On 21/05/17 12:30, James Harris wrote:

The thing is this ain't the 19th century.

Then why do you keep using 19th century terms like "do tell" and "pray
tell"...?

Because the only 19th century thing left apart from London's sewers is
the Labour party and its supporters...?

Both designed to spew enormous amounts of ****.

--
The New Left are the people they warned you about.

In article ,
James Harris wrote:
On 21/05/2017 11:16, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
James Harris wrote:
The whole basis of the leave campaign was the gamble we could have
our cake and eat it. Sensible people know gamblers always lose.

I don't see that. When we were in, and the EU wanted to change its
model to something more political and less prosperous, Britain tried
to persuade them out of it.

The EU want themselves to be less prosperous? Do tell.

They don't /want/ to make themselves less prosperous but they have been
very clear that they want a Brexit deal with that effect. Their pet
project always comes above prosperity.

Another Brexiteer who knows the EU intimately. Better than even they do,
apparently.

They are very obviously not going to give the UK what they tried to
negotiate as a member after they have left. And certainly not better terms
than any other country that has an agreement with the EU - they'd be
totally mad to do so, as it would open the floodgates.


They said: You cannot be in and not come with us on our journey. When
we resisted they said you cannot have your cake and eat it.

The UK was only ever interested in itself. Nothing wrong with that -
provided it doesn't become a 'them and us' game. Which is the way the
majority of the meja played it for many a year.

But now we are leaving. We don't want their mouldy old cake. We'll
agree a trade deal if they want, and we'll be completely outside. No
cake. No eating it. No cherries. No picking. Outside. With a trade
relationship just like other independent nations.

Pray tell of one of those 'independent nations' that have a trade deal
with the EU?

I don't know what you are asking.

I keep on asking about all these large countries round the world who are
free to do a deal with the UK. To replace the EU in terms of trade and
services income to the UK. If they are already in a trade deal with
another country or countries, that deal could well be in conflict with a
new deal to the UK.

The thing is this ain't the 19th century.

Then why do you keep using 19th century terms like "do tell" and "pray
tell"...?

That the best you can do?

Trade agreements between the various countries are already mature.
Which is why trying to set up an additional one - like say between the
US and EU - is extremely difficult and takes ages. Because one
agreement can effect another.

What we have done is akin to leaving a well paid job on a whim. Saying it
will be easy to get another. Only a fool does that.

And notice you have absolutely no answer to this point. Typical head in
the clouds Brexiteer.

--
*And don't start a sentence with a conjunction *

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

On 21/05/2017 14:00, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
James Harris wrote:
On 21/05/2017 11:16, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
James Harris wrote:
The whole basis of the leave campaign was the gamble we could have
our cake and eat it. Sensible people know gamblers always lose.

I don't see that. When we were in, and the EU wanted to change its
model to something more political and less prosperous, Britain tried
to persuade them out of it.

The EU want themselves to be less prosperous? Do tell.

They don't /want/ to make themselves less prosperous but they have been
very clear that they want a Brexit deal with that effect. Their pet
project always comes above prosperity.

Another Brexiteer who knows the EU intimately. Better than even they do,
apparently.

That is a bizarre assertion given what they have said. You should trust
them more.


They are very obviously not going to give the UK what they tried to
negotiate as a member after they have left. And certainly not better terms
than any other country that has an agreement with the EU - they'd be
totally mad to do so, as it would open the floodgates.

What they want is to restrict free trade to those who help support their
desire for ever-closer union. That is the point of the single market and
always has been. Only those who accept the idea of Europe eventually
becoming a single country are allowed to play in the single market
playground. But that doesn't help the economy or prosperity of Europe.



They said: You cannot be in and not come with us on our journey. When
we resisted they said you cannot have your cake and eat it.

The UK was only ever interested in itself. Nothing wrong with that -
provided it doesn't become a 'them and us' game. Which is the way the
majority of the meja played it for many a year.

But now we are leaving. We don't want their mouldy old cake. We'll
agree a trade deal if they want, and we'll be completely outside. No
cake. No eating it. No cherries. No picking. Outside. With a trade
relationship just like other independent nations.

Pray tell of one of those 'independent nations' that have a trade deal
with the EU?

I don't know what you are asking.

I keep on asking about all these large countries round the world who are
free to do a deal with the UK.

With you so far.

To replace the EU in terms of trade and
services income to the UK. If they are already in a trade deal with
another country or countries, that deal could well be in conflict with a
new deal to the UK.

I'm struggling to understand that lot. What are you talking about re
replacement and conflict?

If it helps, IMO there are these categories of potential trading
partners for the UK.

1. Countries we already have an EU agreement with.
2. Countries with no EU agreement who use WTO terms.

We would want to continue existing trade with Type 1 countries and
possibly improve such deals by making them tailored to us and them. Some
of them have already indicated their desire to do so.

