https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...e_iOSApp_Other

On 02/07/2016 13:52, Bob Martin wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...e_iOSApp_Other


Yes - we should be grateful for all their effort to achieve Brexit.

House price reductions are more likely to help the younger generation
who wanted to Remain. One day they will see why the 16-18 year olds
shouldn't get the vote.

Less immigration - currently depressing wages and exploding
in-work-benefits.

Lower £ helping exports.

It really is win-win.

The only betrayers are the Remains wanting to transfer sovereignty to
unelected commissioners.

Next you'll be saying you wanted the UK to join the Euro?

In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
On 02/07/2016 13:52, Bob Martin wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...e_iOSApp_Other


Yes - we should be grateful for all their effort to achieve Brexit.

House price reductions are more likely to help the younger generation
who wanted to Remain. One day they will see why the 16-18 year olds
shouldn't get the vote.

Yes. It's only how much a house costs that matters. Being able to borrow
money to buy it - or being able to afford that loan is unimportant.

Less immigration - currently depressing wages and exploding
in-work-benefits.

Can I get this clear? You are in favour of wages going up by a significant
amount for those in poorly paid jobs?

Lower £ helping exports.

And making imports more expensive. Like food. And pretty well all the
essentials. Energy and so on.

It really is win-win.

Nothing ever is - except to those with only one brain cell.

The only betrayers are the Remains wanting to transfer sovereignty to
unelected commissioners.

You've been reading the back of that sauce bottle again.

Next you'll be saying you wanted the UK to join the Euro?

Odd the vast majority of those who didn't want to join the Euro wanted to
stay in the EU.

But, of course, it just shows that the EU doesn't have *total* control
over the UK as the likes of you imply. If it did, we'd have been in the
Euro.

--
*You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me *

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

On Sat, 02 Jul 2016 14:28:03 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

[snip tripe]

OK, folks, show's over now. OVER! Nothing more to see here, move on,
please. :-)

On 02/07/16 15:30, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jul 2016 14:28:03 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

[snip tripe]

OK, folks, show's over now. OVER! Nothing more to see here, move on,
please. :-)

Shows not over till one of the fat ladies sings.

WE are not out of the EU yet.



--
€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 Sat, 02 Jul 2016 15:39:27 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 02/07/16 15:30, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jul 2016 14:28:03 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

[snip tripe]

OK, folks, show's over now. OVER! Nothing more to see here, move on,
please. :-)

Shows not over till one of the fat ladies sings.

WE are not out of the EU yet.

In 1997 Wales had a devolution referendum.
" Do you agree that there should be a Welsh Assembly as proposed by the
Government?"

Registered voters/turnout 2,222,533, but just 50.22% of the registered
voters bothered to vote.
Valid votes = 1,112,117 - 99.64%
Out of that number
559,419 voted "Yes" 50.3%;
552,698 voted "No" 49.7%;
Invalid or blank votes 3,999 - 0.36%

On THAT basis, of 50% saying YES & with only a 0.6% margin, Wales went
ahead with their own National Assembly, & I do NOT recall the 49% who
voted "No" or the 50% who did not /bother/ to vote, taking to the streets
& carrying on like the "Remain" milksops are carrying on now.

--
So, the UK €œBrexited€� and the sky didnt fall in. **Sensible people
(no matter how they voted) are now turning their attention to the
opportunities opening up for Britain in the wider world, including
China.** -- RT-UK News --

On Sat, 02 Jul 2016 16:28:42 +0100, Martin Barclay wrote:

In 1997 Wales had a devolution referendum.
" Do you agree that there should be a Welsh Assembly as proposed by the
Government?"

Registered voters/turnout 2,222,533, but just 50.22% of the registered
voters bothered to vote.
Valid votes = 1,112,117 - 99.64%
Out of that number 559,419 voted "Yes" 50.3%;
552,698 voted "No" 49.7%;
Invalid or blank votes 3,999 - 0.36%

On THAT basis, of 50% saying YES & with only a 0.6% margin, Wales went
ahead with their own National Assembly, & I do NOT recall the 49% who
voted "No" or the 50% who did not /bother/ to vote, taking to the
streets & carrying on like the "Remain" milksops are carrying on now.

Adding an extra layer of local government to a fairly small region of the
country is rather different from causing such wide-reaching economic and
social upheaval to the entire country, with ramifications affecting much
of the developed world.

On 02/07/16 16:36, Adrian wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jul 2016 16:28:42 +0100, Martin Barclay wrote:

In 1997 Wales had a devolution referendum.
" Do you agree that there should be a Welsh Assembly as proposed by the
Government?"

