In article , Mark
writes
On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 03:14:18 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:

On Monday, 2 October 2017 17:21:02 UTC+1, Mark wrote:
On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 16:59:35 +0100, James Harris
wrote:

On 02/10/2017 15:31, Mark wrote:
On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 15:24:17 +0100, James Harris
wrote:

On 02/10/2017 15:14, Mark wrote:
On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 14:43:57 +0100, James Harris
wrote:

On 02/10/2017 14:12, pamela wrote:
On 13:04 2 Oct 2017, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 02/10/17 12:01, pamela wrote:


The negotiation is not just the part where we sit around a
table and banter with one another over tea & biscuits then
leave with handshakes and smiles. Everything is part of the
negotiation and that includes walkouts, threats, brinkmanship,
partisan voting, off the record briefings and so on.

Yes, thats how amateurs negotiate, Business men establish first
that they are not dealing with idiots, and play the game mostly
straight. It saves time and money

The EU aims to win by fair means or foul. The British aim to win
by only fair means.

Who is most likely to win? I'm not asking whose conscience is the
clearest.

Do we want a good deal or not? Are we going to wise up to the
EU's tactics or are we going to moan about the unfair way Johnny
Foreigner played and won the game?

A fair assessment. I would add that the goals are different.
The EU has
stated that from their point of view Brexit has to cause
diminishment. I
believe them.

Another good reason not to leave the EU.

Sure. Anyone that bullies us should be given in to. No doubt about it.

No, staying in the EU is not giving in.

If we had chosen to stay then I would agree with you. But when the
sequence is:

FSVO "we"

1. We are going to leave
2. Then we'll make choices to ensure you are worse off
3. OK, we'll stay.

Then that's being bullied.

The referendum was very close and recent polls show that the tide has
turned.

Which shows bullying works that's how classic bullying works.

No. There are many reasons for the change on opinions, one of which
was all the lies told by the brexit campaigners.


Oh dear. Still throwing up that old chestnut.
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote:

It's the UK that want to retain some of the goodies of being an EU
member.

But free trade deals aren't exclusively available to EU members, the EU
has (or wants) free trade with South Korea, Canada, Japan, etc, etc.

None of which are in Europe, or has a border with a European country. For
an existing deal, you need to look at one which has.

So why *wouldn't* they want one with the UK? Especially as many
obstacles they're making much of, such as customs borders between Eire
and Northern Ireland, would then go away ...

I think you'll find the Irish on both sides of the border are making a
rather bigger song and dance about the results of it being closed again.
As will have to happen with no free trade agreement.

No it won't. Think about the situation if it is nominally closed but in
practice left open. Oh sorry you're too thick to think.
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote:

I think you'll find the Irish on both sides of the border are making a
rather bigger song and dance about the results of it being closed
again. As will have to happen with no free trade agreement.

So why not see if we can agree an FTA deal rather than waste time
worrying about consequences which won't exist if we can?

Of course. We need a FTA with the EU. Everyone knows that. But Brexiteers
want one with no conditions. Something which ain't going to happen.

Which bit of Agreement don't you understand?
--
bert

In article , Cursitor Doom
writes
On Sun, 01 Oct 2017 22:35:08 +0100, bert wrote:

But once unskilled immigration is under control their wages will rise.
Surely as a good socialist you would welcome that - or are you a true
Marxist **** like McDonnell and Corbyn?

He can't possibly be a Marxist cos he drives a Porsche and a true Marxist
would just take a bus everywhere.



He's in for a nasty shock then if Corbyn ever gets into power.
--
bert

In article , pamela
writes
On 21:30 1 Oct 2017, Steve Walker wrote:

On 01/10/2017 14:36, pamela wrote:
On 10:52 1 Oct 2017, tim... wrote:



"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
No the reality is the the EU are a bunch of bullies who
think that by bullying us into terms that are very bad for
us, very good for them we will meekly say "perhaps we
shouldn't leave then" (and then they will turn up the screw
even higher and strip us of our opt outs)

You really need to think this through.

We joined the EU of our own free will. Agreed to all the
rules and regulations, or negotiated an opt out if not to our
taste.

and we have given our notice to leave as required by the rules

and the EU are now trying to re-write these leaving rules to
suit themselves.

