On 23/09/2017 23:59, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tim... wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote:

You put Spain and Portugal in the same economic state as Greece?
Why not Eire too?

I seem to remember PIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain and
variations thereof) was a moniker for countries most under pressure in
the financial crisis and possible candidates to exit the Eurozone?

And Ireland has seen the light and has no wish to leave the EU

because unlike us it hasn't been give a big bill to pay for the past 30
years, but has instead been given handouts

Ah - right. You dislike the idea of one country helping another. And the
principle that as that country become richer, it contributes to others.

Richer, maybe, but not enough money to properly fund the NHS, repair the
roads, maintain proper armed forces, educate students without incurring
massive debts, etc. and while the population is struggling with bills
due to stagnating or even reversing incomes.

Meanwhile, EU citizens pour in in unmanageable numbers. We have
experienced the results of this directly. My eldest son started school
in a class of 23, when there were 26 places. Three years later his
brother was refused a place when there were 54 applicants for those 26
places. What was the difference? Well the sudden influx of Eastern
Europeans into the HMOs directly opposite the school and in the
surrounding area was the big change. The sheer number of languages being
spoken in the playground each morning showed how much things had changed
in so short a time.

SteveW

Harold Davis wrote

Many British expats don't distinguish much between their
revulsion towards black, brown and non-English speaking
immigrants to Britain and the revulsion they also feel towards
the "native" proletarians who are white and English-speaking.

Revulsion is too strong. Dislike or the opposite of preference is much
closer.

To think many of these types had a vote in the referendum...

That’s what democracy is about, they get their say, just like everyone else.

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 14:05 23 Sep 2017, Harold Davis wrote:

pamela wrote in news:XnsA7F98EF92106CD4AM2@
81.171.92.183:

On 13:15 23 Sep 2017, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Mark
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Sep 2017 12:34:59 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

Not that this alters the case for leaving one iota.

True. There was never a good case for leaving the EU and even
less now. Delaying jumping off the cliff isn't going to
change the eventual outcome. International confidence in the
UK is dropping all the time and several agencies have
downgraded the UK's credit rating as a result.

The fact that the
EU would do this merely confirms why we should be leaving.

No. EU cohesion is more important than one country who are
trying to leave. The EU recognise how stupid the UK is at the
moment. The little englanders have sold you a dud.

And the UK negociators haven't a clue what they are doing.

Don't be silly. If the EU can only be held together by threats
and bullying then it should be dissolved altogether and new
arrangements made.

The problem is not so much having an EU, it's *this* EU, this
*corrupt* and *undemocratic* EU.

And FYI, there aren't any "little englanders", and they
haven't sold me anything; I've known about how unfit for
purpose the EU is for many years.

Little Englanders are very much alive and kicking. They are
Farage and Johnson's supporters.

These Litle Englanders seem to forget how, for decades after
the war Britain slipped behind it's European neighbours
economically and was known as the sick man of Europe. The
Little Englanders opposed change and in particular change the
way the Europeans were doing. In the end, the loss was ours
and we had to spend decades catching up as best as we could.

Anyone who hasn't got **** for brains knows that Britain should
stay in the EU.

I don't even argue the point because it's so obvious.

Harry

The Leavers now need to prove their original claims that it will
be like a picnic with sweets for everybody.

No they don’t. You remoaners lost and get to like that or lump it.

Harold Davis wrote
Rod Speed wrote
pamela wrote

In fact de Gaulle refused to allow Britain to
join and Britain did join after he had died.

Because the Etonian elite (who had a majority in Eden's cabinet)
decided not to unite with France (had that great opportunity
been taken up, there probably would have been no EEC the
following year) and threw their lot in with the US instead.

Understandable given that the yanks had saved your bacon in two world wars.

Fat lot of use France was in either.

De Gaulle's position is far more often quoted than the reason for it

Because it was.

- the ****ing idiotic policy of the British Tory government
towards France and its compradore Atlanticist policy which
was backed by Labour but which still hasn't been put to a vote.

Neither was the involvement in even one war.

In today's changed circumstances, a Britain
outside of the EU would have no friends,

Oh bull**** with the commonwealth alone.

would be even weaker relative to the foreign
power that keeps military bases here,

They arent imposed on Britain. And that foreign power
is the reason there hasn’t been another world war since.

and would be totally up **** creek without a paddle,

Fantasy with financial services alone.

however much Theresa May - the rival of Eden and Macmillan for sheer
incompetence - goes to India and the UAE with a begging bowl.

There is no begging bowl, that just your bigoted fantasy.

Funny money from such places may keep the Tory party afloat

It isnt funny money that keeps them in govt.

but it won't keep Britain afloat.

The financial services industry has done and will continue to do so.

There's a difference.

For God's sake, stay in the EU already.

