In article ,
bert wrote:
Why shouldn't the EU have the UK's best interests at heart? Or are they
all afraid that their cushy jobs and perks are under threat?

It would be a start if they showed they had the best interests of the
remaining citizens at heart.

You are now concerned about the well being of EU citizens? That's a bit of
an about face.

--
*IF YOU TRY TO FAIL, AND SUCCEED, WHICH HAVE YOU DONE?

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

On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 20:18:18 +0000, bert wrote:

You don't even need to unsign one.

We could easily break the EU by not paying them a single penny. Their
fragile budget is on a knife-edge and just needs a little trigger to push
it over the edge...
The chance to destroy this cancer before it destroys Europe is an
extremely tempting one. What a pity we don't have a leader with the balls
to do it.



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

In article ,
Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 20:18:18 +0000, bert wrote:

You don't even need to unsign one.

We could easily break the EU by not paying them a single penny. Their
fragile budget is on a knife-edge and just needs a little trigger to push
it over the edge...

and then who would we trade with?


The chance to destroy this cancer before it destroys Europe is an
extremely tempting one. What a pity we don't have a leader with the balls
to do it.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

In article ,
Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 20:18:18 +0000, bert wrote:

You don't even need to unsign one.

We could easily break the EU by not paying them a single penny. Their
fragile budget is on a knife-edge and just needs a little trigger to
push it over the edge... The chance to destroy this cancer before it
destroys Europe is an extremely tempting one. What a pity we don't have
a leader with the balls to do it.

Absolutely. Farage for PM. He'd then get a second pension for doing f all,
work wise. But I'd guess he's not enough of a Tory twit for the likes of
you.

--
*If you think this van is dirty, you should try having sex with the driver*

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

charles wrote
Cursitor Doom wrote
bert wrote

You don't even need to unsign one.

We could easily break the EU by not paying them a
single penny. Their fragile budget is on a knife-edge
and just needs a little trigger to push it over the edge...

and then who would we trade with?

Those you trade with now, who have nowhere else
to go for so much of what they currently trade like
with aircraft engines, wings, the best scotch, docos etc.

Sure, the EU will likely impose a tariff on scotch imports
to attempt to protect the Irish whisky production but
that will be a trivial part of the price of the best scotch
so those who want that will pay it anyway and its likely
that the total price they pay will be lower due to the
pound being lower anyway.

The chance to destroy this cancer before it destroys Europe is an
extremely tempting one. What a pity we don't have a leader with the balls
to do it.

In article ,
charles wrote:
In article ,
Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 20:18:18 +0000, bert wrote:

You don't even need to unsign one.

We could easily break the EU by not paying them a single penny. Their
fragile budget is on a knife-edge and just needs a little trigger to push
it over the edge...

and then who would we trade with?

The US. Trump isn't interested in getting the best deal for the US. He
wants to make sure the UK does well. Unless I've made another mistake.

Then there's India. Simply replace free movement of EU workers to those
from India, to get a deal. A perfect solution.


The chance to destroy this cancer before it destroys Europe is an
extremely tempting one. What a pity we don't have a leader with the balls
to do it.

--
*Organized Crime Is Alive And Well; It's Called Auto Insurance. *

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

On Friday, 1 December 2017 15:13:54 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/12/17 13:18, whisky-dave wrote:
Didn't everyone who voted to join the EEC in 1971

No one voted to join the EEC in 1971. Heath did it without asking us.


also agree on a
6�5B divorce bill, seems stange they never thought that anyone would
ever want to leave such a great idea. It's like they never knew
divorces could happen in a 'marraige' Couldn't we just chop of their
heads as Henry VIII did that'll sort the divorce;-)


It was portrayed as a siomple trade treaty. That we could get out of
just by unsigning it.

And we were party to all the other things that came with the EEC changing
into the EU. But don't let simple facts get in your way.

Who were these 'we'.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 20:18:18 +0000, bert wrote:

You don't even need to unsign one.

We could easily break the EU by not paying them a single penny. Their
fragile budget is on a knife-edge and just needs a little trigger to
push it over the edge... The chance to destroy this cancer before it
destroys Europe is an extremely tempting one. What a pity we don't have
a leader with the balls to do it.

Absolutely. Farage for PM. He'd then get a second pension for doing f all,
work wise. But I'd guess he's not enough of a Tory twit for the likes of
you.


Kinnock and Mandelson, not to forget Bliar and Brown!

On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 21:52:17 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 30/11/17 18:09, TimW wrote:
On 30/11/17 11:59, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 10:33:37 +0000, TimW wrote:


We don't have a crystal ball.

The Brexiteers must have ... and must have all this down on some big
(peer tested) spreadsheet where they know *categorically* just what
everything will cost and how much better off we will all be in the
future (mustn't they?). I mean, who would vote us out with so much
conviction *without* having this all planned out first. We should ask
them exactly what the 'divorce' payments are as I'm guessing no one in
their right mind would vote out 'at any cost' eh, that would be crazy!