Of course that's exactly what they are doing. Did we expect
the EU to apply the rule flexibly such that they were in our
favour? Dream on!

Due to self serving ******s like Farage and his other bully
boys stirring up those who knew no better, 'we' voted to
leave.

Not been thrown out of the club - but said it wasn't for us
anymore.

But now seem to have discovered lots of it was in the
interests of the country as a whole. And like a selfish
toddler want to hang on to what suits us regardless of the
rules of that club.

There will NEED to be a set of future trading rules between us
and the EU after we have left. This is for the benefit of
everyone, EU included.

But the EU seem to think that they don't need to sit down and
discuss this, they got better things to do (apparently).

Don't fret over the EU doing damage to itself. It's quite big
enough to handle that.

FTAOD There is no presumption that the above means that the
end result of the discussion should be specifically beneficial
to the UK [1]. Just that all those little things which NEED
to be sorted out, are sorted out, before the leaving date.

Like any good negotiator, I suspect the EU will make sure those
very things (called "peanuts" in negotiating circles) are not
agreed unless we make significant concessions.

Also, in order to maximise the value to the EU of those
concessions they will delay such discussions until as late as
possible to impress upon the UK that it's staring a loss in the
face. No doubt Brexiteers will squeal.

tim

[1] Except in the sense that it affects a larger portion of
our world trade than it does the EU's world trade, but that is
inevitable - you can't use that fact as a justification for a
country not being able to exercise its right to leave.

Britain has the right to leave the EU and Britain has the right
to bear the consequences of leaving. Meanwhile the EU has the
right not to provide any assistance. It's all part of
realpolitik.

And the fact that the EU would make it as didicult as possible,
so as to discourage others leaving, shows exactly why we need to
leave.

For the most part, the EU was mutually beneficial for those who
were in it. If the UK chooses to leave then it can not complain
that it is missing out on the advantages of being a member.

We're not. The only advantage is the free trade area which we had before
the EU.
If the UK finds it hard to leave then it should have thought twice
about that before deciding to go.

We don't.
No special deals, no benefits without costs is fair enough, but
deliberately preventing debate of things that need to be sorted
out is not.

SteveW

Are we honestly and truly expecting the EU to make an effort to
ensure our exit is as nice, easy and painless as possible?
No because those in charge of the negotiations don't give two hoots
about the well being of the EU citizens.
We
were told my many EU politicians not to expect that. It's time to
stop moaning amd simply accept the situation we have got ourselves
into.
Well you're the one doing all the moaning.
--
bert

In article , pamela
writes
On 01:52 2 Oct 2017, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 01/10/17 23:06, pamela wrote:
For the most part, the EU was mutually beneficial for those who
were in it.

Only the politicians, Frech Farmers and German car makers
Everyne else got a **** deal

In that case we shouldn't worry if we get no concessions in these
negotiations because, according to what you wrote, we will still
be better off.

Great.
Well yes, because we could subsidise all our exports to the EU and still
be better off.
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Only the likes of Ress Mogg and Bioris and Fragae are keeping the
process on the rails.

Ah - the honest business man you revere. Rees-Mogg votes against abortion
but has investments in a company which sells abortion pills. Anything is
OK to him when it involves making money.

He is against abortion on the technical definition of when life begins
but unlike socialists he doesn't attempt to force his views on others.
If you in a pension fund then you could have investments in all sorts of
things. The NUM were heavily into fine art at one time.
--
bert

pamela wrote:

You can not infer those in the know in the present are the same
ones who were disparaged for their expertise (being in the know)
by the Leave campaign in the referendum.

Those who were part of Project Fear didn't turn out to be in the know
either (a tax raising and expenditure cutting budget with days, needing
to suspend share trading within hours, falling employment, 4 quarters of
recession, etc)

In article ,
whisky-dave writes
On Tuesday, 3 October 2017 16:57:40 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 October 2017 14:32:48 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
No new country joined the EU without the UK's approval.

So who in the UK got to vote on that. ?

You want a referendum on every single part of government business?
Don't you think that a bit impractical?

