On 06/11/16 08:02, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1536703 20161105 111024 (Roger Hayter) wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

Since they (nearly all) belong to a Scottish party, were elected under a
ticket of remaining in the EU, and the Scottish electorate supported
this position in the referendum, I would have thought they would be one
group who could justify voting against Brexit. Although I actually
agree that it would be somewhat anti-democratic for an English MP to do
the same.

Even if his constituency clearly voted Remain, as many did?


A minority. Most *English* constituencies voted leave.


Does anyone know what the result would have been if run on the lines
of a General Election? How many constituencies voted Remain?

I really don't understand Theresa May's attitude. It seems to be
"you voted Leave and you are bloody well going to get it no matter how
much it hurts."

What an extraordinary statement.

Theresa merely is saying 'the nation voted: Its our job to implement'



--
€œit should be clear by now to everyone that activist environmentalism
(or environmental activism) is becoming a general ideology about humans,
about their freedom, about the relationship between the individual and
the state, and about the manipulation of people under the guise of a
'noble' idea. It is not an honest pursuit of 'sustainable development,'
a matter of elementary environmental protection, or a search for
rational mechanisms designed to achieve a healthy environment. Yet
things do occur that make you shake your head and remind yourself that
you live neither in Joseph Stalins Communist era, nor in the Orwellian
utopia of 1984.€�

Vaclav Klaus

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/11/16 08:02, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1536703 20161105 111024 (Roger Hayter) wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

Since they (nearly all) belong to a Scottish party, were elected under a
ticket of remaining in the EU, and the Scottish electorate supported
this position in the referendum, I would have thought they would be one
group who could justify voting against Brexit. Although I actually
agree that it would be somewhat anti-democratic for an English MP to do
the same.

Even if his constituency clearly voted Remain, as many did?


A minority. Most *English* constituencies voted leave.


Does anyone know what the result would have been if run on the lines
of a General Election? How many constituencies voted Remain?

I really don't understand Theresa May's attitude. It seems to be
"you voted Leave and you are bloody well going to get it no matter how
much it hurts."

What an extraordinary statement.

Theresa merely is saying 'the nation voted: Its our job to implement'

Her job, and that of the party of whom she is leader, is to govern the
country. That involves acting in the best interests of the country - in the
long term. What those are is open to debate, but is unlikely to be be a
full BREXIT. Remember "Boaty McBoatface".

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

Bob Martin wrote
(Roger Hayter) wrote
dennis@home wrote

I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

Since they (nearly all) belong to a Scottish party, were elected
under a ticket of remaining in the EU, and the Scottish electorate
supported this position in the referendum, I would have thought
they would be one group who could justify voting against Brexit.

They could indeed, and are unlikely to suffer electorally when they do.

Although I actually agree that it would be somewhat
anti-democratic for an English MP to do the same.

Indeed.

Even if his constituency clearly voted Remain, as many did?

Yep, because even you should have noticed that there was a referendum.

Does anyone know what the result would have been if run on the lines
of a General Election? How many constituencies voted Remain?

Not possible to know that, the constituencys didn’t actually vote.

I really don't understand Theresa May's attitude.

That's obvious.

It seems to be "you voted Leave and you are bloody
well going to get it no matter how much it hurts."

You don’t know that yet. You have no idea what she is prepared
to do as far as the conditions the EU wants is concerned.

"Bob Martin" wrote in message
...
?

I really don't understand Theresa May's attitude. It seems to be
"you voted Leave and you are bloody well going to get it no matter how
much it hurts."

Possibly her reasoning is that until it all finally goes off the
rails, of its own volition, she's likely to get fewer death threats
from frustrated remainers than from knuckle dragging brexiters.

Basically her best line might be "As you can see I did all I could
to bring it about. The reason it's all gone pear shaped is nothing
to do with me."

Rather than "Why should I pander to the prejudices of a load of ill
informed morons like you lot ?"

AIUI anyway, you'll never get very far in politics by telling the
unvarnished truth at every opportunity. And keeping schtum
is sometimes preferable to an outright lie, especially when
you're already on record as saying the exact opposite

https://www.theguardian.com/business...-goldman-sachs

Baying mobs rule and all that. Best wait til they all go home for their
dinners.

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/11/16 08:02, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1536703 20161105 111024 (Roger Hayter) wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

Since they (nearly all) belong to a Scottish party, were elected under
a
ticket of remaining in the EU, and the Scottish electorate supported
this position in the referendum, I would have thought they would be
one
group who could justify voting against Brexit. Although I actually
agree that it would be somewhat anti-democratic for an English MP to
do
the same.

Even if his constituency clearly voted Remain, as many did?


A minority. Most *English* constituencies voted leave.


Does anyone know what the result would have been if run on the lines
of a General Election? How many constituencies voted Remain?

I really don't understand Theresa May's attitude. It seems to be
"you voted Leave and you are bloody well going to get it no matter how
much it hurts."

What an extraordinary statement.

Theresa merely is saying 'the nation voted: Its our job to implement'

Her job, and that of the party of whom she is leader, is to govern the
country.

