It's MORE!

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/1...actually-363m/

But how much do we get back?
OK it seems daft to put it out and then get it back but unfortunately this
is the way federal states work, just like the UK in fact. If you calculate
what you pay the gov after the council take their bits and then you can see
how wasteful it all is, so don't know the EU for what is done here as well.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"harry" wrote in message
...
It's MORE!

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/1...actually-363m/

On 01-Nov-17 8:09 AM, harry wrote:
It's MORE!

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/1...actually-363m/


As the article goes on to say, that is the gross figure, not what we
actually paid to the EU after the rebate, nor how much UK money went to
the EU after rebate and repayments.

However, even £363 million a week is less than 1% of GDP. Government
spending runs at around 40% of GDP and was 48% of GDP before we joined
the EEC.

--
--

Colin Bignell

On 01/11/2017 09:31, Nightjar wrote:

However, even £363 million a week is less than 1% of GDP. Government
spending runs at around 40% of GDP and was 48% of GDP before we joined
the EEC.

When and on what measure was it more than 48 per cent before 1973?

I wasn't aware of the total exceeding 44 per cent in the 25 years before
we joined in 1973. It did exceed 48 percent in 1975/76 - the year of
the "EEC referendum". Followed (if not the cause of) Jim Callaghan's
government having to go cap in hand to the IMF in 1976


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 01:09:26 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

It's MORE!

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/1...actually-363m/

harry, do you ever consider looking into the facts behind *anything*
you post?

I didn't even bother clicking on the link because I *know* it's going
to be BS because we *know* we never actually paid any of the figures
bandied about by the Brexiteers.

Do you think you pay £500 to your car insurance Co and they work out
your 50% NCB then send you the £250 back?

We have *NEVER* paid anything like even £300M/week to the EU and
initially were taking money *from* the EU (which we would also have to
take off any current totals).

Also, what this sort of headline propaganda also fails to acknowledge
is the *overall* situation (all things considered) re our membership
of the EU.

And apparently we are now we spending £1M / day trying to work out
what exactly what we (you) are going to get for our vote, services
previously supplied free as part of our EU membership.

Cheers, T i m

On Wednesday, November 1, 2017 at 8:24:58 AM UTC, Brian Gaff wrote:
But how much do we get back?
OK it seems daft to put it out and then get it back but unfortunately this
is the way federal states work, just like the UK in fact. If you calculate
what you pay the gov after the council take their bits and then you can see
how wasteful it all is, so don't know the EU for what is done here as well.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"harry" wrote in message
...
It's MORE!

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/1...actually-363m/

Which all is my reason for encouraging the black economy. If I do it legit and pay taxes etc the taxes y get lost in the Governmanst maw. If I pay the bloke direct it goes straight back into the economy

On 01/11/2017 10:25, T i m wrote:

...and
initially were taking money *from* the EU (which we would also have to
take off any current totals).

I agree with your comments overall so think it is a pity you included
the above claim. ISTM contentious. All the figures I have ever seen
show the UK as a net contributor to the UK budget since 1973 -
unsurprisingly since even in those days the UK's agricultural sector was
relatively small and efficient and so did had relatively little from the
CAP, and there were few UK regions which qualified for full-blown
development support.



--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 11:16:52 +0000, Robin wrote:

On 01/11/2017 10:25, T i m wrote:

...and
initially were taking money *from* the EU (which we would also have to
take off any current totals).

I agree with your comments overall so think it is a pity you included
the above claim. ISTM contentious. All the figures I have ever seen
show the UK as a net contributor to the UK budget since 1973 -
unsurprisingly since even in those days the UK's agricultural sector was
relatively small and efficient and so did had relatively little from the
CAP, and there were few UK regions which qualified for full-blown
development support.

Fair enough. I thought we were net recipients at the beginning (for a
year at least)?

Cheers, T i m

On 01/11/2017 12:27, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 11:16:52 +0000, Robin wrote:

On 01/11/2017 10:25, T i m wrote:

...and
initially were taking money *from* the EU (which we would also have to
take off any current totals).

I agree with your comments overall so think it is a pity you included
the above claim. ISTM contentious. All the figures I have ever seen
show the UK as a net contributor to the UK budget since 1973 -
unsurprisingly since even in those days the UK's agricultural sector was
relatively small and efficient and so did had relatively little from the
CAP, and there were few UK regions which qualified for full-blown
development support.