We would want to develop new trade deals with Type 2 countries. Some of
them are already in talks.

How do your concerns fit into that?


The thing is this ain't the 19th century.

Then why do you keep using 19th century terms like "do tell" and "pray
tell"...?

That the best you can do?

I'm quite happy to reflect nonsense back to you when you choose to
descend to it.


Trade agreements between the various countries are already mature.
Which is why trying to set up an additional one - like say between the
US and EU - is extremely difficult and takes ages. Because one
agreement can effect another.

What we have done is akin to leaving a well paid job on a whim. Saying it
will be easy to get another. Only a fool does that.

And notice you have absolutely no answer to this point. Typical head in
the clouds Brexiteer.

You didn't ask any question. What was there to answer? Nothing.

What causes your continual reversion to little digs and insults? Does it
make you feel better in some way?


--
James Harris

"James Harris" wrote in message
news
On 21/05/2017 11:16, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
James Harris wrote:
The whole basis of the leave campaign was the gamble we could have our
cake and eat it. Sensible people know gamblers always lose.

I don't see that. When we were in, and the EU wanted to change its model
to something more political and less prosperous, Britain tried to
persuade them out of it.

The EU want themselves to be less prosperous? Do tell.

They don't /want/ to make themselves less prosperous but they have been
very clear that they want a Brexit deal with that effect.

Thats very arguable. Yes, if a net contributor to the EU budget
stops being a net contributor to the EU budget or contributes
less to the EU budget, that will arguably see a less prosperous
EU unless that net contribution is ****ed against the wall on
useless stuff that never gets used like has happened with some
of the **** the EU has chosen to pay for.

But it isnt even clear that the EU does want a BRexit which
sees Britain end up paying less to the EU than it does now.

Not that even May would actually be stupid enough to agree to that.

Their pet project always comes above prosperity.

Yes, otherwise they wouldnt keep letting the dregs of eastern
europe keep joining the EU as long as they toe the line on EU
policy and agree to the free movement of goods and people
and sign up for the euro and let the EU decide their policy
and move to ever closer integration.

And its hardly surprising that net recipients of EU
largess keep signing up for that and the freedom
of their people to go anywhere they like in the EU.

They said: You cannot be in and not come with
us on our journey. When we resisted they said you cannot have your cake
and eat it.

The UK was only ever interested in itself. Nothing wrong with that -
provided it doesn't become a 'them and us' game. Which is the way the
majority of the meja played it for many a year.

But now we are leaving. We don't want their mouldy old cake. We'll agree
a trade deal if they want, and we'll be completely outside. No cake. No
eating it. No cherries. No picking. Outside. With a trade relationship
just like other independent nations.

Pray tell of one of those 'independent nations' that have a trade deal
with the EU?

I don't know what you are asking.

He's asking which countrys outside the EU have a trade deal with the EU.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...ade_agreements

The thing is this ain't the 19th century.

Then why do you keep using 19th century terms like "do tell" and "pray
tell"...?

And there was nothing like the EEC or EU in the 19th century anyway.

Trade agreements between the
various countries are already mature. Which is why trying to set up an
additional one - like say between the US and EU - is extremely difficult
and takes ages. Because one agreement can effect another.

What we have done is akin to leaving a well paid job on a whim. Saying it
will be easy to get another. Only a fool does that.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Handsome Jack wrote:
But I thought mass immigration was good for a country's economy,
bringing a vibrant and flexible new workforce that invariably
contributes more to the public finances than it takes out?

You plainly don't understand the difference between EU workers (and
others) coming here to work, and those fleeing oppression.

But no surprise there.

But I'd have thought even you might have noticed the numbers of refugees
the UK has taken in is tiny.

Certainly the number taken in personally by those who held up "Refugees
welcome here" is low.

Just the sort of comment I'd expect from you, sadly.

I hope you enjoy the splendid isolation from the real world you think
you're going to get.

--
*Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial

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

In article ,
James Harris wrote:
I keep on asking about all these large countries round the world who are
free to do a deal with the UK.

With you so far.

To replace the EU in terms of trade and
services income to the UK. If they are already in a trade deal with
another country or countries, that deal could well be in conflict with a
new deal to the UK.

I'm struggling to understand that lot. What are you talking about re
replacement and conflict?

If it helps, IMO there are these categories of potential trading
partners for the UK.

1. Countries we already have an EU agreement with.

You think? This will be part of cake and eat it, then?

2. Countries with no EU agreement who use WTO terms.

Anyone can trade under WTO terms. The idea of a deal is to better those.

We would want to continue existing trade with Type 1 countries and
possibly improve such deals by making them tailored to us and them. Some
of them have already indicated their desire to do so.

