On Sun, 01 Oct 2017 23:51:43 +0100, pamela wrote:

On 23:41 1 Oct 2017, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sun, 01 Oct 2017 21:07:52 +0100, pamela wrote:

Please carry on. The negotiations are already providing great
entertainment. It looks like getting better.

It'll get better alright when we eventually walk out of those 'talks'
(so- called).

I can't wait.

Neither can I.



--
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 01/10/17 23:46, Cursitor Doom wrote:
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*.

Oh yes, its really really good at ****ing all itrs citizens

..




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

Burton Hillis (William Vaughn, American columnist)

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 politiciåns, Frech Farmers and German car makers
Everyne else got a **** deal


--
The biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On 01/10/17 23:14, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 01 Oct 2017 22:37:07 +0100, bert wrote:

Which is a good reason for leaving.

Just one among *millions* of excellent reasons! I can't understand why
Dave is being such a misery guts over it. I guess he'll change his
viewpoint after we're finally out and the benefits roll in.


No. He will never admit he is wrong.

I have friends like Dave. One of them admitted that all his cxointacts
with local politicians he liked and got on with the 'squirearchy' but
he was a card carrying Labour man all his days, and died still Believing
in the Cause.

Every single Labour government in his lifetime had been the Wrong Labour
government....



--
The biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 22:03 1 Oct 2017, bert wrote:

In article , pamela
writes
On 09:20 29 Sep 2017, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , pamela
wrote:

On 20:49 28 Sep 2017, bert wrote:

In article , pamela
writes
On 17:38 27 Sep 2017, Tim Streater wrote:

Pamela wrote:


I do hope polite little Britain is truly ready for trade
negotiations where the going can get very rough.

You mean they come in with knuckle dusters? Or what do you
mean? In any case, you may recall that history didn't
start on whatever day it was when the EU took over trade
negotiations. The UK had been doing it for hundreds of
years before that.

British pre-EU trade negotiations tended, more than usual,
to be at the end of an Imperial gun barrel and often
involved dark- skinned subjects of the Empire who had
little say in what their country agreed with London.

Every person is out for themself in a trade negotiation.
Good behaviour may have generated good will but we lost
that when we told the EU we were leaving.

It's time for us to grow up and stop whinging.

It's actually the remoaners who are whinging and throwing up
the phantom problems.

Once boisterous Brexiteers seem a bit subdued these days.
They're complaining about how negotiations aren't going as
well as expected.

No, I'm complaining about how irresponsible the EU is being.

Too bad. It was to be expected.

SO you accept being bullied.

You couldn't predict it?

assuming that's an ironic comment

are you suggesting that we shouldn't be allowed to leave, just because the
other side wont negotiate properly

tim

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 21:30 1 Oct 2017, Steve Walker wrote:


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.

the point is that the EU and the UK DO have a trading relationship

that trading relationship WILL continue once we have left

and FTAOD, it will, be the largest trading partner outside the EU that the
EU have.

and in order to make that as easy as possible for EVERYONE we need to sit
around the table and discuss the agreements for doing so

But they seem to think that they don't need to do that.

And the only reasons that I can see why anyone would be so STUPID is because
they think that by doing this we will crawl back and ask to stay in(when the
will stiff us again by saying "only if you lose all your opt outs)

No deal is as bad for them as it is for us. Messing around with the trading
WILL cost them mega billions. That it is a smaller part of their total GDP
than ours does not make it an insignificant amount.

for every UK lorry stuck in a 12 hour queue to pass customs there will be a
FRENCH lorry stuck in a 12 hour queue to pass customs

for every brit with a professions certificate travelling to the EU to
perform his professional work having his qualification queried as valid,
there will be a EU citizen with some professional certificate having his
qualification being queried as valid

for ever Brit turning up at a French Hospital expecting to be covered by his
EHIC card and being turned away, there will be a French citizen turning up
at an UK hospital expecting to be covered by his EHIC card and being turned
away

etc etc

This isn't about special favours

It's about a continuation of normal life

and you think that it's OK for the EU to negotiators to say "not our
problem, you sort it out"

tim

in 1629216 20171001 211320 Tim Streater wrote:
In article , pamela
wrote:

On 11:28 1 Oct 2017, Huge wrote:

On 2017-10-01, pamela wrote:

[71 lines snipped]

The US, whom we are regularly told is our great ally, didn't
hold back from imposing 220 percent retaliatory tariffs over
Bombardier.

