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.


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



The USA doesn't care, they will carry on as normal. I like the idea of
US beef and pork without tariffs. I find their meat superior to ours.

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.


Dreams of a Corbyn ally!

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.


michael adams

...






You're talking Remoaner rubbish. TNP is correct.

whisky-dave wrote:
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.




Lidl seem to have reduced their EU wine prices

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
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'

There you go then. All the more reason not to leave before finding an
alternative.

World trade is pretty mature these days. Most countries have already set
up deals with others which suit them just fine. As we had. Of course
things change gradually - but having left the EU we need alternative
trading partners PDQ. If we can't make a suitable deal with the EU.

You must have read here and elswhere that were lots of markets just
gagging to do a deal with the UK free of the EU. Well, yes. Plenty want to
sell to us. But just who wants our goods and services that we don't
already sell to?

--
*The longest recorded flightof a chicken is thirteen seconds *

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
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.


So, you were incapable of finding employment on your own? Doesn't
surprise me.

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
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.

Right. You're one of those that thinks the EU was united against the UK,
Very Mail, that one.

--
*Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.*

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

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?

Does any shop refuse to sell you anything?

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


AIUI all shops have the right to refuse to serve you.

dennis@home wrote:
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.

Oh, Dense you have no comprehension at all of how trade works!

dennis@home wrote:
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.

Only one example? One swaallow, etc.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
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'

There you go then. All the more reason not to leave before finding an
alternative.

World trade is pretty mature these days. Most countries have already set
up deals with others which suit them just fine. As we had. Of course
things change gradually - but having left the EU we need alternative
trading partners PDQ. If we can't make a suitable deal with the EU.

You must have read here and elswhere that were lots of markets just
gagging to do a deal with the UK free of the EU. Well, yes. Plenty want to
sell to us. But just who wants our goods and services that we don't
already sell to?


Have you been taking the Dense logic course. The rules say you can't
find an alternative before you leave!

On 20/06/17 17:48, Capitol wrote:
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.


Dreams of a Corbyn ally!

Plow**** is a huge projector. He believes everyone is like he really is,
but denies to himself that he is

Socialism is the philosophy that relies on big money trees, planeted by
other peole, which it then cuts down and redistributes, but after that
there are no more trees.


As we pointed out, Corbyn has never earned a penny doing anything
productive in his life.



--
You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a
kind word alone.

Al Capone

On 20/06/17 18:01, Capitol wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
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.

Only one example? One swaallow, etc.

I want to emigrate from the **** that corbyn and the EU are about to make.

I am too old to live through another labour government


--
You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a
kind word alone.

Al Capone

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
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.

Even sillier than you usually manage. Their tiny little operations
make their wine rather more expensive than plenty of others.

And its **** wine too.

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.

And those fried mars bars dont even come from the EU anyway.

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,

Nope. The WTO rules have been there for a long time now.

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.

Nope, because the US emissions standards were more stringent.

On 20/06/2017 18:13, Capitol wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
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'

There you go then. All the more reason not to leave before finding an
alternative.

World trade is pretty mature these days. Most countries have already set
up deals with others which suit them just fine. As we had. Of course
things change gradually - but having left the EU we need alternative
trading partners PDQ. If we can't make a suitable deal with the EU.

You must have read here and elswhere that were lots of markets just
gagging to do a deal with the UK free of the EU. Well, yes. Plenty
want to
sell to us. But just who wants our goods and services that we don't
already sell to?


Have you been taking the Dense logic course. The rules say you
can't find an alternative before you leave!

More brex**** lies, of course you can go and sell to anyone else *if*
they want to buy it.
We already do sell to countries outside the EU, the question
brexit****ters like you always avoid is where are the new ones?

On 20/06/2017 17:47, Capitol wrote:

The USA doesn't care, they will carry on as normal. I like the idea
of US beef and pork without tariffs. I find their meat superior to ours.

I prefer it without all the hormones added.

On 20/06/2017 18:00, Capitol wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
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.

Oh, Dense you have no comprehension at all of how trade works!

Go on then explain where you are getting the currency from to pay for
imports.

On 20/06/2017 18:55, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I want to emigrate from the **** that corbyn and the EU are about to make.

I am too old to live through another labour government



Vote leave and leave us in the ****.

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"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.

Britain doesn’t need any deal with the EU to avoid anyone starving to death.

