In article ,
Mark wrote:
Reminds me of a study where some schoolkids were asked if they
preferred freshly squeezed orange juice or an orange squash by
Robinsons. The kids preferred the "real thing" by which they meant
the Robinsons.

I'm guessing that they had never tried freshly squeezed orange juice.

More likely just like the added sugar.

--
*Sticks and stones may break my bones but whips and chains excite me*

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
No car park though - it was in Waterloo. But just outside the station,
which was very convenient for me.

I've heard that in London when building flats or houses close to public
transport (mainly train or tube stations) that space for parking a car
doesn;t need to be provided. So if yuor work in areas such as plumbing
and electraical work where you need a van don't buy a new property near
a station.

On a local development, the council insisted on restricted car parking
spaces to discourage people from owning cars. Didn't work. ;-) Even
although public transport here is excellent. People just want to own a
car, even when it makes no economic sense.

ITYF is what people in these circumstances want is space for visitors from
out of to to park a car

whether it be plumber, care worker or relative

tim

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
pamela wrote:
On 01:13 9 Feb 2018, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
tim... wrote:
The UK is the supplicant in this negotiation and we can fully
expect to concede to accepting more Indian immigrants than
might like in exchange for a trade deal.

No we wont

we will walk away

Yup. And soon realise there are no countries left to walk away
from.

That was India. Last November Austrialia was highly critical of our
post Brexit trade plans.

If we can't strike a deal with friendly ex-Commonwealth countries
like India and Australia then we will find it even harder striking
good deals with other countries.

Big players like China and the US show all the signs of making it
hard for us.

What's left? Maybe we will strike a deal with South Africa. In
exchange for more of their immigrants, no doubt.

The whole point. We need trade deals to replace the EU. And despite the
optimists saying the world would be queueing up to do deals with the UK
post Brexit, absolutely no sign of that.

well of course they aren't queuing up whilst we are still ****ing around
with the "perhaps we'll stay in the CU" nonsense (FTAOD nonsense referring
to the fact that we still haven't decided not that it would, or wouldn't be,
a nonsense decision to do so)

They would have wasted their time if we did, so until we decide they are
doing something more immediately useful for their economy.

tim

On Fri, 09 Feb 2018 12:36:15 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
No car park though - it was in Waterloo. But just outside the station,
which was very convenient for me.

I've heard that in London when building flats or houses close to public
transport (mainly train or tube stations) that space for parking a car
doesn;t need to be provided. So if yuor work in areas such as plumbing
and electraical work where you need a van don't buy a new property near
a station.

On a local development, the council insisted on restricted car parking
spaces to discourage people from owning cars. Didn't work. ;-) Even
although public transport here is excellent. People just want to own a
car, even when it makes no economic sense.

And they'll park anywhere - on the pavement, blocking people's
driveways, in bus stops etc......

--
insert witty sig here

On Fri, 09 Feb 2018 13:09:57 +0000, T i m wrote:

--snip--

Yes, Leave 'won', but it doesn't represent the 'will of the people'
and yet will affect all the people, for good or bad. Only someone on a
crusade, with an axe to grind or with low EQ would continue to push
for Leave under those circumstances.

Correct.

To prove the validity of my final point I have challenged any of the
fanatical Brexiteers to lay out those points they voted for and what
likelihood they will happen and what percentage of each they expect to
happen. None have yet been able to do so suggesting they admit they
cannot answer that and so confirming my point that they actually voted
completely blind.

Correct again.

That's not the sort of decision making process I'd expect to be
considered acceptable for something this important.

Again, agreed.

--
insert witty sig here

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 12:35 9 Feb 2018, Mark wrote:
On Fri, 09 Feb 2018 10:07:32 GMT, wrote:
On 19:28 8 Feb 2018, dennis@home wrote:
On 08/02/2018 15:05, tim... wrote:

"alan_m" wrote in message
...
On 07/02/2018 23:21, pamela wrote:


the taste of hormone treated beef in the US beats by a
country mile the taste of beef in the UK

Isn't the lack of taste more to do with being chilled to death
immediately after slaughter rather than letting it mature at a
higher temperature?

no idea

tim

There is a different taste to 28 day matured beef than the usual
supermarket stuff. I prefer the cheaper not matured for 28 days.