Fair enough. I thought we were net recipients at the beginning (for a
year at least)?

Cheers, T i m


I've checked and the reports etc I have kept showed no net contribution.
They included peer reviewed work from the LSE etc al. But in checking
I see that a recent HoC briefing[1] does indeed show a net gain in one
year (-56m in 1975-76) (after net contributions of 102m and 31m in the
preceding 2 years). I'll have to delve to find out why that differs
from previous publications - but I may be some time if I'm distracted,
eg by some wet paint that needs watching


[1] researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7886/CBP-7886.pdf



--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 12:58:55 +0000, Robin wrote:

On 01/11/2017 12:27, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 11:16:52 +0000, Robin wrote:

On 01/11/2017 10:25, T i m wrote:

...and
initially were taking money *from* the EU (which we would also have to
take off any current totals).

I agree with your comments overall so think it is a pity you included
the above claim. ISTM contentious. All the figures I have ever seen
show the UK as a net contributor to the UK budget since 1973 -
unsurprisingly since even in those days the UK's agricultural sector was
relatively small and efficient and so did had relatively little from the
CAP, and there were few UK regions which qualified for full-blown
development support.

Fair enough. I thought we were net recipients at the beginning (for a
year at least)?



I've checked and the reports etc I have kept showed no net contribution.
They included peer reviewed work from the LSE etc al. But in checking
I see that a recent HoC briefing[1] does indeed show a net gain in one
year (-56m in 1975-76) (after net contributions of 102m and 31m in the
preceding 2 years).

I thought I saw something along those lines and why I said what I did.
;-)

On a similar tack, I believe NI were initially bigger net recipients
(more / longer) and are now net contributors and potentially the goal
of all member states?

I'll have to delve to find out why that differs
from previous publications - but I may be some time if I'm distracted,
eg by some wet paint that needs watching

Quite!

As a right brainer I'm actually not into the detail of all of this but
do take a passing interest in the whole process from an 'arms length'
POV. I *still* have no dog in the fight (as I have no better an
understanding on the 'bigger picture' outcome of it all than I did at
the beginning) and I believe that is a position I actually share with
the vast majority (irrespective of how they answered the poll).


[1] researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7886/CBP-7886.pdf

Cheers, T i m

In article ,
T i m wrote:
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 11:16:52 +0000, Robin wrote:

On 01/11/2017 10:25, T i m wrote:

...and
initially were taking money *from* the EU (which we would also have to
take off any current totals).

I agree with your comments overall so think it is a pity you included
the above claim. ISTM contentious. All the figures I have ever seen
show the UK as a net contributor to the UK budget since 1973 -
unsurprisingly since even in those days the UK's agricultural sector was
relatively small and efficient and so did had relatively little from the
CAP, and there were few UK regions which qualified for full-blown
development support.

Fair enough. I thought we were net recipients at the beginning (for a
year at least)?

Being one of the richest countries in the EU, unlikely. What is far more
important is the overall gains the UK gets from trade and services by
being in the EU.

No different from any club. The annual cost of that is simply what you pay
if you like the facilities it offers. If you don't need those facilities,
why would you join it? Health clubs being the obvious exception. So many
think just joining one makes them fit. ;-)

--
*In "Casablanca", Humphrey Bogart never said "Play it again, Sam" *

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

On Wednesday, 1 November 2017 13:34:13 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
T i m wrote:
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 11:16:52 +0000, Robin wrote:

On 01/11/2017 10:25, T i m wrote:

...and
initially were taking money *from* the EU (which we would also have to
take off any current totals).

I agree with your comments overall so think it is a pity you included
the above claim. ISTM contentious. All the figures I have ever seen
show the UK as a net contributor to the UK budget since 1973 -
unsurprisingly since even in those days the UK's agricultural sector was
relatively small and efficient and so did had relatively little from the
CAP, and there were few UK regions which qualified for full-blown
development support.

Fair enough. I thought we were net recipients at the beginning (for a
year at least)?

Being one of the richest countries in the EU, unlikely. What is far more
important is the overall gains the UK gets from trade and services by
being in the EU.

