Seen over Yorkshire. Is this the EU vision of Brexit?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-40287817

Richard

On 15/06/17 21:23, Tricky Dicky wrote:
Seen over Yorkshire. Is this the EU vision of Brexit?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-40287817

Richard

its possible that they are that deluded I suppose


--
"What do you think about Gay Marriage?"
"I don't."
"Don't what?"
"Think about Gay Marriage."

On Friday, 16 June 2017 07:24:31 UTC+1, jim wrote:
Tricky Dicky Wrote in message:
Seen over Yorkshire. Is this the EU vision of Brexit?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-40287817

Richard


"
Huddersfield photographer Golcar Matt snapped the cloud in the
East Midlands"

More haste more Speed?

No, no more speed , a bit of haste maybe but there's enough R. Speed on here.

flushed the rest of your **** where it belongs,
you couldn't lie your way out of a paper bag.

etc... etc..

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.

Tricky Dicky Wrote in message:
Seen over Yorkshire. Is this the EU vision of Brexit?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-40287817

Richard


"Huddersfield photographer Golcar Matt snapped the cloud in the
East Midlands"

More haste more Speed?

--
Jim K


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

On 16/06/2017 20:06, 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.

Yes. I am fed up of remainers criticising the "No deal is better than a
bad deal" stance. If the EU know that we are not willing to walk away
with no deal, they simply can offer an awful deal, knowing we have no
choice other than to accept it or, if enough of the public cannot
tolerate the deal, stay in. Even if we do not intend to walk away, we
must appear that we might do so, so that such a bad deal is never made.

SteveW

On 16/06/2017 22:02, Steve Walker wrote:
On 16/06/2017 20:06, 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.

Yes. I am fed up of remainers criticising the "No deal is better than a
bad deal" stance. If the EU know that we are not willing to walk away
with no deal, they simply can offer an awful deal, knowing we have no
choice other than to accept it or, if enough of the public cannot
tolerate the deal, stay in. Even if we do not intend to walk away, we
must appear that we might do so, so that such a bad deal is never made.

SteveW

We could just withdraw article 50 notice and stay as we are if we can
only get a bad deal.

On 16/06/17 19:01, 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.

+17,000,000


--
"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

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 16/06/2017 22:02, Steve Walker wrote:
On 16/06/2017 20:06, 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.

Yes. I am fed up of remainers criticising the "No deal is better than a
bad deal" stance. If the EU know that we are not willing to walk away
with no deal, they simply can offer an awful deal, knowing we have no
choice other than to accept it or, if enough of the public cannot
tolerate the deal, stay in. Even if we do not intend to walk away, we
must appear that we might do so, so that such a bad deal is never made.

SteveW

We could just withdraw article 50 notice and stay as we are if we can only
get a bad deal.

In which case you think we'll not have to use the euro + other euro
********?
We're out matey, however it happens.
Thank **** she triggered.
Sorry Dave.

It happens that Cursitor Doom formulated :
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

In article ,
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.

I'd say the EU are probably ****ing themselves with laughter over the mess
May has made of things in such a short time, and might take pity on us.

But it's about time the Brexiteers realise the EU holds all the cards. The
idea the UK can demand anything from them being the nonsense it is and was.

Of course no problem at all to simply cut off all ties with them.

--
*After the game, the King and the pawn go into the same box.

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

In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
Yes. I am fed up of remainers criticising the "No deal is better than a
bad deal" stance.

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.

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.

--
*WHAT IF THERE WERE NO HYPOTHETICAL QUESTIONS?

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

"Cursitor Doom" wrote in message
news

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.

Spot on.

"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.

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.


michael adams

....

On Sat, 17 Jun 2017 11:15:09 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
Yes. I am fed up of remainers criticising the "No deal is better than a
bad deal" stance.

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.

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.

.... yup, potentially on behalf of the minority who wanted it (minority
% of voteable population) and most of them:

1) Had no idea what they would actually get for their vote.

2) Voted on bogus ideals and dreams in any case.

3) Voted against things that in most cases were complete BS.

Cheers, T i m

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.

--
*Can fat people go skinny-dipping?

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

On 15/06/2017 21:23, Tricky Dicky wrote:
Seen over Yorkshire. Is this the EU vision of Brexit?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-40287817

Richard

any chance of not posting off topic material. Charter for this usenet
groups does forbid it.

T i m wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jun 2017 11:15:09 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
Yes. I am fed up of remainers criticising the "No deal is better than a
bad deal" stance.

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.

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.

... yup, potentially on behalf of the minority who wanted it (minority
% of voteable population) and most of them:

1) Had no idea what they would actually get for their vote.

2) Voted on bogus ideals and dreams in any case.

3) Voted against things that in most cases were complete BS.

Cheers, T i m


Still Remoaning Tim!

On 17/06/2017 11:15, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
Yes. I am fed up of remainers criticising the "No deal is better than a
bad deal" stance.

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.

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.

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.

SteveW

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.

--
*Husband and cat lost -- reward for cat

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

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

No one but you flagrantly dishonest arseholes have ever
said anything about totally cutting off any trade with the EU.

The so called hard brexit.

More of your flagrant dishonesty. Hard brexit is no
agreement at all, and trading under the WTO rules
that the EU and Britain are ALREADY signatorys to.

Just like all of the USA, Australia, New Zealand, India,
China etc etc etc all do right now with the EU.

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.

Yes, but its only Britain that flogs more than half the ****ing engines
that Airbus uses, and most of the wings and has a ****ing clue about
financial transactions, unlike the ****wit krauts that were actually
stupid enough to lend trillions to Greece and got to wear the fact
that they get only part of that back from Greece now.

Not to mention a deal that is in anyway better than that other members
have.