It is free to import any food it likes from anywhere, including the
EU and anywhere else that wants to sell it food, under the WTO
rules and both Britain and the EU happen to be WTO signatorys.

So Britain is in fact free to do with the EU just what he did with
the car salesman and carry on regardless and get its imported
food cheaper than it can get it for while its in the EU, because
when it isnt in the EU anymore, it doesn’t have to pay tariffs
on food that doesn’t come from the EU anymore.

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

It is in fact nothing even remotely 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.

Yes, but Britain knows what the situation is trade wise in
the worst case where no trade deal with the EU is possible.

It is free to import any food it likes from anywhere and wouldn’t
have to impose any tariff on any of it if it chose not to do that.

And it already knows how that worked before it joined
the EEC and did that with commonwealth countrys.

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?

It knows that it doesn’t need any alternative deals with anyone.
And knows it is free to operate under by far the most comprehensive
trade deal the world has ever seen, the WTO. which it was in fact
a very crucial participant in setting up.

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

And Britain knows it did fine doing that before it joined the EEC.

And that the EU has no choice on what it currently gets from Britain,
particularly with aircraft engines and wings, financial services, docos
and TV series etc in english, decent scotch and gin etc etc etc.

But having resigned with nowhere to go

Even more flagrantly dishonest than you usually manage.

we have now got to go back to our old
employer and hope he'll take us back.

Even sillier and more flagrantly dishonest than you usually manage.

Might not be quite under the same conditions, though.

Corse not, but it aint gunna happen, you watch.

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

Bet that doesnt change. Trump doesnt give a flying red **** about the EU.

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"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.

We'll see who is missing the point.

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

Yes.

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

Yes, but the EU will be happy to continue to sell Britain
what food it chooses to buy from the EU, and Britain is
free to buy what it can get cheaper from the rest of the
world than it can get from the EU too.

Not only isnt anyone in Britain going to starve, they
will in fact be paying less for the food they choose
to eat because they wont have to pay any tariff on
the food that doesn’t come from the EU anymore.

So Britain will in fact be in a much better
position than Capitol is with the car dealer.

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.

Trouble with this line is that Britain isnt desperate at all. Outside the EU
its
free to buy what it imports from anywhere it likes and the EU will be happy
to continue to sell Britain whatever food it decides it prefers from the EU
too.

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 !

There is no Bingo. They are free to look up in the internet what other
sources of food Britain outside the EU is free to use, and already uses
and don’t need to look anything up to know that the EU will be happy
to continue to sell Britain whatever it chooses to buy from the EU too.

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,

That last has always been just your pathetic little
drug crazed pig ignorant fantasy with Britain.

its pretty obvious to me at least which party to that particulate
transaction is holding the strongest hand.

Yep, Britain, which is free to buy whatever it wants
from anywhere it wants once its out of the EU.

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

No point in doing that with the stuff it has to have like aircraft engines
and wings. That would make Airbus less competitive than it currently is.

Yes, the EU may well do that on scotch and gin etc to assist
Eire particularly, but that no big deal if it chooses to do that.

Britain exports **** all cars to the EU and is free to have its own duty
on EU cars and trucks etc if the EU is stupid enough to go that route.

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.

I doubt many of you remoaners did either.

And he couldn't care less about Britain being in the EU anyway.

He in fact wants to pull out of NAFTA himself.

With many of the same ideas they have - pull up the draw bridge.

With immigration, sure. You get to like that or lump it.

dennis@home wrote
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?

Those that need it like Airbus. And those that
prefer a decent scotch than irish whisky etc.

And those that prefer the best docos and TV series in english etc.

And those that want financial services from operations that
arent actually stupid enough to lend billions to Greece with
no possibility of ever being paid back, let alone a decent return.

Why will the EU buy anything from us if it costs more than elsewhere

It wouldnt with the stuff Airbus needs.

as much stuff will once the tariffs are applied as they must be.

They dont have to be with stuff that doesnt
compete with what the EU produces.

Are we actually going to be selling more stuff to markets that already
exist and we don't currently sell more to?

Yes, particularly while the pound has sagged a bit.
Thats what devaluations do and is why the kraut
car industry is currently doing so well.

Why don't we sell more to them now,

Britain is doing just that now the pound has sagged a bit.

there is nothing stopping us from doing so.

There was, the value of the pound.

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.