The US used WW2 to destroy Britain as a world power.

I guess you mean the War Debt.

Not only. We used to have significant foreign investments in South
America. Sold to the Yanks for a song for agreement for the Yanks
selling us arms during WW2.

Not just South America, all British investments in the USA had to be sold.

"Bob Martin" wrote in message
...
in 1629216 20171001 211320 Tim Streater wrote:
In article , pamela
wrote:

On 11:28 1 Oct 2017, Huge wrote:

On 2017-10-01, pamela wrote:

[71 lines snipped]

The US, whom we are regularly told is our great ally, didn't
hold back from imposing 220 percent retaliatory tariffs over
Bombardier.

The US used WW2 to destroy Britain as a world power.

I guess you mean the War Debt.

Not only. We used to have significant foreign investments in South
America. Sold to the Yanks for a song for agreement for the Yanks
selling us arms during WW2.

Not just South America, all British investments in the USA had to be sold.

why do I keep thinking of dog pills? .....

In article ,
tim... wrote:
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.

Really? How come? May etc doesn't want to simply leave the EU. She wants
to set up a new trade etc deal at the same time.
Surely even you have noticed this? The rules for leaving the EU don't
cover this. They cover leaving only. Any attempt to set up a new deal
comes after that.
This was said by the EU from the off. But that hasn't stopped May etc
trying to impose her own 'rules' on the EU.

--
*No I haven't stolen it , I'm just a **** driver*

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

In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
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.

What very odd logic.

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

It's is absolutely no problem if we just wish to negotiate the separation
deal from the EU. That could be done well within the timescale.

But May wants a new deal involving trade and services.

--
*Why is a boxing ring square?

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

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/10/17 23:14, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 01 Oct 2017 22:37:07 +0100, bert wrote:

Which is a good reason for leaving.

Just one among *millions* of excellent reasons! I can't understand why
Dave is being such a misery guts over it. I guess he'll change his
viewpoint after we're finally out and the benefits roll in.


No. He will never admit he is wrong.

I have friends

Some things are beyond belief.

--
*Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things.

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

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

Really? How come? May etc doesn't want to simply leave the EU. She wants
to set up a new trade etc deal at the same time.

she wants to agree trading details I agree

but that is to be expected and is not the same thing as a trade deal

the trade deal is a nice to have, but an agreement of trading terms is a
must have - for both sides, and yet the EU seem to think that they can
dispense with it.

Surely even you have noticed this? The rules for leaving the EU don't
cover this. They cover leaving only.

and they require the parties to sit down and agree terms for separation

Any attempt to set up a new deal
comes after that.

Except that the UK have been offering the EU the carrot that we will be more
amenable to they demands for a divorce payment if they offer us a free trade
deal than if they don't

but they seem to think that they should be entitled to the carrot
regardless.

This was said by the EU from the off. But that hasn't stopped May etc
trying to impose her own 'rules' on the EU.

I don't believe that she has imposed any rules (she might have tried, but
hasn't succeeded)

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 11:26 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. Many
Brexiters are claiming that the EU is making things as difficult as
possible for the UK - why should this be any different?

On Saturday, 30 September 2017 17:25:13 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
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.

No we joined the EEC have you forgotten already, short term memeory loss ?


Agreed to all the rules and
regulations, or negotiated an opt out if not to our taste.

I don't remmerb being asked if I wanted to opt out of anything.
I don't rememebr our MPs asking us either.



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

because that was the first time we'd been asked our opinion on anything for 40+ years.


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.

Why should that be a suprise the EU is doing exactly the same.


If the positions were reversed, The Mail, etc, would be frothing at the
mouth.

While newspapers have a voice it's usually the owner of the paper whose voice you hear loundest.

On 02/10/17 12:08, pamela wrote:
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.


Yes, we would be by and large.

The EU is a con. Like all socialist government. Give us your money, we
will give a little of it back and spend the rest on ourselves, jobs for
our cronies and propaganda to make you feel we are ****ing wonderful

Generations fall for it every time.


Great.



--
All political activity makes complete sense once the proposition that
all government is basically a self-legalising protection racket, is
fully understood.

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


So we have learnt that the EU is run by amateurs.

Quelle surprise!


--
Gun Control: The law that ensures that only criminals have guns.

On 02/10/2017 12:01, pamela wrote:

snip
Brexiteers thought we held all the cards and that the negotiations
would quickly come out in our favour. That's naieve. The EU is
not attempting to give the UK a good deal.

