En el artículo om, bm
escribió:

You certainly won't, you voted for ****-all.

heh.

if you fancy a giggle at D i m 's stupidity:

https://forums.theregister.co.uk/user/49756/

he's a LibDumb voter, says it all really...

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) "Between two evils, I always pick
(")_(") the one I never tried before." - Mae West

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
But when you get a PM bribing another party (with taxpayer's
money) to keep her in office for a few more weeks...

Here's Dave peddling that lie again.

Wonder what you'd have said if it were Corbyn heading a minority
government and he'd done similar.

Perhaps you don't understand what bribe means. Here's a clue:-

Collins GEM English Dictionary
bribe n. anything offered or given to someone to gain favour, influence,
etc.. ˜v. give (someone) a bribe. ˜bribery n.

Now explain just how that billion plus isn't a bribe.

--
*They call it PMS because Mad Cow Disease was already taken.

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

"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...
En el artículo om, bm
escribió:

You certainly won't, you voted for ****-all.

heh.

if you fancy a giggle at D i m 's stupidity:

https://forums.theregister.co.uk/user/49756/

he's a LibDumb voter, says it all really...

His poor wife. Think she plays bingo a lot or maybe SHE has the allotment?

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
But when you get a PM bribing another party (with taxpayer's
money) to keep her in office for a few more weeks...

Here's Dave peddling that lie again.

Wonder what you'd have said if it were Corbyn heading a minority
government and he'd done similar.

Perhaps you don't understand what bribe means. Here's a clue:-

Collins GEM English Dictionary
bribe n. anything offered or given to someone to gain favour, influence,
etc.. ~v. give (someone) a bribe. ~bribery n.

Now explain just how that billion plus isn't a bribe.

bigot
'b?g?t/noun
noun: bigot; plural noun: bigots
1.. a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.

En el artículo . com,
bm escribió:

His poor wife. Think she plays bingo a lot or maybe SHE has the allotment?

She's probably a walking advert for Valium.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) "Between two evils, I always pick
(")_(") the one I never tried before." - Mae West

On Wed, 28 Jun 2017 14:20:40 +0100, "bm" wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
But when you get a PM bribing another party (with taxpayer's
money) to keep her in office for a few more weeks...

Here's Dave peddling that lie again.

Wonder what you'd have said if it were Corbyn heading a minority
government and he'd done similar.

Perhaps you don't understand what bribe means. Here's a clue:-

Collins GEM English Dictionary
bribe n. anything offered or given to someone to gain favour, influence,
etc.. ~v. give (someone) a bribe. ~bribery n.

Now explain just how that billion plus isn't a bribe.

bigot
'b?g?t/noun
noun: bigot; plural noun: bigots
1.. a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.


Nice, side step the perfectly valid (and factually correct) question
with a further example of your complete ignorance.

Dave its perfectly tolerant to you holding a different opinion to him
and he constantly demonstrates that by reply to and not killfiling you
(and most others have).

So, please do as he asks and explain to the good people here (well,
the few that don't have you killfiled for being the baiting troll you
are) how giving NI £1B+ and not doing the same to say Wales or
Scotland isn't just as was suggested (a bribe) and is just a
coincidence to desperately *needing* to get the DUP onboard?

Go on, try to actually give an adult explanation to why the bribe
suggestion isn't correct and with supportive facts, not you usual
distraction techniques and bluster.

Cheers, T i m

"T i m" wrote in message
...
**** snipped
Oh look, it's D i m.
Wrong again D i m, Dave has me killfiled because he doesn't want to read the
truth about himself.
You just type ******** (and plenty of it).
C'mon, what dick goes to vote and spoils his paper?
What double dick comes on here and admits it?

On Tue, 27 Jun 2017 05:30:58 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:

On Tuesday, 27 June 2017 12:30:41 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jun 2017 04:19:53 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:

On Tuesday, 27 June 2017 11:55:47 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jun 2017 10:55:21 +0100, bert wrote:


When I got married the first time I thought it was going to be 'for
life'

IS that like joining the EEC it was for life.