No but like any club (except fight club perhaps) you can leave when the
club it no longer suits you, I left my camera club, polititions leave
their party sometimes joining others.

Exactly as we are doing. But we don't want to leave the club entirely. We
want to still use some of the facilities provided by being a member of
that club. But don't want to pay the membership fee, etc.

Don't you read anything on here?

What is teh memebrship fee for the single market ?
Not allowed under WTO.
How much a year is there a discount for buying 5 years in advance.
No such costing has been announced or even shown.
Unless it's that 100 billion then 80 billion then 50 and now 20.



--
*Does fuzzy logic tickle? *

We used to do that here, one of the projects I was on was to control a
cement mixing rig that had 3 tanks where the levels had to be
maintained.



--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Exactly as we are doing. But we don't want to leave the club entirely. We
want to still use some of the facilities provided by being a member of
that club. But don't want to pay the membership fee, etc.

Don't you read anything on here?

What is teh memebrship fee for the single market ?

Whatever those running that market decide. We aren't forced to be part of
it.

How much a year is there a discount for buying 5 years in advance.
No such costing has been announced or even shown.
Unless it's that 100 billion then 80 billion then 50 and now 20.

All these thing should have been explained before the referendum.
They were. You weren't listening. Maybe you should have read your "meja"
Most
simply didn't have any idea of the ramifications of leaving.
Speaking for others again?
Including
those in charge. Punters made the mistake of believing the likes of Farage
and Boris. A less trustworthy pair would be hard to find.

Try Corbyn and McDonnell.
--
bert

In article , Cursitor Doom
writes
On Sun, 01 Oct 2017 22:27:19 +0100, bert wrote:

That says it all really. The only way to keep the EU in one piece is by
threat. It's an admission that the EU carries no benefits other than
free trade.

And that 'benefit' is an entirely artificial one, anyway. The EU is
essentially good for ***** all*.



In purely financial terms we are net contributors so it isn't a good
deal for us.
--
bert

On Mon, 02 Oct 2017 13:20:44 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

We are trying.


Not nearly hard enough, though. Best thing we could possibly do now is
what we should have done right from the start: embrace hard/clean Brexit.
But since they don't seem to have the guts for it, the next-best option
is to refuse point-blank to negotiate with preconditions.
May is ****-weak (embarrassingly so) and Boris is (not surprisingly)
seizing his chance. Pity he and Gove fell out as now is the time they
could really grasp the initiative and blow the pansies out of the water.
Be nice to hear something from Moggy, too.



--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

In article ,
James Harris wrote:
Funny the way Brexiteers said to ignore any 'experts' - unless they
happen to support their views.

I set no store by the PwC predictions.

'WTO is not as good as a trade deal but it's OK. Don't
believe me? Look at this graph which the CBI commissioned from
PricewaterhouseCoopers.'

Suggests you used it to support your argument. No point in doing so if you
'set no store' by it.

--
*When blondes have more fun, do they know it?

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

In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
pamela wrote:

You can not infer those in the know in the present are the same
ones who were disparaged for their expertise (being in the know)
by the Leave campaign in the referendum.

Those who were part of Project Fear didn't turn out to be in the know
either (a tax raising and expenditure cutting budget with days, needing
to suspend share trading within hours, falling employment, 4 quarters of
recession, etc)

But we haven't left yet.

If you want predictions to happen immediately, what happened to those
which said the world and its dog would be queuing up to do new deals with
the UK? There isn't even a viable one on the horizon.

--
*I'm not being rude. You're just insignificant

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

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 20:43 3 Oct 2017, James Harris wrote:

On 03/10/2017 10:15, pamela wrote:
On 06:40 3 Oct 2017, James Harris wrote:

On 03/10/2017 00:09, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
James Harris wrote:
No - it's rather like saying to a 3 year old 'if you put
your hand in the fire you'll get burnt' But the child does
it anyway.

Not at all. The EU's decision that a seceding state must be
worse off is not required by any treaty. It is not part of
the EU's rules. It is not a component of the single market.
It is not required by the customs union.

People need to understand this. The EU leaders have made a
CHOICE that the UK must be worse off.

You don't think the UK being worse off might just be down to
leaving the EU?

