On 10/02/18 17:26, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
On 10/02/18 17:03, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
harry wrote:
Except for migration, our population would be falling. Houses would be
standing empty. And dirt cheap. It only takes a small shortfall in
life's essentials to cause a massive price hike.

You could use all those spare houses to pile up the bodies in after our
health and care system collapses, with no immigrant workers.


Immigrant workers do not require open borders.

They work perfectly well with fully controlled borders and temporary
residency permits.

You think those who voted Brexit based on their perception there were too
many immigrant workers will buy that?

They want all immigrant workers stopped. To push up the wages in the jobs
they don't want to do, apparently.


How many people who voted for BREXIT was that? I'll wait...

And if they did, so what? A nation's interests is first and foremost in
its own citizens, if it is functioning correctly. That does not mean it
should not treat others fairly - but the priorities are clear.

I also dispute any claim that it will lead to the NHS failing, or fruit
picking collapsing or any other wild claims.

The market will have to adapt and pay what it needs to pay and if
there's shortfall in certain skilled areas, work permits and temporary
residency and suitable wages can be arranged to attract foreign nationals.

Longer term, with respect to the medical profession, we will simply have
to attract more of our citizens towards training for the medical profession.

We've been riding on this globalist dream of cheap foreign labour[1] for
too long.

[1] If a country has an economy where £1 has a spending power of £4 over
there, it's highly attractive for that national to come and do a stint
here, live cheap for a few years, then go home with a decent pot of
cash. Good for him - and fair game if that's what the rules say.

But at the same time, an employer here is hardly going to offer the wage
required to get a Brit in, if he can pay less and still have his arm
bitten off by a foreign worker.


Fine - we get cheap fruit - but at what cost socially to our own citizens?

On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 15:32:47 +0000, Mark
wrote:

snip

If the only people to do well out of Brexit are going to be the
multimillionaires, it isn't going to help the UK much is it.

Which is exactly what would/will happen. It's not too late to revoke
article 50 and this is exactly what we need to do, right now.

Certainly until we know what deal we are going to get. Then let the
public vote on something tangible.

Everything I read in the news indicates that those at the bottom end
of the jobs market are going to have a miserable time.

True.

And that is a massive shame / issue.

Cheers, T i m

On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 15:36:31 +0000, Mark
wrote:

On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 14:42:36 +0000, Tim Watts
wrote:

On 10/02/18 14:10, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:

Yes it certainly explains the lack of enthusiasm to do anything to
stop migrants coming in, and indeed ensure that those already in had a
right to remain.
--snip--

But for me, BREXIT was not about mass immigration - it was more about
the EU trying to morph into a Federal Superstate.

But the UK would never agree to this so your paranoia is unjustified.
In case you have fogotten we didn't join the Euro.

Nor adopt the km etc.

Cheers, T i m

On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 17:46:34 +0000, Tim Watts
wrote:

snip

A nation's interests is first and foremost in
its own citizens, if it is functioning correctly.

Then it obviously isn't, if only 1/3rd of the electorate can decide
what the rest have to do.

This is even more ludicrous when there is *no* clear evidence that us
leaving the EU *is* the best thing for *our citizens*.

If you are confident that leaving is what 'most people' want, why will
you not consider the democratic step of giving people facts not BS and
letting them vote, as it should have been the first time round.

2/3rds want out, we leave, if not, we don't.

No fanatical Brexiteer would want that of course as they fully realise
they have got away with the whole Brexit scam and wouldn't get the
same result if it was done *democratically*.

snip

Cheers, T i m.

On 10/02/2018 18:41, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 17:46:34 +0000, Tim Watts
wrote:

snip

A nation's interests is first and foremost in
its own citizens, if it is functioning correctly.

Then it obviously isn't, if only 1/3rd of the electorate can decide
what the rest have to do.

This is even more ludicrous when there is *no* clear evidence that us
leaving the EU *is* the best thing for *our citizens*.

If you are confident that leaving is what 'most people' want, why will
you not consider the democratic step of giving people facts not BS and
letting them vote, as it should have been the first time round.

2/3rds want out, we leave, if not, we don't.