If you like it rare you may differ.


Reminds me of a study where some schoolkids were asked if they
preferred freshly squeezed orange juice or an orange squash by
Robinsons. The kids preferred the "real thing" by which they
meant the Robinsons.

I'm guessing that they had never tried freshly squeezed orange
juice.

I guess so. They had acquired a taste for the imitation and
preferred it to the real thing. It's like Dennis preferring cheaper
beef to when it's hung to mature.

ITYF "hung" beef costs more

tim

In article ,
tim... wrote:
The whole point. We need trade deals to replace the EU. And despite the
optimists saying the world would be queueing up to do deals with the UK
post Brexit, absolutely no sign of that.

well of course they aren't queuing up whilst we are still ****ing around
with the "perhaps we'll stay in the CU" nonsense (FTAOD nonsense referring
to the fact that we still haven't decided not that it would, or wouldn't be,
a nonsense decision to do so)

They would have wasted their time if we did, so until we decide they are
doing something more immediately useful for their economy.

Quite. Like already be in some form of trade deal with others - which
could have implications on any new one we might want to make with them. In
exactly the same way as with the EU.

Say country A sells beef to country B and country B sells cattle food to
country A. We would like to sell our beef to them. That has implications
on their existing deal. And of course on others things they trade between
one another that we might want to muscle in on.

I'm rather surprised this isn't obvious. It's not a few hundred years ago
where the UK was the workshop of the world and our empire would buy
anything we produced, in exchange for raw materials, etc.

That place is now something like China.

--
*I'm really easy to get along with once people learn to worship me

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

In article , T i m
writes
On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 07:40:20 +0000, alan_m
wrote:

On 09/02/2018 01:12, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

I wouldn't care if they'd made the right decision.

They did.

A third of the electorate also exercised their democratic rights and
decided not to vote therefore leaving the decision making to all those
who could be bothered.

Alan, you try to come across as having a reasonable grasp on all this
but in some areas you really don't seem to have a clue.

Could you try to take your 'fanatic Brexiteer' hat off for a second
and try to imagine what the whole Brexit mess looks like to someone
who isn't particularly politically motivated or on some crusade?

Turn on the radio or TV or open any newspaper and you will see the two
sides still at loggerheads re all this. If it was so obvious what the
right decision was, why isn't everyone behind it by now?

So, let's pretend you don't actually have a crystal ball or good
clairvoyance skills and admit you really have no better idea *now*
what you voted for *then* and that you really don't *know* what the
outcome will actually be and how it might impact us in the future?

If you were honest, if you admitted you just have a hunch, you
*believe* that us leaving the EU will be better for most people
(assuming you care about 'most people' of course) then at least you
would gain some credibility for that alone (the honesty).

I have never stated that I know Leaving or Staying would be the best
for us because I'm not arrogant enough to think I have a clue ... and
any clues I might have would be based on seeing what is stated in the
final exit package.

On the vote itself, again try and look at it from a realist POV. Fact,
only 1/3 of the electorate voted to change from the status quo (and to
the complete unknown). Another 1/3rd actually voted to retain the
status quo so didn't actually vote for anything (new) but to retain
what they already had. The remaining 1/3rd of the electorate didn't
vote at all (I'm included in that) and for many of them that will be
because they didn't feel they were *able* to vote (a massive
difference to 'couldn't be bothered') because they had no idea what
they were actually voting for. Therefore, it was those people (who
could have easily made the difference) who you are completely
discounting for reasons you don't seem willing or able to understand?

Yes, Leave 'won', but it doesn't represent the 'will of the people'
and yet will affect all the people, for good or bad. Only someone on a
crusade, with an axe to grind or with low EQ would continue to push
for Leave under those circumstances.

To prove the validity of my final point I have challenged any of the
fanatical Brexiteers to lay out those points they voted for and what
likelihood they will happen and what percentage of each they expect to
happen. None have yet been able to do so suggesting they admit they
cannot answer that and so confirming my point that they actually voted
completely blind.