No, because leaving the EU means leaving its political
structures. /Trade/ with the EU only has to be made harder
because the EU says so.

We can't insist the EU trades with us under terms which we
identify as the ones we would like.

Correct. (If someone said otherwise I missed it.)


It's very simple. Just leave. Any future trade with the EU
done under WTO rules.

Luckily, those in power know this would be economic suicide.

Not at all. WTO is not as good as a trade deal but it's OK.
Don't believe me? Look at this graph which the CBI
commissioned from PricewaterhouseCoopers.

http://pensites.com/politics/direct_media/pwc-uk-gdp-
brexit-forecasts-2016-03.png

Note what they predicted to happen under the WTO option.

Nice graph but it was published in March 2016 before the
referendum when a number fo speculative assumptions were made.
Is there a more up to date one available?

I don't have one. Feel free to look for yourself, if it
interests you. But from your replies I think you've missed the
reason I posted the graph. It was _not_ to give any credible
prediction for 2030. The forecasters can't predict six months
ahead, let alone 14 years!

The reason I posted it was to show that the difference between
EU and WTO forecasts was just different amounts of growth.
Remember that you said "those in power know [WTO] would be
economic suicide". The PwC report was one that those "in the
know" used before the referendum. So my question to you, if it's
not obvious, is why those in the know would "know" that WTO
would be economic suicide in light of the evidence they had at
the time?

Too many Remainers "know" things without data to back them up.

"Those in the know" do not make up a single group of opinion.
Several groups may be in the know (we are referring to expertise
rather than to knowing inner secrets) and they may differ from one
another.

You can not infer those in the know in the present are the same
ones who were disparaged for their expertise (being in the know)
by the Leave campaign in the referendum.

But we can certainly consider whether they have been able to
actually provide any evidence to support their claim for the
amount Britain would be worse of trading under WTO rules
instead of remaining in the EU. They havent been able to do that.

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 20:47 3 Oct 2017, James Harris wrote:

On 03/10/2017 12:28, pamela wrote:
On 11:07 3 Oct 2017, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

...

The graph comes from a PWC report published a few months before
the referendum and it and other Brexit predictions were soundly
laughed at by the Brexit camp.

It represents the sort of "selective facts" which sadly came to
typify the Leave campaign.

I thought both campaigns were selective of their "facts". They
were run by politicians, after all.

ISTM there's a certain intellectual dishonesty in blaming one
side. It's easy to believe what we want to believe. It's far
better to see if there is genuine evidence and base our beliefs
on the data rather than cherry picking reports to fit our
preconceptions.

Large parts of the Brexit campaign was massively deceitful on a scale
not often seen. It often didn't even attempt honesty. If Leave had
been correctly seen as having as real chance of winning then I
suspect election commissioners could have got called it.

Saying a campaign on both sides is, after all, deceitful because
politicians are involved is simply playing to stereotypes.

It is in fact just pointing out what all politicians
get up to in campaigns as important as that.

Dave Plowman wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

Those who were part of Project Fear didn't turn out to be in the know
either (a tax raising and expenditure cutting budget with days, needing
to suspend share trading within hours, falling employment, 4 quarters of
recession, etc)

But we haven't left yet.

I know; which is why I *only* mentioned the things they said would
happen immediately after a leave result at the referendum, and before
actually leaving.

in 1629713 20171003 135736 "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
So we left the EEC when it became the EU? Or are you trying to make
some stupid point?

The point is we joined the EEC when there were significantly less
countires in the EEC to need funding.

No new country joined the EU without the UK's approval.

In fact the Eastern European countries were admitted at the UK's insistence.

On 03/10/2017 23:48, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
James Harris wrote:
Funny the way Brexiteers said to ignore any 'experts' - unless they
happen to support their views.

I set no store by the PwC predictions.

'WTO is not as good as a trade deal but it's OK. Don't
believe me? Look at this graph which the CBI commissioned from
PricewaterhouseCoopers.'

Suggests you used it to support your argument. No point in doing so if you
'set no store' by it.

I mean I set no store by what PwC say will happen by 2030. Such
projections so far off are completely unreliable. As I said, forecasters
cannot get six months right, let alone 14 years. What mattered from the
graph, in this context, was their assessment of WTO compared with
Remain. WTO is, according to their assessment, nothing like as bad as
people now assume.