No different from any club. The annual cost of that is simply what you pay
if you like the facilities it offers. If you don't need those facilities,
why would you join it? Health clubs being the obvious exception. So many
think just joining one makes them fit. ;-)

You mean it doesn't make you fit by just carrying the membership cards,
maybe I should ditch all my memberships of them.... I hope they don't expect me to pay afor their future pensions or their new equipment or coffee machines as I never got to use them anyway ;-)

On 01-Nov-17 10:07 AM, Robin wrote:
On 01/11/2017 09:31, Nightjar wrote:

However, even £363 million a week is less than 1% of GDP. Government
spending runs at around 40% of GDP and was 48% of GDP before we joined
the EEC.

When and on what measure was it more than 48 per cent before 1973?

I wasn't aware of the total exceeding 44 per cent in the 25 years before
we joined in 1973.Â* It did exceed 48 percent in 1975/76 - the year of
the "EEC referendum".Â* Followed (if not the cause of) Jim Callaghan's
government having to go cap in hand to the IMF in 1976


Blame whoever created the graph (I was looking at and who labelled it
with small figures. However, that doesn't change my point that, in the
grand scheme of things, what we pay to the EU isn't really a big part of
government spending. Indeed, taking the actual cost, after the rebate
and what we get back, it comes to less than 0.5% of GDP and even the
most optimistic of the believable predictions suggest that our GDP will
drop by more than that as a result of Brexit.

--
--

Colin Bignell

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 01-Nov-17 10:07 AM, Robin wrote:
On 01/11/2017 09:31, Nightjar wrote:

However, even £363 million a week is less than 1% of GDP. Government
spending runs at around 40% of GDP and was 48% of GDP before we joined
the EEC.

When and on what measure was it more than 48 per cent before 1973?

I wasn't aware of the total exceeding 44 per cent in the 25 years before
we joined in 1973. It did exceed 48 percent in 1975/76 - the year of the
"EEC referendum". Followed (if not the cause of) Jim Callaghan's
government having to go cap in hand to the IMF in 1976


Blame whoever created the graph (I was looking at and who labelled it with
small figures. However, that doesn't change my point that, in the grand
scheme of things, what we pay to the EU isn't really a big part of
government spending. Indeed, taking the actual cost, after the rebate and
what we get back, it comes to less than 0.5% of GDP and even the most
optimistic of the believable predictions suggest that our GDP will drop by
more than that as a result of Brexit.

And it remains to be seen if those predictions are any better than the
steaming turd predictions on what would happen to the GDP if Britain
wasnt part of the eurozone, or what would happen to the GDP post 2008.

On Wed, 01 Nov 2017 22:50:14 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Nightjar
wrote:

Blame whoever created the graph (I was looking at and who labelled it
with small figures. However, that doesn't change my point that, in the
grand scheme of things, what we pay to the EU isn't really a big part of
government spending. Indeed, taking the actual cost, after the rebate
and what we get back, it comes to less than 0.5% of GDP and even the
most optimistic of the believable predictions suggest that our GDP will
drop by more than that as a result of Brexit.

Leaving the EU isn't about that.

'For you', (and less than 50% of the people) I'm guessing.

Cheers, T i m

On 01-Nov-17 9:50 PM, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:

Blame whoever created the graph (I was looking at and who labelled it
with small figures. However, that doesn't change my point that, in the
grand scheme of things, what we pay to the EU isn't really a big part
of government spending. Indeed, taking the actual cost, after the
rebate and what we get back, it comes to less than 0.5% of GDP and
even the most optimistic of the believable predictions suggest that
our GDP will drop by more than that as a result of Brexit.

Leaving the EU isn't about that.

I doubt there is a single unified vision of Brexit for all those who
voted to leave and the money was certainly one of the reasons given at
the time.

--
--

Colin Bignell

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:

Blame whoever created the graph (I was looking at and who labelled it
with small figures. However, that doesn't change my point that, in the
grand scheme of things, what we pay to the EU isn't really a big part of
government spending. Indeed, taking the actual cost, after the rebate
and what we get back, it comes to less than 0.5% of GDP and even the
most optimistic of the believable predictions suggest that our GDP will
drop by more than that as a result of Brexit.