Registered voters/turnout 2,222,533, but just 50.22% of the registered
voters bothered to vote.
Valid votes = 1,112,117 - 99.64%
Out of that number 559,419 voted "Yes" 50.3%;
552,698 voted "No" 49.7%;
Invalid or blank votes 3,999 - 0.36%

On THAT basis, of 50% saying YES & with only a 0.6% margin, Wales went
ahead with their own National Assembly, & I do NOT recall the 49% who
voted "No" or the 50% who did not /bother/ to vote, taking to the
streets & carrying on like the "Remain" milksops are carrying on now.

Adding an extra layer of local government to a fairly small region of the
country is rather different from causing such wide-reaching economic and
social upheaval to the entire country, with ramifications affecting much
of the developed world.

Ah well so its not the same as the voting qualifications for say Union
strikes, either then?

It seems to me that everything is compared with what suits your
position, not with what it actually is comparable to.


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

Josef Stalin

On Sat, 2 Jul 2016 15:36:32 +0000 (UTC), Adrian
wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jul 2016 16:28:42 +0100, Martin Barclay wrote:

In 1997 Wales had a devolution referendum.
" Do you agree that there should be a Welsh Assembly as proposed by the
Government?"

Registered voters/turnout 2,222,533, but just 50.22% of the registered
voters bothered to vote.
Valid votes = 1,112,117 - 99.64%
Out of that number 559,419 voted "Yes" 50.3%;
552,698 voted "No" 49.7%;
Invalid or blank votes 3,999 - 0.36%

On THAT basis, of 50% saying YES & with only a 0.6% margin, Wales went
ahead with their own National Assembly, & I do NOT recall the 49% who
voted "No" or the 50% who did not /bother/ to vote, taking to the
streets & carrying on like the "Remain" milksops are carrying on now.

Adding an extra layer of local government to a fairly small region of the
country is rather different from causing such wide-reaching economic and
social upheaval to the entire country, with ramifications affecting much
of the developed world.

Bingo.

See, the problem we are seeing here is those without the EQ to see
outside of their own little world.

They just see numbers, stats and any 'fact' that and think that fits
their restricted outlook and think their view is the only one that
should be allowed. Those that aren't with them are just 'talking
heads'.

Let's look into all the consequences of leaving the EU, produce a
'nutshell' report, present it to the general public and ask them to
vote *on that*, then they might actually have an idea what they are
*really* voting for (not some BS about the NHS or getting rid of
immigrants) and it could all be very different.

Except, the fanatical Brexiteers wouldn't want to risk that would they
so are all very keen to pretend it's actually 'all finished' (which as
has been mentioned many times is far from the fact).

Cheers, T i m

T i m wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jul 2016 15:36:32 +0000 (UTC), Adrian
wrote:


On Sat, 02 Jul 2016 16:28:42 +0100, Martin Barclay wrote:


In 1997 Wales had a devolution referendum.
" Do you agree that there should be a Welsh Assembly as proposed by the
Government?"

Registered voters/turnout 2,222,533, but just 50.22% of the registered
voters bothered to vote.
Valid votes = 1,112,117 - 99.64%
Out of that number 559,419 voted "Yes" 50.3%;
552,698 voted "No" 49.7%;
Invalid or blank votes 3,999 - 0.36%

On THAT basis, of 50% saying YES& with only a 0.6% margin, Wales went
ahead with their own National Assembly,& I do NOT recall the 49% who
voted "No" or the 50% who did not /bother/ to vote, taking to the
streets& carrying on like the "Remain" milksops are carrying on now.

Adding an extra layer of local government to a fairly small region of the
country is rather different from causing such wide-reaching economic and
social upheaval to the entire country, with ramifications affecting much
of the developed world.

Bingo.

See, the problem we are seeing here is those without the EQ to see
outside of their own little world.

They just see numbers, stats and any 'fact' that and think that fits
their restricted outlook and think their view is the only one that
should be allowed. Those that aren't with them are just 'talking
heads'.

Let's look into all the consequences of leaving the EU, produce a
'nutshell' report, present it to the general public and ask them to
vote *on that*, then they might actually have an idea what they are
*really* voting for (not some BS about the NHS or getting rid of
immigrants) and it could all be very different.

Except, the fanatical Brexiteers wouldn't want to risk that would they
so are all very keen to pretend it's actually 'all finished' (which as
has been mentioned many times is far from the fact).

Cheers, T i m


You lost, get back to diy.

On Sat, 02 Jul 2016 17:55:16 +0100, T i m wrote:

Except, the fanatical Brexiteers wouldn't want to risk that would they
so are all very keen to pretend it's actually 'all finished' (which as
has been mentioned many times is far from the fact).

Those who would ignore the wishes of the majority risk ending up like Jo
Cox for the very same reasons expressed by her killer. Maybe YOU should
stick your own neck out rather than extolling others to do so and take
the risk on your behalf. But you haven't got the balls for that, have
you, little boy?