Those who bothered to vote have decided otherwise. You get to like that or
lump it.

Even May has managed to work that out and what would happen if she
didn’t do what the voters who bothered to vote said they wanted done.

She wont even be stupid enough to do what Norway has done either.

"Harold Davis" wrote in message
...
Harold Davis wrote in
:

"Rod Speed" wrote in news:f2o5f8Flgs7U1
@mid.individual.net:

"pamela" wrote in message
...

For God's sake, stay in the EU already.

EU membership has never been a problem in Britain.

A majority who bothered to vote feel otherwise.

You get to like that or lump it.

If people are against unnecessary regulation,
they'd be better off picketing their local town hall,

No local town hall gets any say on the most important
policy like the free movement of people, shutting down
coal fired power generation, labour laws etc.

but the tabloids have never pointed them in that direction.

Because no local town hall gets any say on the most
important policy like the free movement of people,
shutting down coal fired power generation, labour laws etc.

EU membership was voted against mainly by rednecks

They have the same right to their opinion as you do.

who probably couldn't even name the EU's principal executive body

Irrelevant to whether they prefer not to have any EUian who
decides that their circumstances in Britain will be better for them
than where they are coming from is free to move to Britain and
demand that Britain provide a house for their wife and kids etc.

but who wanted to air their (often justified) grievances about
real problems that have been associated with immigration
for about 40 years and which continue to build.

And the only way to have any effect on
the EUians doing that is to leave the EU.

The elite in this country has for more than a century treated the
population as if they were barbarians and therefore can't quite get
how they think or why their grievances should be paid attention to.

They did manage to work out how to avoid a full revolution.

Unlike the stupid frogs.

Even now the far-right foreign-owned tabloid press
keeps geeing its readership up, portraying almost
every item to do with the Brexit negotiations in
terms of "Europeans" demanding stuff from Brits

Which is precisely what the EU bureaucracy
continues to do with the exit fee alone.

and not allowing Brits to do what they want, etc.

The EU bureaucracy is making it as hard as possible for Britain to leave the
EU

And **** all bother to read any newspaper at all anymore, so they are
irrelevant.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
Seems only a few months ago the UK law was invoked to give parliament a
say in the Brexit negotiations.

Dreadful, says May etc - we need to keep our cards close to our chest when
negotiating.

Now it seems she wishes to do this via a public speech at Florence.

Is this another example of 'strong and stable' government?

She's a remoaner, like yourself.
You lost, Dave.
A50 has been triggered.
We leave, at some point.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , pamela
wrote:

Of course the UK imports more EU goods than the other way
around. However, the pro-EU states seem prepared to accept this loss
of income if it teaches the lesson that leavers, now and in the future,
will incur a financial cost based on principle not logic.

Exactly as I quoted Yanis Varoufakis as having said on BBCR4Today the
other morning. He understands the ****ish behaviour of the EU even if
Remoaners here don't.

You're wasting your time, Tim.
A50 has been triggered, thank ****.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , pamela
wrote:

Of course the UK imports more EU goods than the other way
around. However, the pro-EU states seem prepared to accept this loss
of income if it teaches the lesson that leavers, now and in the
future, will incur a financial cost based on principle not logic.

Exactly as I quoted Yanis Varoufakis as having said on BBCR4Today the
other morning. He understands the ****ish behaviour of the EU even if
Remoaners here don't.

Only one comment needed about Varoufakis. Physician heal thyself.

He's a bloody good bloke, if he stays in the EU.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , pamela
wrote:

On 16:22 22 Sep 2017, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , pamela
wrote:

Of course the UK imports more EU goods than the other way
around. However, the pro-EU states seem prepared to accept
this loss of income if it teaches the lesson that leavers, now
and in the future, will incur a financial cost based on
principle not logic.

Exactly as I quoted Yanis Varoufakis as having said on
BBCR4Today the other morning. He understands the ****ish
behaviour of the EU even if Remoaners here don't.

I didn't hear Varoufakisc on the radio but I do recall how
Varoufakis felt Greece was too big to fail and that Germany was
owed too much money to allow Greece to go bankrupt.

He said that their intransigent behaviour of the EU was because they
are scared of making leaving appear too easy and is "intended as a
warning to the riff-raff of the EU, such as Greece, Portugal, Spain,
...".

His words.

You put Spain and Portugal in the same economic state as Greece? Why not
Eire too?

But I take it buy your support for Varoufakis you approve of the way the
Greek economy is run?

Who cares?
A50 has been triggered, get over it.
I doubt that i'll see it but sort out the bunting.
..

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , tim...
wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , pamela
wrote:

On 16:22 22 Sep 2017, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , pamela
wrote:

Of course the UK imports more EU goods than the other way
around. However, the pro-EU states seem prepared to accept
this loss of income if it teaches the lesson that leavers, now
and in the future, will incur a financial cost based on
principle not logic.