And will have to pay less for when the EU tariff protection no longer
applys.

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

Bet Britain does fine, and it will no longer have to accept
the dregs of the EU that decide that their prospects are
better in Britain than where they are coming from and
will no longer have to implement EU policy if that makes
no sense for Britain and will be free to decide that for itself.

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

There is plenty of that that they have to have like aircraft engines, wings,
docos, TV series in english, financial services decent scotch etc etc etc.

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.

Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage.
Most of the first world, including the EU itself, runs a trade deficit.

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.

But you always can 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.

Pity that Britain will always have exports.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 20/06/2017 18:13, Capitol wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
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'

There you go then. All the more reason not to leave before finding an
alternative.

World trade is pretty mature these days. Most countries have already set
up deals with others which suit them just fine. As we had. Of course
things change gradually - but having left the EU we need alternative
trading partners PDQ. If we can't make a suitable deal with the EU.

You must have read here and elswhere that were lots of markets just
gagging to do a deal with the UK free of the EU. Well, yes. Plenty want
to
sell to us. But just who wants our goods and services that we don't
already sell to?


Have you been taking the Dense logic course. The rules say you can't
find an alternative before you leave!

More brex**** lies, of course you can go and sell to anyone else *if* they
want to buy it.
We already do sell to countries outside the EU, the question
brexit****ters like you always avoid is where are the new ones?

Dont need new ones. Britain will continue to trade with
all of the ones it currently trades with, including the EU.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 20/06/2017 18:00, Capitol wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
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.

Oh, Dense you have no comprehension at all of how trade works!

Go on then explain where you are getting the currency from to pay for
imports.

Same place as currently, and more of that currency due to the effective
devaluation.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 20/06/2017 18:55, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I want to emigrate from the **** that corbyn and the EU are about to
make.

I am too old to live through another labour government



Vote leave and leave us in the ****.

Leave Britain in better times, you watch.

In article , Mark
writes
On Sat, 17 Jun 2017 12:52:16 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
michael adams wrote:

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...


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.

"This once proud country of ours" has already been reduced to
a laughing stock and so I hardly see how strutting about like
a cockerel in a farmyard is going to do us much good.

Quite simple, really. Just turn the clock back. That's what Brexiteers
want to do. Might have been better if they'd had a tardis rather than bus
to display their slogans on.

Only this week the Belgian chief EU negotiator ( You remeber
Belgium ? - the country the Germans normally march through in
order to get at the French ) insisted that if we wanted to change
our minds, then he and the other 26 might let us - providing
we gave up our rebate and agreed to join the Euro.

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.

Nothing can be worse than losing ones hard fought for democratic
freedoms
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
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.


NT

Remoaners are pessimists and see problems behind opportunities. Leavers
are optimists and see opportunities behind problems.
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
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.

Don't need to shout it every two minutes, unlike Remoaners who just have
to moan moan moan endlessly.
--
bert

In article ,
writes
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
O see Hammond [1] is the latest Remoaners to claim to know what we voted
for, or didn't vote for.

[1] that's Phil not Richard
--
bert

In article ,
says...

On Sunday, 18 June 2017 01:04:54 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
Why would anyone - other than a total idiot - agree to a bad deal? A deal
is an agreement between parties. It's by definition not something imposed
by one on another.

Because if there is not the option of walking away without a deal, the
other side has the power to impose a deal that is bad for you, but good
for them, simply by a take it or leave it ultimatum.

Perhaps it might have helped if the very vocal Brexiteers has explained
from the start that we would be very foolish indeed to totally cut off any
trade etc with the EU. The so called hard brexit.

If they know that you *may* walk away, they will not want to put you in
a position where you might, because they *do* want a deal too, so they
are likely to offer you a better deal.

There are all sorts of ramifications for the EU to offer a better deal to
the UK than other associate countries like Norway already have. Not to
mention a deal that is in anyway better than that other members have. Many
Brexiteers seemed to think us leaving would lead to the break up of the
EU. So far, if anything, it is stronger.

That is one reason why 'remainers' object to these pithy sayings so
loved by Brexiteers.

But the main problem is any deal worked out will suit some but not
others.

That will always be the case, yes.

Let's just hope it is for the benefit of the country as a whole.


Stop whinging.
Everyone knew the possible consequences.

Seems unlikely.