How odd that all but 3 of these do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...ade_agreements

Only 3 of those were actually stupid enough to sign up to the free
movement of people, or to do what the EU wants to do policy wise,
or do anything with the illegals that manage to get into the EU either.

Many Brexiteers seemed to think us leaving
would lead to the break up of the EU.

It may well see it implode financially without the amount Britain pays now.

So far, if anything, it is stronger.

Even sillier and more flagrantly dishonest
than you usually manage financially alone.

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.

It will be even if there is no agreement at all, you watch.

In article . com,
"dennis@home" writes
On 16/06/2017 22:02, Steve Walker wrote:
On 16/06/2017 20:06, 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.
Yes. I am fed up of remainers criticising the "No deal is better
than a bad deal" stance. If the EU know that we are not willing to
walk away with no deal, they simply can offer an awful deal, knowing
we have no choice other than to accept it or, if enough of the public
cannot tolerate the deal, stay in. Even if we do not intend to walk
away, we must appear that we might do so, so that such a bad deal is

SteveW

We could just withdraw article 50 notice and stay as we are if we can
only get a bad deal.
That stance would ensure we get a bad deal.
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
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.
No it wouldn't, it would merely have hardened the stance of the EU. Are
you so thick you can't see that.


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.

Couldn't give a **** what happens to the EU as long as we can trade with
the member states whether they be in or out of the EU. But you still
haven't explained what sort of deal could possibly be better in your
opinion than being a member.
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.


--
bert

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

I'd say the EU are probably ****ing themselves with laughter over the mess
May has made of things in such a short time, and might take pity on us.

But it's about time the Brexiteers realise the EU holds all the cards. The
idea the UK can demand anything from them being the nonsense it is and was.

It's the remoaners who are determined to give the EU as many cards as
possible.
Of course no problem at all to simply cut off all ties with them.

Your usual stupidity.
--
bert

In article , michael
adams writes

"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.

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.


michael adams

...


Belgium? More or less important than Luxembourg?
--
bert

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

Nothing can be worse than surrendering your democratic freedom
--
bert

On Saturday, 17 June 2017 00:26:13 UTC+1, bm wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 16/06/2017 22:02, Steve Walker wrote:
On 16/06/2017 20:06, 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.

Yes. I am fed up of remainers criticising the "No deal is better than a
bad deal" stance. If the EU know that we are not willing to walk away
with no deal, they simply can offer an awful deal, knowing we have no
choice other than to accept it or, if enough of the public cannot
tolerate the deal, stay in. Even if we do not intend to walk away, we
must appear that we might do so, so that such a bad deal is never made.

SteveW

We could just withdraw article 50 notice and stay as we are if we can only
get a bad deal.

In which case you think we'll not have to use the euro + other euro
********?
We're out matey, however it happens.
Thank **** she triggered.
Sorry Dave.

+1
There will be lots of attempts to scupper Brexit.

On Saturday, 17 June 2017 12:51:56 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jun 2017 11:15:09 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
Yes. I am fed up of remainers criticising the "No deal is better than a
bad deal" stance.

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.

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.

... yup, potentially on behalf of the minority who wanted it (minority
% of voteable population) and most of them:

1) Had no idea what they would actually get for their vote.

2) Voted on bogus ideals and dreams in any case.

3) Voted against things that in most cases were complete BS.

Cheers, T i m

Even if we get no deal, out is still best.
Merkel has thousands of scumbag migrants to send over here for a start if we're still in.

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.
It has been harped on right here endlessly.

On Sunday, 18 June 2017 21:39:47 UTC+1, bert wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
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.

Nothing can be worse than surrendering your democratic freedom
--
bert

+1
Without us, the EUSSR is sunk.

On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 13:49:38 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Saturday, 17 June 2017 12:51:56 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jun 2017 11:15:09 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
Yes. I am fed up of remainers criticising the "No deal is better than a
bad deal" stance.

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.

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.

... yup, potentially on behalf of the minority who wanted it (minority
% of voteable population) and most of them:

1) Had no idea what they would actually get for their vote.

2) Voted on bogus ideals and dreams in any case.

3) Voted against things that in most cases were complete BS.

Cheers, T i m

Even if we get no deal, out is still best.
Merkel has thousands of scumbag migrants to send over here for a start if we're still in.

Complete ********.

On Sat, 17 Jun 2017 12:51:56 +0100, T i m wrote:

On Sat, 17 Jun 2017 11:15:09 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
Yes. I am fed up of remainers criticising the "No deal is better than a
bad deal" stance.

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.

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.

... yup, potentially on behalf of the minority who wanted it (minority
% of voteable population) and most of them:

1) Had no idea what they would actually get for their vote.

2) Voted on bogus ideals and dreams in any case.

3) Voted against things that in most cases were complete BS.

True. Anyway the Brexiteers will be kept busy searching for the pot
of gold at the end of the rainbow.

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.

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.

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.

On Monday, 19 June 2017 14:49:22 UTC+1, 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.

History gives some clues.

On 19/06/2017 14:44, Mark wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jun 2017 12:51:56 +0100, T i m wrote:

On Sat, 17 Jun 2017 11:15:09 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
Yes. I am fed up of remainers criticising the "No deal is better than a
bad deal" stance.

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.

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.

... yup, potentially on behalf of the minority who wanted it (minority
% of voteable population) and most of them:

1) Had no idea what they would actually get for their vote.

2) Voted on bogus ideals and dreams in any case.

3) Voted against things that in most cases were complete BS.

True. Anyway the Brexiteers will be kept busy searching for the pot
of gold at the end of the rainbow.

They don't need to look for it. A simple phone call to JC and he'll tell
them where it is...

"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.

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.


NT

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

--
*If at first you don't succeed, redefine success.

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