--
James Harris

On 03/10/2017 22:42, pamela wrote:
On 20:43 3 Oct 2017, James Harris wrote:

On 03/10/2017 10:15, pamela wrote:
On 06:40 3 Oct 2017, James Harris wrote:

On 03/10/2017 00:09, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
James Harris wrote:
No - it's rather like saying to a 3 year old 'if you put
your hand in the fire you'll get burnt' But the child does
it anyway.

Not at all. The EU's decision that a seceding state must be
worse off is not required by any treaty. It is not part of
the EU's rules. It is not a component of the single market.
It is not required by the customs union.

People need to understand this. The EU leaders have made a
CHOICE that the UK must be worse off.

You don't think the UK being worse off might just be down to
leaving the EU?

No, because leaving the EU means leaving its political
structures. /Trade/ with the EU only has to be made harder
because the EU says so.

We can't insist the EU trades with us under terms which we
identify as the ones we would like.

Correct. (If someone said otherwise I missed it.)


It's very simple. Just leave. Any future trade with the EU
done under WTO rules.

Luckily, those in power know this would be economic suicide.

Not at all. WTO is not as good as a trade deal but it's OK.
Don't believe me? Look at this graph which the CBI
commissioned from PricewaterhouseCoopers.

http://pensites.com/politics/direct_media/pwc-uk-gdp-
brexit-forecasts-2016-03.png

Note what they predicted to happen under the WTO option.

Nice graph but it was published in March 2016 before the
referendum when a number fo speculative assumptions were made.
Is there a more up to date one available?

I don't have one. Feel free to look for yourself, if it
interests you. But from your replies I think you've missed the
reason I posted the graph. It was _not_ to give any credible
prediction for 2030. The forecasters can't predict six months
ahead, let alone 14 years!

The reason I posted it was to show that the difference between
EU and WTO forecasts was just different amounts of growth.
Remember that you said "those in power know [WTO] would be
economic suicide". The PwC report was one that those "in the
know" used before the referendum. So my question to you, if it's
not obvious, is why those in the know would "know" that WTO
would be economic suicide in light of the evidence they had at
the time?

Too many Remainers "know" things without data to back them up.

"Those in the know" do not make up a single group of opinion.
Several groups may be in the know (we are referring to expertise
rather than to knowing inner secrets) and they may differ from one
another.

Well, of the WTO option you claimed "those in power know this would be
economic suicide". Is that a guess? If not, what evidence do you have to
support it?

Before the referendum the public were told the same message: basically
that Brexit would be various forms of economic suicide. The graph I
posted was similar to ones they relied on at the time - which did NOT
predict economic suicide. Quite the opposite, in fact.


You can not infer those in the know in the present are the same
ones who were disparaged for their expertise (being in the know)
by the Leave campaign in the referendum.

If I understand what you mean in that paragraph, I agree. So the point
remains, on what basis do you claim that WTO would be economic suicide?


--
James Harris

On 03/10/2017 22:59, pamela wrote:
On 20:47 3 Oct 2017, James Harris wrote:

On 03/10/2017 12:28, pamela wrote:
On 11:07 3 Oct 2017, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

...

The graph comes from a PWC report published a few months before
the referendum and it and other Brexit predictions were soundly
laughed at by the Brexit camp.

It represents the sort of "selective facts" which sadly came to
typify the Leave campaign.

I thought both campaigns were selective of their "facts". They
were run by politicians, after all.

ISTM there's a certain intellectual dishonesty in blaming one
side. It's easy to believe what we want to believe. It's far
better to see if there is genuine evidence and base our beliefs
on the data rather than cherry picking reports to fit our
preconceptions.

Large parts of the Brexit campaign was massively deceitful on a scale
not often seen. It often didn't even attempt honesty. If Leave had
been correctly seen as having as real chance of winning then I
suspect election commissioners could have got called it.

I'm astonished if you see deceit in the Leave campaign but not the
Remain camp.


Saying a campaign on both sides is, after all, deceitful because
politicians are involved is simply playing to stereotypes.