It's worse than we even knew. Did anybody even mention the 'Divorce
Bill' when the referendum was on? It seems not. The Leave Campaign had
no idea there would be a Divorce Bill and the Remain side were just as
clueless.


No one had any idea there would be a divorce bill until the EU dreamed
one up.

Really, even the Brexiteers? You leave an organisation and don't
consider there could be some leaving costs?

Thus demonstrating the leavers were correct in their asessement that the
eU were a bunch of total
snip
who would make life as hard as possible.

Do you have any proof that is the case?


This week the news is that it is 'agreed' and 'settled' but we still
don't know what the figure is! £65bn? ! Maybe. The ignorant are still
saying 'WE KNOW WHAT WE VOTED FOR'


I know what I voted for. Its not what May is delivering.

Maybe she doesn't know what you voted for ... or any other different
thing any other Brexiteer voted for ...

And that's my point, the question was 'Do you want to leave or not',
not 'and what specifically do you mean by that'.

How anyone could vote *at all* under those conditions baffles (and
concerns) me.

Cheers, T i m

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 21:52:17 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 30/11/17 18:09, TimW wrote:
On 30/11/17 11:59, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 10:33:37 +0000, TimW wrote:


We don't have a crystal ball.

The Brexiteers must have ... and must have all this down on some big
(peer tested) spreadsheet where they know *categorically* just what
everything will cost and how much better off we will all be in the
future (mustn't they?). I mean, who would vote us out with so much
conviction *without* having this all planned out first. We should ask
them exactly what the 'divorce' payments are as I'm guessing no one in
their right mind would vote out 'at any cost' eh, that would be crazy!


It's worse than we even knew. Did anybody even mention the 'Divorce
Bill' when the referendum was on? It seems not. The Leave Campaign had
no idea there would be a Divorce Bill and the Remain side were just as
clueless.


No one had any idea there would be a divorce bill until the EU dreamed
one up.

Really, even the Brexiteers? You leave an organisation and don't
consider there could be some leaving costs?

Thus demonstrating the leavers were correct in their asessement that the
eU were a bunch of total
snip
who would make life as hard as possible.

Do you have any proof that is the case?


This week the news is that it is 'agreed' and 'settled' but we still
don't know what the figure is! £65bn? ! Maybe. The ignorant are still
saying 'WE KNOW WHAT WE VOTED FOR'


I know what I voted for. Its not what May is delivering.

Maybe she doesn't know what you voted for ... or any other different
thing any other Brexiteer voted for ...

And that's my point, the question was 'Do you want to leave or not',
not 'and what specifically do you mean by that'.

How anyone could vote *at all* under those conditions baffles (and
concerns) me.

Yes, you are that terminal a ****wit.

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
bert wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
No one had any idea there would be a divorce bill until the EU dreamed
one up.

Tee-hee. Keep trying to persuade yourself.

The Eu still has not come up with any legal basis for their claim.

Pray tell, oh sage, just what that claim is? Then pass that on to Ms May,
who doesn't appear to have any figure.

I will tell you, oh thicko, when the EU comes up with a precise figure.
--
bert

In article , T i m
writes
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 21:52:17 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 30/11/17 18:09, TimW wrote:
On 30/11/17 11:59, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 10:33:37 +0000, TimW wrote:


We don't have a crystal ball.

The Brexiteers must have ... and must have all this down on some big
(peer tested) spreadsheet where they know *categorically* just what
everything will cost and how much better off we will all be in the
future (mustn't they?). I mean, who would vote us out with so much
conviction *without* having this all planned out first. We should ask
them exactly what the 'divorce' payments are as I'm guessing no one in
their right mind would vote out 'at any cost' eh, that would be crazy!


It's worse than we even knew. Did anybody even mention the 'Divorce
Bill' when the referendum was on? It seems not. The Leave Campaign had
no idea there would be a Divorce Bill and the Remain side were just as
clueless.


No one had any idea there would be a divorce bill until the EU dreamed
one up.

Really, even the Brexiteers? You leave an organisation and don't
consider there could be some leaving costs?

A treaty ceases to have any force once you terminate it. There is
nothing in A50, written by the EU which mentions any financial payment.
It demands that parties discuss the future relationship.
Thus demonstrating the leavers were correct in their asessement that the
eU were a bunch of total
snip
who would make life as hard as possible.

Do you have any proof that is the case?

It is there to see if you are prepared to open your eyes.

This week the news is that it is 'agreed' and 'settled' but we still
don't know what the figure is! £65bn? ! Maybe. The ignorant are still
saying 'WE KNOW WHAT WE VOTED FOR'


I know what I voted for. Its not what May is delivering.

Maybe she doesn't know what you voted for ... or any other different
thing any other Brexiteer voted for ...