Exactly as I quoted Yanis Varoufakis as having said on
BBCR4Today the other morning. He understands the ****ish
behaviour of the EU even if Remoaners here don't.

I didn't hear Varoufakisc on the radio but I do recall how
Varoufakis felt Greece was too big to fail and that Germany was
owed too much money to allow Greece to go bankrupt.

He said that their intransigent behaviour of the EU was because they
are scared of making leaving appear too easy and is "intended as a
warning to the riff-raff of the EU, such as Greece, Portugal, Spain,
...".

His words.

You put Spain and Portugal in the same economic state as Greece? Why not
Eire too?

Can't you read, Our Dave? I wasn't putting Spain and Portugal anywhere.
I was just quoting what Varoufakis said. I even said "his words" just
to make it more obvious for the mentally challenged.

You're wasting your time.

On 23/09/17 20:15, pamela wrote:
On 19:16 23 Sep 2017, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , pamela
wrote:

The Leavers now need to prove their original claims that it will
be like a picnic with sweets for everybody.

No we don't because there was no such claim. My views are based
on the democratic deficit - that the EU uses a political system
that the UK has spent the last 200 or more years evolving away
from. End of.

The claim was implicit in the breezy assurances given by Brexiteers
both ebfore and after the referendum that the concerns expressed by
Remainers was largely irrelevant and that it would be a cinch to make
alternative arrangements which would be in our favour.

Which have turned out to be true.


--
€œIt is hard to imagine a more stupid decision or more dangerous way of
making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people
who pay no price for being wrong.€�

Thomas Sowell

On 23/09/17 23:47, Harold Davis wrote:


For God's sake, stay in the EU already.


For Junkers sake,stay in the EU already.
Harry



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

Burton Hillis (William Vaughn, American columnist)

Tim Streater wrote:
In article , pamela
wrote:

On 10:28 23 Sep 2017, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
On 22/09/2017 16:22, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , pamela
wrote:
Of course the UK imports more EU goods than the other way
around. However, the pro-EU states seem prepared to accept
this loss of income if it teaches the lesson that leavers,
now and in the future, will incur a financial cost based on
principle not logic. Exactly as I quoted Yanis Varoufakis as
having said on
BBCR4Today the other morning. He understands the ****ish
behaviour of the EU even if Remoaners here don't.

I think some Remoaners revel in such EU behaviour.

Unlike you optimists, the EU are behaving pretty well as they
said they would - and remainers predicted - before the
referendum. So basically you've been proved to be wrong saying
they's simply roll over and give in to the UK, as 'they need us
more than we need them' and other such vain predictions.

That's exactly so.
The EU is puting forward an experienced team of smooth and slippery
negotiators who are starting from a position of strength whereas our
negotiators, such as Boris Johnson, seem to trumpet their shambolic
amateurism.

The EU does not need an easy British exit more than it needs future
cohesion which it will ensure by creating a difficult exit for
Britain. To this end the EU is prepared to fund any financial losses
to itself.

Which is essentially what Varoufakis was saying.

Theresa May is now stalling for time because the outcome is going to
be messy and unpopular, just a the Remainers always expected.

Not that this alters the case for leaving one iota. The fact that the
EU would do this merely confirms why we should be leaving.


An interesting fact is that Germany is broke. The Germans are having to
PFI their desperately needed road repair program so that they don't
have to reveal the facts to the electorate. We all know how successful
this will be financially. Deficit anyone?

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
pamela wrote:
Theresa May is now stalling for time because the outcome is going
to be messy and unpopular, just a the Remainers always expected.


Very true. And is protecting her arse by the extra two years taking us
just about to the end of this parliament. Leaving sorting out the mess to
someone else.


You think she will last past Xmas?

"Capitol" wrote in message
...
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
pamela wrote:
Theresa May is now stalling for time because the outcome is going
to be messy and unpopular, just a the Remainers always expected.


Very true. And is protecting her arse by the extra two years taking us
just about to the end of this parliament. Leaving sorting out the mess to
someone else.


You think she will last past Xmas?

Very likely, because the alternatives are even worse.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote:

You put Spain and Portugal in the same economic state as Greece?
Why not Eire too?

I seem to remember PIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain and
variations thereof) was a moniker for countries most under pressure in
the financial crisis and possible candidates to exit the Eurozone?

And Ireland has seen the light and has no wish to leave the EU

because unlike us it hasn't been give a big bill to pay for the past 30
years, but has instead been given handouts

Ah - right. You dislike the idea of one country helping another. And the
principle that as that country become richer, it contributes to others.

no

I dislike the idea of being expected to help the poorer counties in a club
where it is the poor countries that make the rules

tim

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 19:16 23 Sep 2017, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , pamela
wrote:

The Leavers now need to prove their original claims that it will
be like a picnic with sweets for everybody.