It is also to do what the voters who bothered to vote said they wanted to
happen.

Moron Watch wrote
Bob Martin wrote

I really don't understand Theresa May's attitude. It seems to be "you
voted Leave and you are bloody well going to get it no matter how much it
hurts."

Possibly her reasoning is that until it all finally goes off the
rails, of its own volition, she's likely to get fewer death threats
from frustrated remainers than from knuckle dragging brexiters.

Someone like May doesn’t give a damn about death threats.

Basically her best line might be "As you can see I did all I could to
bring it about. The reason it's all gone pear shaped is nothing to do with
me."

It isnt going to go pear shaped. The most that might
happen is a significant devaluation and some who end
up worse of with a devaluation end up a bit worse off.

And even if it does go pear shaped, she's gone anyway.

Rather than "Why should I pander to the prejudices of a load of ill
informed morons like you lot ?"

Because you will be punished by the voters if you don’t.

AIUI anyway, you'll never get very far in politics by telling the
unvarnished truth at every opportunity. And keeping schtum
is sometimes preferable to an outright lie, especially when
you're already on record as saying the exact opposite

And if it does go pear shaped, she's gone anyway, and she knows that.

https://www.theguardian.com/business...-goldman-sachs

Baying mobs rule and all that. Best wait til they all go home for their
dinners.

They wont do that on this issue.

It will either work out or it wont and if it doesn’t, May is history.

She's certainly history if she is actually stupid enough to ignore the
referendum.

Her only viable option is to do what those who bothered
to vote said they wanted to happen and see what happens.

On 06/11/16 08:28, charles wrote:
unlikely to be be a full BREXIT.

********.

WE are in the lifeboat, and we need to get it lowered FAST and start
rowing like **** before the EUtanic keels over.


--
"Corbyn talks about equality, justice, opportunity, health care, peace,
community, compassion, investment, security, housing...."
"What kind of person is not interested in those things?"

"Jeremy Corbyn?"

"charles" wrote in message
...

What those are is open to debate, but is unlikely to be be a
full BREXIT.


But as I understand it the UK will have no real say in the matter.
Basically the rest of them decide amongst themselves what to
offer and the UK either takes it or leaves it. And if the latter
then its back to square one.

According to the Doomsayers at least, if the UK leaves the
EU then the EU will most likely implode.

But if the other member states even suspect this might happen
then they're unlikely to agree terms which would enable
the UK to leave at all. At least without penalties which
would be totally crippling.

Following Article 50 being invoked the negotiations were supposed to
go on for two years, possibly with extensions. But presumably
all during this time the UK is still paying what its paying now
and accepting EU citizens. So supposing agreement can't be
reached, which seems likely given then prospect of
a feared EU collapse.

What happens then ? Can the UK just stop paying the spondoolix
and deport all the Poles without ending up in Court ?

Because if the Govt use the same barristers as they used
in the Royal Prerogative Case then things don't look to
rosy to me.

In fact it looks like War,

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 06/11/16 08:28, charles wrote:
unlikely to be be a full BREXIT.

********.

WE are in the lifeboat, and we need to get it lowered FAST and start
rowing like **** before the EUtanic keels over.

Even more of the swivelled eyed loon that usual.

Moron Watch wrote
charles wrote

What those are is open to debate, but is unlikely to be be a full
BREXIT.

But as I understand it the UK will have no real say in the matter.

On what the EU offers, sure.

Basically the rest of them decide amongst themselves what to offer and the
UK either takes it or leaves it.

Its more complicated than that with what
Britain does in response tariffs wise.

And if the latter then its back to square one.

Nope.

According to the Doomsayers at least, if the UK leaves the EU then the EU
will most likely implode.

That's not going to happen.

But if the other member states even suspect this might happen then they're
unlikely to agree terms which would enable the UK to leave at all. At
least without penalties which would be totally crippling.

There is no such animal. Even if the EU does decide
that Britain gets the same deal that all of Canada,
the USA, China, India, Australia, New Zealand etc
etc etc get, that clearly isnt is nothing even remotely
like totally crippling.

Following Article 50 being invoked the negotiations were supposed to go on
for two years,

Article 50 doesn’t say that. ALL it says is that if
there isnt an agreement in that time, all bets
are off and the leaving country just leaves.

possibly with extensions.

ONLY by MUTUAL AGREEMENT.

But presumably all during this time the UK is still paying what its paying
now and accepting EU citizens.

Yes, but there is nothing the EU can do if Britain stops doing that.

So supposing agreement can't be reached, which seems likely given then
prospect of a feared EU collapse.

What happens then ?

Britain leaves.

Can the UK just stop paying the spondoolix

Yep.

and deport all the Poles without ending up in Court ?

Yep.

Because if the Govt use the same barristers as they used in the Royal
Prerogative Case then things don't look to rosy to me.

Then you need new glasses, BAD.

In fact it looks like War,

Even sillier than you usually manage.