And that's my point, the question was 'Do you want to leave or not',
not 'and what specifically do you mean by that'.

How anyone could vote *at all* under those conditions baffles (and
concerns) me.

Well you're easily baffled as you continue to demonstrate ad nauseam
Cheers, T i m

--
bert

In article , charles
writes
In article ,
Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 20:18:18 +0000, bert wrote:

You don't even need to unsign one.

We could easily break the EU by not paying them a single penny. Their
fragile budget is on a knife-edge and just needs a little trigger to push
it over the edge...

and then who would we trade with?
Same people in Europe we trade with now, Germans, French, Poles Spanish
Italians etc etc even the Belgians

The chance to destroy this cancer before it destroys Europe is an
extremely tempting one. What a pity we don't have a leader with the balls
to do it.


--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
charles wrote:
In article ,
Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 20:18:18 +0000, bert wrote:

You don't even need to unsign one.

We could easily break the EU by not paying them a single penny. Their
fragile budget is on a knife-edge and just needs a little trigger to push
it over the edge...

and then who would we trade with?

The US. Trump isn't interested in getting the best deal for the US. He
wants to make sure the UK does well. Unless I've made another mistake.

Then there's India. Simply replace free movement of EU workers to those
from India, to get a deal. A perfect solution.

Usual ignorant drivel.

The chance to destroy this cancer before it destroys Europe is an
extremely tempting one. What a pity we don't have a leader with the balls
to do it.


--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
bert wrote:
Why shouldn't the EU have the UK's best interests at heart? Or are they
all afraid that their cushy jobs and perks are under threat?

It would be a start if they showed they had the best interests of the
remaining citizens at heart.

You are now concerned about the well being of EU citizens? That's a bit of
an about face.

Only to a thicko who can't see past his own nose.
--
bert

In article . com,
"dennis@home" writes
On 03/12/2017 20:34, bert wrote:
In article . com,
"dennis@home" writes
On 29/11/2017 18:19, bert wrote:
In article ,
Nightjar writes
On 29-Nov-17 8:36 AM, harry wrote:
What a load of drivel!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39537726

Project fear is Brexiteer speak for inconvenient truth.

We'll all be driving electric cars soon.

They need to be improved a huge amount before that is likely.
However,* we do appear to being forced to drive hybrids in future.

And where is the Ford Transit made - move funded by the EU.
Bridgend is at risk because JLR have cut short an engine supply contract

The EU gives grants to companies wanting to set up in the EU so you
can expect more EU grants for UK based manufacturers to move to the EU.

Maybe you brex****teers haven't worked that out yet?

Well you don't seem to have worked out that the UK is still in the
EU, the move of Transit production took place in 2013 and it went
to......TURKEY which in case you don't know is not in the EU. You are
as Dense as Plow****. Why don't you remoaners ever check your facts
before mouthing off.

Where do I mention transit production?
I wish you brex****eers could read.


I did and you responded to it. Problem with you thick remoaners you
can't hold more than one idea in your head at any one time as that
requires at least 3 brain cells.
BTW it was a brex****eer that claimed the EU paid for the transit move
so you had better get on the same song sheet or they will disown you
and start calling you a leftie****.
It was you who implied it had gone to the EU and funded by the EU.
--
bert

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 1 December 2017 15:13:54 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/12/17 13:18, whisky-dave wrote:
Didn't everyone who voted to join the EEC in 1971

No one voted to join the EEC in 1971. Heath did it without asking us.


also agree on a 6£5B divorce bill, seems stange they never
thought that anyone would ever want to leave such a great idea.
It's like they never knew divorces could happen in a 'marraige'
Couldn't we just chop of their heads as Henry VIII did that'll
sort the divorce;-)


It was portrayed as a siomple trade treaty. That we could get out of
just by unsigning it.

And we were party to all the other things that came with the EEC
changing into the EU. But don't let simple facts get in your way.

Who were these 'we'.

We as in the UK via its elected government.

--
Small asylum seeker wanted as mud flap, must be flexible and willing to travel

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

In article ,
Capitol wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 20:18:18 +0000, bert wrote:

You don't even need to unsign one.

We could easily break the EU by not paying them a single penny. Their
fragile budget is on a knife-edge and just needs a little trigger to
push it over the edge... The chance to destroy this cancer before it
destroys Europe is an extremely tempting one. What a pity we don't
have a leader with the balls to do it.

Absolutely. Farage for PM. He'd then get a second pension for doing f
all, work wise. But I'd guess he's not enough of a Tory twit for the
likes of you.


Kinnock and Mandelson, not to forget Bliar and Brown!

You consider them Tory twits? Figures.

--
*Always borrow money from pessimists - they don't expect it back *

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

In article ,
bert wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
bert wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
No one had any idea there would be a divorce bill until the EU dreamed
one up.

Tee-hee. Keep trying to persuade yourself.