No fanatical Brexiteer would want that of course as they fully realise
they have got away with the whole Brexit scam and wouldn't get the
same result if it was done *democratically*.

snip

Cheers, T i m.

What was *undemocratic* about the 2016 referendum?

Beside the fact that your lot *lost*?

On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 19:05:57 +0000, Ash Burton
wrote:

On 10/02/2018 18:41, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 17:46:34 +0000, Tim Watts
wrote:

snip

A nation's interests is first and foremost in
its own citizens, if it is functioning correctly.

Then it obviously isn't, if only 1/3rd of the electorate can decide
what the rest have to do.

This is even more ludicrous when there is *no* clear evidence that us
leaving the EU *is* the best thing for *our citizens*.

If you are confident that leaving is what 'most people' want, why will
you not consider the democratic step of giving people facts not BS and
letting them vote, as it should have been the first time round.

2/3rds want out, we leave, if not, we don't.

No fanatical Brexiteer would want that of course as they fully realise
they have got away with the whole Brexit scam and wouldn't get the
same result if it was done *democratically*.

snip

Cheers, T i m.

What was *undemocratic* about the 2016 referendum?

The government, the people that called the referendum lied. It isn't
democratic to call a referendum and then feed the gullible thickos of
society with porkys.

Beside the fact that your lot *lost*?

With the exception of a select few, the whole of Britain lost.

Whatever happens from this point on, the waste and damage to jobs has
been horrendous, and by the governments own figures, things will get
far, far worse.

The only industry that is forecast to benefit, is the fishing
industry.

I know enough about fishing to confidently predict that any benefit
would be very short lived and that's assuming other countries will
"play the game" and not set sights on our waters.

Even the aircraft carriers with aircraft dont make very good inshore
water protection vessels.


AB

On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 19:05:57 +0000, Ash Burton
wrote:

snip

What was *undemocratic* about the 2016 referendum?

Really?

Beside the fact that your lot *lost*?

For that to be the case I would have to have been part of a 'lot' and
I wasn't.

I couldn't because the whole thing was a farce ... and therefore
undemocratic. How could it represent the 'will of the people' when so
much BS was bandied about?

If I have to explain it any further you probably wouldn't understand
.... ;-(

Cheers, T i m

On 10/02/2018 19:32, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 19:05:57 +0000, Ash Burton
wrote:

On 10/02/2018 18:41, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 17:46:34 +0000, Tim Watts
wrote:

snip

A nation's interests is first and foremost in
its own citizens, if it is functioning correctly.

Then it obviously isn't, if only 1/3rd of the electorate can decide
what the rest have to do.

This is even more ludicrous when there is *no* clear evidence that us
leaving the EU *is* the best thing for *our citizens*.

If you are confident that leaving is what 'most people' want, why will
you not consider the democratic step of giving people facts not BS and
letting them vote, as it should have been the first time round.

2/3rds want out, we leave, if not, we don't.

No fanatical Brexiteer would want that of course as they fully realise
they have got away with the whole Brexit scam and wouldn't get the
same result if it was done *democratically*.

snip

Cheers, T i m.

What was *undemocratic* about the 2016 referendum?

The government, the people that called the referendum lied. It isn't
democratic to call a referendum and then feed the gullible thickos of
society with porkys.

Beside the fact that your lot *lost*?

With the exception of a select few, the whole of Britain lost.

Whatever happens from this point on, the waste and damage to jobs has
been horrendous, and by the governments own figures, things will get
far, far worse.

The only industry that is forecast to benefit, is the fishing
industry.

I know enough about fishing to confidently predict that any benefit
would be very short lived and that's assuming other countries will
"play the game" and not set sights on our waters.

Even the aircraft carriers with aircraft dont make very good inshore
water protection vessels.


AB

That's defeatist nonsense.

On 10/02/2018 19:35, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 19:05:57 +0000, Ash Burton
wrote:

snip

What was *undemocratic* about the 2016 referendum?

Really?

Beside the fact that your lot *lost*?

For that to be the case I would have to have been part of a 'lot' and
I wasn't.

I couldn't because the whole thing was a farce ... and therefore
undemocratic. How could it represent the 'will of the people' when so
much BS was bandied about?

