On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 16:12:49 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Mark
wrote:

On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 20:06:55 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 18:01:13 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
wrote:


The best thing now for May (and the country) would be to go flat out for
the so-called "hard brexit" option. Don't fiddle around tinkering with
the existing rules; tear 'em *all* up and start from scratch with a blank
sheet of paper. Otherwise the *******s who seek to subvert democracy will
tie us up in knots in an attempt to make it look like leaving the EU is
just far too complex to succeed and we might as well stay in. You wait
and see.

+1

Anything less than a hard line with the EU will be seen as weakness
and be taken full advantage of by the EU, to our detriment.

Ah. Confrontation over cooperation - which one is more effective, I
wonder.

You must be an easy Mark when it comes to buying a car, then. Pay their
opening bid starting price, do you?

That's completely different, as you well know.

On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 16:23:46 +0100, "bm" wrote:


"Mark" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 18:01:13 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
wrote:


The best thing now for May (and the country) would be to go flat out for
the so-called "hard brexit" option.

The best thing for May and the country is for her to resign. The Tory
party is in meltdown and we want a government that not fighting
amongst themselves.

You find one, matey.


I could ;-)

On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 08:51:00 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Monday, 19 June 2017 14:50:45 UTC+1, Mark wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jun 2017 12:52:16 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

I rather suspect we'll end up with a deal which is worse in many ways than
before all this nonsense started.

Unfortunately, I think you're right there.

In the short term EU will want to punish us all it can. We will not get a good deal if any deal at all short term.

Once the blustering dies down, which won't be quick, the relevant people will notice that trading deals are struck because they benefit both sides, and will be tired of taking political flack by the many affected by an unsatisfactory trade deal situation. They will finally pull head out of arse and start working to making realistic deals.

Remoaners seem to think short term wealth is the only thing that matters. Odd that.

Brex****ters don't seem to think at all.

On Monday, 19 June 2017 17:18:38 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:
On Monday, 19 June 2017 14:50:45 UTC+1, Mark wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jun 2017 12:52:16 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

I rather suspect we'll end up with a deal which is worse in many ways
than before all this nonsense started.

Unfortunately, I think you're right there.

In the short term EU will want to punish us all it can. We will not get
a good deal if any deal at all short term.

Once the blustering dies down, which won't be quick, the relevant people
will notice that trading deals are struck because they benefit both
sides, and will be tired of taking political flack by the many affected
by an unsatisfactory trade deal situation. They will finally pull head
out of arse and start working to making realistic deals.

That 'realistic' deal can't be any better in any way than that existing
members or 'associate' ones like Norway have at present, though. Or they
will be right up there demanding the same.

Remoaners seem to think short term wealth is the only thing that
matters. Odd that.

Remoaners may just have thought it through a bit and looked at it from
both sides.

Brexiteers seem to think they can simply demand and get.

I've seen no sign of either of those being true


NT

In article ,
wrote:
On Monday, 19 June 2017 17:18:38 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:
On Monday, 19 June 2017 14:50:45 UTC+1, Mark wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jun 2017 12:52:16 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

I rather suspect we'll end up with a deal which is worse in many
ways than before all this nonsense started.

Unfortunately, I think you're right there.

In the short term EU will want to punish us all it can. We will not
get a good deal if any deal at all short term.

Once the blustering dies down, which won't be quick, the relevant
people will notice that trading deals are struck because they
benefit both sides, and will be tired of taking political flack by
the many affected by an unsatisfactory trade deal situation. They
will finally pull head out of arse and start working to making
realistic deals.

That 'realistic' deal can't be any better in any way than that
existing members or 'associate' ones like Norway have at present,
though. Or they will be right up there demanding the same.

Remoaners seem to think short term wealth is the only thing that
matters. Odd that.

Remoaners may just have thought it through a bit and looked at it from
both sides.

Brexiteers seem to think they can simply demand and get.

I've seen no sign of either of those being true


Really? You don't remember them saying the EU would be gagging for a deal
because they sell us more BMWs than we sell them Jags? And that we buy
more goods from them than we sell? And that the rest of the world was just
queuing up for a deal with the UK?

Oddly, all that strong arm stuff from the UK seems to be a bit muted now.

--
*Kill one man and you're a murderer, kill a million youand 're a conqueror.

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

On Monday, 19 June 2017 18:02:13 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:
On Monday, 19 June 2017 17:18:38 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:
On Monday, 19 June 2017 14:50:45 UTC+1, Mark wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jun 2017 12:52:16 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

I rather suspect we'll end up with a deal which is worse in many
ways than before all this nonsense started.

Unfortunately, I think you're right there.

In the short term EU will want to punish us all it can. We will not
get a good deal if any deal at all short term.

Once the blustering dies down, which won't be quick, the relevant
people will notice that trading deals are struck because they
benefit both sides, and will be tired of taking political flack by
the many affected by an unsatisfactory trade deal situation. They
will finally pull head out of arse and start working to making
realistic deals.

That 'realistic' deal can't be any better in any way than that
existing members or 'associate' ones like Norway have at present,
though. Or they will be right up there demanding the same.

Remoaners seem to think short term wealth is the only thing that
matters. Odd that.

Remoaners may just have thought it through a bit and looked at it from
both sides.

Brexiteers seem to think they can simply demand and get.

I've seen no sign of either of those being true


Really? You don't remember them saying the EU would be gagging for a deal
because they sell us more BMWs than we sell them Jags? And that we buy
more goods from them than we sell? And that the rest of the world was just
queuing up for a deal with the UK?