The Eu still has not come up with any legal basis for their claim.

Pray tell, oh sage, just what that claim is? Then pass that on to Ms
May, who doesn't appear to have any figure.

I will tell you, oh thicko, when the EU comes up with a precise figure.

I see. You don't think they have a legal basis for a claim when you don't
know what it is. Very brexiteer, that. Not a fact in sight.

--
*Who is this General Failure chap anyway - and why is he reading my HD? *

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

In article ,
bert wrote:
Then there's India. Simply replace free movement of EU workers to those
from India, to get a deal. A perfect solution.

Usual ignorant drivel.

You need to get your news from somewhere other than the Express. An Indian
government spokesman said that would be the basis of any trade agreement
on TV.

But best if you continue in blissful ignorance. Facts have never been
relevant to Brexiteers.

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

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

On 04/12/2017 23:04, bert wrote:
In article , charles
writes
In article ,
Â* Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 20:18:18 +0000, bert wrote:

You don't even need to unsign one.

We could easily break the EU by not paying them a single penny. Their
fragile budget is on a knife-edge and just needs a little trigger to
push
it over the edge...

and then who would we trade with?
Same people in Europe we trade with now, Germans, French, Poles Spanish
ItaliansÂ* etc etc even the Belgians

But will they still buy our stuff when it goes up in price or will they
source it from elsewhere?

You can check with the WTO what tariffs would apply to out exports to
the EU to see how much they would go up (or how much less profit we
would make if we absorbed the tariffs).
I don't expect you to actually look though as facts aren't your thing.

Its all very well saying we will continue to trade with X and Y but they
have to want to buy the stuff at a price we can afford to sell it for.
You wouldn't go and buy your stuff at F&M and pay more than Harrod's for
the same stuff so why would anyone else?

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 04/12/2017 23:04, bert wrote:
In article , charles
writes
In article ,
Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 20:18:18 +0000, bert wrote:

You don't even need to unsign one.

We could easily break the EU by not paying them a single penny. Their
fragile budget is on a knife-edge and just needs a little trigger to
push
it over the edge...

and then who would we trade with?
Same people in Europe we trade with now, Germans, French, Poles Spanish
Italians etc etc even the Belgians

But will they still buy our stuff when it goes up in price

It wont necessarily go up in price with the pound going down a bit.

or will they source it from elsewhere?

Most of it they cant, like with aircraft engines, wings,
docos, the best scotch and financial services etc etc etc.

You can check with the WTO what tariffs would apply to out exports to the
EU

The WTO doesnt set any tariffs that the EU applys.

to see how much they would go up (or how much less profit we would make if
we absorbed the tariffs).

Another bare faced lie when the pound has fallen by more than the tariff.

I don't expect you to actually look though as facts aren't your thing.

You clowns in spades.

Its all very well saying we will continue to trade with X and Y but they
have to want to buy the stuff at a price we can afford to sell it for.

Duh. But when the pound has fallen a bit, that means that what they
pay will actually go down, you silly little pathological lying remoaner.

You wouldn't go and buy your stuff at F&M and pay more than Harrod's for
the same stuff so why would anyone else?

They wont be paying more, ****wit.

On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 23:01:56 +0000, bert wrote:

In article , T i m
writes
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 21:52:17 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 30/11/17 18:09, TimW wrote:

snip

No one had any idea there would be a divorce bill until the EU dreamed
one up.

Really, even the Brexiteers? You leave an organisation and don't
consider there could be some leaving costs?

A treaty ceases to have any force once you terminate it.

Ok?

There is
nothing in A50, written by the EU which mentions any financial payment.

Ok?

It demands that parties discuss the future relationship.

Ok ... and that means you (Brexiteers) don't consider or plan for
there being some exit costs? Frightening.

Thus demonstrating the leavers were correct in their asessement that the
eU were a bunch of total
snip
who would make life as hard as possible.

Do you have any proof that is the case?

It is there to see if you are prepared to open your eyes.

No, I don't want to just *believe* such is going on, I want to see the
hard proof that it is. Because there must be some, it should be easy
for you to cite some.

This week the news is that it is 'agreed' and 'settled' but we still
don't know what the figure is! £65bn? ! Maybe. The ignorant are still
saying 'WE KNOW WHAT WE VOTED FOR'


I know what I voted for. Its not what May is delivering.

Maybe she doesn't know what you voted for ... or any other different
thing any other Brexiteer voted for ...

And that's my point, the question was 'Do you want to leave or not',
not 'and what specifically do you mean by that'.

How anyone could vote *at all* under those conditions baffles (and
concerns) me.

Well you're easily baffled as you continue to demonstrate ad nauseam

And not a single Brexiteer has so far been able to demonstrate, with
facts and not 'beliefs' ... or weasel words like 'hope' or 'should'
that we will be 'better off by leaving the EU'. This should be *so*
easy to do as one would hope that was the real reason for leaving, not
just an excuse to hide their bigotry or racism.