No we don't because there was no such claim. My views are based
on the democratic deficit - that the EU uses a political system
that the UK has spent the last 200 or more years evolving away
from. End of.

The claim was implicit in the breezy assurances given by Brexiteers
both ebfore and after the referendum that the concerns expressed by
Remainers was largely irrelevant and that it would be a cinch to make
alternative arrangements which would be in our favour.

That's no different from the breezy assurance from Remainers that all of the
EU problems could be resolved by us staying in and changing it from the
inside

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Capitol" wrote in message
...
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
pamela wrote:
Theresa May is now stalling for time because the outcome is going
to be messy and unpopular, just a the Remainers always expected.


Very true. And is protecting her arse by the extra two years taking us
just about to the end of this parliament. Leaving sorting out the mess
to
someone else.


You think she will last past Xmas?

Very likely, because the alternatives are even worse.

I'm beginning to think that a groundswell of Brexiteers will be thinking
otherwise, after her caving in and giving the EU what it wanted - only to be
met with the (inevitable, IMHO) response of "that isn't enough, now give us
some more (and oh, BTW you still can't have your trade deal)".

We need someone with the balls to stand up to them in charge, and she no
longer has that.

If she did what she did to keep the Tory party together in order for them to
be (have a chance of being) in the right place at the next election, then
ISTM that she has achieved the exact opposite and virtually guaranteed a
Labour win (with them then undoing whatever part of leaving we have already
achieved).

I think my 50 pounds is at risk. (Money well spent if it is lost - as long
as that nutcase Rudd isn't the replacement!)

tim

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 11:03:58 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:



"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote:

You put Spain and Portugal in the same economic state as Greece?
Why not Eire too?

I seem to remember PIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain and
variations thereof) was a moniker for countries most under pressure in
the financial crisis and possible candidates to exit the Eurozone?

And Ireland has seen the light and has no wish to leave the EU

because unlike us it hasn't been give a big bill to pay for the past 30
years, but has instead been given handouts

Ah - right. You dislike the idea of one country helping another. And the
principle that as that country become richer, it contributes to others.

no

I dislike the idea of being expected to help the poorer counties in a club
where it is the poor countries that make the rules

Which club has the poor countries making the rules?

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 11:05:56 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:



"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 19:16 23 Sep 2017, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , pamela
wrote:

The Leavers now need to prove their original claims that it will
be like a picnic with sweets for everybody.

No we don't because there was no such claim. My views are based
on the democratic deficit - that the EU uses a political system
that the UK has spent the last 200 or more years evolving away
from. End of.

The claim was implicit in the breezy assurances given by Brexiteers
both ebfore and after the referendum that the concerns expressed by
Remainers was largely irrelevant and that it would be a cinch to make
alternative arrangements which would be in our favour.

That's no different from the breezy assurance from Remainers that all of the
EU problems could be resolved by us staying in and changing it from the
inside

Huh! If we remained a part of the EU we would have some say on how it
is run; outside the EU we have no say at all.

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 11:15:00 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:



"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Capitol" wrote in message
...
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
pamela wrote:
Theresa May is now stalling for time because the outcome is going
to be messy and unpopular, just a the Remainers always expected.


Very true. And is protecting her arse by the extra two years taking us
just about to the end of this parliament. Leaving sorting out the mess
to
someone else.


You think she will last past Xmas?

Very likely, because the alternatives are even worse.

It's hard to imagine. If this wasn't real it could make a good
sitcom.

I'm beginning to think that a groundswell of Brexiteers will be thinking
otherwise, after her caving in and giving the EU what it wanted - only to be
met with the (inevitable, IMHO) response of "that isn't enough, now give us
some more (and oh, BTW you still can't have your trade deal)".

We need someone with the balls to stand up to them in charge, and she no
longer has that.

We need someone who knows what they are doing and she never did.

If she did what she did to keep the Tory party together in order for them to
be (have a chance of being) in the right place at the next election, then
ISTM that she has achieved the exact opposite and virtually guaranteed a
Labour win (with them then undoing whatever part of leaving we have already
achieved).

You may be right, although I would not use the word "achieved" in this
context. "We" have achieved nothing apart from a total cock-up.

The current government is too preoccupied with infighting and is not
representing the best interests of the country.

I think my 50 pounds is at risk. (Money well spent if it is lost - as long
as that nutcase Rudd isn't the replacement!)

What £50?

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 12:27:00 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Mark
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 11:05:56 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 19:16 23 Sep 2017, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , pamela
wrote:

The Leavers now need to prove their original claims that it will
be like a picnic with sweets for everybody.