Potentially, yes.

But nowadays in the modern world such marriages can be ended mutually.

They can indeed, as ours was (in the end).


but it turned out that wasn't to be (my decision).

So you;re saying you can;t see into the future and you just did what seemed right at the time and the forseeable future.

Of course.

A bit like countries and their present leaders or 'subjects' can't either

Quite?



However, the
'cost' of that not going to plan was just restricted to us, not the
entire country and for generations to come.

Not really iether you or your wife might have found someone more compatable on day one or day two so you have both effectively elleminated the chances of being with someone more compatable.

Well, without divorcing etc but I thought we had covered the 'for
life' concept above?

You only have to divorce if you get married.

Yes, and?


So 'we' decided to get
married and 'we' (well, mainly me) decided to get divorced and it was
something that was deeply discussed and the consequences fully known
and understood.

But why did you get married in the first place ?

Because my girlfriend at the time wanted to, and I had no reason not
to.

So things have changed then just like they do in life.

Yes ... and?

But woul,d you have got married if she;d said well leave me in teh furture and it'll cost you a years or two years salary or 100 Billion of whatever figure.

Of course not? Do you have a point here?

being thrown out yuo when you mentioned divorce.

Is this some counseling for you Dave? ;-)


why not just live together, that's what my friends have done one such couple have been living together for 22 years and haven't seen the need to get married.

Yup, that would have been fine by me, until there were the thoughts of
having children (which is the only reason I / we got marred the second
time) or for some tax benefits etc.

Those reasons make sense to me.

And us and why we did them.


So, back to Brexit, for most people this divorce has come out of the
blue and for no valid (as in the overall cost over any perceived
benefits) or justifiable reason.

Like most divorces then, but would you have got married if they;'d presented you with a document saying if you leave this is what will happen 1-2 years salery etc...

No, but that's not the only / biggest issue or scenario here is it.
This isn't a marriage (between two people) but a club membership and
one member deciding that they don't want to be a member any more for
some potentially valid and some potentially bs reasons.


The Brexiteers are wanting the divorce because they *think* someone on
the other side of the family is doing something against them and that
divorcing *will* make everything so much better.

and do you think divorcing your wife will make things so much better ?

Again, not the situation here. Your question needs to be 'and you
think everyone in the gang will be better off by leaving the club'?

And I have never said that I know, in fact I've said that (like most
if they were honest) I don't know. All I have said is that I don't
think most of the people in the gang are best positioned or informed
to know, without being presented with real and honest facts.

Some in the gang are 'upset' that there are people on the management
of the club who are on good salaries. This could be no different to
the salaries paid to someone to run a charity who gets twice the money
(and 1000x their salary) in for the charity compared with the person
previously dong it on a voluntary basis.

Or the Accountant *saving* a company 5 x their wages.

Then we have some of the gang (about half when they were fed a load of
bs and then asked) changing their mind on some of the rules that 1)
they originally signed up to and 2) that most of the other club
members are still perfectly happy with (when seeing the bigger
picture).

Then there are those in the gang that don't like people from the other
gangs in the club coming over to their space ... even though they are
equally able to go there or anywhere else in the club, like it says in
the terms they signed up to.

Etc etc.

Cheers, T i m

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
But when you get a PM bribing another party (with taxpayer's
money) to keep her in office for a few more weeks...

Here's Dave peddling that lie again.

Wonder what you'd have said if it were Corbyn heading a minority
government and he'd done similar.

Perhaps you don't understand what bribe means. Here's a clue:-

Collins GEM English Dictionary
bribe n. anything offered or given to someone to gain favour, influence,
etc.. Ëœv. give (someone) a bribe. Ëœbribery n.

So any party manifesto offering anything to anyone is by definition a
bribe. A sin vote for us and we will refund your tuition fees?
Now explain just how that billion plus isn't a bribe.


--
bert

On Wed, 28 Jun 2017 20:37:07 +0100, bert wrote:

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
But when you get a PM bribing another party (with taxpayer's
money) to keep her in office for a few more weeks...