They may well have to choose who they value more - trade with the EU *or*
the UK.

We would want to develop new trade deals with Type 2 countries. Some of
them are already in talks.

There will be plenty talking. Which will go on for years.

How do your concerns fit into that?

My 'concerns' is that those who lead us into this mess have absolutely no
clue at all about the aftermath. No plans - only hopes.


The thing is this ain't the 19th century.

Then why do you keep using 19th century terms like "do tell" and "pray
tell"...?

That the best you can do?

I'm quite happy to reflect nonsense back to you when you choose to
descend to it.


Trade agreements between the various countries are already mature.
Which is why trying to set up an additional one - like say between the
US and EU - is extremely difficult and takes ages. Because one
agreement can effect another.

What we have done is akin to leaving a well paid job on a whim. Saying it
will be easy to get another. Only a fool does that.

And notice you have absolutely no answer to this point. Typical head in
the clouds Brexiteer.

You didn't ask any question. What was there to answer? Nothing.

What causes your continual reversion to little digs and insults? Does it
make you feel better in some way?

Good grief.

--
*Why don't sheep shrink when it rains?

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
James Harris wrote:
I keep on asking about all these large countries round the world who
are
free to do a deal with the UK.

With you so far.

To replace the EU in terms of trade and
services income to the UK. If they are already in a trade deal with
another country or countries, that deal could well be in conflict with
a
new deal to the UK.

I'm struggling to understand that lot. What are you talking about re
replacement and conflict?

If it helps, IMO there are these categories of potential trading
partners for the UK.

1. Countries we already have an EU agreement with.

You think? This will be part of cake and eat it, then?

2. Countries with no EU agreement who use WTO terms.

Anyone can trade under WTO terms. The idea of a deal is to better those.

We would want to continue existing trade with Type 1 countries and
possibly improve such deals by making them tailored to us and them. Some
of them have already indicated their desire to do so.

They may well have to choose who they value more - trade with the EU *or*
the UK.

Even sillier than you usually manage. No reason why they can't do both.

We would want to develop new trade deals with Type 2 countries. Some of
them are already in talks.

There will be plenty talking. Which will go on for years.

How do your concerns fit into that?

My 'concerns' is that those who lead us into this mess have absolutely no
clue at all about the aftermath. No plans - only hopes.


The thing is this ain't the 19th century.

Then why do you keep using 19th century terms like "do tell" and "pray
tell"...?

That the best you can do?

I'm quite happy to reflect nonsense back to you when you choose to
descend to it.


Trade agreements between the various countries are already mature.
Which is why trying to set up an additional one - like say between
the
US and EU - is extremely difficult and takes ages. Because one
agreement can effect another.

What we have done is akin to leaving a well paid job on a whim.
Saying it
will be easy to get another. Only a fool does that.

And notice you have absolutely no answer to this point. Typical head in
the clouds Brexiteer.

You didn't ask any question. What was there to answer? Nothing.

What causes your continual reversion to little digs and insults? Does it
make you feel better in some way?

Good grief.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Handsome Jack wrote:
But I thought mass immigration was good for a country's economy,
bringing a vibrant and flexible new workforce that invariably
contributes more to the public finances than it takes out?

You plainly don't understand the difference between EU workers (and
others) coming here to work, and those fleeing oppression.

But no surprise there.

But I'd have thought even you might have noticed the numbers of
refugees
the UK has taken in is tiny.

Certainly the number taken in personally by those who held up "Refugees
welcome here" is low.

Just the sort of comment I'd expect from you, sadly.

I hope you enjoy the splendid isolation from the real world you think
you're going to get.

You're OK with these lefty hypocrites, then, are you, who all swore
blind they'd personally house a/some refugees. Then they did nothing.

Yeah. Just how many does Dave have under his roof?

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
James Harris wrote:
You've not heard May today? At last has admitted that the future of
the UK relies on a good deal after leaving the EU. Which gives me hope
that with a large majority she will be able to ignore the hardliners
in her party. And all the other UKIP nutcases too.

Just to check, where did your belief come from before today? You didn't
just see cause for alarm.

As for May, what she predicts is not gospel. Let's get that straight
first of all.

Plenty took what Farage and his cronies predicted as gospel. And voted on
those promises.


She was a Remainer and still has never said that Brexit
will be better, albeit that she has accepted the result and seeks to
make the best of it.

My guess is the deal we end up with won't be better than before all this
nonsense started. Most likely worse in some ways. But designed to satisfy
those who talk about sovereignty and other such meaningless things.

As for the deal, there are three broad outcomes

1. A negotiated trade agreement
2. A decision to go to WTO trade
3. An acrimonious breakdown of talks

Only option 3 is "crashing out" of the EU.

Which could be done now.