Not "because".


--
James Harris

In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

Those who were part of Project Fear didn't turn out to be in the know
either (a tax raising and expenditure cutting budget with days, needing
to suspend share trading within hours, falling employment, 4 quarters of
recession, etc)

But we haven't left yet.

I know; which is why I *only* mentioned the things they said would
happen immediately after a leave result at the referendum, and before
actually leaving.

Well, let's counter that with the n millions to the NHS. Stopping
immigration. And so on.

--
*If a turtle doesn't have a shell, is he homeless or naked?

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

In article ,
James Harris wrote:
On 03/10/2017 23:48, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
James Harris wrote:
Funny the way Brexiteers said to ignore any 'experts' - unless they
happen to support their views.

I set no store by the PwC predictions.

'WTO is not as good as a trade deal but it's OK. Don't
believe me? Look at this graph which the CBI commissioned from
PricewaterhouseCoopers.'

Suggests you used it to support your argument. No point in doing so if you
'set no store' by it.

I mean I set no store by what PwC say will happen by 2030. Such
projections so far off are completely unreliable. As I said, forecasters
cannot get six months right, let alone 14 years. What mattered from the
graph, in this context, was their assessment of WTO compared with
Remain. WTO is, according to their assessment, nothing like as bad as
people now assume.

Difficult to follow your reasoning, given we haven't left the EU and
started trading with them under WTO rules.

You seem to like one guess but not another.

--
*Why isn't there a special name for the back of your knee?

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

On 03/10/17 10:18, pamela wrote:
No. And I don't accept that the EU is bullying us. They are
just trying to get the best deal for themselves. It doesn't
help that the UK doesn't have a clue ATM.
All very true.

Well sort of.

You really haven't grasped it have you?

No deal is going to be done, because the EU will put its own existence
ahead of the interests of Europe.

And they are not competent enough to realise this.

They don't want Britain to leave, they don't know how to negotiate and
they don't want to.

So yes, they are doing what incompetent negotiators do: Bully and
bluster. If Britain leaves, and I hope it does, it will mean the end of
the EU and they know it. Look at Catalonia. Look at Poland. Everywhere
the EU is showing itself to be out of touch and truly incompetent. It is
set up by Communists to manage (badly) a Europe that ceased to exist 50
years ago, if it ever did.

Their only hope is to act like the ****s they really are and hope that
Britain will cave in to the pressure they are pushing through the media
and through their paid lackeys.

May is one of them: She has been set up to fail. First of all to lose te
Tory majority in an ill advised election, then to appear to be weak at
the negotiating table.

It would be advisable for her to go. But wheels within wheels...



--
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for
the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the
truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Joseph Goebbels

On 03/10/17 01:23, Hankat wrote:
That isnt how Norway did it. They gave immense amounts
of it back to the only people who matter, the taxpayers.

Do you realise how silly taht sounds.

If they gave it back to the peole who gave it to them in the first
place, why not just not take it in the first place?


--
Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early
twenty-first centurys developed world went into hysterical panic over a
globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and,
on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer
projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to
contemplate a rollback of the industrial age.

Richard Lindzen

On 03/10/17 01:31, Hankat wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 02/10/17 12:06, Mark wrote:
On Sun, 01 Oct 2017 21:10:57 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Mark
wrote:

On Sun, 1 Oct 2017 04:42:08 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 11:26Â* 30 Sep 2017, tim... wrote:

--snip--
and our goods are to their specs.

They already are, so thats a complete yawn.

Until they change the specs and we will have no say in these when
outside the EU.

Then we change the product. Just as we would for product sent to any
other non-EU country.

This is trivially unimportant; stop trying to pretend it's a major
issue.

Neither you nor I know whether this will be a major issue.Â* Many
Brexiters are claiming that the EU is making things as difficult as
possible for the UK - why should this be any different?


Becasue trade cuts both ways.

We could for example, insisr that all imported cars come with a
diamond encrusted vanity mirror, but not locally made ones.

Nope, not possible under WTO rules.

Oh but it is.

Nothing in the WTO says that products dont have to comply to local
regulations.

Or that local regualtins can be waived for some homegrown manufacturers.