Here's Dave peddling that lie again.

Wonder what you'd have said if it were Corbyn heading a minority
government and he'd done similar.

Perhaps you don't understand what bribe means. Here's a clue:-

Collins GEM English Dictionary
bribe n. anything offered or given to someone to gain favour, influence,
etc.. ˜v. give (someone) a bribe. ˜bribery n.

So any party manifesto offering anything to anyone is by definition a
bribe.

Indirectly yes, especially where financial matters are concerned and
financial gain especially. 'You vote for us and we will build more
youth centre's not so much.

A sin vote for us and we will refund your tuition fees?

Yup, another indirect bribe ... anything where money comes into it
directly especially.

Now explain just how that billion plus isn't a bribe.

You can't because it is and far more blatant than their more typical
lies (as they rarely happen as they promise so weren't bribes as
promises as such).

Now, if the entire country (or the vast majority of it) benefits from
something then it's simply what they *should* be doing, assuming it's
sustainable and not just another bribe etc. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Wed, 28 Jun 2017 16:50:36 +0100, "bm" wrote:

snip childish name calling and bs

I don't use a killfile but this last post by bm pretty well confirms
'bm' is just another stalking troll, has no place in any 'discussion
group' and so will just be ignored from now on, just like the (2 or 3)
other pathetic / sad stalking trolls.

Cheers, T i m

In article ,
T i m wrote:
So any party manifesto offering anything to anyone is by definition a
bribe.

Indirectly yes, especially where financial matters are concerned and
financial gain especially. 'You vote for us and we will build more
youth centre's not so much.

But the voters vote on a manifesto. This wasn't in it.

A sin vote for us and we will refund your tuition fees?

Yup, another indirect bribe ... anything where money comes into it
directly especially.

Now explain just how that billion plus isn't a bribe.

You can't because it is and far more blatant than their more typical
lies (as they rarely happen as they promise so weren't bribes as
promises as such).

It was merely to keep the Tories in power. Not something that had been
discussed earlier. So a bribe.

Now, if the entire country (or the vast majority of it) benefits from
something then it's simply what they *should* be doing, assuming it's
sustainable and not just another bribe etc. ;-)

I'm sure spending on the infrastructure will benefit Ulster. The question
is could that money have been better spent elsewhere?

--
*(on a baby-size shirt) "Party -- my crib -- two a.m

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

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Jun 2017 16:50:36 +0100, "bm" wrote:

snip childish name calling and bs

I don't use a killfile but this last post by bm pretty well confirms
'bm' is just another stalking troll, has no place in any 'discussion
group' and so will just be ignored from now on, just like the (2 or 3)
other pathetic / sad stalking trolls.

Thank the lord.

On Wednesday, 28 June 2017 16:57:41 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jun 2017 05:30:58 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:


So you;re saying you can;t see into the future and you just did what seemed right at the time and the forseeable future.

Of course.

A bit like countries and their present leaders or 'subjects' can't either

Quite?



You only have to divorce if you get married.

Yes, and?

As in it;s possible to have sex and not be married just like it's possible to trade and not be in a 'union'
So what is the reason for marraige. we know what the reason was in the past.



But why did you get married in the first place ?

Because my girlfriend at the time wanted to, and I had no reason not
to.

So things have changed then just like they do in life.

Yes ... and?

If things have changed then maybe the things yuo agreed to in the begining are no longer true or valid, did you still agree to love honour and obey until death.........

If you agree to such a thing surely after the devorce you must be put to death.


But woul,d you have got married if she;d said well leave me in teh furture and it'll cost you a years or two years salary or 100 Billion of whatever figure.

Of course not? Do you have a point here?

if the UK + EU is like a marriage then whatever was agreed at the time must have been know about so where is this figure(s) of who owes who and who owns what...



So, back to Brexit, for most people this divorce has come out of the
blue and for no valid (as in the overall cost over any perceived
benefits) or justifiable reason.