Leaving the EU isn't about that.

I'd guess it is for the majority. If you look at the break down of how
groups voted, it was the poorest who voted in large numbers to leave. They
simply wanted change - and were promised leaving would bring about an
improvement in their circumstances. By those in no position to make good
that promise.

Those who voted purely on some esoteric notion of sovereignty etc only, a
tiny minority.

--
*I didn't fight my way to the top of the food chain to be a vegetarian.

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

On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 09:31:11 +0000, Nightjar wrote:

On 01-Nov-17 9:50 PM, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:

Blame whoever created the graph (I was looking at and who labelled it
with small figures. However, that doesn't change my point that, in the
grand scheme of things, what we pay to the EU isn't really a big part
of government spending. Indeed, taking the actual cost, after the
rebate and what we get back, it comes to less than 0.5% of GDP and
even the most optimistic of the believable predictions suggest that
our GDP will drop by more than that as a result of Brexit.

Leaving the EU isn't about that.

I doubt there is a single unified vision of Brexit for all those who
voted to leave

Bingo. They all voted for their version of what they thought / hoped
it would be (including the racists and the Little Englanders) and only
now (with the new independent reports that were commissioned by the
Government to look into the potential outcome of leaving the EU,
*after* asking people to vote on it!?) might we get a slightly better
insight about the outcome.

and the money was certainly one of the reasons given at
the time.

There were a few 'key reasons' that the weak / closed minded latched
onto and the frightening thing is that even when such reasons are
proved to be false, they still seem to want to vote the same way?

Cheers, T i m

On 02-Nov-17 9:11 AM, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:

On 01-Nov-17 9:50 PM, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:

Blame whoever created the graph (I was looking at and who labelled
it with small figures. However, that doesn't change my point that,
in the grand scheme of things, what we pay to the EU isn't really a
big part of government spending. Indeed, taking the actual cost,
after the rebate and what we get back, it comes to less than 0.5% of
GDP and even the most optimistic of the believable predictions
suggest that our GDP will drop by more than that as a result of Brexit.

Leaving the EU isn't about that.

I doubt there is a single unified vision of Brexit for all those who
voted to leave and the money was certainly one of the reasons given at
the time.

If that's the case then the focus on the money by those wishing to
remain under the auspices of this undemocratic EU is unwarranted.

I have previously provided arguments against all and every reason put
forward by the Leave campaign. This is just one of them, but it gets
attention because it is particularly easy to prove wrong.

--
--

Colin Bignell

On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 11:20:38 +0000, Nightjar wrote:

On 02-Nov-17 9:11 AM, Tim Streater wrote:

snip

If that's the case then the focus on the money by those wishing to
remain under the auspices of this undemocratic EU is unwarranted.

I have previously provided arguments against all and every reason put
forward by the Leave campaign. This is just one of them, but it gets
attention because it is particularly easy to prove wrong.

In the motorcycling world I think we call this 'target fixation' ...
when you are so focused on avoiding something (like an obstacle in the
road) you actually hit it.

The leavers are so fussed at leaving 'at all costs', not facts or
counter-arguments, no matter low logical or provable will make any
difference.

In some cases that's because whey they 'say' are their reasons for
wanting to leave the EU, actually aren't, but they can't say what they
really are for fear of being called a racist or 'Little Englander'
etc.

Or it's based on some *perceived* issue that whilst might be an issue,
or an issue to some, isn't a real issue to the vast majority and
dealing with that could be throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Cheers, T i m

On Thu, 02 Nov 2017 11:33:41 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Nightjar
wrote:

On 02-Nov-17 9:11 AM, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:

On 01-Nov-17 9:50 PM, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:

Blame whoever created the graph (I was looking at and who labelled
it with small figures. However, that doesn't change my point that,
in the grand scheme of things, what we pay to the EU isn't really a
big part of government spending. Indeed, taking the actual cost,
after the rebate and what we get back, it comes to less than 0.5% of
GDP and even the most optimistic of the believable predictions
suggest that our GDP will drop by more than that as a result of Brexit.

Leaving the EU isn't about that.

I doubt there is a single unified vision of Brexit for all those who
voted to leave and the money was certainly one of the reasons given at
the time.