Oddly, all that strong arm stuff from the UK seems to be a bit muted now.

So in your world if someone says something, all brexiters agree with it. Mmkay.


NT

In article ,
wrote:
Really? You don't remember them saying the EU would be gagging for a
deal because they sell us more BMWs than we sell them Jags? And that
we buy more goods from them than we sell? And that the rest of the
world was just queuing up for a deal with the UK?

Oddly, all that strong arm stuff from the UK seems to be a bit muted
now.

So in your world if someone says something, all brexiters agree with it.
Mmkay.

I'm talking about this little world here. All the bragging from the
Brexiteers has been a bit muted recently.

--
*Rehab is for quitters

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

On 19/06/17 17:21, Mark wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 08:51:00 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Monday, 19 June 2017 14:50:45 UTC+1, Mark wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jun 2017 12:52:16 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

I rather suspect we'll end up with a deal which is worse in many ways than
before all this nonsense started.

Unfortunately, I think you're right there.

In the short term EU will want to punish us all it can. We will not get a good deal if any deal at all short term.

Once the blustering dies down, which won't be quick, the relevant people will notice that trading deals are struck because they benefit both sides, and will be tired of taking political flack by the many affected by an unsatisfactory trade deal situation. They will finally pull head out of arse and start working to making realistic deals.

Remoaners seem to think short term wealth is the only thing that matters. Odd that.

Brex****ters don't seem to think at all.

how would you recognise thinking ?


--
"In our post-modern world, climate science is not powerful because it is
true: it is true because it is powerful."

Lucas Bergkamp

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
wrote:
Really? You don't remember them saying the EU would be gagging for a
deal because they sell us more BMWs than we sell them Jags? And that
we buy more goods from them than we sell? And that the rest of the
world was just queuing up for a deal with the UK?

Oddly, all that strong arm stuff from the UK seems to be a bit muted
now.

So in your world if someone says something, all brexiters agree with it.
Mmkay.

I'm talking about this little world here. All the bragging from the
Brexiteers has been a bit muted recently.

Oh look, the plowperson has yet another opinion (who no-one gives a ****
about).

On Tuesday, 20 June 2017 00:19:31 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:

Really? You don't remember them saying the EU would be gagging for a
deal because they sell us more BMWs than we sell them Jags? And that
we buy more goods from them than we sell? And that the rest of the
world was just queuing up for a deal with the UK?

Oddly, all that strong arm stuff from the UK seems to be a bit muted
now.

So in your world if someone says something, all brexiters agree with it.
Mmkay.

I'm talking about this little world here. All the bragging from the
Brexiteers has been a bit muted recently.

All brexiters here don't believe it either. Try again.


NT

in 1601427 20170620 001321 "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
Really? You don't remember them saying the EU would be gagging for a
deal because they sell us more BMWs than we sell them Jags? And that
we buy more goods from them than we sell? And that the rest of the
world was just queuing up for a deal with the UK?

Oddly, all that strong arm stuff from the UK seems to be a bit muted
now.

So in your world if someone says something, all brexiters agree with it.
Mmkay.

I'm talking about this little world here. All the bragging from the
Brexiteers has been a bit muted recently.

The external view:
https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingd...rope_der_bund/

On Tuesday, 20 June 2017 07:33:57 UTC+1, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1601427 20170620 001321 "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:

Really? You don't remember them saying the EU would be gagging for a
deal because they sell us more BMWs than we sell them Jags? And that
we buy more goods from them than we sell? And that the rest of the
world was just queuing up for a deal with the UK?

Oddly, all that strong arm stuff from the UK seems to be a bit muted
now.

So in your world if someone says something, all brexiters agree with it.
Mmkay.

I'm talking about this little world here. All the bragging from the
Brexiteers has been a bit muted recently.

The external view:
https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingd...rope_der_bund/

Doesn't even attempt to get real


NT

Mark wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 16:12:49 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Mark
wrote:

On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 20:06:55 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 18:01:13 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
wrote:


The best thing now for May (and the country) would be to go flat out for
the so-called "hard brexit" option. Don't fiddle around tinkering with
the existing rules; tear 'em *all* up and start from scratch with a blank
sheet of paper. Otherwise the *******s who seek to subvert democracy will
tie us up in knots in an attempt to make it look like leaving the EU is
just far too complex to succeed and we might as well stay in. You wait
and see.

+1

Anything less than a hard line with the EU will be seen as weakness
and be taken full advantage of by the EU, to our detriment.

Ah. Confrontation over cooperation - which one is more effective, I
wonder.

You must be an easy Mark when it comes to buying a car, then. Pay their
opening bid starting price, do you?

That's completely different, as you well know.


No difference at all. Walked away from a deal last month. I didn't need
to buy a car, so I kept the money and the car dealer lost the sale. WTO
rules have the same effect.

On Tuesday, 20 June 2017 08:18:54 UTC+1, Capitol wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 16:12:49 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Mark
wrote:

On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 20:06:55 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 18:01:13 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
wrote:


The best thing now for May (and the country) would be to go flat out for
the so-called "hard brexit" option. Don't fiddle around tinkering with
the existing rules; tear 'em *all* up and start from scratch with a blank
sheet of paper. Otherwise the *******s who seek to subvert democracy will
tie us up in knots in an attempt to make it look like leaving the EU is
just far too complex to succeed and we might as well stay in. You wait
and see.