That is what Remoaners believe how Brexiters think.

Brexiters think WTO rules are fine.

Brits are famously hopeless at bartering for goods when they're
abroad and now they are proving equally hopeless.

So why bother? Let March 2019 pass. We ought to be talking more to other
countries in the world.

On 02/10/17 11:49, pamela wrote:
On 23:55 1 Oct 2017, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sun, 01 Oct 2017 23:01:13 +0100, pamela wrote:

You couldn't predict it?

So you wanted to Remoan so as not to upset the Germans?? That's
a very un- British attitude you have there.

I'd like Brexiteers to stop moaning about how badly the EU is
behaving in negotiations. It was completely predictable.


Yes, I totally agree. We always knew they were a bunch of greedy,
incompetent, arrogant, bullying ****s, and thats why we voted to leave
in the first place.

The Brexiteers need to get on with it.

We are trying.


--
Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its proper
name. They must face the full meaning of that which they are advocating
or condoning; the full, exact, specific meaning of collectivism, of its
logical implications, of the principles upon which it is based, and of
the ultimate consequences to which these principles will lead. They must
face it, then decide whether this is what they want or not.

Ayn Rand.

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 11:26 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. 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.


--
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 02/10/17 12:14, pamela wrote:
Not only is the UK in a weak position in the EU negotiations but
Theresa May's weak government makes it harder still to get a good
deal. Her weak leadership doesn't help.

She is doing what she is told. She had a massive majority and
deliberately threw it all away in a silly election.

This was deliberate. She was selceted because she is incompetent and her
backers want Brexit to fail.

Only the likes of Ress Mogg and Bioris and Fragae are keeping the
process on the rails.


--
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 02/10/17 12:17, pamela wrote:
On 21:13 1 Oct 2017, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , pamela
wrote:

On 11:28 1 Oct 2017, Huge wrote:

On 2017-10-01, pamela wrote:

[71 lines snipped]

The US, whom we are regularly told is our great ally, didn't
hold back from imposing 220 percent retaliatory tariffs over
Bombardier.

The US used WW2 to destroy Britain as a world power.

I guess you mean the War Debt.

Not only. We used to have significant foreign investments in South
America. Sold to the Yanks for a song for agreement for the Yanks
selling us arms during WW2.

Which goes to show that we had better not place too much hope on
favourable trade deals with the US.

God you are naive. The Yanks play hard ball. WE know that. It was a
masterstroke by Churchill that got them to finally stand up to the
Russians and pour trillions into Europe.

Or lose it as a market.


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

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.


--
James Harris

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.

On Mon, 02 Oct 2017 12:14:01 +0100, pamela wrote:

On 10:55 2 Oct 2017, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:

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.

What very odd logic.

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

It's is absolutely no problem if we just wish to negotiate the
separation deal from the EU. That could be done well within the
timescale.

But May wants a new deal involving trade and services.


Not only is the UK in a weak position in the EU negotiations but
Theresa May's weak government makes it harder still to get a good
deal. Her weak leadership doesn't help.

Quite. Normally the PM would sack ministers openly criticising the
government, so why is Boris still there?

We used to think all those Italian coalition governments in past
decades were hopeless and unstable but now we have a similar
situation.

You are right.

All this at a time when we need to move faster.

Maybe not faster but it would be better if the UK representatives had
some clue what they were doing.

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.


--
James Harris

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 you think that the EU is "bullying" us then you must think they are
in a stronger position.

On Monday, 2 October 2017 15:31:45 UTC+1, 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 you think that the EU is "bullying" us then you must think they are
in a stronger position.

But that wouldnlt make bullying right would it, just because they are in a stronger position that's what most bullies believe.

On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 07:43:30 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:

On Monday, 2 October 2017 15:31:45 UTC+1, 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 you think that the EU is "bullying" us then you must think they are
in a stronger position.

But that wouldnlt make bullying right would it, just because they are in a stronger position that's what most bullies believe.

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.

In article ,
tim... wrote:
Really? How come? May etc doesn't want to simply leave the EU. She wants
to set up a new trade etc deal at the same time.

she wants to agree trading details I agree

but that is to be expected and is not the same thing as a trade deal

Isn't that splitting hairs? May wants to continue trading with the EU on
better than WTO terms. And seems to think it is the UK's right to do this.
Despite being told from the off that cherry picking wasn't on the agenda.
If she'd said she'd accept the same deal as others - like say Norway -
perhaps a different matter.

