the arrogance and contempt in the responses of
senior EU officials (as opposed to heads of state in member countries)
maybe they wouldn't have listened and would have carried on in their own
sweet way - in which case we definitely did the right thing in leaving, if
we recognised that the battle was lost even before the referendum.

€œThe most puzzling development in politics during the last decade is the
apparent determination of Western European leaders to re-create the Soviet
Union in Western Europe.€�
- Mikhail Gorbachev -

Now when an ex-Soviet leader says that, I believe it's time to take notice.

On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 11:37:20 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 27/06/16 10:47, NY wrote:
we recognised that the battle was lost even before the referendum.

Exactly

I have no problem with an EU, or Europe, or Europeans,

My problem is with THIS EU.

Same here.

(I still chuckle at the dork who said I was a bigot & racist!)

In article ,
tim... wrote:

"Cursitor Doom" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 20:56:27 +0100, 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,

Anyone still stupid enough to trust the kind of crap the BBC has the
audacity to put out under the banner of "news"?

it's being reported by all media

the BBC is far from alone here

If it's not an Express exclusive, it must be lies.





--
*Don't squat with your spurs on *

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

In article ,
Nightjar wrote:
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.

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?

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. And of course we'll conform to all the other
EU red tape on trade. And pay into the EU budget. In other words, pretty
well like Norway does now.

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.

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

--
*Why is it that most nudists are people you don't want to see naked?*

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

In article ,
Charlie wrote:
And that is why he got flushed where he belongs, to
the senile old farts home called the House of Lords.

Yup. At least the EU commissioners that we also don't elect aren't
normally senile old farts.

--
*A chicken crossing the road is poultry in motion.*

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

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.

In article ,
Martin Barclay wrote:
”The most puzzling development in politics during the last decade is the
apparent determination of Western European leaders to re-create the
Soviet Union in Western Europe.• - Mikhail Gorbachev -

Now when an ex-Soviet leader says that, I believe it's time to take
notice.

Meaning you therefore take notice of everything all ex-Soviet leaders say,
or are you being just a tad selective? And given most of your posts, do
you really think most will accept just your judgement?

We had lots of that on the campaign.

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

--
*You never really learn to swear until you learn to drive *

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

In article ,
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.

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.

If we do leave with no new agreement - which is very unlikely -
negotiations will soon be started to get us back in.

The idea that a Tory government won't get a free trade deal with the EU is
nonsense. They'd loose much of their funding from business. As well as
most of their pals.

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.

--
*There's two theories to arguing with a woman. Neither one works *

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

On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 11:56:23 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

At least the EU commissioners that we also don't elect aren't
normally senile old farts.

Just a cartel of corrupt bribe taking nepotists?

On 27/06/16 13:59, Peter Parry wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 11:56:23 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

At least the EU commissioners that we also don't elect aren't
normally senile old farts.

Just a cartel of corrupt bribe taking nepotists?


As well as being senile old farts

"When you look at the EU level, the picture is similar: In 2008, the
average EU leader was 55, and if my own calculations are correct the
average European Council member is 53.9 years old €“ the youngest is 39.
*The average age for a European Commissioner, again according to my own
calculation is 57.1 today* €“ the youngest is 43. According to this
article, the average age of Members of the European Parliament was 55 in
2012. [Update: According to this academic study, the average age of an
MEP at the start of the legislative period was 51.2, with MEPs from
countries that joined in 2004-2007 being in average about 2 years younger."

http://polscieu.ideasoneurope.eu/201...r-middle-aged/


--
No Apple devices were knowingly used in the preparation of this post.

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.

On Monday, 27 June 2016 13:19:37 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
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.

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 ?





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.

Yes it's why deals are done.

On 27/06/2016 09:24, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , 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...n-a-4-chan-pra

nk-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.

It can discuss all it likes. The result is there under the rules
stated. End of story.


Would that be UKIPs rules where they want a second go if they fail?

On 27/06/2016 11:37, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/06/16 10:47, NY wrote:
we recognised that the battle was lost even before the referendum.

Exactly

I have no problem with an EU, or Europe, or Europeans,

My problem is with THIS EU.



So why do you keep complaining about freedom of movement?
They are Europeans not the EU so you don't have a gripe with them.

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

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.

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.

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

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

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 27/06/2016 11:37, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/06/16 10:47, NY wrote:
we recognised that the battle was lost even before the referendum.

Exactly

I have no problem with an EU, or Europe, or Europeans,

My problem is with THIS EU.