Like most divorces then,

but would you have got married if they;'d presented you with a document saying if you leave this is what will happen 1-2 years salery etc...


No, but that's not the only / biggest issue or scenario here is it.
This isn't a marriage (between two people) but a club membership and
one member deciding that they don't want to be a member any more for
some potentially valid and some potentially bs reasons.

Like when I left the camera club. I understod on joining I could use their facilities but on leaving I understood I could no longer use them.
It's the sorts of things you agree to when you become a memeber of the club.



The Brexiteers are wanting the divorce because they *think* someone on
the other side of the family is doing something against them and that
divorcing *will* make everything so much better.

and do you think divorcing your wife will make things so much better ?

Again, not the situation here. Your question needs to be 'and you
think everyone in the gang will be better off by leaving the club'?

Does that matter, unless the deal is totally one sided there will always be winners and losers.


And I have never said that I know, in fact I've said that (like most
if they were honest) I don't know. All I have said is that I don't
think most of the people in the gang are best positioned or informed
to know, without being presented with real and honest facts.

But you won't get those real and honsest facts when the jobs of those employed to publish them depend on them.
why didn't those in charge of the remain camp publish the deal that says if we leave the EU we will have to pay to 100 billion ?



Some in the gang are 'upset' that there are people on the management
of the club who are on good salaries.

They rarely complain if they think that those are doing a good job or the job they want done. Show me all those UKIP supports saying that nigal Farage earns to much as an MEP.


This could be no different to
the salaries paid to someone to run a charity who gets twice the money
(and 1000x their salary) in for the charity compared with the person
previously dong it on a voluntary basis.

Or like Sir philip Geen who 'rescued' BHS or Sir jimmy saville
Such heros aren't they I wonder what FACTS' got them where they were .



Or the Accountant *saving* a company 5 x their wages.

Isnlt iut strange that the only peole that can afford to have someone save them tax is the rich. That tells you (or should) about the tax system.


Then we have some of the gang (about half when they were fed a load of
bs and then asked) changing their mind on some of the rules that 1)
they originally signed up to and 2) that most of the other club
members are still perfectly happy with (when seeing the bigger
picture).

Makes you wonder why more people voted to leave than remain or is it that it's a fact you haven't recognised.


Then there are those in the gang that don't like people from the other
gangs in the club coming over to their space ... even though they are
equally able to go there or anywhere else in the club, like it says in
the terms they signed up to.

You;ve seen the T&Cs for the EU, then where is the one about the 100 billion.

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
T i m wrote:
So any party manifesto offering anything to anyone is by definition a
bribe.

Indirectly yes, especially where financial matters are concerned and
financial gain especially. 'You vote for us and we will build more
youth centre's not so much.

But the voters vote on a manifesto. This wasn't in it.

A sin vote for us and we will refund your tuition fees?

Yup, another indirect bribe ... anything where money comes into it
directly especially.

Now explain just how that billion plus isn't a bribe.

You can't because it is and far more blatant than their more typical
lies (as they rarely happen as they promise so weren't bribes as
promises as such).

It was merely to keep the Tories in power. Not something that had been
discussed earlier. So a bribe.

Now, if the entire country (or the vast majority of it) benefits from
something then it's simply what they *should* be doing, assuming it's
sustainable and not just another bribe etc. ;-)

I'm sure spending on the infrastructure will benefit Ulster. The question
is could that money have been better spent elsewhere?

Typical socialist. Doesn't consider the option of not spending it at
all.
--
bert

En el artículo . com,
bm escribió:

Thank the lord.

Aren't you the lucky one

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) "Between two evils, I always pick
(")_(") the one I never tried before." - Mae West

On 29/06/2017 14:52, bert wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
T i m wrote:
So any party manifesto offering anything to anyone is by definition a
bribe.

Indirectly yes, especially where financial matters are concerned and
financial gain especially. 'You vote for us and we will build more
youth centre's not so much.

But the voters vote on a manifesto. This wasn't in it.