"Martin Barclay" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 02 Jul 2016 15:39:27 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 02/07/16 15:30, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jul 2016 14:28:03 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

[snip tripe]

OK, folks, show's over now. OVER! Nothing more to see here, move on,
please. :-)

Shows not over till one of the fat ladies sings.

WE are not out of the EU yet.

In 1997 Wales had a devolution referendum.
" Do you agree that there should be a Welsh Assembly as proposed by the
Government?"

Registered voters/turnout 2,222,533, but just 50.22% of the registered
voters bothered to vote.
Valid votes = 1,112,117 - 99.64%
Out of that number
559,419 voted "Yes" 50.3%;
552,698 voted "No" 49.7%;
Invalid or blank votes 3,999 - 0.36%

On THAT basis, of 50% saying YES & with only a 0.6% margin, Wales went
ahead with their own National Assembly, & I do NOT recall the 49% who
voted "No" or the 50% who did not /bother/ to vote, taking to the streets
& carrying on like the "Remain" milksops are carrying on now.

Because the result of that choice was a fart in
the bath compared with Britain leaving the EU.

Just some millions ****ed against the wall on a talking shop that
gets to do **** all that has any relevance to anyone even in Wales.

On Sat, 02 Jul 2016 23:27:20 +0000, Julian Barnes wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jul 2016 17:55:16 +0100, T i m wrote:

Except, the fanatical Brexiteers wouldn't want to risk that would they
so are all very keen to pretend it's actually 'all finished' (which as
has been mentioned many times is far from the fact).

Those who would ignore the wishes of the majority risk ending up like Jo
Cox for the very same reasons expressed by her killer. Maybe YOU should
stick your own neck out rather than extolling others to do so and take
the risk on your behalf. But you haven't got the balls for that, have
you, little boy?

Quoted in full for posterity and a wider audience.

On 03/07/16 08:41, Adrian wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jul 2016 23:27:20 +0000, Julian Barnes wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jul 2016 17:55:16 +0100, T i m wrote:

Except, the fanatical Brexiteers wouldn't want to risk that would they
so are all very keen to pretend it's actually 'all finished' (which as
has been mentioned many times is far from the fact).

Those who would ignore the wishes of the majority risk ending up like Jo
Cox for the very same reasons expressed by her killer. Maybe YOU should
stick your own neck out rather than extolling others to do so and take
the risk on your behalf. But you haven't got the balls for that, have
you, little boy?

Quoted in full for posterity and a wider audience.

I often wonder with people such as yourself, how you would behave if
someone from a racial or ethnic minority, as opposed to a common or
garden pleb pointed a gun at you with every seeming intention of killing
you.

Would you have a moral tussle with yourself if the flash of fear you
felt was irrational racism or xenophobia or whatever?

I would also love to see you, say in a lifeboat, with enough food for
three people but twenty in the boat.

I bet you would argue that as a morally superior person, it was your
food by right.

And toss the 17 overboard


--
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for
the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the
truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Joseph Goebbels

On 03/07/2016 12:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/07/16 08:41, Adrian wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jul 2016 23:27:20 +0000, Julian Barnes wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jul 2016 17:55:16 +0100, T i m wrote:

Except, the fanatical Brexiteers wouldn't want to risk that would they
so are all very keen to pretend it's actually 'all finished' (which as
has been mentioned many times is far from the fact).

Those who would ignore the wishes of the majority risk ending up like Jo
Cox for the very same reasons expressed by her killer. Maybe YOU should
stick your own neck out rather than extolling others to do so and take
the risk on your behalf. But you haven't got the balls for that, have
you, little boy?

Quoted in full for posterity and a wider audience.

I often wonder with people such as yourself, how you would behave if
someone from a racial or ethnic minority, as opposed to a common or
garden pleb pointed a gun at you with every seeming intention of killing
you.

Would you have a moral tussle with yourself if the flash of fear you
felt was irrational racism or xenophobia or whatever?

I would also love to see you, say in a lifeboat, with enough food for
three people but twenty in the boat.

I bet you would argue that as a morally superior person, it was your
food by right.

And toss the 17 overboard



I wonder if anyone else thinks that is a strange sort of thought process
you have there?

On Sun, 03 Jul 2016 14:53:55 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

On 03/07/2016 12:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Except, the fanatical Brexiteers wouldn't want to risk that would
they so are all very keen to pretend it's actually 'all finished'
(which as has been mentioned many times is far from the fact).

Those who would ignore the wishes of the majority risk ending up like
Jo Cox for the very same reasons expressed by her killer. Maybe YOU
should stick your own neck out rather than extolling others to do so
and take the risk on your behalf. But you haven't got the balls for
that, have you, little boy?