Alternatively they simply will not waste their time on such a stupid
argument. Now you show me your spreadsheet and maybe I will show you
mine.
That's not the sort of decision making process I'd expect to be
considered acceptable for something this important.

Cheers, T i m

--
bert

On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 22:41:47 +0000, bert wrote:

snip

If you did understand 'us', you too would be pushing to ensure real
democracy prevails and that's *not* allowing 1/3rd of the electorate
determine what happens to the rest.

I think we now all understand your version of democracy Tim

Oh the irony. *You* really don't have an f'ing clue about most things
so I'm not surprised don't understand that!

so why don't
you STFU about it.

And there is a good example of what you *actually* believe to be
democracy. I couldn't have shown it better myself (so thanks).

You one ... so if we all keep quiet you think you will get away with
it?

Cheers, T i m

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
RJH wrote:
I unwittingly had a series of tests at a local private hospital - the GP
referred me under the NHS. No complaints about the service (although I
have no real idea what they did, the accuracy of the results or how they
were interpreted). The car park was, or course, stocked with row upon
row of £100k+ cars. Be assured, mine lowered the average ;-)

I had an MRI scan done recently on the NHS. Also by a private company. And
this in London. Where you'd think the large hospitals could make full use
of their own. Rather than paying for a private companies profits.

So why didn't you exercise your patients choice and insist on a scan in
an NHS hospital?
No car park though - it was in Waterloo. But just outside the station,
which was very convenient for me.


--
bert

On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 22:50:45 +0000, bert wrote:

In article , alan_m
writes
On 08/02/2018 10:51, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
The whole thrust of the Remain
campaign actually was "we are so thick, so stupid, we can't be
allowed to chose what sort of government to vote for, we must
have the EU telling us what to do." No wonder they lost.
No wonder the EU can do some things we don't like when we elect
******s
like Farage to its parliament.


I'll bet even the majority of those who voted for remain in the
referendum didn't bother to vote for any MEP. (UK turnout 36%).

And no-one voted for Farrage - they voted for UKIP and Farage was top of
their party list.

And like a rogue torpedo sinking the UK ship, 'where are they now'?

Cheers, T i m

On 08/02/2018 22:50, bert wrote:

And no-one voted for Farrage - they voted for UKIP and Farage was top of
their party list.

That's how European democracy works.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

We regularly ate cockerils from our flock using the logic they were worth feeding until big enough to make a meal but apart from one to fertilise a few eggs the other male birds had no value

On Fri, 09 Feb 2018 20:32:49 GMT, pamela wrote:

snip

You one ... so if we all keep quiet you think you will get away with
it?



Bert makes negative jibes but rarely has anything constructive to
say. He could if he made an effort but it doesn't seem to be his
style.

I think it's a mix of embarrassment (or it should be) and an attempted
distraction from the cold hard facts that they can only counter with
their hopes, desires and *beliefs*.

I love the way they use 'will' when for 99% of the cases they should
be more honest and use 'might' or 'hopefully'.

None of them have a clue if they are actually going to get what they
voted for!

Brexiteer: 'If we actually leave the EU I *hope* we can sort out a
good deal that *might* make everyone better off' (assuming they care
about 'everyone' of course). ;-(

Cheers, T i m

In article ,
pamela wrote:
Of course all of them will be delighted to flood the UK with
*their* goods, once out of the EU.

Any notion that we will get cushy trade deals is bonkers. The only
queue forming to do trade with post-Brexit Britain is composed of
vultures waiting to squeeze us for all we've got.

Donald Trump and others may declare undying friendship with the UK
but they're in that queue.

Quite. And who can blame any country wanting the best deal for themselves?
Human nature. Which is why any new trade deal negotiations takes many many
years.

And Brexiteers think it will be good to get away from EU red tape...

--
*I'm really easy to get along with once people learn to worship me

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

In article ,
bert wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
wrote:
The whole thrust of the Remain
campaign actually was "we are so thick, so stupid, we can't be
allowed to chose what sort of government to vote for, we must
have the EU telling us what to do." No wonder they lost.

No wonder the EU can do some things we don't like when we elect ******s
like Farage to its parliament.