The EU has sweet **** all in the way of troops, and
NATO isnt going to allow any war. And Britain has
Trident and even the most stupid frog knows that.

The krauts don’t even have any nukes.

There will be no war, you watch.

Even if the EU does implode after Britain
leaves, the EU gets to like that or lump it.

But that isnt going to happen, it did fine
before Britain joined.

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 00:13 6 Nov 2016, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
pamela wrote:
It looks as if our negotiating position with the EU will be
made weaker by public debates about our stance in Parliament.
Bad though that is it's still not a sufficient reason to deny
Parliament and the people it represents their rights.

I really don't see how. As soon as real negotiations start on
any new deal with the EU, it'll be public anyway.


I was taught to determine three positions before starting a formal
negotiation: what you would LIKE to get, would you INTEND to get and
what you MUST get. You open with your LIKE position and walk away if
you can't get your MUST position.

Parliamentary debate would probably establish the MUST position but
it woul dbe done publicly. If that's known to the other party then
they can completely ignore proposals in your opening LIKE position.

On the other hand, having your MUST position known can be a strength
if the other party wants a deal and accepts it can't push you beyond
your MUST position. Unfotunately I don't think the EU wants a deal
as much as we do.

Corse they don’t, because that would encourage others to leave.

But Britain will do fine out of the EU even if the EU agrees to nothing.

In article ,
pamela wrote:
On 23:43 4 Nov 2016, bert wrote:

In article , Bob Martin
writes
in 1536085 20161103 150505 whisky-dave
wrote:
On Thursday, 3 November 2016 14:54:13 UTC, Bob Minchin wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
On 03/11/2016 14:22, NY wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
news:581b452d$0$23950$b1db1813
..
.
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

I imagine the Scottish MPs will vote Remain. But could
they influence the result? Depends whether other MPs vote
along party lines. If so, a=
nd
if the government's "official" line is Leave then the
government has a significant majority.

The problem starts if a high proportion of government
(Conservative) M=
Ps
vote Remain...

What would happen if the public at large have voted (by a
narrow margi=
n)
to Leave but a majority of MPs vote Remain? That would be
an interesti=
ng
constitutional quandary - whose view should prevail: that
of the MPs o=
r
that of the public at large? I foresee a lot of discontent
if the public's views are superseded by the MPs' views.

More than there already is about brexit?
I doubt it somehow.

Maybe they should redraft the referendum so it is legal and
do it again=
?

Was it a case of the referendum not being drafted properly in
order to be legally binding or is it that the results of all
referendums are not=
=20
legally binding but just serve to inform the guvmint of the
views of the people that take part?
Genuinely don't know on this one.

At the time I thought most knew that it was advisory and if the
guvmint wan= ted to go against the peoples vote they could, as
the vote was only advisor= y to the guvmint of what *voters*
wanted, but how would that look in a so = called democratic
country might look a bit odd to say the least.

Not the differnce between what a country wants and what the
voters are allo= wed to vote for i.e no abstentions or vetoing
for the general public.

So it seems the vote was either for the guvmint or against the
guvmint which is what I think happened.

If the guvmint gave us what the public wanted there would be no
taxes and the death penalty would come back.
We elect representatives who we trust to do the right thing for
everyone.

And those representatives decided to hold a referendum

Those representative will now decide what to do with the response
from the referendum.

but - we don't elect representatives.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On 06/11/16 09:23, Moron Watch wrote:
"charles" wrote in message
...

What those are is open to debate, but is unlikely to be be a
full BREXIT.


But as I understand it the UK will have no real say in the matter.
Basically the rest of them decide amongst themselves what to
offer and the UK either takes it or leaves it. And if the latter
then its back to square one.

According to the Doomsayers at least, if the UK leaves the
EU then the EU will most likely implode.

But if the other member states even suspect this might happen
then they're unlikely to agree terms which would enable
the UK to leave at all. At least without penalties which
would be totally crippling.


They do not have the power.

Large numbers of Europeans would rather see the EU implode than **** all
over a Britain that is a major trading partner. Even if they could.

What should the EU do? Ban all imports from the UK?

And have the UK do the same?





Following Article 50 being invoked the negotiations were supposed to
go on for two years, possibly with extensions.

No. *up* to two years after which its a hard brexit anyway.

But presumably
all during this time the UK is still paying what its paying now
and accepting EU citizens. So supposing agreement can't be
reached, which seems likely given then prospect of
a feared EU collapse.

What happens then ? Can the UK just stop paying the spondoolix
and deport all the Poles without ending up in Court ?


Absolutely. Repealing the original Act that made us part of the EEC will
automagically revoke our membership and create a hard exit anyway.

Arguably the decision to take us in was *ultra vires* of the government
of the time. There is a case that joining the EEC was an act of treason
by Grocer Heath.

In which case we never actually joined.

Because if the Govt use the same barristers as they used
in the Royal Prerogative Case then things don't look to
rosy to me.

In fact it looks like War,

Will the Remoaners risk civil war imposing their minority view on the
population?