If I have to explain it any further you probably wouldn't understand
... ;-(

Cheers, T i m



Condescending nonsense, the people who voted leave understood very well
the issues and what was at stake, remainers just can't accept it.

On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 19:51:00 +0000, Ash Burton
wrote:

On 10/02/2018 19:32, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 19:05:57 +0000, Ash Burton
wrote:

On 10/02/2018 18:41, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 17:46:34 +0000, Tim Watts
wrote:

snip

A nation's interests is first and foremost in
its own citizens, if it is functioning correctly.

Then it obviously isn't, if only 1/3rd of the electorate can decide
what the rest have to do.

This is even more ludicrous when there is *no* clear evidence that us
leaving the EU *is* the best thing for *our citizens*.

If you are confident that leaving is what 'most people' want, why will
you not consider the democratic step of giving people facts not BS and
letting them vote, as it should have been the first time round.

2/3rds want out, we leave, if not, we don't.

No fanatical Brexiteer would want that of course as they fully realise
they have got away with the whole Brexit scam and wouldn't get the
same result if it was done *democratically*.

snip

Cheers, T i m.

What was *undemocratic* about the 2016 referendum?

The government, the people that called the referendum lied. It isn't
democratic to call a referendum and then feed the gullible thickos of
society with porkys.

Beside the fact that your lot *lost*?

With the exception of a select few, the whole of Britain lost.

Whatever happens from this point on, the waste and damage to jobs has
been horrendous, and by the governments own figures, things will get
far, far worse.

The only industry that is forecast to benefit, is the fishing
industry.

I know enough about fishing to confidently predict that any benefit
would be very short lived and that's assuming other countries will
"play the game" and not set sights on our waters.

Even the aircraft carriers with aircraft dont make very good inshore
water protection vessels.


AB

That's defeatist nonsense.

No honest, take it from me. they would ground.

Thats why we have harbours dredged and locks and things.


I think the defeat was when we ordered carriers and didn't have any
planes.

252 Billion for a botched Brexit wont even leave the wherewithall for
a few Maplin drones.

AB

On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 19:53:55 +0000, Ash Burton
wrote:

snip

Condescending nonsense,

If the cap fits ...

the people who voted leave understood very well
the issues and what was at stake,

Total and utter BS. The government themselves don't know what the
final deal is going to be *now* so how good was your crystal ball to
know what it was then!

remainers just can't accept it.

Of course not, because it simply neither makes sense nor therefore be
a true reflection of 'the will of the people' (and what democracy is
supposed to be about).

They gave everyone a bit of paper with Leave or Remain tick-boxes on
it and 'ordinary people' were supposed, amid all sorts of lies, spin
and BS make a logical and rational decision on something where few of
the real facts were known and are still unknown now ...

Do me a favour ...

Cheers, T i m

On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 19:53:55 +0000, Ash Burton
wrote:

On 10/02/2018 19:35, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 19:05:57 +0000, Ash Burton
wrote:

snip

What was *undemocratic* about the 2016 referendum?

Really?

Beside the fact that your lot *lost*?

For that to be the case I would have to have been part of a 'lot' and
I wasn't.

I couldn't because the whole thing was a farce ... and therefore
undemocratic. How could it represent the 'will of the people' when so
much BS was bandied about?

If I have to explain it any further you probably wouldn't understand
... ;-(

Cheers, T i m



Condescending nonsense, the people who voted leave understood very well
the issues and what was at stake, remainers just can't accept it.

ROTFWL

You must be joking, pull the other one!

Perhaps you can mention some of the issues to the British government,
they haven't a clue.

Some idiot was interviewed on BBC radio, he didn't like seeing the NHS
staffed by dark people.

That was a pretty impressive understanding, he was a leave voter.
Farage helped mislead on that score.

Europeans were not dark enough for his audience of bigoted racists, so
he had to look further afield for his propaganda.

AB

On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 20:05:38 +0000, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp
wrote:

snip

Condescending nonsense, the people who voted leave understood very well
the issues and what was at stake, remainers just can't accept it.

ROTFWL

You really can't take these people seriously can you but I think they
actually believe themselves!

You must be joking, pull the other one!

I'm coming to conclusion they are all trolls. ;-(

Perhaps you can mention some of the issues to the British government,
they haven't a clue.