If that's the case then the focus on the money by those wishing to
remain under the auspices of this undemocratic EU is unwarranted.

I have previously provided arguments against all and every reason put
forward by the Leave campaign. This is just one of them, but it gets
attention because it is particularly easy to prove wrong.

No you haven't. AFAIK, you've not addressed the undemocratic and
protectionist nature of the EU, and that it represents a form of
oligarchical government that the UK has spent 200 years evolving away
from.

So like I said, you have an 'agenda' that is very different from most.

India, China, Russia, and the US are all too big, as entities that can
be governed fairly and without repression. Not that I hold out any
hopes of them being broken up any time soon. The EU is heading and by
its own admission straight into the same basket. Our leaving will help
prevent that.

You hope ... assuming any parallels can be drawn in the first place.

So, you are basically a 'Little Englander' ... you want us to be an
independent island and think we can all still enjoy the same level of
lifestyle as we were when within the EU or we did some time in the
past?

Whilst it's nice to have a cause (and I believe yours is well
meaning), what *proof* do you have that if we achieve your (personal)
goal, that we will actually all be better off because of it?

Like you don't like the noise and pollution from the main road outside
your shop but it does make it easy to get stock delivered and give
easy access to customers. Whilst your idea of moving to the country
could make your life more comfortable, could you (and your business)
still survive?

Sometimes it really is better to be with the 'devil you know' and 'the
grass isn't always greener on the other side' ...

Cheers, T i m

On 02/11/2017 09:11, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:

On 01-Nov-17 9:50 PM, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:

Blame whoever created the graph (I was looking at and who labelled
it with small figures. However, that doesn't change my point that,
in the grand scheme of things, what we pay to the EU isn't really a
big part of government spending. Indeed, taking the actual cost,
after the rebate and what we get back, it comes to less than 0.5% of
GDP and even the most optimistic of the believable predictions
suggest that our GDP will drop by more than that as a result of Brexit.

Leaving the EU isn't about that.

I doubt there is a single unified vision of Brexit for all those who
voted to leave and the money was certainly one of the reasons given at
the time.

If that's the case then the focus on the money by those wishing to
remain under the auspices of this undemocratic EU is unwarranted.


Its the lievers that keep on about the money.
The remainers go on about loss of trade and jobs.

On Thursday, 2 November 2017 12:26:02 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Thu, 02 Nov 2017 11:33:41 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Nightjar
wrote:

On 02-Nov-17 9:11 AM, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:

On 01-Nov-17 9:50 PM, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:

Blame whoever created the graph (I was looking at and who labelled
it with small figures. However, that doesn't change my point that,
in the grand scheme of things, what we pay to the EU isn't really a
big part of government spending. Indeed, taking the actual cost,
after the rebate and what we get back, it comes to less than 0.5% of
GDP and even the most optimistic of the believable predictions
suggest that our GDP will drop by more than that as a result of Brexit.

Leaving the EU isn't about that.

I doubt there is a single unified vision of Brexit for all those who
voted to leave and the money was certainly one of the reasons given at
the time.

If that's the case then the focus on the money by those wishing to
remain under the auspices of this undemocratic EU is unwarranted.

I have previously provided arguments against all and every reason put
forward by the Leave campaign. This is just one of them, but it gets
attention because it is particularly easy to prove wrong.

No you haven't. AFAIK, you've not addressed the undemocratic and
protectionist nature of the EU, and that it represents a form of
oligarchical government that the UK has spent 200 years evolving away
from.

So like I said, you have an 'agenda' that is very different from most.

I'm not sure I read it like that.


India, China, Russia, and the US are all too big, as entities that can
be governed fairly and without repression. Not that I hold out any
hopes of them being broken up any time soon. The EU is heading and by
its own admission straight into the same basket. Our leaving will help
prevent that.

You hope ... assuming any parallels can be drawn in the first place.

why was the monopoly commission set up what's wrong with there being only one option ?


So, you are basically a 'Little Englander' ... you want us to be an
independent island and think we can all still enjoy the same level of
lifestyle as we were when within the EU or we did some time in the
past?

"same level of lifestyle as we were when within the EU" are you refering to the fact that few can afford to buy a home of their own, or that this is the first gernarion that is doing financially worse than their parents were at the same stage in their lives ?
Sure you can buy a BMW but not a house or even a flat is affordable for most.

