On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 11:15:38 +0100, pamela wrote:

By contrast, there was a newspaper story (Daily Mail, so make of it what
you will!) about a Polish pupil in a British school being top of the
class in every subject including English.

No surprise for any of us who are fans of the brilliant writer Joseph
Conrad, but I'm guessing you're not very well-read.

Many school pupils from EU countries bring an admirable study ethic
which our own pupils could learn from. There are numerous stories of
how parents and pupils from other EU countries find their classmates are
interested only in shopping, pop music, skipping homework, etc.

Yes, all thanks to the poisonous cultural influences been forced down
their throats the BBC et al. All part of the plan.


--
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.

On Sat, 23 Sep 2017 23:04:37 +0000, Harold Davis wrote:

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

Harry

Yes, of course. Only members of the Liberal Elite should have been
allowed a say.
****in' dickhead.



--
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.

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 10:27:56 +0100, Capitol wrote:

You think she will last past Xmas?

I'm beginning to hope not. She's making a total ****-up of everything and
I wouldn't be surprised if it's on purpose. The give-away was how long it
took the **** to trigger Art.50.



--
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.

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

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!)


Both Rudd and May have proved worse than useless at the Home Office.
Maybe this is what happens when you try to follow Lefty 'affirmative
action' type policies.



--
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.

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 12:00:25 +0100, Mark wrote:

Huh! If we remained a part of the EU we would have some say on how it
is run

Yes, which would be *worthless* because it would be ignored as we've
already seen (unless you're impenetrably dense and unable to see this, of
course).




--
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.

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 15:11:07 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
wrote:

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?

They're not exclusive. We can sort out both.

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?

The UK is still a rich country and we could afford it despite what the
gutter press tell you.

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 13:02:03 +0100, Mark wrote:

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

They need to trade with us, 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.

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 15:33:48 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 12:00:25 +0100, Mark wrote:

Huh! If we remained a part of the EU we would have some say on how it
is run

Yes, which would be *worthless* because it would be ignored as we've
already seen (unless you're impenetrably dense and unable to see this, of
course).

Ah, so you don't believe in democracy.

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 15:27:46 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
wrote:

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

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!)


Both Rudd and May have proved worse than useless at the Home Office.
Maybe this is what happens when you try to follow Lefty 'affirmative
action' type policies.

Heads up - the Tory party is right-wing!

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 14:03:30 +0100, Mark wrote:

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.

Reasoning's not your strong point, clearly!



--
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.

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 15:24:19 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 10:27:56 +0100, Capitol wrote:

You think she will last past Xmas?

I'm beginning to hope not. She's making a total ****-up of everything

Well, that's something we can agree on.

and
I wouldn't be surprised if it's on purpose

OOI why would it be on purpose - unless they are trying to screw-up
the country for the next government because they know they won't be
re-elected.

The give-away was how long it
took the **** to trigger Art.50.

There's many give-aways to reveal their incompetence.

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 15:06:49 +0100, Mark wrote:

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

I thought you were simply an idiot, now it's becoming clear you're a
troll.
*PLONK*
Good riddance!



--
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.

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 15:43:32 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 14:03:30 +0100, Mark wrote:

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.

Reasoning's not your strong point, clearly!

Obviously not yours, since my post went over your head.

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 15:40:13 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 13:02:03 +0100, Mark wrote:

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

They need to trade with us, too.

And who is in the stronger position here?

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 15:47:07 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 15:06:49 +0100, Mark wrote:

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

I thought you were simply an idiot, now it's becoming clear you're a
troll.
*PLONK*
Good riddance!

Ah. You cannot bear anyone disagreeing with you.

On 24/09/17 16:41, Mark wrote:
On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 15:27:46 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
wrote:

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

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!)


Both Rudd and May have proved worse than useless at the Home Office.
Maybe this is what happens when you try to follow Lefty 'affirmative
action' type policies.

Heads up - the Tory party is right-wing!

No, it isn't these days.



--
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 24/09/17 16:40, Mark wrote:
On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 15:33:48 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 12:00:25 +0100, Mark wrote:

Huh! If we remained a part of the EU we would have some say on how it
is run

Yes, which would be *worthless* because it would be ignored as we've
already seen (unless you're impenetrably dense and unable to see this, of
course).

Ah, so you don't believe in democracy.

Show me any demnocracy in the EU.


--
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 24/09/17 16:48, Mark wrote:
On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 15:40:13 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 13:02:03 +0100, Mark wrote:

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

They need to trade with us, too.

And who is in the stronger position here?

We are.


--
Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the
gospel of envy.

Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

Winston Churchill

On 24/09/17 16:57, Mark wrote:
On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 15:47:07 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 15:06:49 +0100, Mark wrote:

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

I thought you were simply an idiot, now it's becoming clear you're a
troll.
*PLONK*
Good riddance!

Ah. You cannot bear anyone disagreeing with you.

No, he isnt a europhile remainer.


--
Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the
gospel of envy.

Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

Winston Churchill

"tim..." wrote in message
news


"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

It isnt the poor countrys in the EU that make the EU rules.

If it was me, I'd dislike the idea that ****wits like the Irish
can do what they like and get bailed out when they ****
up, again and again and again with me paying for that.

Germany is starting to feel that way about Greece tho
in their case you can certainly make a case that is was
the kraut banks that were stupid enough to allow
Greece to do what it did and that should certainly
get to wear the cost of producing that situation.

Gets more complicated if the entire eurozone
implodes completely and brings the entire EU
economy down with it tho.

"tim..." wrote in message
news


"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,

Sure, but they dont get any say on who is in that job.

after her caving in and giving the EU what it wanted

She hasnt done anything like that.

- 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)".

If they keep that up, she'll just tell them to go and **** themselves.

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

But those who feel that way get no say on who has that job.

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,

Its too far away to matter currently. The Article 50 2 year time for
'negotiations' has to end before another election when the result was so
close the last time. Even May wont be silly enough to call another now.

then ISTM that she has achieved the exact opposite and virtually
guaranteed a Labour win

Thats certainly possible but changing who has
that job now isnt going to change that now.

Tho its certainly possible that changing to Boris and having
him tell the EU to go and **** themselves very unambiguously
indeed might see the Torys prospects of getting back in the
next general election improve significantly. Problem is that
almost none of those who get to decide who has that job
has any interest in having Boris in it.

Its certainly possible that some comparative unknown may
come from behind and convince enough of those who matter
to give May the bums rush, but I can't see that happening
before Xmas even if she does do something really ****ing
stupid and say cave in to the EU completely and agree to
everything they want and still not get any trade agreement.

(with them then undoing whatever part of leaving we have already
achieved).

I can't see you lot being that stupid but my record on
predicting how stupid you lot can be is utterly obscene.

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!)

I still think she will survive past Xmas unless she ****s up completely,
again, just because of the dearth of viable alternatives.

"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;

In theory. Bet you can't list even a single example of anything
that Britain has wanted actually being implemented.

outside the EU we have no say at all.

But when outside the EU, there is no reason to care what happens inside it.

"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.

Only with trade detail and Britain has never had any say on that when in the
EU anyway.

"Mark" wrote in message
...
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.

It doesn't now.

"Cursitor Doom" wrote in message
news
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?

There are always some sleeping in any streets, mostly
those we no longer keep in locked wards anymore.

And so many families are living in fuel poverty
having to choose between heating and eating?

No one does.

Do you not think we should sort out our own problems

Not possible.

before making any grandiose Cosmopolitan gestures?

That isnt what happened with Eire.

In article , pamela
writes
On 16:14 21 Sep 2017, Jethro_uk wrote:

On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 13:46:47 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

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

A speech the EU isn't going to ....


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-
theresa-may-speech-
florence-eu-commission-michel-barnier-negotiations-divorce-
bill-a7959396.html

No European Commission officials will be travelling to Florence
to attend Theresa May's landmark speech on the Brexit
negotiations, The Independent can reveal, in what appears to be
a snub to the Prime Minister.

The Independent understands that Brussels officials and
negotiators will be staying away from the PM's critical address,
despite chief EU negotiator Michel Barnier already being in
Italy to address local politicians the day before.

In the audience instead will be Ms May's own cabinet ministers
including Boris Johnson, who laid out his own (conflicting)
vision for what Brexit should look like, in a 4,000-word Daily
Telegraph article less than a week ago.


So much for the reassurance often stated by Brexiteers that the EU
needs the UK more than the UK needs the EU.

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.
The EU states are forbidden to make any comment on the negotiations
which are in the hands of the Commission.
--
bert

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

The Greek economy isn't run by the Greeks any more. Do keep up.
--
bert

In article , Steve Walker
writes
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,
Not richer - higher GDP.
Snip
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
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.
That doesn't make them reasonable.
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.

No it's what you said we said not what we said.
MM comes to mind with
his German license. He'd love to sell out the UK to the EU.

RMC isn't far behind, saying that continued payments to the EU is a
'bung' yet historically supported such payments when convenient to do so.

Just for once take your blinkers off and look at things from the other
side's point of view. This isn't a fooking football match.

It is a game to the Commission. We should stop trying to appease them
and just leave.
--
bert

Mark wrote
Cursitor Doom wrote
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?

They're not exclusive.

True.

We can sort out both.