No we don't because there was no such claim. My views are based
on the democratic deficit - that the EU uses a political system
that the UK has spent the last 200 or more years evolving away
from. End of.

The claim was implicit in the breezy assurances given by Brexiteers
both ebfore and after the referendum that the concerns expressed by
Remainers was largely irrelevant and that it would be a cinch to make
alternative arrangements which would be in our favour.

That's no different from the breezy assurance from Remainers that all of the
EU problems could be resolved by us staying in and changing it from the
inside

Huh! If we remained a part of the EU we would have some say on how it
is run; outside the EU we have no say at all.

And outside the EU we won't care, as those rules won't apply to us.

If we want to trade with EU countries then they will.

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 13:31:55 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Mark
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 12:27:00 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Mark
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 11:05:56 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 19:16 23 Sep 2017, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , pamela
wrote:

The Leavers now need to prove their original claims that it will
be like a picnic with sweets for everybody.

No we don't because there was no such claim. My views are based
on the democratic deficit - that the EU uses a political system
that the UK has spent the last 200 or more years evolving away
from. End of.

The claim was implicit in the breezy assurances given by Brexiteers
both ebfore and after the referendum that the concerns expressed by
Remainers was largely irrelevant and that it would be a cinch to make
alternative arrangements which would be in our favour.

That's no different from the breezy assurance from Remainers that all of
the
EU problems could be resolved by us staying in and changing it from the
inside

Huh! If we remained a part of the EU we would have some say on how it
is run; outside the EU we have no say at all.

And outside the EU we won't care, as those rules won't apply to us.

If we want to trade with EU countries then they will.

Only those which apply to products to be exported to the EU.

There are plenty of those. And many UK-based busineses are likely to
relocate when the UK leaves the EU.

No others
will. UK exporters to all other countries in the world are already in
this position.

So? That's not a good reason to make it harder for existing exporters
to EU countries.

It's also normal for importing countries with specific requirements
(such as for food production), to have their inspectors located in the
exporting country, to continuously verify that the exporter is
producing to the importer's requirements.

And outside the EU this will be more difficult.

I'm not saying this will happen but, outside the EU, the UK may find
new EU rules make it harder to export to the EU, since the UK will no
longer have *any* say in the rules.

"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 11:05:56 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:



"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 19:16 23 Sep 2017, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , pamela
wrote:

The Leavers now need to prove their original claims that it will
be like a picnic with sweets for everybody.

No we don't because there was no such claim. My views are based
on the democratic deficit - that the EU uses a political system
that the UK has spent the last 200 or more years evolving away
from. End of.

The claim was implicit in the breezy assurances given by Brexiteers
both ebfore and after the referendum that the concerns expressed by
Remainers was largely irrelevant and that it would be a cinch to make
alternative arrangements which would be in our favour.

That's no different from the breezy assurance from Remainers that all of
the
EU problems could be resolved by us staying in and changing it from the
inside

Huh! If we remained a part of the EU we would have some say on how it
is run; outside the EU we have no say at all.

outside we no longer need to change it

that's the point

tim

"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 12:27:00 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Mark
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 11:05:56 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 19:16 23 Sep 2017, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , pamela
wrote:

The Leavers now need to prove their original claims that it will
be like a picnic with sweets for everybody.

No we don't because there was no such claim. My views are based
on the democratic deficit - that the EU uses a political system
that the UK has spent the last 200 or more years evolving away
from. End of.

The claim was implicit in the breezy assurances given by Brexiteers
both ebfore and after the referendum that the concerns expressed by
Remainers was largely irrelevant and that it would be a cinch to make
alternative arrangements which would be in our favour.

That's no different from the breezy assurance from Remainers that all of
the
EU problems could be resolved by us staying in and changing it from the
inside

Huh! If we remained a part of the EU we would have some say on how it
is run; outside the EU we have no say at all.

And outside the EU we won't care, as those rules won't apply to us.

If we want to trade with EU countries then they will.

the rules that we want to change aren't the pettifogging ones about square
bananas - they are just an annoyance.

the ones that we fundamentally disagree with and need to change if we were
to stay in are the ones about "closer political and financial union" that
the EU seems hell bent on.

Once out, they are no longer of interest to us. - they won't be an
impediment to trade for non members

tim





tim

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 14:20:54 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Mark
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 13:31:55 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Mark
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 12:27:00 +0100, Tim Streater

And outside the EU we won't care, as those rules won't apply to us.

If we want to trade with EU countries then they will.

Only those which apply to products to be exported to the EU.

There are plenty of those. And many UK-based busineses are likely to
relocate when the UK leaves the EU.

This is merely your opinion.

No. There are many who predicting this and several large companies
have expressed the desire to leave.