Quoted in full for posterity and a wider audience.

I often wonder with people such as yourself, how you would behave if
someone from a racial or ethnic minority, as opposed to a common or
garden pleb pointed a gun at you with every seeming intention of
killing you.

Would you have a moral tussle with yourself if the flash of fear you
felt was irrational racism or xenophobia or whatever?

I would also love to see you, say in a lifeboat, with enough food for
three people but twenty in the boat.

I bet you would argue that as a morally superior person, it was your
food by right.

And toss the 17 overboard

I wonder if anyone else thinks that is a strange sort of thought process
you have there?

I'm sure there are many professionals who would find it a very intriguing
kind of thought process.

If somebody pointed a gun at me, I can't think of anything I would find
less relevant than their ethnicity, tbh. The only thing that would be
remotely relevant is htf to not get shot while getting out of the
situation...

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 03 Jul 2016 14:53:55 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

On 03/07/2016 12:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Except, the fanatical Brexiteers wouldn't want to risk that would
they so are all very keen to pretend it's actually 'all finished'
(which as has been mentioned many times is far from the fact).

Those who would ignore the wishes of the majority risk ending up like
Jo Cox for the very same reasons expressed by her killer. Maybe YOU
should stick your own neck out rather than extolling others to do so
and take the risk on your behalf. But you haven't got the balls for
that, have you, little boy?

Quoted in full for posterity and a wider audience.

I often wonder with people such as yourself, how you would behave if
someone from a racial or ethnic minority, as opposed to a common or
garden pleb pointed a gun at you with every seeming intention of
killing you.

Would you have a moral tussle with yourself if the flash of fear you
felt was irrational racism or xenophobia or whatever?

I would also love to see you, say in a lifeboat, with enough food for
three people but twenty in the boat.

I bet you would argue that as a morally superior person, it was your
food by right.

And toss the 17 overboard

I wonder if anyone else thinks that is a strange sort of thought process
you have there?

I'm sure there are many professionals who would find it a very intriguing
kind of thought process.

If somebody pointed a gun at me, I can't think of anything I would find
less relevant than their ethnicity, tbh. The only thing that would be
remotely relevant is htf to not get shot while getting out of the
situation...


I have a gun pulled on me. September 1999 in Banska Bystrica.

All because of a small language mix up [1] and also for some random reason
[2] I was left sat on my own outside a room that the Slovakian President was
having a meeting in. The meeting finished and the armed police came out
first.

[1] I didn't speak Slovakian and they did not speak English
[2] My Slovakian wife and her Auntie had gone for a **** - so not that
random

--
Adam

On Sun, 3 Jul 2016 14:00:42 +0000 (UTC), Adrian
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jul 2016 14:53:55 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

On 03/07/2016 12:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Except, the fanatical Brexiteers wouldn't want to risk that would
they so are all very keen to pretend it's actually 'all finished'
(which as has been mentioned many times is far from the fact).

Those who would ignore the wishes of the majority risk ending up like
Jo Cox for the very same reasons expressed by her killer. Maybe YOU
should stick your own neck out rather than extolling others to do so
and take the risk on your behalf. But you haven't got the balls for
that, have you, little boy?

Quoted in full for posterity and a wider audience.

I often wonder with people such as yourself, how you would behave if
someone from a racial or ethnic minority, as opposed to a common or
garden pleb pointed a gun at you with every seeming intention of
killing you.

Would you have a moral tussle with yourself if the flash of fear you
felt was irrational racism or xenophobia or whatever?

I would also love to see you, say in a lifeboat, with enough food for
three people but twenty in the boat.

I bet you would argue that as a morally superior person, it was your
food by right.

And toss the 17 overboard

I wonder if anyone else thinks that is a strange sort of thought process
you have there?

I'm sure there are many professionals who would find it a very intriguing
kind of thought process.

weg

If somebody pointed a gun at me, I can't think of anything I would find
less relevant than their ethnicity, tbh. The only thing that would be
remotely relevant is htf to not get shot while getting out of the
situation...

Quite.

Cheers, T i m

On Sun, 3 Jul 2016 15:59:57 +0100, "ARW"
wrote:
snip

[2] My Slovakian wife and her Auntie had gone for a **** - so not that
random

Now, if they didn't have to go *together* ... ?

Cheers, T i m

On 03/07/16 15:59, ARW wrote:
"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 03 Jul 2016 14:53:55 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

On 03/07/2016 12:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Except, the fanatical Brexiteers wouldn't want to risk that would
they so are all very keen to pretend it's actually 'all finished'
(which as has been mentioned many times is far from the fact).

Those who would ignore the wishes of the majority risk ending up like
Jo Cox for the very same reasons expressed by her killer. Maybe YOU
should stick your own neck out rather than extolling others to do so
and take the risk on your behalf. But you haven't got the balls for
that, have you, little boy?