Quite. The whole thing is a farce and to anyone with any sort of
'feeling' for things that are right or wrong would *know* this is all
wrong. From Farage and the UKIP clowns to the advisory 'poll' that was
*******ised into something it should never have been to the lying
campaign (mostly from leave because I'm not sure who would bother with
the remain campaign as we knew what we would get from remaining as
that's what we were already doing anyway!) to the near 50:50 result
that Farige insisted would have to be a 2/3rd's count for remain to
win and then counted it a Leave win with a 4% advantage to the
following snap election to prove the support the government had, that
lost them power requiring a coalition with some MP's on a different
island and offering their country a nice bung from the Money Tree to
get it to happen (that I don't believe has been approved yet). And now
we are still pinning down the terms of leaving *after* people were
expected to vote on it!

You can understand those who voted remain knew what they voted for
because they were already living it!

You can understand many not being able to vote, or were apathetic re
voting because they wanted to know what they were voting for *first*
or didn't believe a leave vote actually meant anything specific.

You can't understand those *fanatics* who voted leave other than they
were fanatics and would jump on any bandwagon that gave them some
excitement and potentially at any cost to everyone.

Some idiot was interviewed on BBC radio, he didn't like seeing the NHS
staffed by dark people.

Lovely.

That was a pretty impressive understanding, he was a leave voter.
Farage helped mislead on that score.

Or a 'sucker' as we would see them?

Europeans were not dark enough for his audience of bigoted racists, so
he had to look further afield for his propaganda.

'Not dark enough' now days it turns out. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

In article ,
T i m wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 19:53:55 +0000, Ash Burton
wrote:

snip

Condescending nonsense,

If the cap fits ...

the people who voted leave understood very well
the issues and what was at stake,

Total and utter BS. The government themselves don't know what the
final deal is going to be *now* so how good was your crystal ball to
know what it was then!

remainers just can't accept it.

Of course not, because it simply neither makes sense nor therefore be
a true reflection of 'the will of the people' (and what democracy is
supposed to be about).

They gave everyone a bit of paper with Leave or Remain tick-boxes on
it and 'ordinary people' were supposed, amid all sorts of lies, spin
and BS make a logical and rational decision on something where few of
the real facts were known and are still unknown now ...

Do me a favour ...

Cheers, T i m

I keep thinking "Boaty McBoatface"

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

In article ,
Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 19:53:55 +0000, Ash Burton
wrote:

On 10/02/2018 19:35, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 19:05:57 +0000, Ash Burton
wrote:

snip

What was *undemocratic* about the 2016 referendum?

Really?

Beside the fact that your lot *lost*?

For that to be the case I would have to have been part of a 'lot' and
I wasn't.

I couldn't because the whole thing was a farce ... and therefore
undemocratic. How could it represent the 'will of the people' when so
much BS was bandied about?

If I have to explain it any further you probably wouldn't understand
... ;-(

Cheers, T i m



Condescending nonsense, the people who voted leave understood very well
the issues and what was at stake, remainers just can't accept it.

ROTFWL

You must be joking, pull the other one!

Perhaps you can mention some of the issues to the British government,
they haven't a clue.

Some idiot was interviewed on BBC radio, he didn't like seeing the NHS
staffed by dark people.

in 1968, I had to attend Hammersmith Hospital - I'd crack a bone in arm. In
3 visits I saw one White English person. It's not new.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On 10/02/2018 20:05, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 19:53:55 +0000, Ash Burton
wrote:

snip

Condescending nonsense,

If the cap fits ...

You mean its a Remoaner theme to be condescending?

the people who voted leave understood very well
the issues and what was at stake,

Total and utter BS. The government themselves don't know what the
final deal is going to be *now* so how good was your crystal ball to
know what it was then!

They knew it couldn't get any worse.

remainers just can't accept it.

Of course not, because it simply neither makes sense nor therefore be
a true reflection of 'the will of the people' (and what democracy is
supposed to be about).

They gave everyone a bit of paper with Leave or Remain tick-boxes on
it and 'ordinary people' were supposed, amid all sorts of lies, spin
and BS make a logical and rational decision on something where few of
the real facts were known and are still unknown now ...

Quite, project fear with it lies is also included.