No others will. UK exporters to all other countries in the world
are already in this position.

So? That's not a good reason to make it harder for existing exporters
to EU countries.

It won't be harder. Those companies are *already* complying with the
relevant regulations.

And, in a short time, we won't have any influence in these
regulations.

It's also normal for importing countries with specific requirements
(such as for food production), to have their inspectors located in the
exporting country, to continuously verify that the exporter is
producing to the importer's requirements.

And outside the EU this will be more difficult.

Another content-free assertion on your part

No. If we no longer have any say on the regulations then it certainly
isn't going to get easier.

I'm not saying this will happen but, outside the EU, the UK may find
new EU rules make it harder to export to the EU, since the UK will no
longer have *any* say in the rules.

If they make it harder for us, they will be making it harder for any
other country that exports that product to the EU. Otherwise they will,
AIUI, be breaking WTO rules.

So you are saying that there won't be preferential treatment for EU
members?

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 11:05 24 Sep 2017, tim... wrote:



"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 19:16 23 Sep 2017, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , pamela
wrote:

The Leavers now need to prove their original claims that it
will be like a picnic with sweets for everybody.

No we don't because there was no such claim. My views are
based on the democratic deficit - that the EU uses a political
system that the UK has spent the last 200 or more years
evolving away from. End of.

The claim was implicit in the breezy assurances given by
Brexiteers both ebfore and after the referendum that the
concerns expressed by Remainers was largely irrelevant and that
it would be a cinch to make alternative arrangements which
would be in our favour.

That's no different from the breezy assurance from Remainers
that all of the EU problems could be resolved by us staying in
and changing it from the inside

Point taken. However British engagement with the processes of the
EU has always been poor. I recall stats which showed the UK as a
country had one of the lowest representations on EU committees and
working groups. (Per capita of population.)

the number of MEPs each county has IS disproportionately biased towards the
smaller countries

I guess this applies to committees too.


tim

"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 14:20:54 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Mark
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 13:31:55 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Mark
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 12:27:00 +0100, Tim Streater

And outside the EU we won't care, as those rules won't apply to us.

If we want to trade with EU countries then they will.

Only those which apply to products to be exported to the EU.

There are plenty of those. And many UK-based busineses are likely to
relocate when the UK leaves the EU.

This is merely your opinion.

No. There are many who predicting this

OK it's several people's opinion

it still isn't a fact

and several large companies
have expressed the desire to leave.

Have threatened to leave as part of a negotiating position - few take that
threat to its final conclusion

Come back when some have actually done so

No others will. UK exporters to all other countries in the world
are already in this position.

So? That's not a good reason to make it harder for existing exporters
to EU countries.

It won't be harder. Those companies are *already* complying with the
relevant regulations.

And, in a short time, we won't have any influence in these
regulations.

we wont need to

they wont affect us for 90% of out trade.

Some wont affect us for 100% of our trade.

It's also normal for importing countries with specific requirements
(such as for food production), to have their inspectors located in the
exporting country, to continuously verify that the exporter is
producing to the importer's requirements.

And outside the EU this will be more difficult.

Another content-free assertion on your part

No. If we no longer have any say on the regulations then it certainly
isn't going to get easier.

the EU is a declining part of world trade

when we joined, it was 25% of total world trade

now (with far more members) it is 15% of total world trade

soon it will be 10%

You are giving its regulations a status far above their worth

tim

On Sunday, 24 September 2017 14:28:47 UTC+1, tim... wrote:
"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 11:05:56 +0100, "tim..."

That's no different from the breezy assurance from Remainers that all of
the
EU problems could be resolved by us staying in and changing it from the
inside

Huh! If we remained a part of the EU we would have some say on how it
is run; outside the EU we have no say at all.

outside we no longer need to change it

that's the point

tim

As a general observation there are so many people in the world trying to change organisations from the inside when they have no realistic prospect of doing so.

Re the EU, we've been inside it for years. Is it now something the UK even wants to be part of? No.


NT

On 24/09/17 11:15, tim... wrote:


"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Capitol" wrote in message
...
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* pamela wrote:
Theresa May is now stalling for time because the outcome is going
to be messy and unpopular, just a the Remainers always expected.


Very true. And is protecting her arse by the extra two years taking us
just about to the end of this parliament. Leaving sorting out the
mess to
someone else.


You think she will last past Xmas?

Very likely, because the alternatives are even worse.

I'm beginning to think that a groundswell of Brexiteers will be thinking
otherwise, after her caving in and giving the EU what it wanted - only
to be met with the (inevitable, IMHO) response of "that isn't enough,
now give us some more (and oh, BTW you still can't have your trade deal)".

We need someone with the balls to stand up to them in charge, and she no
longer has that.