Or will there be ab outbreak of common sense and a bill gets passed
authorising article 50?







--
"I am inclined to tell the truth and dislike people who lie consistently.
This makes me unfit for the company of people of a Left persuasion, and
all women"

On 06/11/16 09:28, Hankat wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 06/11/16 08:28, charles wrote:
unlikely to be be a full BREXIT.

********.

WE are in the lifeboat, and we need to get it lowered FAST and start
rowing like **** before the EUtanic keels over.

Even more of the swivelled eyed loon that usual.

Watch and see. The swivel eyed loons are those that Believe in the EU...



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

Josef Stalin

In article ,
charles wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/11/16 08:02, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1536703 20161105 111024 (Roger Hayter) wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

Since they (nearly all) belong to a Scottish party, were elected
under a ticket of remaining in the EU, and the Scottish electorate
supported this position in the referendum, I would have thought
they would be one group who could justify voting against Brexit.
Although I actually agree that it would be somewhat anti-democratic
for an English MP to do the same.

Even if his constituency clearly voted Remain, as many did?


A minority. Most *English* constituencies voted leave.


Does anyone know what the result would have been if run on the lines
of a General Election? How many constituencies voted Remain?

I really don't understand Theresa May's attitude. It seems to be
"you voted Leave and you are bloody well going to get it no matter
how much it hurts."

What an extraordinary statement.

Theresa merely is saying 'the nation voted: Its our job to implement'

Her job, and that of the party of whom she is leader, is to govern the
country. That involves acting in the best interests of the country - in
the long term. What those are is open to debate, but is unlikely to be
be a full BREXIT. Remember "Boaty McBoatface".

Very true. ;-) For those who think the great public can't make a silly
decision.

It is her job to make 'proposals' which are then voted on by parliament.
Even more so with something as important as this.

--
*42.7% of statistics are made up. Sorry, that should read 47.2% *

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

In article ,
Moron Watch wrote:

"charles" wrote in message
...

What those are is open to debate, but is unlikely to be be a
full BREXIT.


But as I understand it the UK will have no real say in the matter.
Basically the rest of them decide amongst themselves what to
offer and the UK either takes it or leaves it. And if the latter
then its back to square one.

Some form of trade deal between the EU and UK will be beneficial to both.
Same as any trade deal. The difficulty is negotiating one which suits both
sides. It takes time - as is proved by the Canadian one with the EU.

According to the Doomsayers at least, if the UK leaves the
EU then the EU will most likely implode.

More likely because of Euro sceptics in other EU countries.

But if the other member states even suspect this might happen
then they're unlikely to agree terms which would enable
the UK to leave at all. At least without penalties which
would be totally crippling.

They can't stop the UK leaving. But there is no obligation on the EU's
part to enter any form of deal after the UK leaves. That is the crux of
the matter.

Following Article 50 being invoked the negotiations were supposed to
go on for two years, possibly with extensions. But presumably
all during this time the UK is still paying what its paying now
and accepting EU citizens. So supposing agreement can't be
reached, which seems likely given then prospect of
a feared EU collapse.

Yes - the UK is still a member until after those two years. But won't have
much say in EU matters. Some influential politicians in the EU have said
there will be no negotiations on any new deal until *after* the UK has
left.

What happens then ? Can the UK just stop paying the spondoolix
and deport all the Poles without ending up in Court ?

Only if they don't mind being seen to break a treaty they signed willingly.
Which would make any other sensible country very wary about entering any
deal with us in the future.

Because if the Govt use the same barristers as they used
in the Royal Prerogative Case then things don't look to
rosy to me.

Be interesting to see how the appeal goes. Although it looks pretty
straightforward here as to the Royal prerogative.

In fact it looks like War,

What is certain is many on here will be dead and buried before this mess
gets sorted.

--
*Many people quit looking for work when they find a job *

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

In article ,
pamela wrote:
On 00:13 6 Nov 2016, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
pamela wrote:
It looks as if our negotiating position with the EU will be
made weaker by public debates about our stance in Parliament.
Bad though that is it's still not a sufficient reason to deny
Parliament and the people it represents their rights.

I really don't see how. As soon as real negotiations start on
any new deal with the EU, it'll be public anyway.


I was taught to determine three positions before starting a formal
negotiation: what you would LIKE to get, would you INTEND to get and
what you MUST get. You open with your LIKE position and walk away if
you can't get your MUST position.

Sort of.

Parliamentary debate would probably establish the MUST position but
it woul dbe done publicly. If that's known to the other party then
they can completely ignore proposals in your opening LIKE position.

On the other hand, having your MUST position known can be a strength
if the other party wants a deal and accepts it can't push you beyond
your MUST position.

But you're forgetting we will also know what the EU wants.


Unfotunately I don't think the EU wants a deal
as much as we do.

It does - but likely for different things. They basically sell more goods
to us than we do to them. So a pure trade deal would be in their favour.
When it comes to services, the position is reversed. But then, many
services are based in the UK (London) because we have unfettered access to
the EU.