Option 2 is what the EU propose (so is achievable). It is not as good as
option 1 but it is not too bad, especially since the EU accepts that
they and we would want a phased implementation.

How do you think that any different from 2 ?

Far worse than option 2 would be the UK accepting a punitive deal. And I
guess that's what May was warning about. She says she simply will not
accept such a deal from the EU, preferring to go to option 2 rather than
a bad option 1.

Punitive deal is just so much more jargon. There is zero chance of getting
a trade and services deal with the EU without paying for it. And May knows
this.

So how much did Canada pay for their deal?
For all Merkels bluster she knows 25% of German cars got to the UK.
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
James Harris wrote:
My guess is the deal we end up with won't be better than before all
this nonsense started. Most likely worse in some ways. But designed to
satisfy those who talk about sovereignty and other such meaningless
things.

Yes, the EU deal will be worse than now. The EU will insist on that. But
the question is how much worse. And whatever EU deal we get we will have
been freed up to build our own trade links. That's the big economic
prize of Brexit and is where future generations will derive their
wealth. Britain will go back to being an international trader, following
the formula which made the country rich in the past.

Good grief. More eternal optimism. Trade deals are so interlinked no major
country is free to set up new ones just like that. Which is why
negotiations for a deal between the EU and US have been going on for so
long.
You keep repeating this rubbish. The failure of TTIP was nothing to do
with other trade deals.

Do you not realise that if we have a free trade agreement with the EU,
then any goods coming into this country from another agreement (that you
think could happen) would then have free access to the EU? Of course with
some things easily identifiable like say a make of car, you could control
that. But for others, impossible. Would be a smuggler's charter.

So how come the EU has signed a trade deal with Canada which has a trade
deal with the US and Mexico?
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , James Harris
wrote:

Note that the EU insists things must be worse not for economic reasons
but for political protectionism. It almost always focusses on politics
rather than economics. That's why it holds us back and why it is good
we are leaving.

And is why the EU will, in the long run, go down the drain.

Why do you hope this?

Why do you hope Brexit will fail?
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
James Harris wrote:
On 19/05/2017 08:57, dennis@home wrote:
On 19/05/2017 00:41, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
James Harris wrote:
I didn't. It was YOU who brought animosity into the discussion. Europe
is a beautiful place. And the people of Europe are our friends and
neighbours.

Friends and neighbours you wish to distance yourself from?


You may have noticed that all the brexitters think we will be free to
do what we like in Europe after brexit

They do? Are you sure?

You've not heard politician say we can set up deals with those individual
countries in the EU we'd like to after we've left? I have - on several
occasions.
So give us some quotes then.
And heard the most nonsense about how we could have the current
open border with Eire too, after leaving. How some of these idiots ever
get elected...
More of your rubbish


but that the EU won't be in the UK. They appear to be very optimistic.
Maybe that's the big difference, some people are over optimistic?

The whole basis of the leave campaign was the gamble we could have our
cake and eat it. Sensible people know gamblers always lose.

Utter ********. We will have a share of a bigger expanding cake outside
the EU.
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
James Harris wrote:
The whole basis of the leave campaign was the gamble we could have our
cake and eat it. Sensible people know gamblers always lose.

I don't see that. When we were in, and the EU wanted to change its model
to something more political and less prosperous, Britain tried to
persuade them out of it.

The EU want themselves to be less prosperous? Do tell.
The Commission couldn't actually give a **** whether they are or aren't.

They said: You cannot be in and not come with
us on our journey. When we resisted they said you cannot have your cake
and eat it.

The UK was only ever interested in itself. Nothing wrong with that -
provided it doesn't become a 'them and us' game. Which is the way the
majority of the meja played it for many a year.

But now we are leaving. We don't want their mouldy old cake. We'll agree
a trade deal if they want, and we'll be completely outside. No cake. No
eating it. No cherries. No picking. Outside. With a trade relationship
just like other independent nations.

Pray tell of one of those 'independent nations' that have a trade deal
with the EU?

Canada. Last time I looked it was independent.
The thing is this ain't the 19th century. Trade agreements between the
various countries are already mature. Which is why trying to set up an
additional one - like say between the US and EU - is extremely difficult
and takes ages. Because one agreement can effect another.

Utter ******** again and again.
What we have done is akin to leaving a well paid job on a whim. Saying it
will be easy to get another. Only a fool does that.

No pint staying in a job when the company is going bust no matter how
well paid. Some of us have ambition beyond this weeks pay packet.
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
James Harris wrote:
On 21/05/2017 11:16, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
James Harris wrote:
The whole basis of the leave campaign was the gamble we could have
our cake and eat it. Sensible people know gamblers always lose.

I don't see that. When we were in, and the EU wanted to change its
model to something more political and less prosperous, Britain tried
to persuade them out of it.

The EU want themselves to be less prosperous? Do tell.