A sin vote for us and we will refund your tuition fees?

Yup, another indirect bribe ... anything where money comes into it
directly especially.

Now explain just how that billion plus isn't a bribe.

You can't because it is and far more blatant than their more typical
lies (as they rarely happen as they promise so weren't bribes as
promises as such).

It was merely to keep the Tories in power. Not something that had been
discussed earlier. So a bribe.

Now, if the entire country (or the vast majority of it) benefits from
something then it's simply what they *should* be doing, assuming it's
sustainable and not just another bribe etc. ;-)

I'm sure spending on the infrastructure will benefit Ulster. The question
is could that money have been better spent elsewhere?

Typical socialist. Doesn't consider the option of not spending it at all.

"If we don't spend all our budget this year then we'll get less next
year..."

En el artículo ,
JoeJoe escribió:

"If we don't spend all our budget this year then we'll get less next
year..."

I never understood that. The mad dash to spend budgets before the end
of the financial year meant a lot of money got wasted (and a lot of
useless toys got bought by manglement)

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) "Between two evils, I always pick
(")_(") the one I never tried before." - Mae West

On Thursday, 29 June 2017 15:54:29 UTC+1, JoeJoe wrote:
On 29/06/2017 14:52, bert wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
T i m wrote:
So any party manifesto offering anything to anyone is by definition a
bribe.

Indirectly yes, especially where financial matters are concerned and
financial gain especially. 'You vote for us and we will build more
youth centre's not so much.

But the voters vote on a manifesto. This wasn't in it.

A sin vote for us and we will refund your tuition fees?

Yup, another indirect bribe ... anything where money comes into it
directly especially.

Now explain just how that billion plus isn't a bribe.

You can't because it is and far more blatant than their more typical
lies (as they rarely happen as they promise so weren't bribes as
promises as such).

It was merely to keep the Tories in power. Not something that had been
discussed earlier. So a bribe.

Now, if the entire country (or the vast majority of it) benefits from
something then it's simply what they *should* be doing, assuming it's
sustainable and not just another bribe etc. ;-)

I'm sure spending on the infrastructure will benefit Ulster. The question
is could that money have been better spent elsewhere?

Typical socialist. Doesn't consider the option of not spending it at all.

"If we don't spend all our budget this year then we'll get less next
year..."

That happens here too.

On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 05:20:11 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:

On Wednesday, 28 June 2017 16:57:41 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jun 2017 05:30:58 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:


So you;re saying you can;t see into the future and you just did what seemed right at the time and the forseeable future.

Of course.

A bit like countries and their present leaders or 'subjects' can't either

Quite?



You only have to divorce if you get married.

Yes, and?

As in it;s possible to have sex and not be married just like it's possible to trade and not be in a 'union'

Quite, but the thing is we are in the club (no, not that) and so the
issue now isn't shall we join, but why would we want to leave.

So what is the reason for marraige.

Irrelevant now.

we know what the reason was in the past.

Quite ... it was done for a (good?) reason and if at least 66% don't
like what it has become, the first steps would be to put some real
effort into changing it for the better, not running away (into
something unknown because the world is a different place compared to
when we joined).




But why did you get married in the first place ?

Because my girlfriend at the time wanted to, and I had no reason not
to.

So things have changed then just like they do in life.

Yes ... and?

If things have changed then maybe the things yuo agreed to in the begining are no longer true or valid, did you still agree to love honour and obey until death.........

This IS NOT between two people so the principals don't apply. This is
a club and we (the population of the UK and the EU) all play a part in
all of it. You aren't considering the bigger picture?

If you agree to such a thing surely after the devorce you must be put to death.

See above.


But woul,d you have got married if she;d said well leave me in teh furture and it'll cost you a years or two years salary or 100 Billion of whatever figure.

Of course not? Do you have a point here?

if the UK + EU is like a marriage

And it isn't ... it's a gang (England) being the members of a club
(the EU). We signed up to the rules at the beginning and AFASK, the
key rules haven't changed.

then whatever was agreed at the time must have been know about so where is this figure(s) of who owes who and who owns what...