Nigel Farage may be making a comeback and the Moggster is rising up
brexiteer popularity charts.


If she did what she did to keep the Tory party together in order for
them to be (have a chance of being) in the right place at the next
election, then ISTM that she has achieved the exact opposite and
virtually guaranteed a Labour win (with them then undoing whatever part
of leaving we have already achieved).

THis is the plan of course. she is an EU stool pigeon, same as hammond

I think my 50 pounds is at risk.Â* (Money well spent if it is lost - as
long as that nutcase Rudd isn't the replacement!)

tim





--
€œit should be clear by now to everyone that activist environmentalism
(or environmental activism) is becoming a general ideology about humans,
about their freedom, about the relationship between the individual and
the state, and about the manipulation of people under the guise of a
'noble' idea. It is not an honest pursuit of 'sustainable development,'
a matter of elementary environmental protection, or a search for
rational mechanisms designed to achieve a healthy environment. Yet
things do occur that make you shake your head and remind yourself that
you live neither in Joseph Stalins Communist era, nor in the Orwellian
utopia of 1984.€�

Vaclav Klaus

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 14:43:14 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:



"Mark" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 14:20:54 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Mark
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 13:31:55 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Mark
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 12:27:00 +0100, Tim Streater

And outside the EU we won't care, as those rules won't apply to us.

If we want to trade with EU countries then they will.

Only those which apply to products to be exported to the EU.

There are plenty of those. And many UK-based busineses are likely to
relocate when the UK leaves the EU.

This is merely your opinion.

No. There are many who predicting this

OK it's several people's opinion

it still isn't a fact

Nor can it be dismissed so easily.

and several large companies
have expressed the desire to leave.

Have threatened to leave as part of a negotiating position - few take that
threat to its final conclusion

Come back when some have actually done so

So you're prepared to gamble on this?

No others will. UK exporters to all other countries in the world
are already in this position.

So? That's not a good reason to make it harder for existing exporters
to EU countries.

It won't be harder. Those companies are *already* complying with the
relevant regulations.

And, in a short time, we won't have any influence in these
regulations.

we wont need to

Why not? Why do you think it would be better to have no influence?

On 24/09/17 12:00, Mark wrote:


Huh! If we remained a part of the EU we would have some say on how it
is run; outside the EU we have no say at all.

Bless!

we will have more infludence on the EU by leaving it than we ever had
inside it.


--
Karl Marx said religion is the opium of the people.
But Marxism is the crack cocaine.

On 24/09/17 13:02, Mark wrote:
On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 12:27:00 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Mark
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 11:05:56 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 19:16 23 Sep 2017, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , pamela
wrote:

The Leavers now need to prove their original claims that it will
be like a picnic with sweets for everybody.

No we don't because there was no such claim. My views are based
on the democratic deficit - that the EU uses a political system
that the UK has spent the last 200 or more years evolving away
from. End of.

The claim was implicit in the breezy assurances given by Brexiteers
both ebfore and after the referendum that the concerns expressed by
Remainers was largely irrelevant and that it would be a cinch to make
alternative arrangements which would be in our favour.

That's no different from the breezy assurance from Remainers that all of the
EU problems could be resolved by us staying in and changing it from the
inside

Huh! If we remained a part of the EU we would have some say on how it
is run; outside the EU we have no say at all.

And outside the EU we won't care, as those rules won't apply to us.

If we want to trade with EU countries then they will.

only to those directly involved in trading


--
Karl Marx said religion is the opium of the people.
But Marxism is the crack cocaine.

On 24/09/17 13:06, Huge wrote:
In article , Mark
wrote:


And outside the EU we won't care, as those rules won't apply to us.

And just exactly how dim are you?


Bot nearly as dim as yoi, Huge.





--
Karl Marx said religion is the opium of the people.
But Marxism is the crack cocaine.

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 14:47:20 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Mark
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 14:20:54 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Mark
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 13:31:55 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Mark
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 12:27:00 +0100, Tim Streater

And outside the EU we won't care, as those rules won't apply to us.

If we want to trade with EU countries then they will.

Only those which apply to products to be exported to the EU.

There are plenty of those. And many UK-based busineses are likely to
relocate when the UK leaves the EU.

This is merely your opinion.

No. There are many who predicting this and several large companies
have expressed the desire to leave.

Oh, predictions, eh? Like those that by now there would be an extra
500k unemployed if we voted Leave?

The predictions made by your beloved Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson
have not been particularly reliable.

And lots more large companies have *not* expressed any desire to leave.
Rather, they have announced investments here.

Let's wait and see.

No others will. UK exporters to all other countries in the world
are already in this position.

So? That's not a good reason to make it harder for existing exporters
to EU countries.

It won't be harder. Those companies are *already* complying with the
relevant regulations.