On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 06:28:40 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:

snip

If that's the case then the focus on the money by those wishing to
remain under the auspices of this undemocratic EU is unwarranted.

I have previously provided arguments against all and every reason put
forward by the Leave campaign. This is just one of them, but it gets
attention because it is particularly easy to prove wrong.

No you haven't. AFAIK, you've not addressed the undemocratic and
protectionist nature of the EU, and that it represents a form of
oligarchical government that the UK has spent 200 years evolving away
from.

So like I said, you have an 'agenda' that is very different from most.

I'm not sure I read it like that.

I don't suppose you did. ;-)

My point was ... ask 10,000 people why they voted in or out and how
many do you think would answer the same reason as Tim?

I suspect the immediate / most common (pro leave) answers would be to
do with 'immigration', the '350M/week we pay to the EU', 'foreigners
taking our jobs', 'un-elected bureaucrats in Brussels' and 'when in
Rome' etc as these are the things 'most people' (think they) see and
(think they) understand.

Now, given that it doesn't really matter (to the leavers) why we
leave, just that we leave, you can see why the propaganda was
targeted at those things 'most (of those) people' would be most likely
to look up from their tea or TV for.

How many of the electorate would have anything other than just a
(potentially) heavily biased and most likely naive *opinion* on the
thought that: "... the undemocratic and protectionist nature of the
EU, and that it represents a form of oligarchical government that the
UK has spent 200 years evolving away from ... "?

snip ot / crazy stuff

Cheers, T i m

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
No you haven't. AFAIK, you've not addressed the undemocratic and
protectionist nature of the EU, and that it represents a form of
oligarchical government that the UK has spent 200 years evolving away
from.

Given that apparently many voted leave as a protest against the UK
establishment, I'd guess they don't have quite the same regard for it as
you do.

--
*Wood burns faster when you have to cut and chop it yourself.

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

On Thu, 02 Nov 2017 14:47:27 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
No you haven't. AFAIK, you've not addressed the undemocratic and
protectionist nature of the EU, and that it represents a form of
oligarchical government that the UK has spent 200 years evolving away
from.

Given that apparently many voted leave as a protest against the UK
establishment, I'd guess they don't have quite the same regard for it as
you do.

Hehe, good catch. ;-)

The thing is, I really question just how much anyone *really* knows
about it all, especially to then be able to make a 'considered
decision' that covers *all* aspects, not just those someone might have
a slightly deeper knowledge in?

I guess the government wouldn't have commissioned ~58 independent
reports on it all if they already knew either. Shame they didn't do
that before they asked our opinion on it?

Cheers, T i m

On Thursday, 2 November 2017 13:59:04 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 06:28:40 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:

snip

If that's the case then the focus on the money by those wishing to
remain under the auspices of this undemocratic EU is unwarranted.

I have previously provided arguments against all and every reason put
forward by the Leave campaign. This is just one of them, but it gets
attention because it is particularly easy to prove wrong.

No you haven't. AFAIK, you've not addressed the undemocratic and
protectionist nature of the EU, and that it represents a form of
oligarchical government that the UK has spent 200 years evolving away
from.

So like I said, you have an 'agenda' that is very different from most.

I'm not sure I read it like that.

I don't suppose you did. ;-)

My point was ... ask 10,000 people why they voted in or out and how
many do you think would answer the same reason as Tim?

I've no idea let me know the results of those 10,000 once you've asked them.


I suspect the immediate / most common (pro leave) answers would be to
do with 'immigration', the '350M/week we pay to the EU', 'foreigners
taking our jobs', 'un-elected bureaucrats in Brussels' and 'when in
Rome' etc as these are the things 'most people' (think they) see and
(think they) understand.

Of which most are actually true to some extent.



Now, given that it doesn't really matter (to the leavers) why we
leave,

What makes you think that ?


just that we leave, you can see why the propaganda was
targeted at those things 'most (of those) people' would be most likely
to look up from their tea or TV for.

But it does seem that remainers couldn;t care less as long as they are gaining from the remain situation, cheap labour, and lots of people that you can rent houses and flats to.