Quite. So, you tell me what rules have changed where we (England) are
being singled out?


So, back to Brexit, for most people this divorce has come out of the
blue and for no valid (as in the overall cost over any perceived
benefits) or justifiable reason.

Like most divorces then,

but would you have got married if they;'d presented you with a document saying if you leave this is what will happen 1-2 years salery etc...

More like 'these are the rules / terms of the club membership' and I'd
like you to tell me what rules have been changed since we joined that
don't also apply to all the other members?


No, but that's not the only / biggest issue or scenario here is it.
This isn't a marriage (between two people) but a club membership and
one member deciding that they don't want to be a member any more for
some potentially valid and some potentially bs reasons.

Like when I left the camera club.

Ok, now we might be on a better track ... ;-)

I understod on joining I could use their facilities but on leaving I understood I could no longer use them.

Exactly. So, I'm pretty sure even the Brexiteers don't want to loose
access to the EU trading market bit if the deal (that you signed when
you joined) is you can only have that if you accept your other duties
and responsibilities ...?

It's the sorts of things you agree to when you become a memeber of the club.

Bingo. So, what is it that has changed that we are being forced to do
that potentially doesn't apply to all the others gangs in the club?
Why should we expect to be treated any differently?



The Brexiteers are wanting the divorce because they *think* someone on
the other side of the family is doing something against them and that
divorcing *will* make everything so much better.

and do you think divorcing your wife will make things so much better ?

Again, not the situation here. Your question needs to be 'and you
think everyone in the gang will be better off by leaving the club'?

Does that matter, unless the deal is totally one sided there will always be winners and losers.

Bingo ... that's one of the 'points' of the club. Like when we joined
we were losers and we drawing money from the EU.


And I have never said that I know, in fact I've said that (like most
if they were honest) I don't know. All I have said is that I don't
think most of the people in the gang are best positioned or informed
to know, without being presented with real and honest facts.

But you won't get those real and honsest facts when the jobs of those employed to publish them depend on them.

Right, then we need to change the way we make these decisions.

why didn't those in charge of the remain camp publish the deal that says if we leave the EU we will have to pay to 100 billion ?

I don't know, do we? However, it doesn't actually matter about the
details, what matters is how they are presented, (or spun, distorted
or lied about) to people stupid enough to believe any of them or
cherry-pick what suits their crusades when they should (if being asked
to vote on it) really decline to vote until they have such
information.

Try it yourself, when you Mrs presents you with outfit 1 or outfit 2
and asks you to tell her which you think best, a smart man knows he
would never have sufficient information, background or foresight to
ever answer the question correctly, so you decline. ;-)



Some in the gang are 'upset' that there are people on the management
of the club who are on good salaries.

They rarely complain if they think that those are doing a good job or the job they want done.

I think some still do. We have seen it here when there is no way they
could ever be able to professionally qualify just how much VFM they
were.

Show me all those UKIP supports saying that nigal Farage earns to much as an MEP.

Quite ... that sounds like most of the same hypocrisy though eh.


This could be no different to
the salaries paid to someone to run a charity who gets twice the money
(and 1000x their salary) in for the charity compared with the person
previously dong it on a voluntary basis.

Or like Sir philip Geen who 'rescued' BHS or Sir jimmy saville
Such heros aren't they I wonder what FACTS' got them where they were .

Quite ... and exactly my point.



Or the Accountant *saving* a company 5 x their wages.

Isnlt iut strange that the only peole that can afford to have someone save them tax is the rich.

Has the accountancy profession always formally excluded the poor then?

That tells you (or should) about the tax system.

That particularly doesn't me anything about anything as it's all just
someone's viewpoint.


Then we have some of the gang (about half when they were fed a load of
bs and then asked) changing their mind on some of the rules that 1)
they originally signed up to and 2) that most of the other club
members are still perfectly happy with (when seeing the bigger
picture).

Makes you wonder why more people voted to leave than remain or is it that it's a fact you haven't recognised.