Quoted in full for posterity and a wider audience.

I often wonder with people such as yourself, how you would behave if
someone from a racial or ethnic minority, as opposed to a common or
garden pleb pointed a gun at you with every seeming intention of
killing you.

Would you have a moral tussle with yourself if the flash of fear you
felt was irrational racism or xenophobia or whatever?

I would also love to see you, say in a lifeboat, with enough food for
three people but twenty in the boat.

I bet you would argue that as a morally superior person, it was your
food by right.

And toss the 17 overboard

I wonder if anyone else thinks that is a strange sort of thought process
you have there?

I'm sure there are many professionals who would find it a very intriguing
kind of thought process.

If somebody pointed a gun at me, I can't think of anything I would find
less relevant than their ethnicity, tbh. The only thing that would be
remotely relevant is htf to not get shot while getting out of the
situation...


I have a gun pulled on me. September 1999 in Banska Bystrica.

All because of a small language mix up [1] and also for some random
reason [2] I was left sat on my own outside a room that the Slovakian
President was having a meeting in. The meeting finished and the armed
police came out first.

[1] I didn't speak Slovakian and they did not speak English
[2] My Slovakian wife and her Auntie had gone for a **** - so not that
random

I see adrian immediatly

(a) didn't answer the question
(b) spun it to cast doubt on the person who had farmed it.

Which suggests he didn't have an answer to it

I've had loaded guns pulled on me twice. Once by a black American & once
by a white New Zealander.

On the whole the black American was easier to deal with.

However that isn't the point







--
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.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
b.com...
On 03/07/2016 12:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/07/16 08:41, Adrian wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jul 2016 23:27:20 +0000, Julian Barnes wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jul 2016 17:55:16 +0100, T i m wrote:

Except, the fanatical Brexiteers wouldn't want to risk that would they
so are all very keen to pretend it's actually 'all finished' (which as
has been mentioned many times is far from the fact).

Those who would ignore the wishes of the majority risk ending up like
Jo
Cox for the very same reasons expressed by her killer. Maybe YOU should
stick your own neck out rather than extolling others to do so and take
the risk on your behalf. But you haven't got the balls for that, have
you, little boy?

Quoted in full for posterity and a wider audience.

I often wonder with people such as yourself, how you would behave if
someone from a racial or ethnic minority, as opposed to a common or
garden pleb pointed a gun at you with every seeming intention of killing
you.

Would you have a moral tussle with yourself if the flash of fear you
felt was irrational racism or xenophobia or whatever?

I would also love to see you, say in a lifeboat, with enough food for
three people but twenty in the boat.

I bet you would argue that as a morally superior person, it was your
food by right.

And toss the 17 overboard



I wonder if anyone else thinks that is a strange sort of thought process
you have there?

Not so much a thought process as just another attempt at an insult.

On 02/07/2016 21:15, Capitol wrote:


Let's look into all the consequences of leaving the EU

Why a one sided report? An unbiased report also would have to give all
the disadvantages of staying in the EU. But then it would be down to
personal opinion as the EU isn't a static organisation and no-one has a
crystal ball to say what will happen next year.

, produce a
'nutshell' report, present it to the general public and ask them to
vote *on that*, then they might actually have an idea what they are
*really* voting for

You seem to think that it was only the leave campaign that produced the
information on what we were voting for. The remain campaign spent
millions analysing the economic consequences and produced their list of
truthful facts. Didn't we all get the booklet posted through our letter
boxes with the 'nutshell' report fully detailing what the referendum was
about?

Perhaps the majority of the British public who voted rejected what the
remain campaign said would definitely happen rather than believing what
the leave campaign said may happen.

Do you really believe that 17 million people considered money for the
NHS and net immigration to be the only reason for leaving the EU? How
many people who voted for remain did so because they were told the the
world as we know it would come to a catastrophic end if we left the EU?

Perhaps some of the things YOU are learning about now are new to you but
not to the the rest of us?




--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On Sun, 03 Jul 2016 15:59:57 +0100, ARW wrote:

All because of a small language mix up [1] and also for some random
reason [2] I was left sat on my own outside a room that the Slovakian
President was having a meeting in. The meeting finished and the armed
police came out first.

[1] I didn't speak Slovakian and they did not speak English [2] My
Slovakian wife and her Auntie had gone for a **** - so not that random

You had a camera with you and told them you wanted to shoot the president?

alan_m wrote:
On 02/07/2016 21:15, Capitol wrote:


Let's look into all the consequences of leaving the EU

Why a one sided report? An unbiased report also would have to give all
the disadvantages of staying in the EU. But then it would be down to
personal opinion as the EU isn't a static organisation and no-one has
a crystal ball to say what will happen next year.