--
*Can atheists get insurance for acts of God? *

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

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
pamela wrote:
On 00:13 6 Nov 2016, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
pamela wrote:
It looks as if our negotiating position with the EU will be
made weaker by public debates about our stance in Parliament.
Bad though that is it's still not a sufficient reason to deny
Parliament and the people it represents their rights.

I really don't see how. As soon as real negotiations start on
any new deal with the EU, it'll be public anyway.


I was taught to determine three positions before starting a formal
negotiation: what you would LIKE to get, would you INTEND to get and
what you MUST get. You open with your LIKE position and walk away if
you can't get your MUST position.

Sort of.

Parliamentary debate would probably establish the MUST position but
it woul dbe done publicly. If that's known to the other party then
they can completely ignore proposals in your opening LIKE position.

On the other hand, having your MUST position known can be a strength
if the other party wants a deal and accepts it can't push you beyond
your MUST position.

But you're forgetting we will also know what the EU wants.


Unfotunately I don't think the EU wants a deal
as much as we do.

It does - but likely for different things. They basically sell more goods
to us than we do to them. So a pure trade deal would be in their favour.
When it comes to services, the position is reversed. But then, many
services are based in the UK (London) because we have unfettered access to
the EU.

and, of course, it's these service that give the UK a positive Balance of
Payments. Once they leave, how does the country pay its way?

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

In article ,
pamela wrote:
On 11:10 5 Nov 2016, Roger Hayter wrote:

That is a very big political quandary, but not in the least a
constitutional one. There is absolutely no doubt that
Parliament is sovereign and can overrule either the Government,
the Courts or a referendum.

That said, it would be a bit of a political disaster unless
immediately followed by a general election.

Some Brexiteers were so jubilant that they worked themselves up into
a frenzy in which they believed all their demands were now going to
be met - no matter how irrational, unlawful or unconstitutional.

Mainly because of the outright lies or implied 'benefits' from the likes
of Farage. A vast number of UKIP supporters after being wound up by him
believed all EU immigrants would be deported soon after the referendum.
As that is exactly what they wanted - and he was very careful never to
actually say this wouldn't happen.

They're being brought back to earth.

Anyone else could see it had all got a bit out of hand and needed a
reality check.

--
*Speak softly and carry a cellular phone *

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

In article ,
charles wrote:
It does - but likely for different things. They basically sell more
goods to us than we do to them. So a pure trade deal would be in their
favour. When it comes to services, the position is reversed. But then,
many services are based in the UK (London) because we have unfettered
access to the EU.

and, of course, it's these service that give the UK a positive Balance of
Payments. Once they leave, how does the country pay its way?

The economy appears to be of no concern to BREXITEERS. After all, they
were warned by those actually in charge of it what was likely to happen.
But didn't believe experts as they are not always right.

Of course, not even experts can fully predict things about the economy.
So an optimist will just keep his head firmly in the sand.

--
*There are 3 kinds of people: those who can count & those who can't.

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

On 06/11/16 11:55, charles wrote:
and, of course, it's these service that give the UK a positive Balance of
Payments.

No.

Once they leave, how does the country pay its way?

Oh dear.

You've swallowed the ******** hook line and sinker, haven't you?



--
"I guess a rattlesnake ain't risponsible fer bein' a rattlesnake, but ah
puts mah heel on um jess the same if'n I catches him around mah chillun".

In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 06/11/16 11:55, charles wrote:
and, of course, it's these service that give the UK a positive Balance
of Payments.

No.

Once they leave, how does the country pay its way?

Oh dear.

You've swallowed the ******** hook line and sinker, haven't you?

and your proper answer is?

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On 06/11/2016 10:04, pamela wrote:


It's now time for the adults in the room to take control of the
situation. That's where Parliament comes in.


Is this the same group of MPs who played their childish games during the
referendum debate?

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

pamela wrote:

On 12:28 6 Nov 2016, charles wrote:

In article , The Natural
Philosopher wrote:
On 06/11/16 11:55, charles wrote:
and, of course, it's these service that give the UK a
positive Balance of Payments.

No.

Once they leave, how does the country pay its way?

Oh dear.

You've swallowed the ******** hook line and sinker, haven't
you?

and your proper answer is?

Get your sick-bag reader in case Turnip can projectile vomits some
philosophy.

Maybe he'll profer some mumbo jumbo like Spinoza's position on
knowledge defined as justified true belief. lol

I think it is actually impossible to discuss a topic like the evidence
for harmful global warming[1] with an intelligent layman[2] without
digressing into the philosphy of science, and perhaps philosophy more
widely.

[1] though actually I just believe the received opinion because I have
never bothered to look at the evidence myself; and I don't really care
what the answer is. But in default of examining the evidence I take the
same position as I do with physics, believe the scientific consensus.

[2] One of the hazards of democracy is that the unintelligent are also
allowed to have an opinion, but there is no great point discussing
anything with them.

Objecting to the discussion of philosophy sounds like a purely ad
hominem argument - it is hard to see any harm in it.


--

Roger Hayter

"pamela" wrote in message
...