I've been over this too many times. It's the NUMBER (or lack of) the
number of people who voted leave over those who voted remain and the
spirit of what that says that is important to me. Anyone saying 'the
country has spoken' has no idea exactly what percentage difference of
those who actually voted was and it was nearly 50:50. That is nowhere
near the percentage required by the very person who got us into this
position who demanded it must be at least 2/3rds to remain before he
would consider it a valid decision of 'the people'. Irony or what?


Then there are those in the gang that don't like people from the other
gangs in the club coming over to their space ... even though they are
equally able to go there or anywhere else in the club, like it says in
the terms they signed up to.

You;ve seen the T&Cs for the EU,

I have?

then where is the one about the 100 billion.

Is it in the same paragraph about bribing NI with £1B+ to keep the
government viable?


Cheers, T i m

In message , Mike Tomlinson
writes
En el artículo ,
JoeJoe escribió:

"If we don't spend all our budget this year then we'll get less next
year..."

I never understood that. The mad dash to spend budgets before the end
of the financial year meant a lot of money got wasted (and a lot of
useless toys got bought by manglement)

Huh! My boss had a budget for coal when the entire site was heated by
heavy fuel oil!


--
Tim Lamb

On Thursday, 29 June 2017 17:16:02 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 05:20:11 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:

On Wednesday, 28 June 2017 16:57:41 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jun 2017 05:30:58 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:


So you;re saying you can;t see into the future and you just did what seemed right at the time and the forseeable future.

Of course.

A bit like countries and their present leaders or 'subjects' can't either

Quite?



You only have to divorce if you get married.

Yes, and?

As in it;s possible to have sex and not be married just like it's possible to trade and not be in a 'union'

Quite, but the thing is we are in the club (no, not that) and so the
issue now isn't shall we join, but why would we want to leave.

Just like any other sitiation.


So what is the reason for marraige.

Irrelevant now.

No it isn't otherwise divorce wouldn't exist.


we know what the reason was in the past.

Quite ... it was done for a (good?) reason and if at least 66% don't
like what it has become, the first steps would be to put some real
effort into changing it for the better,

That was attempted to some extent I cartainly remember david cameron trying..


not running away (into
something unknown because the world is a different place compared to
when we joined).

Nothing wrong with running away from things that don't suit you.




If things have changed then maybe the things yuo agreed to in the begining are no longer true or valid, did you still agree to love honour and obey until death.........

This IS NOT between two people so the principals don't apply.

Of course it applies.


This is
a club and we (the population of the UK and the EU) all play a part in
all of it. You aren't considering the bigger picture?

What bigger picture the EU isn;t the largest nation on Earth.



If you agree to such a thing surely after the devorce you must be put to death.

See above.

you signed you agreed, you joined the club called marraige.




if the UK + EU is like a marriage

And it isn't ... it's a gang (England) being the members of a club
(the EU). We signed up to the rules at the beginning and AFASK, the
key rules haven't changed.

The key rules what are these key rules ?


then whatever was agreed at the time must have been know about so where is this figure(s) of who owes who and who owns what...

Quite. So, you tell me what rules have changed where we (England) are
being singled out?

I've no idea I never signed anything did you ?



Like when I left the camera club.

Ok, now we might be on a better track ... ;-)

I understod on joining I could use their facilities but on leaving I understood I could no longer use them.

Exactly. So, I'm pretty sure even the Brexiteers don't want to loose
access to the EU trading market bit if the deal (that you signed when
you joined) is you can only have that if you accept your other duties
and responsibilities ...?

Unless you know the deal you can't really comment.



It's the sorts of things you agree to when you become a memeber of the club.

Bingo. So, what is it that has changed that we are being forced to do
that potentially doesn't apply to all the others gangs in the club?
Why should we expect to be treated any differently?

Lots changed.
Even nthe name changed from the EEC to the EU.
But according to you nothing has changed.

You don't just change the name of your club without a good reason, we considered that at our camera club.