How many of the electorate would have anything other than just a
(potentially) heavily biased and most likely naive *opinion* on the
thought that: "... the undemocratic and protectionist nature of the
EU, and that it represents a form of oligarchical government that the
UK has spent 200 years evolving away from ... "?

So perhaps yet another reason for some to vote leave.

On 02-Nov-17 10:33 AM, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:
....
I have previously provided arguments against all and every reason put
forward by the Leave campaign. This is just one of them, but it gets
attention because it is particularly easy to prove wrong.

No you haven't. AFAIK, you've not addressed the undemocratic and
protectionist nature of the EU, and that it represents a form of
oligarchical government that the UK has spent 200 years evolving away
from...

I said I had responded to the reasons put forward by the Leave campaign,
not that I had replied to the individual hobby horses of every leave voter.


--
--

Colin Bignell

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 02-Nov-17 10:33 AM, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:
...
I have previously provided arguments against all and every reason put
forward by the Leave campaign. This is just one of them, but it gets
attention because it is particularly easy to prove wrong.

No you haven't. AFAIK, you've not addressed the undemocratic and
protectionist nature of the EU, and that it represents a form of
oligarchical government that the UK has spent 200 years evolving away
from...

I said I had responded to the reasons put forward by the Leave campaign,
not that I had replied to the individual hobby horses of every leave
voter.

Thats not a hobby horse, its a very fundamental policy choice.

On 02-Nov-17 5:15 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 02-Nov-17 10:33 AM, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:
...
I have previously provided arguments against all and every reason
put forward by the Leave campaign. This is just one of them, but it
gets attention because it is particularly easy to prove wrong.

No you haven't. AFAIK, you've not addressed the undemocratic and
protectionist nature of the EU, and that it represents a form of
oligarchical government that the UK has spent 200 years evolving away
from...

I said I had responded to the reasons put forward by the Leave
campaign, not that I had replied to the individual hobby horses of
every leave voter.

Thats not a hobby horse, its a very fundamental policy choice.

Phrased that way, it is a hobby horse.

--
--

Colin Bignell

On 02/11/17 13:04, Huge wrote:
On 2017-11-01, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:

Blame whoever created the graph (I was looking at and who labelled it
with small figures. However, that doesn't change my point that, in the
grand scheme of things, what we pay to the EU isn't really a big part of
government spending. Indeed, taking the actual cost, after the rebate
and what we get back, it comes to less than 0.5% of GDP and even the
most optimistic of the believable predictions suggest that our GDP will
drop by more than that as a result of Brexit.

Leaving the EU isn't about that.

No-one knows what it's about. Other than leaving.


Except those that voted to leave, who know exactly what they voted for.

And are not getting

On 02/11/17 12:04, T i m wrote:
Or it's based on some*perceived* issue that whilst might be an issue,
or an issue to some, isn't a real issue to the vast majority and
dealing with that could be throwing the baby out with the bath water.

the best description of a remoaner ever written.

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 02-Nov-17 5:15 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 02-Nov-17 10:33 AM, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:
...
I have previously provided arguments against all and every reason put
forward by the Leave campaign. This is just one of them, but it gets
attention because it is particularly easy to prove wrong.

No you haven't. AFAIK, you've not addressed the undemocratic and
protectionist nature of the EU, and that it represents a form of
oligarchical government that the UK has spent 200 years evolving away
from...

I said I had responded to the reasons put forward by the Leave campaign,
not that I had replied to the individual hobby horses of every leave
voter.

Thats not a hobby horse, its a very fundamental policy choice.

Phrased that way, it is a hobby horse.

Like hell it is. It stays a very fundamental policy choice.

On Thu, 02 Nov 2017 19:59:06 +0000, Tjoepstil wrote:

On 02/11/17 13:04, Huge wrote:
On 2017-11-01, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:

Blame whoever created the graph (I was looking at and who labelled it
with small figures. However, that doesn't change my point that, in
the grand scheme of things, what we pay to the EU isn't really a big
part of government spending. Indeed, taking the actual cost, after
the rebate and what we get back, it comes to less than 0.5% of GDP
and even the most optimistic of the believable predictions suggest
that our GDP will drop by more than that as a result of Brexit.

Leaving the EU isn't about that.

No-one knows what it's about. Other than leaving.