You still don't realise how impotent the EU parliament actually is.

You mean just like ours?

--
*Young at heart -- slightly older in other places

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

In article ,
bert wrote:
I had an MRI scan done recently on the NHS. Also by a private company.
And this in London. Where you'd think the large hospitals could make
full use of their own. Rather than paying for a private companies
profits.

So why didn't you exercise your patients choice and insist on a scan in
an NHS hospital?

My local hospital - a very large one - didn't offer it. Which surprised me.

--
*Why do overlook and oversee mean opposite things? *

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

On 08/02/18 22:41, bert wrote:

If you did understand 'us',Â* you too would be pushing to ensure real
democracy prevails and that's *not* allowing 1/3rd of the electorate
determine what happens to the rest.

Cheers, T i m
I think we now all understand your version of democracy Tim so why don't
you STFU about it.

I felt exactly the same as T i m during the Blair years.

But I accepted it as a price you pay for democracy.

I wish now I hadn't


--
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's
too dark to read.

Groucho Marx

On 08/02/18 22:50, bert wrote:
In article , alan_m
writes
On 08/02/2018 10:51, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* wrote:
The whole thrust of the Remain
campaign actually was "we are so thick, so stupid, we can't be
allowed to chose what sort of government to vote for, we must
have the EU telling us what to do." No wonder they lost.
Â*No wonder the EU can do some things we don't like when we elect ******s
like Farage to its parliament.


I'll bet even the majority of those who voted for remain in the
referendum didn't bother to vote for any MEP. (UK turnout 36%).

And no-one voted for Farrage - they voted for UKIP and Farage was top of
their party list.

Actually most people voted for Farage (sp) whio just happened to be the
leader of UKIP.



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

On 09/02/18 21:15, Cynic wrote:
We regularly ate cockerils

Really?

We only ate cockereles...

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

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 15:16 9 Feb 2018, tim... wrote:



"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 12:35 9 Feb 2018, Mark wrote:
On Fri, 09 Feb 2018 10:07:32 GMT, wrote:
On 19:28 8 Feb 2018, dennis@home wrote:
On 08/02/2018 15:05, tim... wrote:

"alan_m" wrote in message
...
On 07/02/2018 23:21, pamela wrote:


the taste of hormone treated beef in the US beats by a
country mile the taste of beef in the UK

Isn't the lack of taste more to do with being chilled to
death immediately after slaughter rather than letting it
mature at a higher temperature?

no idea

tim

There is a different taste to 28 day matured beef than the
usual supermarket stuff. I prefer the cheaper not matured for
28 days.

If you like it rare you may differ.


Reminds me of a study where some schoolkids were asked if they
preferred freshly squeezed orange juice or an orange squash by
Robinsons. The kids preferred the "real thing" by which they
meant the Robinsons.

I'm guessing that they had never tried freshly squeezed orange
juice.

I guess so. They had acquired a taste for the imitation and
preferred it to the real thing. It's like Dennis preferring
cheaper beef to when it's hung to mature.

ITYF "hung" beef costs more

tim

Wasn't that clear from what I wrote?

OH

I missed out the first "to" when I read it

tim

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
The whole point. We need trade deals to replace the EU. And despite the
optimists saying the world would be queueing up to do deals with the UK
post Brexit, absolutely no sign of that.

well of course they aren't queuing up whilst we are still ****ing around
with the "perhaps we'll stay in the CU" nonsense (FTAOD nonsense
referring
to the fact that we still haven't decided not that it would, or wouldn't
be,
a nonsense decision to do so)

They would have wasted their time if we did, so until we decide they are
doing something more immediately useful for their economy.

Quite. Like already be in some form of trade deal with others

not noticeably

- which
could have implications on any new one we might want to make with them.

Not in the sense that most people claim

Trade deals between countries do NOT contain clause on standards compliance
that make it difficult to make deals with other countries WTO rules don't
allow it.

In
exactly the same way as with the EU.

Which is why I cannot understand all this nonsensical claims that we might
end up with a deal with the EU which restricts us

Say country A sells beef to country B and country B sells cattle food to
country A. We would like to sell our beef to them. That has implications
on their existing deal.