They don't /want/ to make themselves less prosperous but they have been
very clear that they want a Brexit deal with that effect. Their pet
project always comes above prosperity.

Another Brexiteer who knows the EU intimately. Better than even they do,
apparently.

They are very obviously not going to give the UK what they tried to
negotiate as a member after they have left. And certainly not better terms
than any other country that has an agreement with the EU - they'd be
totally mad to do so, as it would open the floodgates.

Which is the best admission there can be that apart from the Common
Market everything else about the EU is a disadvantage, a punishment.
Snip the rest of your ****
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
James Harris wrote:
I keep on asking about all these large countries round the world who are
free to do a deal with the UK.

With you so far.

To replace the EU in terms of trade and
services income to the UK. If they are already in a trade deal with
another country or countries, that deal could well be in conflict with a
new deal to the UK.

I'm struggling to understand that lot. What are you talking about re
replacement and conflict?

If it helps, IMO there are these categories of potential trading
partners for the UK.

1. Countries we already have an EU agreement with.

You think? This will be part of cake and eat it, then?
Cake we currently enjoy. Find/Replace EU with UK. Deal done.

2. Countries with no EU agreement who use WTO terms.

Anyone can trade under WTO terms. The idea of a deal is to better those.
You don't say.


We would want to continue existing trade with Type 1 countries and
possibly improve such deals by making them tailored to us and them. Some
of them have already indicated their desire to do so.

They may well have to choose who they value more - trade with the EU *or*
the UK.

More of your stupid bollocls.
We would want to develop new trade deals with Type 2 countries. Some of
them are already in talks.

There will be plenty talking. Which will go on for years.

Couple of years at most.
How do your concerns fit into that?

My 'concerns' is that those who lead us into this mess have absolutely no
clue at all about the aftermath. No plans - only hopes.

You wouldn't recognise a plan if it kicked you up the arse.

The thing is this ain't the 19th century.

Then why do you keep using 19th century terms like "do tell" and "pray
tell"...?

That the best you can do?

I'm quite happy to reflect nonsense back to you when you choose to
descend to it.


Trade agreements between the various countries are already mature.
Which is why trying to set up an additional one - like say between the
US and EU - is extremely difficult and takes ages. Because one
agreement can effect another.

What we have done is akin to leaving a well paid job on a whim. Saying it
will be easy to get another. Only a fool does that.

And notice you have absolutely no answer to this point. Typical head in
the clouds Brexiteer.

You didn't ask any question. What was there to answer? Nothing.

What causes your continual reversion to little digs and insults? Does it
make you feel better in some way?

Good grief.

Oh you are still in mounting over the referendum.
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , James Harris
wrote:

On 19/05/2017 00:41, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
James Harris wrote:

I didn't. It was YOU who brought animosity into the discussion. Europe
is a beautiful place. And the people of Europe are our friends and
neighbours.

Friends and neighbours you wish to distance yourself from?

No, I don't want to get away from them.

I don't want a group of European politicians to be able to overrule the
government that Brits elect, if that's what you mean. But that's not
because they are Europeans. They could be from Mongolia or Timbuktu and
it would make no difference.

I repeat: You are claiming an animosity which is not there.

But it's what Dave does, so don't be surprised. He sets up his own
straw and bogey men and then claims you are in favour of them.

Yeh, right. Claim 'Europe' are our friends and neighbours. But don't trust
them. Don't want to co-operate with them. And certainly don't want to
contribute in any way to the poorer ones.

Once we're out they can apply for our foreign aid which will be a big
help because at eh moment we can't spend enough of the stuff.
He will
then claim you are in favour of them because you are a racist or
whatever. It's just his fevered imagination working overtime.

Don't need to imagine anything with the likes of you around.


--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
And protection has been shown
simply to not work
So you agree at last the EU will ultimately not work.
--
bert

On 21/05/2017 20:49, bert wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , James Harris
wrote:

Note that the EU insists things must be worse not for economic reasons
but for political protectionism. It almost always focusses on politics
rather than economics. That's why it holds us back and why it is good
we are leaving.

And is why the EU will, in the long run, go down the drain.

Why do you hope this?

Why do you hope Brexit will fail?

Everyone hopes it will succeed, some of us don't think it will be as
good as not leaving.
However many brexiteers have voted to leave in the hope the EU will now
fail.

On 21/05/2017 20:55, bert wrote:

Utter ********. We will have a share of a bigger expanding cake outside
the EU.

Where have you invented more of the world from?
Since the UK can already trade with the rest of the world then you must
know something the rest of us don't.

Ah, maybe you mean we will break the sanctions on North Korea.

On 21/05/2017 22:55, Tim Streater wrote:

I have no desire for it to fail either. I'm simply pointing out that
the undemocratic nature of the EU structures will cause it to fail. I
don't want this country to be part of that failure, which is why I
voted Leave. Everything else is secondary.