+1

Anything less than a hard line with the EU will be seen as weakness
and be taken full advantage of by the EU, to our detriment.

Ah. Confrontation over cooperation - which one is more effective, I
wonder.

You must be an easy Mark when it comes to buying a car, then. Pay their
opening bid starting price, do you?

That's completely different, as you well know.


No difference at all. Walked away from a deal last month. I didn't need
to buy a car, so I kept the money and the car dealer lost the sale. WTO
rules have the same effect.

I suspect the only good way forward is no deal, at least until the EU wants to get realistic about a deal, which won't be any time soon.


NT

On 20/06/2017 07:43, wrote:
On Tuesday, 20 June 2017 07:33:57 UTC+1, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1601427 20170620 001321 "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:

Really? You don't remember them saying the EU would be gagging for a
deal because they sell us more BMWs than we sell them Jags? And that
we buy more goods from them than we sell? And that the rest of the
world was just queuing up for a deal with the UK?

Oddly, all that strong arm stuff from the UK seems to be a bit muted
now.

So in your world if someone says something, all brexiters agree with it.
Mmkay.

I'm talking about this little world here. All the bragging from the
Brexiteers has been a bit muted recently.

The external view:
https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingd...rope_der_bund/

Doesn't even attempt to get real

Well it is a bit of a watered down description of the **** we are in.

And now you get brexi****ters saying they want to emigrate from the ****
they have made.

In article ,
wrote:
On Tuesday, 20 June 2017 08:18:54 UTC+1, Capitol wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 16:12:49 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Mark
wrote:

On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 20:06:55 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 18:01:13 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
wrote:


The best thing now for May (and the country) would be to go flat
out for the so-called "hard brexit" option. Don't fiddle around
tinkering with the existing rules; tear 'em *all* up and start
from scratch with a blank sheet of paper. Otherwise the *******s
who seek to subvert democracy will tie us up in knots in an
attempt to make it look like leaving the EU is just far too
complex to succeed and we might as well stay in. You wait and
see.

+1

Anything less than a hard line with the EU will be seen as
weakness and be taken full advantage of by the EU, to our
detriment.

Ah. Confrontation over cooperation - which one is more effective,
I wonder.

You must be an easy Mark when it comes to buying a car, then. Pay
their opening bid starting price, do you?

That's completely different, as you well know.


No difference at all. Walked away from a deal last month. I didn't
need to buy a car, so I kept the money and the car dealer lost the
sale. WTO rules have the same effect.

I suspect the only good way forward is no deal, at least until the EU
wants to get realistic about a deal, which won't be any time soon.


Back to that gamble again. They will eventually give 'us' exactly what
'we' want. Seems fewer in the UK are gamblers than once was the case,
though. Must have realised gambling is a fool's game.

--
*If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving definitely isn't for you *

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

dennis@home wrote:
On 20/06/2017 07:43, wrote:
On Tuesday, 20 June 2017 07:33:57 UTC+1, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1601427 20170620 001321 "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:

Really? You don't remember them saying the EU would be gagging for a
deal because they sell us more BMWs than we sell them Jags? And that
we buy more goods from them than we sell? And that the rest of the
world was just queuing up for a deal with the UK?

Oddly, all that strong arm stuff from the UK seems to be a bit muted
now.

So in your world if someone says something, all brexiters agree
with it.
Mmkay.

I'm talking about this little world here. All the bragging from the
Brexiteers has been a bit muted recently.

The external view:
https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingd...rope_der_bund/


Doesn't even attempt to get real

Well it is a bit of a watered down description of the **** we are in.

And now you get brexi****ters saying they want to emigrate from the ****
they have made.


Example?

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 08:18:51 +0100, Capitol wrote:

Mark wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 16:12:49 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Mark
wrote:

On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 20:06:55 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 18:01:13 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
wrote:


The best thing now for May (and the country) would be to go flat out for
the so-called "hard brexit" option. Don't fiddle around tinkering with
the existing rules; tear 'em *all* up and start from scratch with a blank
sheet of paper. Otherwise the *******s who seek to subvert democracy will
tie us up in knots in an attempt to make it look like leaving the EU is
just far too complex to succeed and we might as well stay in. You wait
and see.

+1

Anything less than a hard line with the EU will be seen as weakness
and be taken full advantage of by the EU, to our detriment.

Ah. Confrontation over cooperation - which one is more effective, I
wonder.

You must be an easy Mark when it comes to buying a car, then. Pay their
opening bid starting price, do you?

That's completely different, as you well know.


No difference at all. Walked away from a deal last month. I didn't need
to buy a car, so I kept the money and the car dealer lost the sale. WTO
rules have the same effect.

Well, I'm glad you're not negociating Brexit if you consider it
identical to buying a used car.

Mark wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 08:18:51 +0100, Capitol wrote:

Mark wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 16:12:49 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Mark
wrote:

On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 20:06:55 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 18:01:13 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
wrote:


The best thing now for May (and the country) would be to go flat out for
the so-called "hard brexit" option. Don't fiddle around tinkering with
the existing rules; tear 'em *all* up and start from scratch with a blank
sheet of paper. Otherwise the *******s who seek to subvert democracy will
tie us up in knots in an attempt to make it look like leaving the EU is
just far too complex to succeed and we might as well stay in. You wait
and see.

+1

Anything less than a hard line with the EU will be seen as weakness
and be taken full advantage of by the EU, to our detriment.