On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 21:20:35 +0000 (GMT), charles
wrote:

In article ,
Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 19:53:55 +0000, Ash Burton
wrote:

On 10/02/2018 19:35, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 19:05:57 +0000, Ash Burton
wrote:

snip

What was *undemocratic* about the 2016 referendum?

Really?

Beside the fact that your lot *lost*?

For that to be the case I would have to have been part of a 'lot' and
I wasn't.

I couldn't because the whole thing was a farce ... and therefore
undemocratic. How could it represent the 'will of the people' when so
much BS was bandied about?

If I have to explain it any further you probably wouldn't understand
... ;-(

Cheers, T i m



Condescending nonsense, the people who voted leave understood very well
the issues and what was at stake, remainers just can't accept it.

ROTFWL

You must be joking, pull the other one!

Perhaps you can mention some of the issues to the British government,
they haven't a clue.

Some idiot was interviewed on BBC radio, he didn't like seeing the NHS
staffed by dark people.

in 1968, I had to attend Hammersmith Hospital - I'd crack a bone in arm. In
3 visits I saw one White English person. It's not new.

Yes, but the interviewee and his ilk would have been in blissful
ignorance [not that they aren't already basking in ignorance of
course], until it was pointed out by Farage, what big long queues of
brown people were headed this way.

AB

In article , Archibald
Tarquin Blenkinsopp writes
On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 08:02:45 +0000, alan_m
wrote:

On 08/02/2018 18:14, T i m wrote:


And Japan describing Brexit as a 'high stakes game'.


From a country that has problems managing its own economy for the past
2 decades or more.

I suppose they don't have to be too clued up with economics.

Britain is in the EU and thus has access to half a billion potential
customers.

Japan is not in the EU and needs a go-between

After Brexit Japan is still not in the EU and will no doubt have to
pay heavily to get goods back into Europe.

Britain is not in the EU and will have to pay heavily to get goods
into the rest of Europe

Now I don't have an economics qualification,
That is very obvious from your comments above.
but I do have a basic
idea of logic.

I read a while back that it takes weeks to turn bare ground into a car
plant, if that's the case the feeding frenzy thats taking place over
British financial and pharmaceutical jobs will pale into
insignificance when the car manufacturing work is transferred to what
remains of the EU.

AB






--
bert

In article , Mark
writes
On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 10:42:05 -0000, "tim..."
wrote:



"alan_m" wrote in message
...
On 08/02/2018 21:53, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 08/02/2018 16:52, Mark wrote:
a) We don't have ZIRP.

I'm saving for my retirement. I struggle to find something with a real
positive interest rate - one above inflation.

b) Low interest rates are a good thing, given the indebtidness that is
prevalent now.

And it also discourages people from saving. Which means they'll all be
completely dependent on the few taxpayers left once they stop working.


People save by buying their second house as a holiday home when interest
rates are low.


the problem with that is that the value of homes is dependent on interest
rates

once interest rates return to normal you may see your capital purchase
losing value

Again you use the word "normal". What is a "normal" interest rate?
I would welcome a drop in house prices but I don't see it happening.

It happened when interest rates shot up to c14%
--
bert

In article , Mark
writes
On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 08:07:05 +0000, alan_m
wrote:

On 08/02/2018 21:53, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 08/02/2018 16:52, Mark wrote:
a) We don't have ZIRP.

I'm saving for my retirement. I struggle to find something with a real
positive interest rate - one above inflation.

b) Low interest rates are a good thing, given the indebtidness that is
prevalent now.

And it also discourages people from saving. Which means they'll all be
completely dependent on the few taxpayers left once they stop working.


People save by buying their second house as a holiday home when interest
rates are low.

Only the very rich can do this.

Friend of mine has just done this -retired teacher. Must be over paying
teachers then.
--
bert

In article , Mark
writes
On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 21:53:18 +0000, Vir Campestris
wrote:

On 08/02/2018 16:52, Mark wrote:
a) We don't have ZIRP.

I'm saving for my retirement. I struggle to find something with a real
positive interest rate - one above inflation.

Interest rates for saving have always been lower then interest rates
on loans. And it's usually the case that safe investments pay less
than inflation.

b) Low interest rates are a good thing, given the indebtidness that is
prevalent now.