So as we had an opt out at any time why vote to leave before it fails?

On 21/05/2017 22:56, dennis@home wrote:
On 21/05/2017 20:55, bert wrote:

Utter ********. We will have a share of a bigger expanding cake
outside the EU.

Where have you invented more of the world from?
Since the UK can already trade with the rest of the world then you must
know something the rest of us don't.

Whether Brexit means more or less trade remains to be seen, but
currently we cannot enter into our own agreements with much of the
world, instead having to stick to the EU's tariffs for outside trade.

Outside the EU, we can come to agreements with those countries on
reduced or no tariffs wherever it is mutually beneficial.

SteveW

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 21/05/2017 20:49, bert wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , James Harris
wrote:

Note that the EU insists things must be worse not for economic reasons
but for political protectionism. It almost always focusses on politics
rather than economics. That's why it holds us back and why it is good
we are leaving.

And is why the EU will, in the long run, go down the drain.

Why do you hope this?

Why do you hope Brexit will fail?

Everyone hopes it will succeed,

Even sillier than you usually manage.

Plenty like the plow**** hope to be proven right.

some of us don't think it will be as good as not leaving.

And you will be proven wrong.

However many brexiteers have voted to leave in the hope the EU will now
fail.

Even more flagrantly dishonest than you usually manage.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 21/05/2017 20:55, bert wrote:

Utter ********. We will have a share of a bigger expanding cake outside
the EU.

Where have you invented more of the world from?

Doesnt need any more of the world.

Since the UK can already trade with the rest of the world then you must
know something the rest of us don't.

Only than fools like you. Without the tariffs the EU imposes
on goods imported into the EU, Britain is free to import more
stuff more cheaply from the rest of the world and use the
what it saves on not having to pay EU tariffs on what it
imports to pay for more imports.

Ah, maybe you mean we will break the sanctions on North Korea.

Even more flagrantly dishonest than you usually manage.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 21/05/2017 22:55, Tim Streater wrote:

I have no desire for it to fail either. I'm simply pointing out that
the undemocratic nature of the EU structures will cause it to fail. I
don't want this country to be part of that failure, which is why I
voted Leave. Everything else is secondary.


So as we had an opt out at any time why vote to leave before it fails?

So Britain doesnt have to allow any EUian who decides that its
prospects are better in Britain than where its coming from to do
that and find houses etc for those that show up with kids etc.

So Britain doesnt have to accept even the most stupid
policy decision that some ****wit unelected and
unsackable bureaucrat decides how things must be done.

So Britain doesnt have to keep pouring
billions a year down the EU rat hole.

So Britain doesnt have to keep paying tariffs
on what it imports from other than the EU.

Etc etc etc.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Everyone hopes it will succeed, some of us don't think it will be as
good as not leaving.
However many brexiteers have voted to leave in the hope the EU will now
fail.

I have no desire for it to fail either. I'm simply pointing out that
the undemocratic nature of the EU structures will cause it to fail. I
don't want this country to be part of that failure, which is why I
voted Leave. Everything else is secondary.

By far and away the most successful economy in recent years has been
China. Is that what you consider a democratic country?

--
*If I worked as much as others, I would do as little as they *

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

In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
On 21/05/2017 22:56, dennis@home wrote:
On 21/05/2017 20:55, bert wrote:

Utter ********. We will have a share of a bigger expanding cake
outside the EU.

Where have you invented more of the world from?
Since the UK can already trade with the rest of the world then you must
know something the rest of us don't.

Whether Brexit means more or less trade remains to be seen, but
currently we cannot enter into our own agreements with much of the
world, instead having to stick to the EU's tariffs for outside trade.

Outside the EU, we can come to agreements with those countries on
reduced or no tariffs wherever it is mutually beneficial.

You think? If every other country outside the EU was not in any trade
agreement with others, that might be the case. But where such agreements
exist, it isn't going to be simple for the UK to muscle in.

Let me try and explain. The US and Canada have a free trade agreement. The
US grows oranges, Canada apples. So trade is beneficial. The UK grows both
apples and oranges and wants to trade with them. Neither country wants
their home industries wrecked by imports. The US would love our cheap
apples, Canada our cheap oranges. But neither want both.

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

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
On 21/05/2017 22:56, dennis@home wrote:
On 21/05/2017 20:55, bert wrote:

Utter ********. We will have a share of a bigger expanding cake
outside the EU.

Where have you invented more of the world from?
Since the UK can already trade with the rest of the world then you must
know something the rest of us don't.

Whether Brexit means more or less trade remains to be seen, but
currently we cannot enter into our own agreements with much of the
world, instead having to stick to the EU's tariffs for outside trade.