--
Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early
twenty-first centurys developed world went into hysterical panic over a
globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and,
on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer
projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to
contemplate a rollback of the industrial age.

Richard Lindzen

On 03/10/17 10:15, pamela wrote:
We can't insist the EU trades with us under terms which we
identify as the ones we would like.

We can.

In terms of our imports.

We can set what terms we like.

If we wanted to be spiteful we could resuce imports from the EU to a
trickle ad buy suff from elsewhere.
..


--
"When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."

Josef Stalin

On 03/10/17 12:35, Mark wrote:
Which shows bullying works that's how classic bullying works.
No. There are many reasons for the change on opinions, one of which
was all the lies told by the brexit campaigners.


Actially more people are in favour of leaving now that at the time of
the referendum.


Bullying works...to make people more resolved to have nothing to do
with bullies.

Hitler tried to bully us.




--
"When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."

Josef Stalin

On 03/10/17 12:38, Mark wrote:
We voted to leave the EU, can't you grasp this result? Staying in the
EU is for idiots/ you obviously qualify!
*Plonk*

Quod erat demostrandum!


--
Theres a mighty big difference between good, sound reasons and reasons
that sound good.

Burton Hillis (William Vaughn, American columnist)

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
No deal is going to be done, because the EU will put its own existence
ahead of the interests of Europe.

Be interested how you define the interests of Europe. Being it is a series
of countries all of which will have differing aims.

What you actually mean it your own interests.

--
*Santa's helpers are subordinate clauses*

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

On 03/10/17 12:45, Mark wrote:
On Mon, 02 Oct 2017 16:50:54 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Only the likes of Ress Mogg and Bioris and Fragae are keeping the
process on the rails.

Ah - the honest business man you revere. Rees-Mogg votes against abortion
but has investments in a company which sells abortion pills. Anything is
OK to him when it involves making money.

So, he's a hypocrite - no surprise there.

Two lefty****s agreeing with one another about how morally superior they
are to an honest man. No suprises there.


--
Theres a mighty big difference between good, sound reasons and reasons
that sound good.

Burton Hillis (William Vaughn, American columnist)

On 03/10/17 13:16, pamela wrote:
On 21:21 2 Oct 2017, Capitol wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Only the likes of Ress Mogg and Bioris and Fragae are keeping
the process on the rails.

Ah - the honest business man you revere. Rees-Mogg votes
against abortion but has investments in a company which sells
abortion pills. Anything is OK to him when it involves making
money.


Some idiots will believe anything. Try checking your facts
not Socialist opinions.

The typical EU citizen must gawp in amazement that the UK still has
such hopelessly antiquated politicians as Rees-Mogg.

The EU must gawp in amaazment that people like you actually believe that
they give a **** about you.


--
"When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."

Josef Stalin

On 03/10/17 13:29, Mark wrote:
On Tue, 03 Oct 2017 13:16:58 +0100, pamela wrote:

On 21:21 2 Oct 2017, Capitol wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Only the likes of Ress Mogg and Bioris and Fragae are keeping
the process on the rails.

Ah - the honest business man you revere. Rees-Mogg votes
against abortion but has investments in a company which sells
abortion pills. Anything is OK to him when it involves making
money.


Some idiots will believe anything. Try checking your facts
not Socialist opinions.

The typical EU citizen must gawp in amazement that the UK still has
such hopelessly antiquated politicians as Rees-Mogg.

Yes, he's like a character from a Victorian novel.

ITYM Jeremy Corbyn actually. Uriah Heep springs to mind.


--
"When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."

Josef Stalin

On Tuesday, 3 October 2017 17:49:48 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Exactly as we are doing. But we don't want to leave the club entirely. We
want to still use some of the facilities provided by being a member of
that club. But don't want to pay the membership fee, etc.

Don't you read anything on here?

What is teh memebrship fee for the single market ?

Whatever those running that market decide. We aren't forced to be part of
it.

Well when they let us know the cost them we can decide but they won't work like this will they. They The EU want such things to be sorted out seperatly from what we pay back.


How much a year is there a discount for buying 5 years in advance.
No such costing has been announced or even shown.
Unless it's that 100 billion then 80 billion then 50 and now 20.