And now of course the two years since signing article 50 isn't enough. She
wants a further two years. Which will just about take her to the end of
this parliament - if she lasts that long.

--
*You're never too old to learn something stupid.
Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Monday, 2 October 2017 15:49:46 UTC+1, Mark wrote:
On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 07:43:30 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:

On Monday, 2 October 2017 15:31:45 UTC+1, 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 you think that the EU is "bullying" us then you must think they are
in a stronger position.

But that wouldnlt make bullying right would it, just because they are in a stronger position that's what most bullies believe.

No. And I don't accept that the EU is bullying us.

yuo'd have to define what exactly is bullying. Most only see bullying as a physical threat.


They are just
trying to get the best deal for themselves. It doesn't help that the
UK doesn't have a clue ATM.

Isn't that what both sides are doing.

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
We joined the EU of our own free will.

No we joined the EEC have you forgotten already, short term memeory loss ?

Ah - so we weren't in the EU. I've been misled all along, then.

--
*INDECISION is the key to FLEXIBILITY *

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

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
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

Absolutely. Straight dealing in business is what got your idol Trump
elected.

--
*Taxation WITH representation ain't much fun, either.

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

In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
That is what Remoaners believe how Brexiters think.

Brexiters think WTO rules are fine.

Do they? All of them? Or are you just attempting to speak for others?

--
*WHOSE CRUEL IDEA WAS IT FOR THE WORD 'LISP' TO HAVE 'S' IN IT?

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

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.

--
*Why 'that tie suits you' but 'those shoes suit you'?*

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

On Monday, 2 October 2017 16:43:20 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
We joined the EU of our own free will.

No we joined the EEC have you forgotten already, short term memeory loss ?

Ah - so we weren't in the EU. I've been misled all along, then.

Nom we joined the EEC, see above the claim is that we joined the EU.
if you can't tell the differnce then that says it all really.

In article ,
James Harris wrote:
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.

The UK while a member of the EU demanded change for their benefit. The EU
mostly said no.

The UK said they would hold a referendum on leaving if they didn't get
what they wanted. The EU shrugged its shoulders.

The UK has that referendum and is leaving the EU.

Sorry to see you go, says the EU.

The UK want to keep many of the benefits of being an EU member (after
leaving) with none of the 'costs'

The EU thinks this not on.

And you call the EU a bully?

--
*Work is for people who don't know how to fish.

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

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:

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.



If you think that the EU is "bullying" us then you must think they are
in a stronger position.

I think they /are/ in a stronger position, albeit not an overwhelming
one. But that's somewhat missing the point. Bullying is not about size
or might. It is about an attitude of mind.

Consider that when the Scottish parliament was set up and went off on
its own Westminster was generous to it (probably too generous), helped
it get on its feet, and wanted it to be a success. Of course,
Westminster was, to quote your words, "in a stronger position". But
Westminster's /attitude/ was not bullying. It was a positive, helpful one.

Now contrast that with the EU. Look at the negativity we get from it.
Look at what it wants to happen. And think about what kind of
organisation it is.



--
James Harris

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.

--snip--

Consider that when the Scottish parliament was set up and went off on
its own Westminster was generous to it (probably too generous), helped
it get on its feet, and wanted it to be a success. Of course,
Westminster was, to quote your words, "in a stronger position". But
Westminster's /attitude/ was not bullying. It was a positive, helpful one.

I think they are too generous in this. Scotland can afford to do
things in Scotland that we don't get in England.

Now contrast that with the EU. Look at the negativity we get from it.
Look at what it wants to happen. And think about what kind of
organisation it is.

Much of the negativity comes from the Xenaphobic UK press and certain
UK politicians.

In article , 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.

--snip--

Consider that when the Scottish parliament was set up and went off on
its own Westminster was generous to it (probably too generous), helped
it get on its feet, and wanted it to be a success. Of course,
Westminster was, to quote your words, "in a stronger position". But
Westminster's /attitude/ was not bullying. It was a positive, helpful
one.

I think they are too generous in this. Scotland can afford to do things
in Scotland that we don't get in England.

But, it seems as though their NHS is suffering as a result.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
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 politiciåns, Frech Farmers and German car makers
Everyne else got a **** deal

Thats bull**** for those who want to move around the EU to
anywhere they like with no restrictions at all on their movements.

And for those who want to be able to flog stuff anywhere in the
EU with minimal paperwork involved. With a few exceptions like
with those that need to charge the local VAT on digital media etc.