Trade deals have to be comprehensive

They have to cover every product class

you cannot just pick a couple of sectors where you want to improve
relationship and forget the rest

accordingly, countries do not just strike up a deal with country B to
"stitch up" their supply of beef meaning that when country C comes along
there is no demand left to fill

They make deals with county B and country C across the whole range of
products and then let country B and C compete in the market for their
demand.

And of course on others things they trade between
one another that we might want to muscle in on.

I'm rather surprised this isn't obvious. It's not a few hundred years ago
where the UK was the workshop of the world and our empire would buy
anything we produced, in exchange for raw materials, etc.

you are right that when every country has a deal with every other country
there is no advantage

but the reality is that the number of deals that have been struck is tiny

there is still space to take advantage of being the early mover

that is why we have to leave the EU to DO IT NOW, instead of missing the
boat because getting the multilateral deal that the EU (necessarily) needs
takes forever.

tim

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 11:14 9 Feb 2018, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
pamela wrote:
On 01:13 9 Feb 2018, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
tim... wrote:
The UK is the supplicant in this negotiation and we can
fully expect to concede to accepting more Indian immigrants
than might like in exchange for a trade deal.

No we wont

we will walk away

Yup. And soon realise there are no countries left to walk away
from.

That was India. Last November Austrialia was highly critical of
our post Brexit trade plans.

If we can't strike a deal with friendly ex-Commonwealth countries
like India and Australia then we will find it even harder
striking good deals with other countries.

Big players like China and the US show all the signs of making it
hard for us.

What's left? Maybe we will strike a deal with South Africa. In
exchange for more of their immigrants, no doubt.

The whole point. We need trade deals to replace the EU. And
despite the optimists saying the world would be queueing up to do
deals with the UK post Brexit, absolutely no sign of that.

Especially the even wilder optimism that other countries would
fall over themselves to give a really good deal to the UK. Like we
were somehow entitled to one.

Of course all of them will be delighted to flood the UK with
*their* goods, once out of the EU.

Any notion that we will get cushy trade deals is bonkers. The only
queue forming to do trade with post-Brexit Britain is composed of
vultures waiting to squeeze us for all we've got.

It is true that there are some vultures in the list, but they aren't all
vultures

it is also true that there are the counties that the press lists as being at
the top of the list

But they are wrong. The vultures will be at the bottom of this list when we
come do do the deals.

tim

On 10/02/18 09:23, tim... wrote:
Trade deals have to be comprehensive

They have to cover every product class

you cannot just pick a couple of sectors where you want to improve
relationship and forget the rest

Well in fact you can.



--
"I guess a rattlesnake ain't risponsible fer bein' a rattlesnake, but ah
puts mah heel on um jess the same if'n I catches him around mah chillun".

On 10/02/2018 00:36, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
bert wrote:
I had an MRI scan done recently on the NHS. Also by a private company.
And this in London. Where you'd think the large hospitals could make
full use of their own. Rather than paying for a private companies
profits.

So why didn't you exercise your patients choice and insist on a scan in
an NHS hospital?

My local hospital - a very large one - didn't offer it. Which surprised me.


I was told by one of the consultants that if they find something using
MRI they probably can't treat it anyway.
That was a few years ago when they used other tests first but some
appear to use MRI even when its a something minor these days.

I have had three CT scans since November so they might have to use MRI
on me if the radiation dose gets much higher.

In article ,
tim... wrote:
Say country A sells beef to country B and country B sells cattle food to
country A. We would like to sell our beef to them. That has implications
on their existing deal.

Trade deals have to be comprehensive

They have to cover every product class

No they don't. For example, some countries have what we consider
prescription drugs freely available. It would be a nonsense to allow them
free access to our market. So any deal will always cover individual
products.

you cannot just pick a couple of sectors where you want to improve
relationship and forget the rest

Glad you've realised that. Which simply proves the Brexiteers were lying
through their teeth when they said we'd get the deal we wanted with the EU
after leaving.

--
*You sound reasonable......time to up my medication

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

In article ,
tim... wrote:
Any notion that we will get cushy trade deals is bonkers. The only
queue forming to do trade with post-Brexit Britain is composed of
vultures waiting to squeeze us for all we've got.