, produce a
'nutshell' report, present it to the general public and ask them to
vote *on that*, then they might actually have an idea what they are
*really* voting for

You seem to think that it was only the leave campaign that produced
the information on what we were voting for. The remain campaign spent
millions analysing the economic consequences and produced their list
of truthful facts. Didn't we all get the booklet posted through our
letter boxes with the 'nutshell' report fully detailing what the
referendum was about?

Perhaps the majority of the British public who voted rejected what the
remain campaign said would definitely happen rather than believing
what the leave campaign said may happen.

Do you really believe that 17 million people considered money for the
NHS and net immigration to be the only reason for leaving the EU? How
many people who voted for remain did so because they were told the the
world as we know it would come to a catastrophic end if we left the EU?

Perhaps some of the things YOU are learning about now are new to you
but not to the the rest of us?





Not my post?

On Sun, 3 Jul 2016 22:00:34 +0100, alan_m
wrote:

On 02/07/2016 21:15, Capitol wrote:


Let's look into all the consequences of leaving the EU

Why a one sided report? An unbiased report also would have to give all
the disadvantages of staying in the EU. But then it would be down to
personal opinion as the EU isn't a static organisation and no-one has a
crystal ball to say what will happen next year.

, produce a
'nutshell' report, present it to the general public and ask them to
vote *on that*, then they might actually have an idea what they are
*really* voting for

You seem to think that it was only the leave campaign that produced the
information on what we were voting for. The remain campaign spent
millions analysing the economic consequences and produced their list of
truthful facts. Didn't we all get the booklet posted through our letter
boxes with the 'nutshell' report fully detailing what the referendum was
about?

Well, I did but how was anyone to know (at the time) what was spin and
what wasn't?

Perhaps the majority of the British public who voted rejected what the
remain campaign said would definitely happen rather than believing what
the leave campaign said may happen.

Who knows. And I'm pretty sure many just tossed a coin.

Do you really believe that 17 million people considered money for the
NHS and net immigration to be the only reason for leaving the EU?

No (duh) but a good percentage of them sure did, as every informal
street poll has showed before and after.

How
many people who voted for remain did so because they were told the the
world as we know it would come to a catastrophic end if we left the EU?

I doubt as many because the 'status quo' was the best bet, for a
country doing as well as we were at the time.

Perhaps some of the things YOU are learning about now are new to you but
not to the the rest of us?

Just who are you including in that 'us' OOI (this should be funny).
;-)

Cheers, T i m

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 3 Jul 2016 22:00:34 +0100, alan_m
wrote:

On 02/07/2016 21:15, Capitol wrote:


Let's look into all the consequences of leaving the EU

Why a one sided report? An unbiased report also would have to give all
the disadvantages of staying in the EU. But then it would be down to
personal opinion as the EU isn't a static organisation and no-one has a
crystal ball to say what will happen next year.

, produce a
'nutshell' report, present it to the general public and ask them to
vote *on that*, then they might actually have an idea what they are
*really* voting for

You seem to think that it was only the leave campaign that produced the
information on what we were voting for. The remain campaign spent
millions analysing the economic consequences and produced their list of
truthful facts. Didn't we all get the booklet posted through our letter
boxes with the 'nutshell' report fully detailing what the referendum was
about?

Well, I did but how was anyone to know (at the time) what was spin and
what wasn't?

By looking at the evidence on the claims made. Tad radical I realise.

Perhaps the majority of the British public who voted rejected what the
remain campaign said would definitely happen rather than believing what
the leave campaign said may happen.

Who knows. And I'm pretty sure many just tossed a coin.

Bet most who bothered to vote didn't.

Do you really believe that 17 million people considered money for the
NHS and net immigration to be the only reason for leaving the EU?

No (duh) but a good percentage of them sure did, as every informal
street poll has showed before and after.

How
many people who voted for remain did so because they were told the the
world as we know it would come to a catastrophic end if we left the EU?

I doubt as many because the 'status quo' was the best bet, for a
country doing as well as we were at the time.

Perhaps some of the things YOU are learning about now are new to you but
not to the the rest of us?

Just who are you including in that 'us' OOI (this should be funny).
;-)

On 03/07/2016 22:00, alan_m wrote:


Do you really believe that 17 million people considered money for the
NHS and net immigration to be the only reason for leaving the EU?

Do you believe immigration wasn't the reason many voted leave?

TNP and harry certainly did and many others in this group.

That is even though more than half the immigration is from outside the
EU and we already have full control.

The eu ones we probably have to have to keep free trade.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
b.com...
On 03/07/2016 22:00, alan_m wrote:


Do you really believe that 17 million people considered money for the
NHS and net immigration to be the only reason for leaving the EU?

Do you believe immigration wasn't the reason many voted leave?