I was taught to determine three positions before starting a formal
negotiation:

You appear to be overlooking one important thing.

All the Eurocrats who've been asked the question, have all
agreed on one thing. That in accordance with the provisions
of the Lisbon Treaty, there can be no negotiations prior
to Article 50 being invoked. And then only with the EU as
a whole. As in the recent case with Canada.

Given which, quite what MP's Parliament are supposed to be
discussing is a moot point.

Basically as things stand May can't give any assurances at
all to Parliament as to what might happen after invoking
article 50. As that's solely in the hands of the EU.

And they've all made it more than plain that its not in their
interests to help her, or the UK out.

I think this point is being rather overlooked. To put it mildly.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


There is a case that joining the EEC was an act of treason by Grocer Heath.

Makes a change from him being labelled a peodophile I suppose.

So did this act of treachery take place after he was supposed to have
been murdering rent boys in Dolphin Square or before, do you know ?

In any case you seem to have forgotten that hated Lefty Labour Prime Minister
Harold Wilson gave the people a referendum on UK membership.

Funny how your memory plays you tricks when it suits you, isn't it ?

Just as it was hated Lefty supposedly incompetent Labour Chancellor
Gordon Brown who was alone responsible for keeping the UK out of the Euro.

Quite how you and your chums think the UK would have coped, if in addition she
had to scrap Euros and presumably introduce Pounds again - new banknotes
new coins and a new exchange rate on a par with the Zimbabwe Dollar
is anyone's guess.

Funny how your memory plays you tricks when it suits you, isn't it ?

On 06/11/16 14:06, Moron Watch wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


There is a case that joining the EEC was an act of treason by Grocer Heath.

Makes a change from him being labelled a peodophile I suppose.

So did this act of treachery take place after he was supposed to have
been murdering rent boys in Dolphin Square or before, do you know ?

In any case you seem to have forgotten that hated Lefty Labour Prime Minister
Harold Wilson gave the people a referendum on UK membership.

Funny how your memory plays you tricks when it suits you, isn't it ?

Just as it was hated Lefty supposedly incompetent Labour Chancellor
Gordon Brown who was alone responsible for keeping the UK out of the Euro.

Quite how you and your chums think the UK would have coped, if in addition she
had to scrap Euros and presumably introduce Pounds again - new banknotes
new coins and a new exchange rate on a par with the Zimbabwe Dollar
is anyone's guess.

Funny how your memory plays you tricks when it suits you, isn't it ?



I don't know what you are talking about.

Straw men flying from your fingertips it seems.

Along with the spittle from your mouth..








--
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
foolish, and by the rulers as useful.

(Seneca the Younger, 65 AD)

On 06/11/16 12:28, charles wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 06/11/16 11:55, charles wrote:
and, of course, it's these service that give the UK a positive Balance
of Payments.

No.

Once they leave, how does the country pay its way?

Oh dear.

You've swallowed the ******** hook line and sinker, haven't you?

and your proper answer is?

They wont leave.


--
"I guess a rattlesnake ain't risponsible fer bein' a rattlesnake, but ah
puts mah heel on um jess the same if'n I catches him around mah chillun".

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 06/11/16 14:06, Moron Watch wrote:


There is a case that joining the EEC was an act of treason by Grocer Heath.

In any case you seem to have forgotten that hated Lefty Labour Prime Minister
Harold Wilson gave the people a referendum on UK membership.

I don't know what you are talking about.

Well if you regard Heath as a traitor for taking the UK into the EEC then you should
regard Harold Wilson as a hero for giving the British people the chance to
undo Heath's treachery in 1975

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United... erendum,_1975.

Or maybe you were still in school at the time and so took no interest in such things.

Straw men flying from your fingertips it seems.

Along with the spittle from your mouth..

Which I believe is what is normally referred to as an "ad hominem"

On 06/11/16 15:50, Moron Watch wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 06/11/16 14:06, Moron Watch wrote:


There is a case that joining the EEC was an act of treason by Grocer Heath.

In any case you seem to have forgotten that hated Lefty Labour Prime Minister
Harold Wilson gave the people a referendum on UK membership.

I don't know what you are talking about.

Well if you regard Heath as a traitor for taking the UK into the EEC then you should
regard Harold Wilson as a hero for giving the British people the chance to
undo Heath's treachery in 1975

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United... erendum,_1975.


Extraordinary. I fail utterly to see what point you are making.

All I was pointing out is that we may not be legally IN the EU.

Or maybe you were still in school at the time and so took no interest in such things.

Straw men flying from your fingertips it seems.

Along with the spittle from your mouth..

Which I believe is what is normally referred to as an "ad hominem"


No, normally 'gob', or 'spittle'.




--
"Corbyn talks about equality, justice, opportunity, health care, peace,
community, compassion, investment, security, housing...."
"What kind of person is not interested in those things?"

"Jeremy Corbyn?"

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United... erendum,_1975.


Extraordinary. I fail utterly to see what point you are making.

All I was pointing out is that we may not be legally IN the EU.