Outside the EU, we can come to agreements with those countries on
reduced or no tariffs wherever it is mutually beneficial.

You think? If every other country outside the EU was not in any trade
agreement with others, that might be the case. But where such agreements
exist, it isn't going to be simple for the UK to muscle in.

There is no muscling in. EVERY country has more than one agreement
except those that are in the EU and even the EU itself has more than one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...ade_agreements

And every single one of those countrys that the EU has an
agreement with has other agreements with other countrys.

Let me try and explain. The US and Canada have a free trade agreement.
The US grows oranges, Canada apples. So trade is beneficial. The UK
grows both apples and oranges and wants to trade with them. Neither
country wants their home industries wrecked by imports. The US would
love our cheapapples, Canada our cheap oranges. But neither want both.

Even more mindlessly superficial than you usually manage.

Even a terminal ****wit such as yourself should have noticed that Canada
has agreements with both the US and EU and plenty more besides.

No reason why Britain can't do that too.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...

On 21/05/2017 22:55, Tim Streater wrote:

I have no desire for it to fail either. I'm simply pointing out that
the undemocratic nature of the EU structures will cause it to fail. I
don't want this country to be part of that failure, which is why I
voted Leave. Everything else is secondary.


So as we had an opt out at any time why vote to leave before it fails?

Same reason as to not be tied in with the currency.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
On 21/05/2017 22:56, dennis@home wrote:
On 21/05/2017 20:55, bert wrote:

Utter ********. We will have a share of a bigger expanding cake
outside the EU.

Where have you invented more of the world from?
Since the UK can already trade with the rest of the world then you must
know something the rest of us don't.

Whether Brexit means more or less trade remains to be seen, but
currently we cannot enter into our own agreements with much of the
world, instead having to stick to the EU's tariffs for outside trade.

Outside the EU, we can come to agreements with those countries on
reduced or no tariffs wherever it is mutually beneficial.

You think?

Indeed he does. You should try it some time, you might actually begin to
like it.

"Dave Plowman (News)" posted
In article ,
Handsome Jack wrote:
But I thought mass immigration was good for a country's economy,
bringing a vibrant and flexible new workforce that invariably
contributes more to the public finances than it takes out?

You plainly don't understand the difference between EU workers (and
others) coming here to work, and those fleeing oppression.

What is the difference (as far as benefitting the economy) between an
unskilled, penniless Romanian peasant and an unskilled, penniless Syrian
peasant?


--
Jack

On 21/05/2017 23:03, Tim Streater wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:

On 21/05/2017 20:55, bert wrote:

Utter ********. We will have a share of a bigger expanding cake
outside the EU.

Where have you invented more of the world from?

Are you a socialist or something? They believe in zero-sum too (that
is, they don't understand wealth creation).


Are you too stupid to understand we already have access to that cake
without leaving the EU.
It appears to be a common trait amongst brexitters that the world
suddenly gets larger after brexit when it actually might get a lot
smaller as far as exports go.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 21/05/2017 23:03, Tim Streater wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:

On 21/05/2017 20:55, bert wrote:

Utter ********. We will have a share of a bigger expanding cake outside
the EU.

Where have you invented more of the world from?

Are you a socialist or something? They believe in zero-sum too (that
is, they don't understand wealth creation).


Are you too stupid to understand we already have access to that cake
without leaving the EU.

You are clearly too stupid to understand why the majority
of those who bothered to vote voted to leave.

It appears to be a common trait amongst brexitters that the world suddenly
gets larger after brexit when it actually might get a lot smaller as far
as exports go.

More of your flagrant remoaner dishonesty.

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 21/05/2017 23:03, Tim Streater wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:

On 21/05/2017 20:55, bert wrote:

Utter ********. We will have a share of a bigger expanding cake
outside the EU.

Where have you invented more of the world from?

Are you a socialist or something? They believe in zero-sum too (that
is, they don't understand wealth creation).


Are you too stupid to understand we already have access to that cake
without leaving the EU.
It appears to be a common trait amongst brexitters that the world
suddenly gets larger after brexit when it actually might get a lot
smaller as far as exports go.

Most seem to think we'll be able to negotiate a trade and services deal
with the EU after leaving. I think we will too - but we'll still end up
paying into the EU budget and abiding by all those regs so many apparently
hate. The idea that the EU would somehow give us a better deal than their
members have - or any other countries outside the EU have with it - is the
big gamble. Which sense says will be lost.

--
*I went to school to become a wit, only got halfway through.

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

In article ,
Handsome Jack wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" posted
In article ,
Handsome Jack wrote:
But I thought mass immigration was good for a country's economy,
bringing a vibrant and flexible new workforce that invariably
contributes more to the public finances than it takes out?

You plainly don't understand the difference between EU workers (and
others) coming here to work, and those fleeing oppression.