It is true that there are some vultures in the list, but they aren't all
vultures

it is also true that there are the counties that the press lists as being at
the top of the list

But they are wrong. The vultures will be at the bottom of this list when we
come do do the deals.

Ah - right. We're going to make a very good living out of a trade deal
with those only.

It's only the extremely gullible that think being able to import cheap
goods to the UK is going to solve matters. And every country in the world
will want to export to us.

It's being able to sell other countries goods and services to pay for
those imports that will be the tricky bit.

--
*What do little birdies see when they get knocked unconscious? *

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

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
On 10/02/2018 00:36, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
bert wrote:
I had an MRI scan done recently on the NHS. Also by a private
company. And this in London. Where you'd think the large hospitals
could make full use of their own. Rather than paying for a private
companies profits.

So why didn't you exercise your patients choice and insist on a scan
in an NHS hospital?

My local hospital - a very large one - didn't offer it. Which
surprised me.


I was told by one of the consultants that if they find something using
MRI they probably can't treat it anyway.

Dunno - it was a lower back scan.

That was a few years ago when they used other tests first but some
appear to use MRI even when its a something minor these days.

My GP sent me for it on my first visit. It's not a life threatening
condition, merely a bit inconvenient at times. Probably mainly age
related.

I have had three CT scans since November so they might have to use MRI
on me if the radiation dose gets much higher.

They did offer me a choice of locations in London where this private firm
had their MRI units. Including a hospital not that far away. But not
knowing it, or its parking arrangements, made more sense to go to
Waterloo, which is an easy PT journey for me.

--
*Does fuzzy logic tickle? *

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

On Fri, 09 Feb 2018 23:53:57 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
pamela wrote:
Of course all of them will be delighted to flood the UK with
*their* goods, once out of the EU.

Any notion that we will get cushy trade deals is bonkers. The only
queue forming to do trade with post-Brexit Britain is composed of
vultures waiting to squeeze us for all we've got.

Donald Trump and others may declare undying friendship with the UK
but they're in that queue.

Quite. And who can blame any country wanting the best deal for themselves?
Human nature. Which is why any new trade deal negotiations takes many many
years.

And Brexiteers think it will be good to get away from EU red tape...

It's a shame we couldn't run the who Brexit thing (if we must at all)
as a EU approved social experiment ... pretend we have left (with a
hard Brexit) and see how we get on for a couple of years. If it works
then we could go for it for real and if it doesn't we just go back to
where we were. ;-)

Leaving wouldn't be worth it for many member states of course, so only
a handful might want to follow site if it worked for us.

The only difference with us is we aren't actually part of the EU
landmass, other than via a tunnel. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
Say country A sells beef to country B and country B sells cattle food
to
country A. We would like to sell our beef to them. That has
implications
on their existing deal.

Trade deals have to be comprehensive

They have to cover every product class

No they don't. For example, some countries have what we consider
prescription drugs freely available. It would be a nonsense to allow them
free access to our market. So any deal will always cover individual
products.

That's got nothing to do with how the wholesaler sources his product

it is a retail restriction

Trade deals cover importation rules, not retail rules

you cannot just pick a couple of sectors where you want to improve
relationship and forget the rest

Glad you've realised that. Which simply proves the Brexiteers were lying
through their teeth when they said we'd get the deal we wanted with the EU
after leaving.

the deal that we want with the EU IS a comprehensive deal (otherwise they
would cherry pick just the bits that are good for them)

tim

On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 16:25:53 GMT, pamela wrote:

On 22:22 9 Feb 2018, T i m wrote:

On Fri, 09 Feb 2018 20:32:49 GMT, pamela
wrote:

snip

You one ... so if we all keep quiet you think you will get away
with it?


Bert makes negative jibes but rarely has anything constructive to
say. He could if he made an effort but it doesn't seem to be his
style.

I think it's a mix of embarrassment (or it should be) and an
attempted distraction from the cold hard facts that they can only
counter with their hopes, desires and *beliefs*.

I love the way they use 'will' when for 99% of the cases they
should be more honest and use 'might' or 'hopefully'.