Ah. Confrontation over cooperation - which one is more effective, I
wonder.

You must be an easy Mark when it comes to buying a car, then. Pay their
opening bid starting price, do you?

That's completely different, as you well know.


No difference at all. Walked away from a deal last month. I didn't need
to buy a car, so I kept the money and the car dealer lost the sale. WTO
rules have the same effect.

Well, I'm glad you're not negociating Brexit if you consider it
identical to buying a used car.


It was a new car!

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 12:21:13 +0100, Capitol wrote:

Mark wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 08:18:51 +0100, Capitol wrote:

Mark wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 16:12:49 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Mark
wrote:

On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 20:06:55 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 18:01:13 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
wrote:


The best thing now for May (and the country) would be to go flat out for
the so-called "hard brexit" option. Don't fiddle around tinkering with
the existing rules; tear 'em *all* up and start from scratch with a blank
sheet of paper. Otherwise the *******s who seek to subvert democracy will
tie us up in knots in an attempt to make it look like leaving the EU is
just far too complex to succeed and we might as well stay in. You wait
and see.

+1

Anything less than a hard line with the EU will be seen as weakness
and be taken full advantage of by the EU, to our detriment.

Ah. Confrontation over cooperation - which one is more effective, I
wonder.

You must be an easy Mark when it comes to buying a car, then. Pay their
opening bid starting price, do you?

That's completely different, as you well know.


No difference at all. Walked away from a deal last month. I didn't need
to buy a car, so I kept the money and the car dealer lost the sale. WTO
rules have the same effect.

Well, I'm glad you're not negociating Brexit if you consider it
identical to buying a used car.


It was a new car!

Ah. So you have totally missed the point.

"Capitol" wrote in message
news


No difference at all. Walked away from a deal last month. I didn't need to buy a car,
so I kept the money and the car dealer lost the sale. WTO rules have the same effect.

The UK imports at least 40% of its food, and so unlike you and the car,
we do actually need to buy food. That's the difference.

Unless of course you're willing to allow 40% of the UK population to starve
to death, if you can't get the deal that you want. Whether deliberately or not.

*Oh sorry I forgot about that bit".

Which isn't actually the bounds of possibility; given the degree of mental
competence you customarily display on this Newsgroup.


michael adams

....

On 20/06/17 13:19, michael adams wrote:
"Capitol" wrote in message
news


No difference at all. Walked away from a deal last month. I didn't need to buy a car,
so I kept the money and the car dealer lost the sale. WTO rules have the same effect.

The UK imports at least 40% of its food, and so unlike you and the car,
we do actually need to buy food. That's the difference.

Unless of course you're willing to allow 40% of the UK population to starve
to death, if you can't get the deal that you want. Whether deliberately or not.

so stupid on so many counts

Yesterday I bought courgettes. From South Africa.
Cornflakes. From the USA
Lemons. From Israel.
Lamb. From New Zealand.
None of these countries are members of the EU.

And of course our ability to source food from the EU will be completely
unaffected by lack of a trade deal. It will simply be 5% more expensive.

If you actually want to convince me that brexit is a bad idea, at least
come up with a convincing argument based on facts, not some total
fantasy based on wishful thinking.

You must love Corbyn.


*Oh sorry I forgot about that bit".

Which isn't actually the bounds of possibility; given the degree of mental
competence you customarily display on this Newsgroup.


I am afraid its your mental competence that appears to be in decline.

Everybody knows that all the EU has to offer is a free trade deal, Fir
the UK there is no other advantage in membership whatsoever.

And the fact is, a trade deal is really not a big deal.

The real threat of Brexit is that it shows the EU emperors to be utterly
stark bollock naked: The real truth is that the EU has no reason to
exist and has achieved nothing more than a monstrous mafia like hold of
crony capitalism allied to stupid socialism and Europe is grown up
enough top not need nanny Merkel to spank their bottoms.

Or perhaps they aren't.

Oh well, not out problem.



michael adams

...







--
"Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social
conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the
windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.) "

Alan Sokal

On Tuesday, 20 June 2017 13:19:50 UTC+1, michael adams wrote:
"Capitol" wrote in message
news


No difference at all. Walked away from a deal last month. I didn't need to buy a car,
so I kept the money and the car dealer lost the sale. WTO rules have the same effect.

The UK imports at least 40% of its food, and so unlike you and the car,
we do actually need to buy food. That's the difference.

But we also waste about 20% and where do we get our bananas well we all know the straight ones come from the EU don't we ;-)

As for cheese.. and then there's wine, where will that all come from ?
I assume no other country can sell us wine as cheap as the french do.





Unless of course you're willing to allow 40% of the UK population to starve
to death,

Yeh like that will happen we were eating LESS during the war and the majority we healthy for it.
I doubt mcdonalds will close all their restranats because we can't get things from the EU.




if you can't get the deal that you want. Whether deliberately or not.

*Oh sorry I forgot about that bit".

Which isn't actually the bounds of possibility; given the degree of mental
competence you customarily display on this Newsgroup.

Depends on the deal and who's making them doesn't it, and one thing we do know or rather have been told when in the EU we we're getting the best deal for everything, because we didn't have BRIT negotiators but german ones.

Remmeber those in the USA are getting compensation due to the fake emmisions scandal but not those in the UK because we had a better deal, thanks Germany.