" The European Communities Bill was then introduced in the House of Commons to give
parliamentary

assent to Britain's membership of the EEC. Although the bill itself consisted of only 12
clauses

(accepting all previous EEC regulations, the Treaty of Rome, and the terms of entry), it
was

subject to some 300 hours of debate before becoming law.

Britain's membership of what was then primarily an economic union came into effect on 1
January

1973."



http://www.parliament.uk/about/livin...erview/europe/


If 300 hours of parliamentary debate and the successful passage of the Bill through both
Houses
of the Westminster Parliament don't constitute legality then its difficult to see what
does.

I notice you say "we" there. Whereas your very sketch grasp of British History and
Constitutional
Matters might suggest to some people that you might be an American attempting to pass
yourself
off as British.

A not uncommon phenomenon unfortunately.









Or maybe you were still in school at the time and so took no interest in such things.

Straw men flying from your fingertips it seems.

Along with the spittle from your mouth..

Which I believe is what is normally referred to as an "ad hominem"


No, normally 'gob', or 'spittle'.




--
"Corbyn talks about equality, justice, opportunity, health care, peace, community,
compassion, investment, security, housing...."
"What kind of person is not interested in those things?"

"Jeremy Corbyn?"

On 06/11/16 16:47, Moron Watch wrote:
I notice you say "we" there. Whereas your very sketch grasp of British History and
Constitutional
Matters might suggest to some people that you might be an American attempting to pass
yourself

Oh dear.

Oh dear oh dear.

WE is 'te United Kingd9onm'

Parliament did not have powers to put us into the EU, irrespective of
debate. Parliament cannot relinquish sovereignty.

Entering the EU was ultra vires for parliament.


Your grasp of the UK constitution and history suggests....

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

Margaret Thatcher

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 15:30 5 Nov 2016, alan_m wrote:

On 04/11/2016 12:06, Moron Watch wrote:

Don't say you haven't been warned.

Even those who instigated project fear don't believe it still
works.


The real Project Fear was the conspiracy theory which falsely
claimed that Johnny Foreigner had taken over our lawmaking, was
forcing us to pay lots of money and was making us to take
immigrants. Also, expert financial opinions were part of a plot
and could be safely ignored.

This turned into Project False Promise (also known as Brexit)
which said vote to leave the EU and all this will be sorted out
without too much trouble.

It's now time for the adults in the room to take control of the situation.

Mindlessly superficial.

That's where Parliament comes in.

And you seriously are claiming that the likes of Boris, Gove, May etc are
that ?

Completely off with the ****ing fairys, as always.

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
pamela wrote:
On 00:13 6 Nov 2016, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
pamela wrote:
It looks as if our negotiating position with the EU will be
made weaker by public debates about our stance in Parliament.
Bad though that is it's still not a sufficient reason to deny
Parliament and the people it represents their rights.

I really don't see how. As soon as real negotiations start on
any new deal with the EU, it'll be public anyway.


I was taught to determine three positions before starting a formal
negotiation: what you would LIKE to get, would you INTEND to get and
what you MUST get. You open with your LIKE position and walk away if
you can't get your MUST position.

Sort of.

Parliamentary debate would probably establish the MUST position but
it woul dbe done publicly. If that's known to the other party then
they can completely ignore proposals in your opening LIKE position.

On the other hand, having your MUST position known can be a strength
if the other party wants a deal and accepts it can't push you beyond
your MUST position.

But you're forgetting we will also know what the EU wants.


Unfotunately I don't think the EU wants a deal
as much as we do.

It does - but likely for different things. They basically sell more goods
to us than we do to them. So a pure trade deal would be in their favour.
When it comes to services, the position is reversed. But then, many
services are based in the UK (London) because we have unfettered access
to
the EU.

and, of course, it's these service that give the UK a positive Balance
of Payments. Once they leave, how does the country pay its way?

By continuing to supply those services, you watch.

And doing rather better out of them because of the effective devaluation
too.

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 11:43 6 Nov 2016, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
pamela wrote:
On 00:13 6 Nov 2016, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
pamela wrote:
It looks as if our negotiating position with the EU will be
made weaker by public debates about our stance in
Parliament. Bad though that is it's still not a sufficient
reason to deny Parliament and the people it represents their
rights.

I really don't see how. As soon as real negotiations start on
any new deal with the EU, it'll be public anyway.


I was taught to determine three positions before starting a
formal negotiation: what you would LIKE to get, would you
INTEND to get and what you MUST get. You open with your LIKE
position and walk away if you can't get your MUST position.

Sort of.

Parliamentary debate would probably establish the MUST position
but it woul dbe done publicly. If that's known to the other
party then they can completely ignore proposals in your opening
LIKE position.

On the other hand, having your MUST position known can be a
strength if the other party wants a deal and accepts it can't
push you beyond your MUST position.

But you're forgetting we will also know what the EU wants.

Unfotunately I don't think the EU wants a deal
as much as we do.