And it also discourages people from saving.

Few people have enough money to save at all.

Which means they'll all be
completely dependent on the few taxpayers left once they stop working.

Given that benefits are continually being cut, I doubt it.
We're heading towards the 'perfect' right-wing world where the poor
starve.

No that's the perfect left wing world AKA North Korea.
--
bert

On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 22:24:28 +0000, bert wrote:

In article , Archibald
Tarquin Blenkinsopp writes
On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 08:02:45 +0000, alan_m
wrote:

On 08/02/2018 18:14, T i m wrote:


And Japan describing Brexit as a 'high stakes game'.


From a country that has problems managing its own economy for the past
2 decades or more.

I suppose they don't have to be too clued up with economics.

Britain is in the EU and thus has access to half a billion potential
customers.

Japan is not in the EU and needs a go-between

After Brexit Japan is still not in the EU and will no doubt have to
pay heavily to get goods back into Europe.

Britain is not in the EU and will have to pay heavily to get goods
into the rest of Europe

Now I don't have an economics qualification,
That is very obvious from your comments above.

Enlighten me?

Is there anything above that you don't agree with?

Half a billion isn't my figure, it is universally accepted.


but I do have a basic
idea of logic.

I read a while back that it takes weeks to turn bare ground into a car
plant, if that's the case the feeding frenzy thats taking place over
British financial and pharmaceutical jobs will pale into
insignificance when the car manufacturing work is transferred to what
remains of the EU.



Again. simple logic.

Or are you aware of some other industry apart from finance and
carmaking that Britain devotes so many jobs to?

Burger flipping isn't an export industry incidentally.

AB

On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 21:41:12 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

On 10/02/2018 20:05, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 19:53:55 +0000, Ash Burton
wrote:

snip

Condescending nonsense,

If the cap fits ...

You mean its a Remoaner theme to be condescending?

No, I mean if you generate condescension towards you ... ;-)

the people who voted leave understood very well
the issues and what was at stake,

Total and utter BS. The government themselves don't know what the
final deal is going to be *now* so how good was your crystal ball to
know what it was then!

They knew it couldn't get any worse.

They *knew* no such thing, if they did we wouldn't have had a
referendum or still be arguing the whole mess now.

remainers just can't accept it.

Of course not, because it simply neither makes sense nor therefore be
a true reflection of 'the will of the people' (and what democracy is
supposed to be about).

They gave everyone a bit of paper with Leave or Remain tick-boxes on
it and 'ordinary people' were supposed, amid all sorts of lies, spin
and BS make a logical and rational decision on something where few of
the real facts were known and are still unknown now ...

Quite, project fear with it lies is also included.

There was no such thing.

We were already in the EU (still are in the EU) so it's only those who
want something else who are actually motivated to vote. You don't
normally vote for what you have already got do you? That said, nearly
as many did actually vote to remain so that says a lot (to those open
minded enough to consider and comprehend such things).

So, let the government carry on doing what it should have done in the
first place and *really* look into what all the options are and *then*
ask the electorate to vote on *that*. If 2/3rs agree either way,
that's what we do.

What do you have to lose, after all, because you are convinced leaving
is the right thing it should be *very* easy for your to prove 100% why
you are right and then the rest of the population is bound to fall in
with your plan. Won't they?

Cheers, T i m

On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 21:17:54 +0000 (GMT), charles
wrote:

snip

They gave everyone a bit of paper with Leave or Remain tick-boxes on
it and 'ordinary people' were supposed, amid all sorts of lies, spin
and BS make a logical and rational decision on something where few of
the real facts were known and are still unknown now ...

Do me a favour ...


I keep thinking "Boaty McBoatface"

;-)

On a similar vein, did you know the names of SpaceX's autonomous drone
ships / space ports a "Just Read the Instructions" and "Of Course I
Still Love You". ;-)

Cheers, T i m

In article , Archibald
Tarquin Blenkinsopp writes
On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 02:04:48 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

On 10/02/2018 01:16, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 00:34:03 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
It's an obscenity that houses can be snapped up by those with access
to funds then rented out at ridiculous sums to those with almost
nothing.