TNP and harry certainly did and many others in this group.

That is even though more than half the immigration is from outside the EU
and we already have full control.

The eu ones we probably have to have to keep free trade.

But don’t need free trade. All of the USA, Japan, China, India,
Canada, Australia, etc etc etc all trade with the EU fine without
that. Why should Britain not be able to do that too ?

On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 09:47:30 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

On 03/07/2016 22:00, alan_m wrote:


Do you really believe that 17 million people considered money for the
NHS and net immigration to be the only reason for leaving the EU?

Do you believe immigration wasn't the reason many voted leave?

TNP and harry certainly did and many others in this group.

That is even though more than half the immigration is from outside the
EU and we already have full control.

The eu ones we probably have to have to keep free trade.

I think the problem may be that if we leave we (after being in) we
won't be in as good a position as if we were trying to join afresh.

But anyway, it was only an 'advisory referendum', the government still
need to vote (article 50) through and they need to do so that it
represents the best for the *majority* of the population (not just
those who voted).

Anyway, I believe it's going legal now so we will see.

Cheers, T i m

On Saturday, 2 July 2016 14:29:27 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
On 02/07/2016 13:52, Bob Martin wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...e_iOSApp_Other


Yes - we should be grateful for all their effort to achieve Brexit.

House price reductions are more likely to help the younger generation
who wanted to Remain. One day they will see why the 16-18 year olds
shouldn't get the vote.

Yes. It's only how much a house costs that matters. Being able to borrow
money to buy it - or being able to afford that loan is unimportant.

Less people can afford that now that in the past.
Even renting is difficult in that more or yuor income is needed to cover the rent, that it was years ago.


Less immigration - currently depressing wages and exploding
in-work-benefits.

Can I get this clear? You are in favour of wages going up by a significant
amount for those in poorly paid jobs?

Or in jobs that offer poor pay would be best.


Lower � helping exports.

And making imports more expensive. Like food. And pretty well all the
essentials. Energy and so on.

We import energy ?


It really is win-win.

Nothing ever is - except to those with only one brain cell.

What about thos wthat share their single brains cells with other NG posters..



But, of course, it just shows that the EU doesn't have *total* control
over the UK as the likes of you imply. If it did, we'd have been in the
Euro.


It proves that the UK is strong enough to stand outside the EU and still trade
otherwise they would have insited on teh UK joining the Euro.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


I've had loaded guns pulled on me twice. Once by a black American & once
by a white New Zealander.

On the whole the black American was easier to deal with.


Probably an immigrant or maybe a descendant from one. Best send him back:-)



--
Adam

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
On 02/07/2016 13:52, Bob Martin wrote:























https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...e_iOSApp_Other


Yes - we should be grateful for all their effort to achieve Brexit.

House price reductions are more likely to help the younger generation
who wanted to Remain. One day they will see why the 16-18 year olds
shouldn't get the vote.

Yes. It's only how much a house costs that matters. Being able to borrow
money to buy it - or being able to afford that loan is unimportant.
Several new challenger banks opening specifically targeting on loans to
young people but you are more interested in the value of your own house.

Less immigration - currently depressing wages and exploding
in-work-benefits.

Can I get this clear? You are in favour of wages going up by a significant
amount for those in poorly paid jobs?
Market forces. Tight labour market, wages go up.

Lower £ helping exports.

And making imports more expensive. Like food.
EU tariffs on food especially from Africa will disappear.
And pretty well all the
essentials. Energy and so on.

Get fracking and energy prices will plummet.
It really is win-win.

Nothing ever is - except to those with only one brain cell.

The only betrayers are the Remains wanting to transfer sovereignty to
unelected commissioners.

You've been reading the back of that sauce bottle again.

Typically pointless comment
Next you'll be saying you wanted the UK to join the Euro?

Odd the vast majority of those who didn't want to join the Euro wanted to
stay in the EU.

The question never arose.
But, of course, it just shows that the EU doesn't have *total* control
over the UK as the likes of you imply. If it did, we'd have been in the
Euro.

No one has ever claimed it did.
--
bert

On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 04:53:03 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:

On Saturday, 2 July 2016 14:29:27 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
snip

And making imports more expensive. Like food. And pretty well all the
essentials. Energy and so on.

We import energy ?

See, the is the problem Dave. How can you (or most of us) make an
informed *decision* on how Brexit might effect us if you don't know
about all the components?

Even if you look at Gridwatch (TNP can get some things right g) and
the little meters on the RHS that cover the 'interconnects' (undersea
cables) between us and the likes of France and Holland and some more
local ones as well. And we also import coal, oil, gas and uranium (not
all from EU countries but still countries that may have trade deals
with us via the EU).