So why do you keep complaining about freedom of movement?

You have to understand Turnip. He learnt from Humpty Dumpty

******************

”When I use a word,‘ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, �it
means just what I choose it to mean ˜ neither more nor less.‘

‘The question is,‘ said Alice, �whether you can make words mean so many
different things.‘

‘The question is,‘ said Humpty Dumpty, �which is to be master ˜ that‘s
all.•
-- Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass

****************

When he calls someone a c**t - ie near anyone and especially wogs, it
actually means he loves them. [shudder]

They are Europeans not the EU so you don't have a gripe with them.

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

--
*Someday, we'll look back on this, laugh nervously and change the subject

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

On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 10:47:24 +0100, "NY" wrote:

"T i m" wrote in message
.. .
I wonder why many people now feel the 'Country is divided'?

Suppose the result had been 52% remain and 48% leave, still with Scotland
voting Remain in each district and still with most non-city, non-university
parts of England voting Leave. Maybe if several hundred more people in
Scotland had voted Remain and several hundred fewer in England had voted
Leave.

The country would still be divided and there would still be about 50% of the
UK population who were unhappy with the result.

50% of the *voting* population who weren't completely disillusioned
with the whole process (the missing 28%) and discounting the 16% not
registered to vote (for whatever reason).

An issue such as "leave/remain in EU" *is* a divisive issue. There is no way
around it.

My issue isn't with the (binary) choice, it was how those choices were
presented and the lies and spin put out to sway the cause. It should
have been illegal, especially as there shouldn't have been any 'party'
bias in any of it. Easily digestible information could have been put
out by a neural body and *we* should have then been given the choice
what we deemed important or not.

It is a crying shame that we were not given a way of registering our extreme
dissatisfaction with remaining part of the EU, while not actually voting to
leave it.

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

The issues most would have tried to *blame* on the EU would have been
'immigration' ... and that's about it (without fully understanding
what forms the immigration takes, what was perfectly legitimate and
what wasn't, that would therefore having to do with the 'EU').
Anything else might have been random stuff, as / when something
changed for reasons that the people may not understand (like
potentially toxic chemicals etc).

Maybe if that had been possible it would have given Cameron
further ammunition to get the issues debated in the EU parliament, with
other countries putting forward their views too.

Possibly ... at least he might have had a better idea what the real
issues were (for real people) and addressed them fully (without all
the spin and bluster).

Maybe the EU would have
found that there was overwhelming contempt for the EU, on issues of
immigration and sovereignty, and that it was not just "a few whinging Brits"
rocking the boat.

But do you really think 'most people' linked 'immigration' with 'the
EU' ... or just complained about immigration in general?

For example, my Mrs, my daughter, my Mum, none of my mates, friends or
family have ever 'complained' about the EU to me?

Maybe because none of us are 'political' or don't happen to be North
Sea Fishermen ... or we haven't knowingly come across the EU in any
way that we would feel the need?

If some random person, or a politician states 'We pay £350M into the
EU and get nothing back', most of us would just assume they were
ranting on some crusade or simply didn't know all the facts.

Mind you, having seen the arrogance and contempt in the responses of senior
EU officials (as opposed to heads of state in member countries) maybe they
wouldn't have listened and would have carried on in their own sweet way

That seems to be the suggestion from some people (especially here) but
I wouldn't trust most of the accusers to mow my lawn (if I had one).
;-)

- in
which case we definitely did the right thing in leaving, if we recognised
that the battle was lost even before the referendum.

Yes, 'if', and so far that seems to be a very big IF.

I and most other non-political people (not the fanatics who hijacked
this referendum to play political games and 'stick it to the
establishment' etc) would happily have listened to and voted on any
real, serious honest case that seemed to be for the best all round.

I've spoken to quite a few 'real / non-political' people since and
they are all saying the same thing ... 'I hope we have done the right
thing' (and most voted remain, based on straight 'I think that would
be the safest thing' reasons, as seems to have been the trend in Nth
London).

Go on any (un-moderated) group, or forum and you will always have the
Alf Garnet / political 'loons' trying to tell everyone else what's
*really* going on in the world when most of it (if the truth be known)
is just going on in their head. ;-(

I think because few people take them seriously, they get even more
ranty and sweary (just look at most of TNPs posts) when it's quite
possible they have *some* good points.

Anyway, it seems the price of fuel has gone up round here ... so is
that the EU out to get us, a result of the financial markets being
depressed or something that was going to happen anyway? shrug

Cheers, T i m