None of them have a clue if they are actually going to get what
they voted for!

Like lemmings going over a cliff. (Yes, I know that's a myth but
that's what it's like.)

It's still a clear metaphore.

Brexiteer: 'If we actually leave the EU I *hope* we can sort out a
good deal that *might* make everyone better off' (assuming they
care about 'everyone' of course). ;-(

Brexit is ideology gone mad. There is no good case for it other than
sentiment.

+1

Ignoring the facts won the refendum but that doesn't mean the same
ignorance is going to make a success of Brexit. There are already
plenty of signs that it's not going to work out as hoped. £40 billion
worth for a start.

IIRC it's £50bn.

--
insert witty sig here

On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 16:25:53 GMT, pamela wrote:

snip

Brexiteer: 'If we actually leave the EU I *hope* we can sort out a
good deal that *might* make everyone better off' (assuming they
care about 'everyone' of course). ;-(

Brexit is ideology gone mad.

So it seems. It certainly seems to be very lacking when it comes to
any sane / rational / considered planning. ;-(

There is no good case for it other than
sentiment.

Yup, crusades and some axe grinding ... and even some 'cutting their
nose off ...'. ;-(

Ignoring the facts won the refendum

Ignoring the lack of facts as well.

but that doesn't mean the same
ignorance is going to make a success of Brexit.

Quite.

There are already
plenty of signs that it's not going to work out as hoped.

And that's the thing. Do the fanatic Brexiteers really think an equal
number of people are all wrong ... and that's just of those who were
allowed to vote and in this country! Given many of them seem to be
left brainers they probably do (assuming the even are aware of the
existence of anyone else in the first place).

£40 billion
worth for a start.

Not what I would typically call a good way to start. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 09:23 10 Feb 2018, tim... wrote:




you are right that when every country has a deal with every other
country there is no advantage

but the reality is that the number of deals that have been struck
is tiny

there is still space to take advantage of being the early mover

Huh? What early mover advantage would that be?

making trade deals with the emerging Asian and S American countries


that is why we have to leave the EU to DO IT NOW, instead of
missing the boat because getting the multilateral deal that the EU
(necessarily) needs takes forever.

What boat are we going to miss?

the one above


tim


Strange that rely on the WTO but ignore the opinion of Pascal Lamy
who declares that he's completely perplexed at how the UK thinks
it's going to make a trade success from using baseline WTO rules.

the plan is not to trade at baseline WTO terms

tim

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 09:26 10 Feb 2018, tim... wrote:



"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 11:14 9 Feb 2018, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
pamela wrote:
On 01:13 9 Feb 2018, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
tim... wrote:
The UK is the supplicant in this negotiation and we can
fully expect to concede to accepting more Indian
immigrants than might like in exchange for a trade deal.

No we wont

we will walk away

Yup. And soon realise there are no countries left to walk
away from.

That was India. Last November Austrialia was highly critical of
our post Brexit trade plans.

If we can't strike a deal with friendly ex-Commonwealth
countries like India and Australia then we will find it even
harder striking good deals with other countries.

Big players like China and the US show all the signs of making
it hard for us.

What's left? Maybe we will strike a deal with South Africa.
In exchange for more of their immigrants, no doubt.

The whole point. We need trade deals to replace the EU. And
despite the optimists saying the world would be queueing up to
do deals with the UK post Brexit, absolutely no sign of that.

Especially the even wilder optimism that other countries would
fall over themselves to give a really good deal to the UK. Like
we were somehow entitled to one.

Of course all of them will be delighted to flood the UK with
*their* goods, once out of the EU.

Any notion that we will get cushy trade deals is bonkers. The
only queue forming to do trade with post-Brexit Britain is
composed of vultures waiting to squeeze us for all we've got.

It is true that there are some vultures in the list, but they
aren't all vultures

it is also true that there are the counties that the press lists
as being at the top of the list

But they are wrong. The vultures will be at the bottom of this
list when we come do do the deals.


The queue is composed entirely of vultures. Big vultures and little
vultures. They are vultures all.

Trade is not international assistance. It's not foreign aid nor
charitable giving. It's not benevolence.