Did you ever see this Dave?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dosmKwrAbI

It might answer a few questions (and dispel a few myths). ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Monday, 4 July 2016 22:57:19 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 04:53:03 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:

On Saturday, 2 July 2016 14:29:27 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
snip

And making imports more expensive. Like food. And pretty well all the
essentials. Energy and so on.

We import energy ?

See, the is the problem Dave. How can you (or most of us) make an
informed *decision* on how Brexit might effect us if you don't know
about all the components?

And of course you know all the components.
Now this energy we import does it come from the EU.
Were buying coal from Russia, shipping in uranium from Kazakhstan and piping in gas from Norway.


Even if you look at Gridwatch (TNP can get some things right g) and
the little meters on the RHS that cover the 'interconnects' (undersea
cables) between us and the likes of France and Holland and some more
local ones as well. And we also import coal, oil, gas and uranium (not
all from EU countries but still countries that may have trade deals
with us via the EU).

Did you ever see this Dave?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dosmKwrAbI

Yes twice it's been on facebook.

Have you ever read this :-

https://varoufakis.files.wordpress.c...ne-paradox.pdf



It might answer a few questions (and dispel a few myths). ;-)

Cheers, T i m

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
We import energy ?

See, the is the problem Dave. How can you (or most of us) make an
informed *decision* on how Brexit might effect us if you don't know
about all the components?

And of course you know all the components.

Does it really matter if you didn't realise we import the vast majority of
our energy? The energy factories need to make things. To keep our houses
warm. To fuel our cars. And so on.

Now this energy we import does it come from the EU. We‘re buying coal
from Russia, shipping in uranium from Kazakhstan and piping in gas from
Norway.

Does it really matter?

--
*I'd kill for a Nobel Peace Prize *

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

On Tuesday, 5 July 2016 14:49:36 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
We import energy ?

See, the is the problem Dave. How can you (or most of us) make an
informed *decision* on how Brexit might effect us if you don't know
about all the components?

And of course you know all the components.

Does it really matter if you didn't realise we import the vast majority of
our energy?

where is yuor evidence for this anyway.

The energy factories need to make things.

we don't make much do we accodring to the EU.

To keep our houses
warm. To fuel our cars. And so on.

Now this energy we import does it come from the EU. We€˜re buying coal
from Russia, shipping in uranium from Kazakhstan and piping in gas from
Norway.

Does it really matter?

it does if you're paying into a free market and paying again for the actual products.

Before the EU we were exporting energy, by 2006 we'd pretty much lost that.
But fo course germany had lots of windmills and the UK had to clean up it''s energy production.

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Does it really matter if you didn't realise we import the vast
majority of our energy?

where is yuor evidence for this anyway.

Get one of your students to show you how to use Google? And explain to you
what energy is?

--
*I'm out of my mind, but feel free to leave a message.

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

whisky-dave wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
whisky-dave wrote

We import energy ?

See, the is the problem Dave. How can you (or most of us)
make an informed *decision* on how Brexit might effect
us if you don't know about all the components?

And of course you know all the components.

Does it really matter if you didn't realise
we import the vast majority of our energy?

where is yuor evidence for this anyway.

Have a look at where all the fuel used in cars and
trucks and in electricity generation comes from.

Yes, there is some that is collected locally
using solar panels and wind turbines etc,
but that is **** all of the total energy used.

The energy factories need to make things.

we don't make much do we accodring to the EU.

To keep our houses warm. To fuel our cars. And so on.

Now this energy we import does it come from the EU.
We€˜re buying coal from Russia, shipping in uranium
from Kazakhstan and piping in gas from Norway.

Does it really matter?

it does if you're paying into a free market
and paying again for the actual products.

Before the EU we were exporting energy,

**** all of that in fact.

by 2006 we'd pretty much lost that.

Nothing to do with the EU.

But fo course germany had lots of windmills and
the UK had to clean up it''s energy production.

On Tuesday, 5 July 2016 17:42:06 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Does it really matter if you didn't realise we import the vast
majority of our energy?

where is yuor evidence for this anyway.

Get one of your students to show you how to use Google? And explain to you
what energy is?

Maybe google can explain why we were self sufficient in energy until recently remind me why we are de-commitioning our coal fired power stations .

On Monday, 4 July 2016 12:53:05 UTC+1, whisky-dave wrote:
On Saturday, 2 July 2016 14:29:27 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:

House price reductions are more likely to help the younger generation
who wanted to Remain. One day they will see why the 16-18 year olds
shouldn't get the vote.

Yes. It's only how much a house costs that matters. Being able to borrow
money to buy it - or being able to afford that loan is unimportant.

Less people can afford that now that in the past.
Even renting is difficult in that more or yuor income is needed to cover the rent, that it was years ago.

The reasons for which have nothing to do with EU membership.


NT