On 20/06/2017 12:11, Capitol wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
On 20/06/2017 07:43, wrote:
On Tuesday, 20 June 2017 07:33:57 UTC+1, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1601427 20170620 001321 "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:

Really? You don't remember them saying the EU would be gagging for a
deal because they sell us more BMWs than we sell them Jags? And that
we buy more goods from them than we sell? And that the rest of the
world was just queuing up for a deal with the UK?

Oddly, all that strong arm stuff from the UK seems to be a bit muted
now.

So in your world if someone says something, all brexiters agree
with it.
Mmkay.

I'm talking about this little world here. All the bragging from the
Brexiteers has been a bit muted recently.

The external view:
https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingd...rope_der_bund/



Doesn't even attempt to get real

Well it is a bit of a watered down description of the **** we are in.

And now you get brexi****ters saying they want to emigrate from the ****
they have made.


Example?

TNP to start.

In article ,
michael adams wrote:

"Capitol" wrote in message
news


No difference at all. Walked away from a deal last month. I didn't need to buy a car,
so I kept the money and the car dealer lost the sale. WTO rules have the same effect.

The UK imports at least 40% of its food, and so unlike you and the car,
we do actually need to buy food. That's the difference.

Unless of course you're willing to allow 40% of the UK population to
starve to death, if you can't get the deal that you want. Whether
deliberately or not.

*Oh sorry I forgot about that bit".

Which isn't actually the bounds of possibility; given the degree of
mental competence you customarily display on this Newsgroup.

I think it as rather like changing jobs. A sensible person with
commitments would look round and test the waters etc to see how likely a
better one would be to find. Before resigning. I certainly did.

Did the UK test the waters to see how easy it would be to set up
alternative deals with other countries if/when we leave the EU? Unlike
some other countries we are a long way from being self sufficient, so need
to trade to earn the money needed to survive.

But having resigned with nowhere to go we have now got to go back to our
old employer and hope he'll take us back. Might not be quite under the
same conditions, though.

--
*When the going gets tough, use duct tape

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

On 20/06/2017 13:38, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/06/17 13:19, michael adams wrote:
"Capitol" wrote in message
news


No difference at all. Walked away from a deal last month. I didn't
need to buy a car,
so I kept the money and the car dealer lost the sale. WTO rules have
the same effect.

The UK imports at least 40% of its food, and so unlike you and the car,
we do actually need to buy food. That's the difference.

Unless of course you're willing to allow 40% of the UK population to
starve
to death, if you can't get the deal that you want. Whether
deliberately or not.

so stupid on so many counts

Yesterday I bought courgettes. From South Africa.
Cornflakes. From the USA
Lemons. From Israel.
Lamb. From New Zealand.
None of these countries are members of the EU.

And of course our ability to source food from the EU will be completely
unaffected by lack of a trade deal. It will simply be 5% more expensive.

Why will it be more expensive?
You claim the UK economy will boom once we leave so the resulting rise
in the £ will mean its cheaper.


If you actually want to convince me that brexit is a bad idea, at least
come up with a convincing argument based on facts, not some total
fantasy based on wishful thinking.


It will be interesting to see what the USA thinks of us when we have no
influence in the EU.

On Tuesday, 20 June 2017 13:19:50 UTC+1, michael adams wrote:
"Capitol" wrote in message
news


No difference at all. Walked away from a deal last month. I didn't need to buy a car,
so I kept the money and the car dealer lost the sale. WTO rules have the same effect.

The UK imports at least 40% of its food, and so unlike you and the car,
we do actually need to buy food. That's the difference.

Another thing if yuo look around where I live every other shop is either polish or romaian with quite a number of turkish and other nations how will these peolpe eat when the EU stops supplying their native food products ?


Unless of course you're willing to allow 40% of the UK population to starve
to death,


They might all be EU citizens, will they starve too or first ?

On Tuesday, 20 June 2017 14:09:28 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
michael adams wrote:


I think it as rather like changing jobs. A sensible person with
commitments would look round and test the waters etc to see how likely a
better one would be to find. Before resigning. I certainly did.

That would depend on the job you're leaving, and while in the job you'd know the benifits and downsides, and yuo're old employer would NOT be able to bully you, so I don't think this employer employee is very meaningful.


Did the UK test the waters to see how easy it would be to set up
alternative deals with other countries if/when we leave the EU? .

Well some did, whiel other decided we couldn't defeast the might of europe and would therefor starve or whatever.

Unlike
some other countries we are a long way from being self sufficient, so need
to trade to earn the money needed to survive.

The EU has about 10% of the worlds population, so yes there are other trading partners.


But having resigned with nowhere to go we have now got to go back to our
old employer and hope he'll take us back. Might not be quite under the
same conditions, though.

Well if you can trust your employers.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 20/06/17 13:19, michael adams wrote:
"Capitol" wrote in message
news


No difference at all. Walked away from a deal last month. I didn't need to buy a car,
so I kept the money and the car dealer lost the sale. WTO rules have the same effect.

The UK imports at least 40% of its food, and so unlike you and the car,
we do actually need to buy food. That's the difference.

Unless of course you're willing to allow 40% of the UK population to starve
to death, if you can't get the deal that you want. Whether deliberately or not.

so stupid on so many counts

snipped yesterday's Lidl shopping list

Trust you, to totally miss the point.

In the former case, Capitol could walk away from the car deal as he didn't actually
need a car.

In the latter case, the UK does actually need to import at least 40% of its food.

The first rule on page 1 of "Negotiating For Idiots" is to never let the other side know
just how desperate you are. As otherwise they will raise their asking price.