All these thing should have been explained before the referendum.

Exactly but weren't.
But this information has nevr been avaiible has it, even now.


Most
simply didn't have any idea of the ramifications of leaving.

Or staying of course.

Including
those in charge. Punters made the mistake of believing the likes of Farage
and Boris. A less trustworthy pair would be hard to find.

It;s not like the conservative party or camoron have ever lied to us is it, so we must trust him and his party, they won't lie to us will they.

On Wednesday, 4 October 2017 11:28:43 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
No deal is going to be done, because the EU will put its own existence
ahead of the interests of Europe.

Be interested how you define the interests of Europe. Being it is a series
of countries all of which will have differing aims.

If they do all have differnt aims it's pretty stupid making them all join together for their one aim(s).


What you actually mean it your own interests.

Same as countries or groups of countries.

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 20:47:28 +0100, James Harris
wrote:

On 03/10/2017 12:28, pamela wrote:
On 11:07 3 Oct 2017, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

...

The graph comes from a PWC report published a few months before the
referendum and it and other Brexit predictions were soundly laughed
at by the Brexit camp.

It represents the sort of "selective facts" which sadly came to
typify the Leave campaign.

I thought both campaigns were selective of their "facts". They were run
by politicians, after all.

ISTM there's a certain intellectual dishonesty in blaming one side. It's
easy to believe what we want to believe. It's far better to see if there
is genuine evidence and base our beliefs on the data rather than cherry
picking reports to fit our preconceptions.

IIRC we heard very little from the "stay" campaign - or maybe the
media just didn't report that campaign.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/10/17 12:35, Mark wrote:
Which shows bullying works that's how classic bullying works.
No. There are many reasons for the change on opinions, one of which
was all the lies told by the brexit campaigners.


Actially more people are in favour of leaving now that at the time of
the referendum.

Would that be the same polling system that got both the referendum - and
the recent general election - predictions so wrong?


Bullying works...to make people more resolved to have nothing to do
with bullies.

Hitler tried to bully us.

Didn't realise you were old enough to know Hitler. Explains your senility.

--
*Santa Claus has the right idea. Visit people only once a year.

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

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 October 2017 11:28:43 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
No deal is going to be done, because the EU will put its own
existence ahead of the interests of Europe.

Be interested how you define the interests of Europe. Being it is a
series of countries all of which will have differing aims.

If they do all have differnt aims it's pretty stupid making them all
join together for their one aim(s).

Absolutely nobody 'made them join together' But it would seem fairly
obvious there will be at least some common aims - hence the EU. Peace and
prosperity, for example. Except for some of the brexiteers on here who
would seem to prefer poverty and war, rather than any common purposes.

What you actually mean it your own interests.

Same as countries or groups of countries.

Every agreement must involve a degree of give and take.


--
*The statement above is false

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

In article ,
Mark wrote:
IIRC we heard very little from the "stay" campaign - or maybe the
media just didn't report that campaign.

In terms of readership, the vast majority of the press was anti-EU.

Nothing wrong with poking fun at bureaucrats, of course. Except when you
have to consider the alternative.

--
*Some people are alive only because it's illegal to kill them *

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

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 06:40 3 Oct 2017, James Harris wrote:

On 03/10/2017 00:09, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
James Harris wrote:
No - it's rather like saying to a 3 year old 'if you put your
hand in the fire you'll get burnt' But the child does it
anyway.

Not at all. The EU's decision that a seceding state must be
worse off is not required by any treaty. It is not part of the
EU's rules. It is not a component of the single market. It is
not required by the customs union.

People need to understand this. The EU leaders have made a
CHOICE that the UK must be worse off.

You don't think the UK being worse off might just be down to
leaving the EU?

No, because leaving the EU means leaving its political
structures. /Trade/ with the EU only has to be made harder
because the EU says so.

We can't insist the EU trades with us under terms which we
identify as the ones we would like.

no

but we can insist that it allows us to trade with them on the same terms
that it trades with us

as it sells more to us then we sell to it so has every incentive to sit down
and try to reach a deal

It's that fact that it refuse to do this that's the problem, not the
minutiae of the deal

tim