Cheers, T i m

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
Its all very well saying we will continue to trade with X and Y but they
have to want to buy the stuff at a price we can afford to sell it for.
You wouldn't go and buy your stuff at F&M and pay more than Harrod's for
the same stuff so why would anyone else?

And remember that free and easy movement of goods within the EU is very
important to car makers etc who source their parts from all over.

'Taking back control' of our borders is bound to make this process more
cumbersome.

Dyson threw a hissy fit and moved production to the far east when he
couldn't get his own way over planning for a new UK factory. If there are
any new obstacles to moving goods between the UK and EU after Brexit,
chances are other manufactures won't put up with it. Quite understandable
- why would they put up with hassle if there are alternatives?

--
*How much deeper would the oceans be without sponges? *

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

On Tuesday, 5 December 2017 00:29:02 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 1 December 2017 15:13:54 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/12/17 13:18, whisky-dave wrote:
Didn't everyone who voted to join the EEC in 1971

No one voted to join the EEC in 1971. Heath did it without asking us.


also agree on a 6�5B divorce bill, seems stange they never
thought that anyone would ever want to leave such a great idea.
It's like they never knew divorces could happen in a 'marraige'
Couldn't we just chop of their heads as Henry VIII did that'll
sort the divorce;-)


It was portrayed as a siomple trade treaty. That we could get out of
just by unsigning it.

And we were party to all the other things that came with the EEC
changing into the EU. But don't let simple facts get in your way.

Who were these 'we'.

We as in the UK via its elected government.

So not us then.
Or is it the same we that invader Iraq, the same we that put cladding on grenfell, the same we that alloed sexual abuse in childrens homes, yes WE are all responsible aren't WE.

Even Gernamy is started to admit it's errors but I'm not blaming the german people but the polititions they voted for.

T i m wrote:
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 23:01:56 +0000, bert wrote:

In article , T i m
writes
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 21:52:17 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 30/11/17 18:09, TimW wrote:

snip

No one had any idea there would be a divorce bill until the EU dreamed
one up.

Really, even the Brexiteers? You leave an organisation and don't
consider there could be some leaving costs?

A treaty ceases to have any force once you terminate it.

Ok?

There is
nothing in A50, written by the EU which mentions any financial payment.

Ok?

It demands that parties discuss the future relationship.

Ok ... and that means you (Brexiteers) don't consider or plan for
there being some exit costs? Frightening.

Thus demonstrating the leavers were correct in their asessement that the
eU were a bunch of total
snip
who would make life as hard as possible.

Do you have any proof that is the case?

It is there to see if you are prepared to open your eyes.

No, I don't want to just *believe* such is going on, I want to see the
hard proof that it is. Because there must be some, it should be easy
for you to cite some.

This week the news is that it is 'agreed' and 'settled' but we still
don't know what the figure is! £65bn? ! Maybe. The ignorant are still
saying 'WE KNOW WHAT WE VOTED FOR'


I know what I voted for. Its not what May is delivering.

Maybe she doesn't know what you voted for ... or any other different
thing any other Brexiteer voted for ...

And that's my point, the question was 'Do you want to leave or not',
not 'and what specifically do you mean by that'.

How anyone could vote *at all* under those conditions baffles (and
concerns) me.

Well you're easily baffled as you continue to demonstrate ad nauseam

And not a single Brexiteer has so far been able to demonstrate, with
facts and not 'beliefs' ... or weasel words like 'hope' or 'should'
that we will be 'better off by leaving the EU'. This should be *so*
easy to do as one would hope that was the real reason for leaving, not
just an excuse to hide their bigotry or racism.

Cheers, T i m


Where is your demonstration of the benefits of paying #1B a week in
costs to the Eu?

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 23:01:56 +0000, bert wrote:

In article , T i m
writes
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 21:52:17 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 30/11/17 18:09, TimW wrote:

snip

No one had any idea there would be a divorce bill until the EU dreamed
one up.

Really, even the Brexiteers? You leave an organisation and don't
consider there could be some leaving costs?

A treaty ceases to have any force once you terminate it.

Ok?

There is
nothing in A50, written by the EU which mentions any financial payment.

Ok?

It demands that parties discuss the future relationship.

Ok ... and that means you (Brexiteers) don't consider
or plan for there being some exit costs?

Perfectly reasonable given that Article 50
and the Lisbon treaty doesn't mention any.

Frightening.

You're free to hide under the bed, remoaner.

Thus demonstrating the leavers were correct in their
asessement that the eU were a bunch of total
snip
who would make life as hard as possible.

Do you have any proof that is the case?

It is there to see if you are prepared to open your eyes.

No, I don't want to just *believe* such is going
on, I want to see the hard proof that it is.

Most obviously with the demand for an exit fee when there
is no mention of any in Article 50 or the Lisbon treaty.