Whereas in this case, if the sellers have access to the Internet then they can look this
up on Wikipedia. And as soon as they see that 40% figure, that's it. Bingo !

When its a case of dumping a few thousand tons of courgettes or lemons,
as against 40% of a country's population dying of starvation, its pretty obvious
to me at least which party to that particulate transaction is holding the strongest hand.


michael adams

....

On 20/06/17 15:02, michael adams wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 20/06/17 13:19, michael adams wrote:
"Capitol" wrote in message
news

No difference at all. Walked away from a deal last month. I didn't need to buy a car,
so I kept the money and the car dealer lost the sale. WTO rules have the same effect.

The UK imports at least 40% of its food, and so unlike you and the car,
we do actually need to buy food. That's the difference.

Unless of course you're willing to allow 40% of the UK population to starve
to death, if you can't get the deal that you want. Whether deliberately or not.

so stupid on so many counts

snipped yesterday's Lidl shopping list

Trust you, to totally miss the point.

In the former case, Capitol could walk away from the car deal as he didn't actually
need a car.

In the latter case, the UK does actually need to import at least 40% of its food.

The first rule on page 1 of "Negotiating For Idiots" is to never let the other side know
just how desperate you are. As otherwise they will raise their asking price.

Whereas in this case, if the sellers have access to the Internet then they can look this
up on Wikipedia. And as soon as they see that 40% figure, that's it. Bingo !

When its a case of dumping a few thousand tons of courgettes or lemons,
as against 40% of a country's population dying of starvation, its pretty obvious
to me at least which party to that particulate transaction is holding the strongest hand.

And that is what makes you a complete ****wit..

Whoosh.


michael adams

...







--
The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all
private property.

Karl Marx

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 20/06/2017 13:38, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/06/17 13:19, michael adams wrote:
"Capitol" wrote in message
news

No difference at all. Walked away from a deal last month. I didn't
need to buy a car,
so I kept the money and the car dealer lost the sale. WTO rules have
the same effect.

The UK imports at least 40% of its food, and so unlike you and the car,
we do actually need to buy food. That's the difference.

Unless of course you're willing to allow 40% of the UK population to
starve
to death, if you can't get the deal that you want. Whether
deliberately or not.

so stupid on so many counts

Yesterday I bought courgettes. From South Africa. Cornflakes. From the
USA Lemons. From Israel. Lamb. From New Zealand. None of these
countries are members of the EU.

And of course our ability to source food from the EU will be
completely unaffected by lack of a trade deal. It will simply be 5%
more expensive.

Why will it be more expensive? You claim the UK economy will boom once
we leave so the resulting rise in the £ will mean its cheaper.


If you actually want to convince me that brexit is a bad idea, at
least come up with a convincing argument based on facts, not some
total fantasy based on wishful thinking.

Turnip is one of those who thinks we have a money tree.
And after all the comment on here and elswhere for the past year still
doesn't realise that it would never be any problem *buying* anything from
anywhere. If the price goes up that will be through the pound falling in
value or *our* government applying a duty, etc.

The thing he has totally ignored is we need to earn the money to spend on
such things. From exporting good and services. And countries who we don't
have a deal with will almost certainly put duty on those goods for obvious
reasons.


It will be interesting to see what the USA thinks of us when we have no
influence in the EU.

I doubt many avid Brexiteers saw Trump coming. With many of the same ideas
they have - pull up the draw bridge.

--
*How does Moses make his tea? Hebrews it.*

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

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Another thing if yuo look around where I live every other shop is either
polish or romaian with quite a number of turkish and other nations how
will these peolpe eat when the EU stops supplying their native food
products ?

Why would the EU stop supplying anything to the UK?

Does any shop refuse to sell you anything?

Provided you can pay for it, of course. That is the issue.

--
*Why is it considered necessary to screw down the lid of a coffin?

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

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 20 June 2017 14:09:28 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
michael adams wrote:


I think it as rather like changing jobs. A sensible person with
commitments would look round and test the waters etc to see how likely
a better one would be to find. Before resigning. I certainly did.

That would depend on the job you're leaving, and while in the job you'd
know the benifits and downsides, and yuo're old employer would NOT be
able to bully you, so I don't think this employer employee is very
meaningful.

I suppose some did think the EU bullied the UK. Despite the UK constantly
trying to bully it. Thatcher's handbag and so on.

But if you've put up with a job which has paid you ok etc for 40 odd
years, why flounce away from it before finding a better one?


Did the UK test the waters to see how easy it would be to set up
alternative deals with other countries if/when we leave the EU? .

Well some did, whiel other decided we couldn't defeast the might of
europe and would therefor starve or whatever.

Right. Makes sense to starve by leaving a job you'd had for all those
years? Maybe if something about that job had changed drastically - but
that hadn't happened with the EU.

Unlike some other countries we are a long way from being self
sufficient, so need to trade to earn the money needed to survive.

The EU has about 10% of the worlds population, so yes there are other trading partners.

On our doorstep? With a land border as we'll have between Ulster and Eire?
And are they all on the lookout for new trading partners to replace the
ones they already have?


But having resigned with nowhere to go we have now got to go back to
our old employer and hope he'll take us back. Might not be quite under
the same conditions, though.

Well if you can trust your employers.

You seem to have plenty stories about how bad yours are. But haven't left
in protest.