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , Mark
writes
On Sat, 17 Jun 2017 12:52:16 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
michael adams wrote:

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...


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.

"This once proud country of ours" has already been reduced to
a laughing stock and so I hardly see how strutting about like
a cockerel in a farmyard is going to do us much good.

Quite simple, really. Just turn the clock back. That's what Brexiteers
want to do. Might have been better if they'd had a tardis rather than bus
to display their slogans on.

Only this week the Belgian chief EU negotiator ( You remeber
Belgium ? - the country the Germans normally march through in
order to get at the French ) insisted that if we wanted to change
our minds, then he and the other 26 might let us - providing
we gave up our rebate and agreed to join the Euro.

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.

Nothing can be worse than losing ones hard fought for democratic freedoms

Even sillier than you usually manage. Death is much worse because your
hard fought for democratic freedoms are useless once you are dead.

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
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.

Remoaners are pessimists and see problems behind opportunities. Leavers
are optimists and see opportunities behind problems.

Mindless mantra chanting on both sides.

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 20/06/2017 18:13, Capitol wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
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'

There you go then. All the more reason not to leave before finding an
alternative.

World trade is pretty mature these days. Most countries have already
set up deals with others which suit them just fine. As we had. Of
course things change gradually - but having left the EU we need
alternative trading partners PDQ. If we can't make a suitable deal
with the EU.

You must have read here and elswhere that were lots of markets just
gagging to do a deal with the UK free of the EU. Well, yes. Plenty
want to
sell to us. But just who wants our goods and services that we don't
already sell to?


Have you been taking the Dense logic course. The rules say you
can't find an alternative before you leave!

They can't stop you negotiating a deal with another country or countries
to come into effect after we leave. How could they - send the army they
don't have in?

--
*I don't suffer from insanity; I enjoy every minute of it.

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

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 20/06/2017 18:55, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I want to emigrate from the **** that corbyn and the EU are about to
make.

I am too old to live through another labour government



Vote leave and leave us in the ****.

Very odd Turnip was one of the minority who didn't seem to get the 18%
average increase in real living standards under Blair. Must have been
working (if you can call it that) for himself. With a product or service
no one wanted.

--
*I started out with nothing... and I still have most of it.

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

In article ,
Mark wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Sunday, 18 June 2017 01:04:54 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
Why would anyone - other than a total idiot - agree to a bad deal? A deal
is an agreement between parties. It's by definition not something imposed
by one on another.

Because if there is not the option of walking away without a deal, the
other side has the power to impose a deal that is bad for you, but good
for them, simply by a take it or leave it ultimatum.

Perhaps it might have helped if the very vocal Brexiteers has explained
from the start that we would be very foolish indeed to totally cut off any
trade etc with the EU. The so called hard brexit.

If they know that you *may* walk away, they will not want to put you in
a position where you might, because they *do* want a deal too, so they
are likely to offer you a better deal.

There are all sorts of ramifications for the EU to offer a better deal to
the UK than other associate countries like Norway already have. Not to
mention a deal that is in anyway better than that other members have. Many
Brexiteers seemed to think us leaving would lead to the break up of the
EU. So far, if anything, it is stronger.

That is one reason why 'remainers' object to these pithy sayings so
loved by Brexiteers.

But the main problem is any deal worked out will suit some but not
others.

That will always be the case, yes.

Let's just hope it is for the benefit of the country as a whole.


Stop whinging.
Everyone knew the possible consequences.

Seems unlikely.

Luckily, those in charge, ie parliament, now seem unwilling to let the
country go down the plughole just to satisfy the fantasies of a few old
farts.

--
*Too many clicks spoil the browse *

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

in 1601567 20170620 133837 The Natural Philosopher wrote:

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.

Hilarious!
I've asked many brexiters to name one way in which the UK will benefit
and got not a single answer (apart from the idiotic myth-based claims
about control, sovereignty, bananas etc)

http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/...ths-a-z-index/

On 21/06/2017 08:12, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1601567 20170620 133837 The Natural Philosopher wrote:

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.

Hilarious!
I've asked many brexiters to name one way in which the UK will benefit
and got not a single answer (apart from the idiotic myth-based claims
about control, sovereignty, bananas etc)

http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/...ths-a-z-index/


- Not having to pay benefits to children living abroad whose parents
turned up at our door yesterday.
- Ability to keep convicted EU criminals out.
- etc, etc