Because there must be some, it should be easy
for you to cite some.

Even you should have noticed it if you didn't have your
head completely up your ****ing arse, remoaner.

This week the news is that it is 'agreed' and 'settled' but we still
don't know what the figure is! £65bn? ! Maybe. The ignorant are still
saying 'WE KNOW WHAT WE VOTED FOR'


I know what I voted for. Its not what May is delivering.

Maybe she doesn't know what you voted for ... or any other different
thing any other Brexiteer voted for ...

And that's my point, the question was 'Do you want to leave or not',
not 'and what specifically do you mean by that'.

How anyone could vote *at all* under those conditions baffles (and
concerns) me.

Well you're easily baffled as you continue to demonstrate ad nauseam

And not a single Brexiteer has so far been able to demonstrate,
with facts and not 'beliefs' ... or weasel words like 'hope' or 'should'
that we will be 'better off by leaving the EU'. This should be *so*
easy to do as one would hope that was the real reason for leaving,

Britain obviously will be with immigration from the EU alone, remoaner.

not just an excuse to hide their bigotry or racism.

Even more flagrantly dishonest than you usually manage, remoaner.

On 04/12/17 13:36, charles wrote:
In article ,
Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 20:18:18 +0000, bert wrote:

You don't even need to unsign one.

We could easily break the EU by not paying them a single penny. Their
fragile budget is on a knife-edge and just needs a little trigger to push
it over the edge...

and then who would we trade with?

ROTW and Europe of course. No trade deal is not the same as no trade.

It is a no (trade deal) - not a (no trade) deal.




--
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 04/12/17 23:04, bert wrote:
In article , charles
writes
In article ,
Â* Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 20:18:18 +0000, bert wrote:

You don't even need to unsign one.

We could easily break the EU by not paying them a single penny. Their
fragile budget is on a knife-edge and just needs a little trigger to
push
it over the edge...

and then who would we trade with?
Same people in Europe we trade with now, Germans, French, Poles Spanish
ItaliansÂ* etc etc even the Belgians

Belgian beer is OK, just not for the whole weekend..



--
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 05/12/2017 11:52, Capitol wrote:


Â*Â*Â*Â*Where is your demonstration of the benefits of paying #1B a week in
costs to the Eu?

Cheaper food, cheaper exports, protection from dumping by other
countries, better employment laws, better safety standards, less red
tape for exporters to the EU, a better pound dollar exchange rate, ....

Now its your turn to come up with good reasons to leave as actual facts
and not more lies and hopes.

On Tue, 05 Dec 2017 18:06:42 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

T i m wrote:

And not a single Brexiteer has so far been able to demonstrate, with
facts and not 'beliefs' ... or weasel words like 'hope' or 'should'
that we will be 'better off by leaving the EU'. This should be *so*
easy to do as one would hope that was the real reason for leaving, not
just an excuse to hide their bigotry or racism.

I already told you - more than once -

Ah, so that means you are right and we all have to just knuckle under?

that we'll be free of an
undemocratic organisation, where a set of unelected oligarchs (who call
themselves "Commissioners") are the only ones who can initiate
legislation and the EU Parliament is unable to repeal or initiate it
themselves.

Again, so you say.

Now cite anything they have done that we (in the UK) had no control
over that both affected 'most people' negatively or that wasn't
countered by some or many things that did affect 'most people'
positively?

Do keep up.

I am, I'm keeping up with the fact you are on a crusade and
potentially without stopping to consider all the other facets (I know
you will say you have ... but ...).

Don't get me wrong, I respect you have a right to your own viewpoint
but I don't respect that it is automatically valid until you can
answer my questions above (with citeable evidence please).

Cheers, T i m

dennis@home wrote
Capitol wrote

Where is your demonstration of the benefits of paying #1B a week in costs
to the Eu?

Cheaper food,

That is a bare faced lie.

cheaper exports,

Another bare faced lie.

protection from dumping by other countries,

Another bare faced lie.

better employment laws,

Another bare faced lie.

better safety standards,

Another bare faced lie.

less red tape for exporters to the EU,

That one is certainly valid, but is it worth 1b a week ?

a better pound dollar exchange rate, ....

Its less clear that that would happen without
the deliberate manipulation by the BoE,

Now its your turn to come up with good reasons to leave as actual facts

No longer would Britain have to allow any EU citizen who decides that its
prospects in Britain will be better than where they are coming from to move
to Britain and it can be selective about which EUians are useful to Britain.

No longer would unelected and unsackable bureaucrats
get to decide what is presented to parliament.

Britain would be free to import whatever it wants
from anywhere it decides it prefers to import from
without paying any tariff on those imports.

British exports are cheaper in the hands of the buyer
due to the effective devaluation of the pound.

Britain would no longer have to send any money to the EU.

and not more lies and hopes.