Nope. Now that we no longer keep the loonys in locked wards,
we're stuck with those that choose to sleep in 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?

The UK is still a rich country

Yes, but it makes no sense to be bailing out fools like the Irish
who keep completely ****ing up, time after time after time.

Or places like Greece who were stupid enough to have by
far the most generous govt pension scheme and didn't even
bother to make their taxpayers pay the taxes they owed.

and we could afford it

But it makes a lot more sense to spend it at home instead
on stuff like the NHS that most get to use eventually and
on building enough new houses so they are affordable
for those just starting working etc.

Or even just providing free tertiary education etc.

despite what the gutter press tell you.

"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 15:33:48 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 12:00:25 +0100, Mark wrote:

Huh! If we remained a part of the EU we would have some say on how it
is run

Yes, which would be *worthless* because it would be ignored as we've
already seen (unless you're impenetrably dense and unable to see this, of
course).

Ah, so you don't believe in democracy.

You clearly don't. A majority of those who bothered to
vote decided that they wanted Britain to leave the EU.

You get to like that or lump it.

In article , pamela
writes
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.
The Commission doesn't because they will still receive their high
salaries and expenses and will retire on their generous pensions and
leave the mess for someone else to sort out.
To this end the EU is prepared to fund any financial
losses to itself.

The Commission doesn't fund the losses.
Theresa May is now stalling for time because the outcome is going
to be messy and unpopular, just a the Remainers always expected.

I regret to say that Theresa May seems to be somewhat out of her depth
when it comes to hard negotiations. She still labours under the illusion
that the Commission is interested in reasonableness. Appeasement only
leads to higher demands.
Snip
--
bert

"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 15:24:19 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 10:27:56 +0100, Capitol wrote:

You think she will last past Xmas?

I'm beginning to hope not. She's making a total ****-up of everything

Well, that's something we can agree on.

and
I wouldn't be surprised if it's on purpose

OOI why would it be on purpose

She doesn't want Britain to leave the EU.

- unless they are trying to screw-up the country
for the next government because they know
they won't be re-elected.

The give-away was how long it
took the **** to trigger Art.50.

There's many give-aways to reveal their incompetence.

Corse there is nothing like that with Labour, eh ?

In article , Mark
writes
On Sat, 23 Sep 2017 12:34:59 +0100, 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.

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.

It's the remainers who are the little Englanders afraid to get out into
the big wide world on their own. They think they can hide behind big
brother.
And the UK negociators haven't a clue what they are doing.

--
bert

"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 15:40:13 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 13:02:03 +0100, Mark wrote:

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

They need to trade with us, too.

And who is in the stronger position here?

Britain with aircraft engines, wings, financial services, etc etc etc.

Everything Britain gets from the EU is much cheaper
from other than the EU once its left the EU.

In article , Mark
writes
On Sat, 23 Sep 2017 13:15:19 +0100, 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.

Oh dear. You seem to be among those who think the EU should do
exactly what the UK tells it to. The EU has never been a club for the
UK to control. It's about cooperation - which it is not getting much
from the UK now.

No it's a club for the Germans to control. The rest are all afraid of
the Germans.
What we're about to get now is the worst of both "worlds": We'll
still be paying large sums of money to the EU
Only for a couple of years more and even that has conditions attached.
Remember the EU mantra - nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
but getting nothing back
and having no say over EU rules.

Well we only have 1/28th say at the moment.
The problem is not so much having an EU, it's *this* EU, this *corrupt*
and *undemocratic* EU.

It's no less democratic and corrupt than the UK political system,
better in fact.

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.

From your posts you seem to be a "little englander" based on your
prejudices.

It's the remainers who are the little Englanders.
--
bert

In article , pamela
writes
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.
And we will be again if Corbyn and McDonell ever gain power.
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.
History through tinted spectacles.
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
The Leavers now need to prove their original claims that it will
be like a picnic with sweets for everybody.

That was never the claim. Teh claim was that it would liberate
hardworking people to make things better,

Really? Can you find a quote for that?

not that lazy lefty****s would get a free ride.

You are amazing. Without the vast number of badly mislead Labour voters,
Brexit would just be a wanking fantasy for Farage.

So Labour voters are so thick they are easily mislead? Must be why
Corbyn got so many votes.
--
bert

In article , pamela
writes
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
It's called optimism a concept unknown to remoaners.
that the concerns expressed by
Remainers was largely irrelevant
And proven wrong. Tell us when is that disastrous punitive budget going
to be announced?
and that it would be a cinch to make
alternative arrangements which would be in our favour.

It will be just wait and see.
--
bert

In article , Mark
writes
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.

We only had 1/28th say. The EU is beyond change.
--
bert