As Trump's statements show, trade is about getting the best deal you
can and forget about how much it costs the other party.

if that were the case almost no-one would make a deal

most deals are about seeking a win-win (at the expense of ROW that the deal
excludes)

if you don't get that, one party will walk away

tim

In article ,
pamela wrote:
Maybe we should expect to get our most profitable trade from places
like Honduras, Nigeria or Egypt. Can you imagine buying an Egyptian
toaster? Oh my! It's come to that,

Keep on saying, but it doesn't sink in.

Out of the EU we can buy pretty well anything we want from anywhere.
Including anything from the EU too.

The real question is what are we going to sell to other countries to pay
for those purchases?

Basic home economics. Spending money is always easy. Earning it the more
difficult bit.

--
*WHY ARE HEMORRHOIDS CALLED "HEMORRHOIDS" INSTEAD OF "ASTEROIDS"?

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
pamela wrote:
Maybe we should expect to get our most profitable trade from places
like Honduras, Nigeria or Egypt. Can you imagine buying an Egyptian
toaster? Oh my! It's come to that,

Keep on saying, but it doesn't sink in.

Out of the EU we can buy pretty well anything we want from anywhere.
Including anything from the EU too.

The real question is what are we going to sell to other countries to pay
for those purchases?

the EU

why do you persist with this nonsense that from outside the EU they will
stop buying our products?

tim

In article , tim...
wrote:

[Snip]

Then you will be surprised to hear that major suppliers of white goods
and electronic equipment in the UK are Turkish companies


ah, yes - the ones that catch fire.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

In article ,
tim... wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
pamela wrote:
Maybe we should expect to get our most profitable trade from places
like Honduras, Nigeria or Egypt. Can you imagine buying an Egyptian
toaster? Oh my! It's come to that,

Keep on saying, but it doesn't sink in.

Out of the EU we can buy pretty well anything we want from anywhere.
Including anything from the EU too.

The real question is what are we going to sell to other countries to pay
for those purchases?

the EU

why do you persist with this nonsense that from outside the EU they will
stop buying our products?

nobody is saying that. The qquestion is can we get them to buy more of our
goods so that we can afford to import things from abroad.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

In article ,
tim... wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
pamela wrote:
Maybe we should expect to get our most profitable trade from places
like Honduras, Nigeria or Egypt. Can you imagine buying an Egyptian
toaster? Oh my! It's come to that,

Keep on saying, but it doesn't sink in.

Out of the EU we can buy pretty well anything we want from anywhere.
Including anything from the EU too.

The real question is what are we going to sell to other countries to
pay for those purchases?

the EU

why do you persist with this nonsense that from outside the EU they will
stop buying our products?

Ah - the eternal optimism of the confirmed Brexiteer. The UK is already
running a massive trade decifit in goods. Within the relatively protected
EU. And you really think that will suddenly change in a world market?
Where so many countries have lower production costs than the UK?

And if there's one thing the EU will be delighted to get their hands on
after we leave it is our trade in financial services, which is what keeps
us afloat at the moment.

This is why I voted remain. Brexiteers don't seem to have even a
schoolboy's grasp of basic economics. Just that bloody optimism. And you
can't sell that.

--
*My designated driver drove me to drink

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

In article ,
charles wrote:
In article ,
tim... wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
pamela wrote:
Maybe we should expect to get our most profitable trade from places
like Honduras, Nigeria or Egypt. Can you imagine buying an Egyptian
toaster? Oh my! It's come to that,

Keep on saying, but it doesn't sink in.

Out of the EU we can buy pretty well anything we want from anywhere.
Including anything from the EU too.

The real question is what are we going to sell to other countries to
pay for those purchases?

the EU

why do you persist with this nonsense that from outside the EU they
will stop buying our products?

nobody is saying that. The qquestion is can we get them to buy more of
our goods so that we can afford to import things from abroad.

Rather simple, isn't it Charles? But the concept seems beyond many on here.

In the protected EU market, we're not doing that well in terms of goods
sales.

Go to an open world market and suddenly we'll be able to compete with
China, etc? Pie in the sky.

--
*Young at heart -- slightly older in other places

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