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 05 Dec 2017 18:06:42 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

T i m wrote:

And not a single Brexiteer has so far been able to demonstrate, with
facts and not 'beliefs' ... or weasel words like 'hope' or 'should'
that we will be 'better off by leaving the EU'. This should be *so*
easy to do as one would hope that was the real reason for leaving, not
just an excuse to hide their bigotry or racism.

I already told you - more than once -

Ah, so that means you are right and we all have to just knuckle under?

that we'll be free of an
undemocratic organisation, where a set of unelected oligarchs (who call
themselves "Commissioners") are the only ones who can initiate
legislation and the EU Parliament is unable to repeal or initiate it
themselves.

Again, so you say.

Now cite anything they have done that we (in the UK) had
no control over that both affected 'most people' negatively

Most obviously the free movement of any EUian
that chooses to move to Britain, or has noticed that
Britain is a lot more generous with benefits and
houses to rent than where they are coming from.

or that wasn't countered by some or many things
that did affect 'most people' positively?

Have fun listing those.

Do keep up.

I am, I'm keeping up with the fact you are on a crusade and
potentially without stopping to consider all the other facets (I know
you will say you have ... but ...).

Don't get me wrong, I respect you have a right to your own viewpoint
but I don't respect that it is automatically valid until you can
answer my questions above (with citeable evidence please).

Don't need citable evidence with the free movement of EUians.

dennis@home wrote:
On 05/12/2017 11:52, Capitol wrote:


Where is your demonstration of the benefits of paying #1B a week
in costs to the Eu?

Cheaper food, cheaper exports, protection from dumping by other
countries, better employment laws, better safety standards, less red
tape for exporters to the EU, a better pound dollar exchange rate, ....

Now its your turn to come up with good reasons to leave as actual facts
and not more lies and hopes.

None of your points are true! Food is more expensive in the EU, Dumping
is not stopped, steel! Employment laws ensure non competitive economy,
Safety standards are now ridiculous and harm the economy. Very little of
the UK GDP goes to the EU, we have traded in the past with no problems,
what's different now. The pound dollar exchange rate is higher now than
in the past, where's the problem. You omitted to point out the lower
wages in the UK as a result of EU membership, is that what you want, you
also miss out the excessive load on the NHS and the ridiculous cost of
housing as a result of unlimited immigration. This is costing the UK
taxpayers £1B a week. £16 per person per week in taxation. or £64 per
family per week. The UK economy cannot stand these costs. I take it you
also want the EU army and wars in eastern Europe, because that's what is
coming.

In article ,
Capitol wrote:
None of your points are true! Food is more expensive in the EU,

Really? Do you actually think all food prices are uniform throughout the
EU? Have you never been to another EU country?

--
*Constipated People Don't Give A Crap*

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

In article , T i m
writes
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 23:01:56 +0000, bert wrote:

In article , T i m
writes
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 21:52:17 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 30/11/17 18:09, TimW wrote:

snip

No one had any idea there would be a divorce bill until the EU dreamed
one up.

Really, even the Brexiteers? You leave an organisation and don't
consider there could be some leaving costs?

A treaty ceases to have any force once you terminate it.

Ok?

There is
nothing in A50, written by the EU which mentions any financial payment.

Ok?

It demands that parties discuss the future relationship.

Ok ... and that means you (Brexiteers) don't consider or plan for
there being some exit costs? Frightening.

You're easily frightened.
The EU has not come up with any legal basis for a divorce bill. We
expect to pay in as long as we are members and at the longest up to the
end of the current budget cycle, and even that is very generous.

If the EU can't meet it's commitments beyond that then they will have to
learn to something which anyone in the private sector is very familiar
with - cut their cloth accordingly.

Thus demonstrating the leavers were correct in their asessement that the
eU were a bunch of total
snip
who would make life as hard as possible.

Do you have any proof that is the case?

It is there to see if you are prepared to open your eyes.

No, I don't want to just *believe* such is going on, I want to see the
hard proof that it is. Because there must be some, it should be easy
for you to cite some.

Really can't be bothered. Look for it yourself.

This week the news is that it is 'agreed' and 'settled' but we still
don't know what the figure is! £65bn? ! Maybe. The ignorant are still
saying 'WE KNOW WHAT WE VOTED FOR'


I know what I voted for. Its not what May is delivering.

Maybe she doesn't know what you voted for ... or any other different
thing any other Brexiteer voted for ...

And that's my point, the question was 'Do you want to leave or not',
not 'and what specifically do you mean by that'.

What childish nonsense. There was a long energetic referendum campaign
examining all sides of the issue and the people were offered a vote. Now
you just whinge because you failed to use that vote and your favoured
side lost. If you felt there was insufficient information to go for
Leave then you should have voted to Remain.
How anyone could vote *at all* under those conditions baffles (and
concerns) me.