--
*Why 'that tie suits you' but 'those shoes suit you'?*

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

On Tuesday, 20 June 2017 15:02:14 UTC+1, michael adams wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 20/06/17 13:19, michael adams wrote:
"Capitol" wrote in message
news

No difference at all. Walked away from a deal last month. I didn't need to buy a car,
so I kept the money and the car dealer lost the sale. WTO rules have the same effect.

The UK imports at least 40% of its food, and so unlike you and the car,
we do actually need to buy food. That's the difference.

Unless of course you're willing to allow 40% of the UK population to starve
to death, if you can't get the deal that you want. Whether deliberately or not.

so stupid on so many counts

snipped yesterday's Lidl shopping list

Trust you, to totally miss the point.

In the former case, Capitol could walk away from the car deal as he didn't actually
need a car.

In the latter case, the UK does actually need to import at least 40% of its food.

No there's no evidence it needs 40% there's evidence it currently imports 40%.




The first rule on page 1 of "Negotiating For Idiots" is to never let the other side know
just how desperate you are. As otherwise they will raise their asking price.

Whereas in this case, if the sellers have access to the Internet then they can look this
up on Wikipedia. And as soon as they see that 40% figure, that's it. Bingo !



They can also see that 3.3 million EU citizens live in the UK and might wonder how the Polish, French, German, spanish, portuguese, etc are going to be able to eat.


When its a case of dumping a few thousand tons of courgettes or lemons,
as against 40% of a country's population dying of starvation, its pretty obvious
to me at least which party to that particulate transaction is holding the strongest hand.

The buyers as we can buy elsewhere like we did with wine, when the French made their wine expensive we started important wine from other countries you may have heard off. It will be the purchases choice who to buy wine from.
it won;t affect me much as I don;t mnormally drink wine, my fopregin friends like a glass of wine so it;s them that will be paying more not me. The last wine I brought was Thunderbird.

On Tuesday, 20 June 2017 15:39:53 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Another thing if yuo look around where I live every other shop is either
polish or romaian with quite a number of turkish and other nations how
will these peolpe eat when the EU stops supplying their native food
products ?

Why would the EU stop supplying anything to the UK?

I don;t think it will thre;s quite a few EU citizens with shops is the EU really goinf to starve these people or will it just cost them more to live in the UK ?


Does any shop refuse to sell you anything?

Well not normally, most shops will sell stuff depending on it's price
and it's customers.
People will pays £100s for a bottle of wine I won't.
I stopped buying wine when it went over £4.99 a bottle.


Provided you can pay for it, of course. That is the issue.

Provided those that buy it from the EU can make a profit from it is more the point. I've yet to work out what advantage it will be for the shops to increase their prices, as I don't normally look to see where a product comes from for purchasing I'll just carry on as normal, if things are more expensive I may decide to buy less, and who will gain from that in the EU ?

On Tuesday, 20 June 2017 15:39:53 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 20/06/2017 13:38, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/06/17 13:19, michael adams wrote:
"Capitol" wrote in message
news

No difference at all. Walked away from a deal last month. I didn't
need to buy a car,
so I kept the money and the car dealer lost the sale. WTO rules have
the same effect.

The UK imports at least 40% of its food, and so unlike you and the car,
we do actually need to buy food. That's the difference.

Unless of course you're willing to allow 40% of the UK population to
starve
to death, if you can't get the deal that you want. Whether
deliberately or not.

so stupid on so many counts

Yesterday I bought courgettes. From South Africa. Cornflakes. From the
USA Lemons. From Israel. Lamb. From New Zealand. None of these
countries are members of the EU.

And of course our ability to source food from the EU will be
completely unaffected by lack of a trade deal. It will simply be 5%
more expensive.

Why will it be more expensive? You claim the UK economy will boom once
we leave so the resulting rise in the £ will mean its cheaper.


If you actually want to convince me that brexit is a bad idea, at
least come up with a convincing argument based on facts, not some
total fantasy based on wishful thinking.

Turnip is one of those who thinks we have a money tree.
And after all the comment on here and elswhere for the past year still
doesn't realise that it would never be any problem *buying* anything from
anywhere. If the price goes up that will be through the pound falling in
value or *our* government applying a duty, etc.

The thing he has totally ignored is we need to earn the money to spend on
such things. From exporting good and services. And countries who we don't
have a deal with will almost certainly put duty on those goods for obvious
reasons.


It will be interesting to see what the USA thinks of us when we have no
influence in the EU.

I doubt many avid Brexiteers saw Trump coming. With many of the same ideas
they have - pull up the draw bridge.

I thought the EU were acting like Trump by not allowing in foreign goods or rather goods from countries outside their own that they couldn't compete with and then call it 'free trade'

On 20/06/2017 16:13, whisky-dave wrote:

The buyers as we can buy elsewhere like we did with wine, when the
French made their wine expensive we started important wine from other
countries you may have heard off. It will be the purchases choice who
to buy wine from.

Progress at last.
Yes its the purchasers choice of where to buy stuff.
So when we need to sell our stuff to earn money to buy stuff who is
going to have to buy our stuff?
Why will the EU buy anything from us if it costs more than elsewhere as
much stuff will once the tariffs are applied as they must be.

Are we actually going to be selling more stuff to markets that already
exist and we don't currently sell more to? Why don't we sell more to
them now, there is nothing stopping us from doing so.


it won;t affect me much as I don;t mnormally drink
wine, my fopregin friends like a glass of wine so it;s them that will
be paying more not me. The last wine I brought was Thunderbird.

but you do eat and run a car and use electricity and lots of other
things that depend on imports that we have to pay for.