What is the difference (as far as benefitting the economy) between an
unskilled, penniless Romanian peasant and an unskilled, penniless Syrian
peasant?

Which type of UK peasant are you? Are you the sort that can take over the
work on farms etc currently done by EU workers? If so, join the non
existent queue.

--
*How much deeper would the oceans be without sponges? *

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

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Are you too stupid to understand we already have access to that cake
without leaving the EU.

No we don't. We are constrained by having to apply EU tariffs to
imports.

Ah - right. You think our way forward is to have cheaper imports?

--
*A day without sunshine is like... night.*

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

On Mon, 22 May 2017 10:43:58 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Handsome Jack wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" posted
In article ,
Handsome Jack wrote:
But I thought mass immigration was good for a country's economy,
bringing a vibrant and flexible new workforce that invariably
contributes more to the public finances than it takes out?

You plainly don't understand the difference between EU workers (and
others) coming here to work, and those fleeing oppression.

What is the difference (as far as benefitting the economy) between an
unskilled, penniless Romanian peasant and an unskilled, penniless Syrian
peasant?

Which type of UK peasant are you? Are you the sort that can take over the
work on farms etc currently done by EU workers? If so, join the non
existent queue.

The simplest jobs can be done by anybody.

--
The squaw on the hippopotamus is equal to the sons of the squaws on the other two hides!

On Mon, 22 May 2017 10:46:15 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Are you too stupid to understand we already have access to that cake
without leaving the EU.

No we don't. We are constrained by having to apply EU tariffs to
imports.

Ah - right. You think our way forward is to have cheaper imports?

Our way forward is having our own choice.

--
How to interpret a Pregnancy Test kit:
Blue means not pregnant.
Pink means pregnant.
Brown means you had it in the wrong hole.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
What is the difference (as far as benefitting the economy) between an
unskilled, penniless Romanian peasant and an unskilled, penniless
Syrian peasant?

Which type of UK peasant are you? Are you the sort that can take over
the work on farms etc currently done by EU workers? If so, join the non
existent queue.

I haven't followed the broader point you are both arguing, but it is
certainly the case that a Kent fruit farm I visited 3 or 4 years ago
needed migrant workers (Poles in this case, although their origin was
not important. These folk move to the UK for the fruit picking season
and then return home at the end of it, and there is decent on-site
living facilities while they are there.

Quite. But that tends to get ignored by those in rural areas who simply
dislike foreigners. They are taking 'their' jobs. Even the ones they
apparently don't want.

The issue is that this type of manual work requires that you do it
regularly, even if fit.

Really? Fruit etc picking was traditionally done by factory etc workers on
holiday. When I was a kid, potato picking done by school kids in a special
holiday. Part of their summer holiday, but a couple of weeks at a
different time.

Otherwise your muscles can't take it over an
extended period, as a British couple, keen to make a go of it, found
out when they were hired on this farm for this work. They lasted a
week.

Interesting. The average UK born is now so unfit they can no longer do the
jobs their forbears did. That is very worrying.

In fact these workers are not unskilled. You have to know how to pick
fruit which is the correct ripeness, and without damaging it then or
letting it get bruised in the basket later. And without dislodging
other fruit which may or may not be ready for picking.

Yup. It needs at least a 1/2 day of training.

These may not be earth-shattering skills but are nonetheless important.

There is no job anywhere that doesn't need a skill of some sort.

--
*War does not determine who is right - only who is left.

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

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Are you too stupid to understand we already have access to that cake
without leaving the EU.

No we don't. We are constrained by having to apply EU tariffs to
imports.

Ah - right. You think our way forward is to have cheaper imports?

Would help the cost of living, eh? Last time I looked we don't grow
bananas.

But didn't you say earlier that the drop in the value of the pound after
the Brexit result was known was a good thing? Despite it putting up costs
of imported goods?

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

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

On 22/05/2017 09:50, Tim Streater wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:

On 21/05/2017 23:03, Tim Streater wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:

On 21/05/2017 20:55, bert wrote:

Utter ********. We will have a share of a bigger expanding cake
outside the EU.

Where have you invented more of the world from?

Are you a socialist or something? They believe in zero-sum too (that
is, they don't understand wealth creation).

Are you too stupid to understand we already have access to that cake
without leaving the EU.

No we don't. We are constrained by having to apply EU tariffs to
imports.


Imports are a problem, you have to export stuff to pay for them.
Leaving a free market and probably reducing your exports isn't going to
help pay for imports.

Which particular imports do you think we want more of outside the EU and
which extra exports are going to pay for them?

It appears to be a common trait amongst brexitters that the world
suddenly gets larger after brexit when it actually might get a lot
smaller as far as exports go.

I refer you to Steve Walker's response of 23:50 last night.