Except those that voted to leave, who know exactly what they voted for.

And are not getting

And were not intelligent enough to realise that




--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 02/11/17 22:41, Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 02 Nov 2017 19:59:06 +0000, Tjoepstil wrote:

On 02/11/17 13:04, Huge wrote:
On 2017-11-01, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:

Blame whoever created the graph (I was looking at and who labelled it
with small figures. However, that doesn't change my point that, in
the grand scheme of things, what we pay to the EU isn't really a big
part of government spending. Indeed, taking the actual cost, after
the rebate and what we get back, it comes to less than 0.5% of GDP
and even the most optimistic of the believable predictions suggest
that our GDP will drop by more than that as a result of Brexit.

Leaving the EU isn't about that.

No-one knows what it's about. Other than leaving.


Except those that voted to leave, who know exactly what they voted for.

And are not getting

And were not intelligent enough to realise that


And were perfectly intelligent enough to realize that winning the
referendum was just a first step.

On Thu, 02 Nov 2017 23:06:28 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Tjoepstil
wrote:

On 02/11/17 12:04, T i m wrote:
Or it's based on some*perceived* issue that whilst might be an issue,
or an issue to some, isn't a real issue to the vast majority and
dealing with that could be throwing the baby out with the bath water.

the best description of a remoaner ever written.

What baby? What bathwater. Do tell, T i m , I'm keen to know.

I'm sure you are ... we all are.

Maybe if / when they publish the results of the 58 independent studies
into what impact leaving the EU might have on us, you will find out
along with the rest of us.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...pact-of-brexit

Until that happens, continuing blindly ... 'could be throwing the
baby out with the bathwater'.

Cheers, T i m

On 03/11/17 00:05, T i m wrote:
continuing blindly ... 'could be throwing the
baby out with the bathwater'.

it could also be the best thing since sliced bread, the second coming of
Christ or the four horsemen of the apocalypse.

you are simply saying that you are too t i m id to rise to a challenge,
and want to stay in the EU kindergarten with mutti Merkel telling you
how it is.

Always hold on tight to Nurse
For fear of something even worse.

When I became a man, I put away childish things.

Isn't it time you grew up and accepted that 'life is rough tough and
desperately unjust, and you should just get used to it'?

On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 00:24:40 +0000, Tjoepstil
wrote:

On 03/11/17 00:05, T i m wrote:
continuing blindly ... 'could be throwing the
baby out with the bathwater'.

it could also be the best thing since sliced bread,

Of *course* it could.

the second coming of
Christ

I doubt it.

or the four horsemen of the apocalypse.

Or them.

you are simply saying that you are too t i m id to rise to a challenge,

Nothing to do with being timid but all to do with not feeing the need
to jump into the abyss for no reason. You have a reason (obviously)
but close to 50% of the voting population don't.

and want to stay in the EU kindergarten with mutti Merkel telling you
how it is.

I do? Is that's what been happening or going to happen or something? I
can't remember even meeting her?

Always hold on tight to Nurse

Another projection mate?

For fear of something even worse.

I can't think of anyone who wouldn't be frightened of 'something
worse' (other than Brexiteers of course).

When I became a man, I put away childish things.

And common sense by the looks of it.

Isn't it time you grew up and accepted that 'life is rough tough and
desperately unjust, and you should just get used to it'?

You continue to demonstrate a complete and utter lack of understanding
of any of *it*.

I'll not bother with you any more because it obvious you don't have
the EQ to even consider there *is* a POV different to yours, let alone
what it might be.

Cheers, T i m

On 03/11/17 00:47, T i m wrote:
I'll not bother with you any more because it obvious you don't have
the EQ to even consider there*is* a POV different to yours, let alone
what it might be.
pore ole d i m

projecting again.

In article ,
Tjoepstil wrote:
you are simply saying that you are too t i m id to rise to a challenge,
and want to stay in the EU kindergarten with mutti Merkel telling you
how it is.

Always hold on tight to Nurse
For fear of something even worse.

When I became a man, I put away childish things.

Now explain just how *you* are going to rise to the challenge.

What you really mean is you expect others to do it for you. Rather like an
old man being in favour of war.

--
*If Barbie is so popular, why do you have to buy her friends? *

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