Well you're easily baffled as you continue to demonstrate ad nauseam

And not a single Brexiteer has so far been able to demonstrate, with
facts and not 'beliefs' ... or weasel words like 'hope' or 'should'
that we will be 'better off by leaving the EU'. This should be *so*
easy to do as one would hope that was the real reason for leaving, not
just an excuse to hide their bigotry or racism.

Cheers, T i m
There are other reasons for leaving the EU as has been explained so many
times. The paucity of your argument is amply illustrated by your
resorting to cheap abuse.
--
bert

In article , T i m
writes
On Tue, 05 Dec 2017 18:06:42 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

T i m wrote:

And not a single Brexiteer has so far been able to demonstrate, with
facts and not 'beliefs' ... or weasel words like 'hope' or 'should'
that we will be 'better off by leaving the EU'. This should be *so*
easy to do as one would hope that was the real reason for leaving, not
just an excuse to hide their bigotry or racism.

I already told you - more than once -

Ah, so that means you are right and we all have to just knuckle under?
No it means that if you keep asking the same question don't be surprised
if you get the same answer.

that we'll be free of an
undemocratic organisation, where a set of unelected oligarchs (who call
themselves "Commissioners") are the only ones who can initiate
legislation and the EU Parliament is unable to repeal or initiate it
themselves.

Again, so you say.
Ah so you would question his right to say.

Now cite anything they have done that we (in the UK) had no control
over that both affected 'most people' negatively or that wasn't
countered by some or many things that did affect 'most people'
positively?

Do keep up.

I am, I'm keeping up with the fact you are on a crusade and
potentially without stopping to consider all the other facets (I know
you will say you have ... but ...).

Don't get me wrong, I respect you have a right to your own viewpoint
but I don't respect that it is automatically valid until you can
answer my questions above (with citeable evidence please).

Quite frankly I don't know about Mr Streater but I have ceased to care
whether you agree or not.
Cheers, T i m

--
bert

In article . com,
"dennis@home" writes
On 05/12/2017 11:52, Capitol wrote:

****Where is your demonstration of the benefits of paying #1B a
week in costs to the Eu?

Cheaper food, cheaper exports, protection from dumping by other
countries, better employment laws, better safety standards, less red
tape for exporters to the EU, a better pound dollar exchange rate, ....

Those are opinions not facts. You should forget the BBC and read more.
The latest EU policies on dumping will actually give less protection
from the Chinese not more. So your statement is a lie.
Now its your turn to come up with good reasons to leave as actual facts
and not more lies and hopes.
Cheaper food wider market access across the world, better protection
from dumping, less red tape for UK business who do not trade with the
EU, more scope for innovation, more money for the NHS, flexible labour
laws creating more jobs, cheaper exports as the pound has adjusted to a
more realistic level, control of the use of our own armed forces in
conflicts. Now where are your facts to support your claim of worse
safety standards?
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
bert wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
bert wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
No one had any idea there would be a divorce bill until the EU dreamed
one up.

Tee-hee. Keep trying to persuade yourself.

The Eu still has not come up with any legal basis for their claim.

Pray tell, oh sage, just what that claim is? Then pass that on to Ms
May, who doesn't appear to have any figure.

I will tell you, oh thicko, when the EU comes up with a precise figure.

I see. You don't think they have a legal basis for a claim when you don't
know what it is. Very brexiteer, that. Not a fact in sight.

I accept the opinion of learned counsel that no legal basis for a claim.
Only a thicko would think that the legal validity was in any way
determined by the actual size of the claim. You remoaners continually
show your increasing desperation to come up with any sort of rational
arguments or facts.
--
bert

In article . com,
"dennis@home" writes
On 04/12/2017 23:04, bert wrote:
In article , charles
writes
In article ,
* Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 20:18:18 +0000, bert wrote:

You don't even need to unsign one.

We could easily break the EU by not paying them a single penny. Their
fragile budget is on a knife-edge and just needs a little trigger
to push
it over the edge...

and then who would we trade with?
Same people in Europe we trade with now, Germans, French, Poles
Spanish Italians* etc etc even the Belgians

But will they still buy our stuff when it goes up in price or will they
source it from elsewhere?

Dense by name dense by nature.. This was a point in response to the
suggestion by the other thicko in this group that there would only be
India left to trade with if the EU collapsed.
You can check with the WTO what tariffs would apply to out exports to
the EU to see how much they would go up (or how much less profit we
would make if we absorbed the tariffs).
I don't expect you to actually look though as facts aren't your thing.

You are the one who hasn't looked it up , or much else it would seem
otherwise you would not make such a stupid point.
Its all very well saying we will continue to trade with X and Y but
they have to want to buy the stuff at a price we can afford to sell it
for.
You wouldn't go and buy your stuff at F&M and pay more than Harrod's
for the same stuff so why would anyone else?
Pointless asking you to try and keep up. You seem incapable or unwilling
to follow line of discussion..
--
bert