I just hope the brex****ters are right and we will be better off in the
brave new world but I doubt it.

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 20 June 2017 15:39:53 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Another thing if yuo look around where I live every other shop is
either polish or romaian with quite a number of turkish and other
nations how will these peolpe eat when the EU stops supplying their
native food products ?

Why would the EU stop supplying anything to the UK?

I don;t think it will thre;s quite a few EU citizens with shops is the EU
really goinf to starve these people or will it just cost them more to
live in the UK ?


Does any shop refuse to sell you anything?

Well not normally, most shops will sell stuff depending on it's price and
it's customers. People will pays £100s for a bottle of wine I won't. I
stopped buying wine when it went over £4.99 a bottle.

Go to Lidl, then.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On 20/06/2017 16:26, whisky-dave wrote:

Provided you can pay for it, of course. That is the issue.

Provided those that buy it from the EU can make a profit from it is more the point. I've yet to work out what advantage it will be for the shops to increase their prices, as I don't normally look to see where a product comes from for purchasing I'll just carry on as normal, if things are more expensive I may decide to buy less, and who will gain from that in the EU ?


To buy stuff from the EU you will need euros.
To get euros you have to exchange something they want.
Now if we are spending more foreign currency than we are earning you
will run out of euros after that you can't buy from the EU or anywhere else.
It doesn't matter if the importer or supermarket can make a profit from
selling it to you if they can't buy it in the first place.
Look at what it was like behind the iron curtain, no exports so they
couldn't buy the stuff they wanted.

On Tuesday, 20 June 2017 15:49:56 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 20 June 2017 14:09:28 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
michael adams wrote:


I think it as rather like changing jobs. A sensible person with
commitments would look round and test the waters etc to see how likely
a better one would be to find. Before resigning. I certainly did.

That would depend on the job you're leaving, and while in the job you'd
know the benifits and downsides, and yuo're old employer would NOT be
able to bully you, so I don't think this employer employee is very
meaningful.

I suppose some did think the EU bullied the UK. Despite the UK constantly
trying to bully it. Thatcher's handbag and so on.

Little UK bullying the big EU yes sure.
perhaps it was more to do with getting a better deal. The 1st deal need not be the best on offer, the best is when your oponents back down not when you back down.



But if you've put up with a job which has paid you ok etc for 40 odd
years, why flounce away from it before finding a better one?


Some women put up with abusive relationships for longer.

Sometimes things change and the light is seen, sometimes it might be at the end of a tunnel.


Did the UK test the waters to see how easy it would be to set up
alternative deals with other countries if/when we leave the EU? .

Well some did, whiel other decided we couldn't defeast the might of
europe and would therefor starve or whatever.

Right. Makes sense to starve by leaving a job you'd had for all those
years? Maybe if something about that job had changed drastically - but
that hadn't happened with the EU.

Nothings change in the EU in 40 years even I remmebr the ideas behind
being part of a common market EEC and I was at school.
I remmebr discusing the free market and how WORKERS should be able to travel between countries and work for short periods of time, it was work forces that had free movement not whole familes and their dependants.

I remember the idea of free elctricity too not everything stays the same in a lifetime. Nuclear reactors were the anwsner not solar panels and windmills.
Now the lastes is a kit which pulls the cable upwards which rotates the cable reel which generates electricity.



Unlike some other countries we are a long way from being self
sufficient, so need to trade to earn the money needed to survive.

The EU has about 10% of the worlds population, so yes there are other trading partners.

On our doorstep?

you've not noticed those large container ships then crossing the oceans rather than just the channnel.



And are they all on the lookout for new trading partners to replace the
ones they already have?

If they need them they wil find them, I'm not sure where all the Polish lager will come from now, I haventl; had any for years but I see plenty about in shops on the pavement if it gets expensive or the EU wants to ban it's export those that drink it will die of thirst or choose something else.

What do you think they will do.

During the war sailors and airman risked their lives to get food to the UK while teh germans bombed and torpedo the ships.



But having resigned with nowhere to go we have now got to go back to
our old employer and hope he'll take us back. Might not be quite under
the same conditions, though.

Well if you can trust your employers.

You seem to have plenty stories about how bad yours are. But haven't left
in protest.

They are bad in some respects but nothing I can't handle I don't have to bend over pull my trousers down and take it.

We have a problem this miniute a stiudetn wants to use our router(drilling thing), he says he knows how to use one but has never used one, the department says students aren't allowed to use such things unless they have been trained by staff, our last remaining memeber of workshop staff left 2 weeks ago and they have no plans to replace him. The students supervisor want him to be given the router to use, I'm not going to break the departments H&S stance, so I;m not giving him permission to use the router.

He's also asked at 4:50 we close at 5, doesn't give him much time to do what he wants under supervision even if it were availible.
I'm leaving it up to my mamager.

I also remind my manager that again when the fire alarm sounded the one in my lab didn't sound the same thing happend about 1 month ago a man came around I saidf the sounder isn't working he said OK and went and that was the last I saw of him.
So yes I do comnplain but should I have to leave because of these things.....
Do yuo think I need to leave because the told me it is my job to ciollect the parcels because the women in chrage of post can;t carry parcels, BTW we are an equal opponunities employer so we employ a women to do the post that can;t actually carry parcels, they sent me on the lifting course but didnlt send any women on the course, now we are running specail course for women so they get promoted quicker.





--
*Why 'that tie suits you' but 'those shoes suit you'?*

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