It does - but likely for different things. They basically sell
more goods to us than we do to them. So a pure trade deal would
be in their favour. When it comes to services, the position is
reversed. But then, many services are based in the UK (London)
because we have unfettered access to the EU.

It's probably not quite so simple because we don't know what they
want from us.

Yes we do, the stupid result Switzerland got. They got all the
**** that staying in the EU produces but no say at all on policy.

I was also taught that in a simple two-sided
negotiation there are four important points of view.

Doesn’t matter what you were taught, what matters
is how feasible this stuff is in the current situation.

Your perception about your own strengths.
Their perception of your own strengths.
Your perception about their strengths.
Their perception about their strengths.

Usual simplistic silly stuff. Just not feasible in this situation.

These perceptions (none of which may actually be correct) will
change where you place your LIKE, INTEND, MUST positions.

Again, just more simplistic silly stuff. The real world doesn’t
work like that with the sort of negotiation we are talking
about. The reality is that the majority of the voters who
bothered to vote have said that Britain should leave and
the EU has decided that they don’t want that to happen.

Unfortunately the perceptions of Brexiteers about our strengths
and those of the EU seem be founded on their referendum
bravado. However we are now back in the real world.

Remoan, remoan, remoan.

On 06/11/2016 17:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Parliament did not have powers to put us into the EU, irrespective of
debate. Parliament cannot relinquish sovereignty.

Of course it can, the government can't but parliament can.

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 14:03 6 Nov 2016, Moron Watch wrote:


"pamela" wrote in message
...


I was taught to determine three positions before starting a
formal negotiation:

You appear to be overlooking one important thing.

All the Eurocrats who've been asked the question, have all
agreed on one thing. That in accordance with the provisions of
the Lisbon Treaty, there can be no negotiations prior to Article
50 being invoked. And then only with the EU as a whole. As in
the recent case with Canada.

Given which, quite what MP's Parliament are supposed to be
discussing is a moot point.

Parliament probably wants to discuss what Britain's opening
proposals to the EU should be. As you say, it's for use a much
later time.

Basically as things stand May can't give any assurances at all
to Parliament as to what might happen after invoking article 50.
As that's solely in the hands of the EU.

And they've all made it more than plain that its not in their
interests to help her, or the UK out.

I think this point is being rather overlooked. To put it mildly.

I ownder how much has been learned from watching the way the EU
handled Grexit.

Nothing, they were in very deep economic **** indeed
and needed be bailed out. Britain isnt and doesn’t.

Admittedly the parties were different, the stakes were different
and the desired outcomes were different. However the Grexit
posturing, the public statements, the private agreements, the
duplicity, the reneging, the recourse to a referendum might
be of interest to the UK to avoid the same pitfalls.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

In article ,
Moron Watch wrote:

"pamela" wrote in message
...


I was taught to determine three positions before starting a formal
negotiation:

You appear to be overlooking one important thing.

All the Eurocrats who've been asked the question, have all
agreed on one thing. That in accordance with the provisions
of the Lisbon Treaty, there can be no negotiations prior
to Article 50 being invoked. And then only with the EU as
a whole. As in the recent case with Canada.

Given which, quite what MP's Parliament are supposed to be
discussing is a moot point.

BREXIT means BREXIT, for a start. Parliament has to decide what, if any.
relationship we have with the EU after leaving. The options are numerous.
And far too important to be left to ****s like Boris. Who changes his mind
overnight. Sadly, not for a better one.

Individual MPs - even cabinet ministers - are far too easily influenced by
pressure groups, etc. I'm hoping the same doesn't apply to parliament.

Basically as things stand May can't give any assurances at
all to Parliament as to what might happen after invoking
article 50. As that's solely in the hands of the EU.

No. But nothing wrong in having objectives.

And they've all made it more than plain that its not in their
interests to help her, or the UK out.

Certainly not if we expect much the same deal as we had when in the EU -
but without any of the 'downsides'.

I think this point is being rather overlooked. To put it mildly.

As with about everything else. It is a mess that will take many years to
resolve.


--
*Horn broken. - Watch for finger.

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

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 06/11/16 16:47, Moron Watch wrote:
I notice you say "we" there. Whereas your very sketch grasp of British
History and
Constitutional
Matters might suggest to some people that you might be an American
attempting to pass
yourself

Oh dear.

Oh dear oh dear.

WE is 'te United Kingd9onm'

Parliament did not have powers to put us into the EU, irrespective of
debate. Parliament cannot relinquish sovereignty.

Entering the EU was ultra vires for parliament.

Swivelled eyed loon ever day now.

Still havent noticed the tanks coming thru the chunnel as you promised us
yet.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Parliament cannot relinquish sovereignty.

Which presumably renders the Act of Union of 1707 enabled by the
"Union with England Act" passed in 1707 by the Parliament of Scotland,

Along with the Act of Union of 1800 enabled by the 'Act for the Union of Great
Britain and Ireland' passed in 1800 by the Irish Parliament both equally invalid then ?

Or didn't that crackpot website where you boned up on your British History go
back quite that far ?