And, in a short time, we won't have any influence in these
regulations.

What of it. The rest of the world is already in that position.

It's also normal for importing countries with specific requirements
(such as for food production), to have their inspectors located in the
exporting country, to continuously verify that the exporter is
producing to the importer's requirements.

And outside the EU this will be more difficult.

Another content-free assertion on your part

No. If we no longer have any say on the regulations then it certainly
isn't going to get easier.

I'm not saying this will happen but, outside the EU, the UK may find
new EU rules make it harder to export to the EU, since the UK will no
longer have *any* say in the rules.

If they make it harder for us, they will be making it harder for any
other country that exports that product to the EU. Otherwise they will,
AIUI, be breaking WTO rules.

So you are saying that there won't be preferential treatment for EU
members?

Those are not countries that are exporting to the EU.

So you are claiming that EU countries do not export to other EU
countries.

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 14:27:49 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:



"Mark" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 11:05:56 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:



"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 19:16 23 Sep 2017, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , pamela
wrote:

The Leavers now need to prove their original claims that it will
be like a picnic with sweets for everybody.

No we don't because there was no such claim. My views are based
on the democratic deficit - that the EU uses a political system
that the UK has spent the last 200 or more years evolving away
from. End of.

The claim was implicit in the breezy assurances given by Brexiteers
both ebfore and after the referendum that the concerns expressed by
Remainers was largely irrelevant and that it would be a cinch to make
alternative arrangements which would be in our favour.

That's no different from the breezy assurance from Remainers that all of
the
EU problems could be resolved by us staying in and changing it from the
inside

Huh! If we remained a part of the EU we would have some say on how it
is run; outside the EU we have no say at all.

outside we no longer need to change it

That's a very naive attitude.

On 24/09/17 14:03, Mark wrote:
Only those which apply to products to be exported to the EU.

There are plenty of those. And many UK-based busineses are likely to
relocate when the UK leaves the EU.


No, very few are.

No others
will. UK exporters to all other countries in the world are already in
this position.
So? That's not a good reason to make it harder for existing exporters
to EU countries.

Indeed. Perhaps tou couold tell that to the EU..

It's also normal for importing countries with specific requirements
(such as for food production), to have their inspectors located in the
exporting country, to continuously verify that the exporter is
producing to the importer's requirements.
And outside the EU this will be more difficult.

No it wont.


I'm not saying this will happen but, outside the EU, the UK may find
new EU rules make it harder to export to the EU, since the UK will no
longer have*any* say in the rules.


It wiill certainly nmake it harder for EU companies to export to US.
Maybe they will relocate to the UK to get round this.


--
Karl Marx said religion is the opium of the people.
But Marxism is the crack cocaine.

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 14:49:28 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , tim...
wrote:

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 11:05 24 Sep 2017, tim... wrote:

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 19:16 23 Sep 2017, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , pamela
wrote:

The Leavers now need to prove their original claims that it
will be like a picnic with sweets for everybody.

No we don't because there was no such claim. My views are
based on the democratic deficit - that the EU uses a political
system that the UK has spent the last 200 or more years
evolving away from. End of.

The claim was implicit in the breezy assurances given by
Brexiteers both ebfore and after the referendum that the
concerns expressed by Remainers was largely irrelevant and that
it would be a cinch to make alternative arrangements which
would be in our favour.

That's no different from the breezy assurance from Remainers
that all of the EU problems could be resolved by us staying in
and changing it from the inside

Point taken. However British engagement with the processes of the
EU has always been poor. I recall stats which showed the UK as a
country had one of the lowest representations on EU committees and
working groups. (Per capita of population.)

the number of MEPs each county has IS disproportionately biased towards the
smaller countries

I guess this applies to committees too.

Tory MEPs always complained that Kipper MEPs didn't attend or pull
their weight in such committees. AIUI, St Nige was on the Fisheries
Committee and never attended it (or only once).

Yes, the British MEPs didn't take it seriously so they have only
themselves to blame. An UKIP MEP is ridiculous - like Turkeys on the
Christmas committee.

On 24/09/17 14:49, Tim Streater wrote:


Tory MEPs always complained that Kipper MEPs didn't attend or pull
their weight in such committees. AIUI, St Nige was on the Fisheries
Committee and never attended it (or only once).

On the other hand Nigel has a better attendance record than Nick clegg
did when he was an MEP.



--
To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote.

On Sat, 23 Sep 2017 23:59:29 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Ah - right. You dislike the idea of one country helping another. And the
principle that as that country become richer, it contributes to others.

At least you're being honest.

You want us to build up other countries while our own people are sleeping
on the streets? And so many families are living in fuel poverty having to
choose between heating and eating? Do you not think we should sort out
our own problems before making any grandiose Cosmopolitan gestures?



--
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.