Again, not the situation here. Your question needs to be 'and you
think everyone in the gang will be better off by leaving the club'?

Does that matter, unless the deal is totally one sided there will always be winners and losers.

Bingo ... that's one of the 'points' of the club. Like when we joined
we were losers and we drawing money from the EU.

Yes and now that has changed we want to go forward with teh rest of the world no hang back like the EU.


But you won't get those real and honsest facts when the jobs of those employed to publish them depend on them.

Right, then we need to change the way we make these decisions.

Who the **** are WE. One country in 28 when it comes to voting for anything.
And even then those that are voting we don't elect.

How do WE make these decision when it's the EU making the decisions ?



why didn't those in charge of the remain camp publish the deal that says if we leave the EU we will have to pay to 100 billion ?

I don't know, do we?

Who is this WE ?
Is it just those we the UK or the we in the EU.
Tell me who the we are ?


However, it doesn't actually matter about the
details, what matters is how they are presented, (or spun, distorted
or lied about) to people stupid enough to believe any of them or
cherry-pick what suits their crusades when they should (if being asked
to vote on it) really decline to vote until they have such
information.

Try it yourself, when you Mrs presents you with outfit 1 or outfit 2
and asks you to tell her which you think best, a smart man knows he
would never have sufficient information, background or foresight to
ever answer the question correctly, so you decline. ;-)

Pretty stupid analogy, but when that happened to me I agreed with everything she said but it still took her ages, wheneven I said it was fine or OK she went back and got changed again and again, no joke.
When she first moved in with me she aske me what time I wanted to leave to go to the club together, I said I usually leave about midmight get the 12:15am night bus bus. In the end I phoned for a cab at 3:20am to leave as she didn't want to get there too late ! So don't try mixing logic and women getting ready.
Yes and she was French !
The 2nd time I she suggested we go to a gig together I refused and asid I wasn't gpoing with her, so she just brought one ticket.
The band were due on about 10:00pm, at 11:00pm she was still getting ready !


This could be no different to
the salaries paid to someone to run a charity who gets twice the money
(and 1000x their salary) in for the charity compared with the person
previously dong it on a voluntary basis.

Or like Sir philip Geen who 'rescued' BHS or Sir jimmy saville
Such heros aren't they I wonder what FACTS' got them where they were .

Quite ... and exactly my point.

How does that support your point ?
Surely the EU had rules about the sort of thing he did.



Or the Accountant *saving* a company 5 x their wages.

Isnlt iut strange that the only peole that can afford to have someone save them tax is the rich.

Has the accountancy profession always formally excluded the poor then?

No idea I;ve never been rich enough to find out.
But I;ve always found it interesting that justice is in some part based on weath, why should a 'good solicitor' be selecfted either yuo're guilty or innocent based on what you did not how much you can afford for a solicitor.


That tells you (or should) about the tax system.

That particularly doesn't me anything about anything as it's all just
someone's viewpoint.

That only the rich should have enough money so they can pay less tax than the poor.



Makes you wonder why more people voted to leave than remain or is it that it's a fact you haven't recognised.

I've been over this too many times. It's the NUMBER (or lack of) the
number of people who voted leave over those who voted remain and the
spirit of what that says that is important to me.

Same thing as when we joined.


Anyone saying 'the
country has spoken' has no idea exactly what percentage difference of
those who actually voted was and it was nearly 50:50. That is nowhere
near the percentage required by the very person who got us into this
position who demanded it must be at least 2/3rds to remain before he
would consider it a valid decision of 'the people'. Irony or what?

Yes and yet who is this WE that voted.



Then there are those in the gang that don't like people from the other
gangs in the club coming over to their space ... even though they are
equally able to go there or anywhere else in the club, like it says in
the terms they signed up to.

You;ve seen the T&Cs for the EU,

I have?

then where is the one about the 100 billion.

Is it in the same paragraph about bribing NI with £1B+ to keep the
government viable?

At least our govenment had the right to decide for itself, maybe that decision should have been left to the EU is that what your saying ?