The obscenity is there is a shortage, encouraging speculators. They know
there is no will to build any more, despite the hot air. Its a major
reason for Brexit.

Nothing to do with Brexit. Tory policy. Sell off all the social housing
you can at a discount, to those who can afford to buy. Then the up and
coming poor have to rent in the private sector, putting the profits into
Tory pockets. Including any housing benefit. You just know it makes sense.
To a moron.

Thank God. Sometimes I feel that the entire country has lost sight of
the Blasted obvious.

Are you are so stupid to believe when houses are sold they can no longer
house families? Really?

They are going into the private sector and not being replaced, the
homes are being sold on the open market and social housing is not
being built anymore.

They are around here. Every development must have its quota. Usually
about 10%
Often the houses are not even occupied, the UK is full of vacant
properties, just being kept for investment.

Mostly owned by incompetent labour run councils.
It's a skewed market, the normal rules of supply and demand do not
hold because supply is limited artificially.

The current shortage has been going ever since the sell off started,
bbut that was driven by greed, powergrabbing and a bit of ameteurish
social engineering. Or were you on another planet when Shirly Porter
was getting rid of the labour voting peasants?



What will be interesting is when we do "take control", there will
still be a large number of the population who are going to be far far
worse off than now. If the None British have all left, the only
scapegoats are going to be the unemployed and unemployment will be on
the whim of the employer.

We'll have to see. It depends on what you mean by 'worse off'. Does that
mean homeless or 30 and living with parents because you can't afford a
house?

What does a house actually cost to build in man hours and materials?

The problem isn't simply "cant afford". If you restrict the supply,
the price goes up, simple as that.


We are about to hand every aspect of the UK's future to a shower who's
only guiding philosophy is greed and self interest.

Quite, businesses want cheap labour at any cost, culminating the
explosion of in-work benefits.

Incidentally, like it or not, there will be no need or purpose for the
NHS.

You're not very bright in thinking that. I guess when Corbyn has
decimated all around him, you may be right.

Well I didn't vote for Brexit and I didn't vote Conservative for
decades, so I would think it puts my mental abilities a little higher
than yours.

With Britains defence increasingly moving toward technology, why keep
a population healthy and supporting troops when the button pushers are
doing the fighting?

That does seem to be a Remain theme, keep wages low, gig economy.

It's what's happening. The rest of the EU are putting checks in to
limit the problems it causes.

It wont cause the UK problems because it will be a case of work or
die.

Of course it's all scaremongering to the Brexiteers, but there are
Brexiteers that are too thick to see what's happening and Brexiteers
that are going to do very well indeed from the mess.

We'll have to see what happens, so far so good. Some of us have already
seem a pay increase, something that hasn't happened for 10 years due to
suppressed wages from immigration.

Er I think that if you ask someone, they may just mention that we are
still in the EU.

Nothing has happened yet, apart from the pound plummeting.
Plummeting? It was back at $1.40 last time I looked.
So the wage
rises are not something to be happy about, they are simply less of a
wage drop than the general population have had to suffer.


Neither would welcome debate on the subject.

Not much point when you keep your fingers in your ears.

Well maybe you should listen more?

AB

--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
It's an obscenity that houses can be snapped up by those with access
to funds then rented out at ridiculous sums to those with almost
nothing.

The obscenity is there is a shortage, encouraging speculators. They know
there is no will to build any more, despite the hot air. Its a major
reason for Brexit.

Nothing to do with Brexit. Tory policy. Sell off all the social housing
you can at a discount, to those who can afford to buy. Then the up and
coming poor have to rent in the private sector, putting the profits into
Tory pockets. Including any housing benefit. You just know it makes sense.
To a moron.

And we still had union bosses on over £100k living in council houses
subsidised by nurses and teachers.
Labour did nothing of course but the Conservative government has
dampened down the buy-to-let market by increasing stamp duty on second
homes and disallowing mortgage interest as an expense against profit.
--
bert

In article ,
Ash Burton wrote:
Condescending nonsense, the people who voted leave understood very well
the issues and what was at stake, remainers just can't accept it.

Like the extra millions per week that were to go to the NHS, eh?

--
*Laugh alone and the world thinks you're an idiot.

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

In article ,
bert wrote:
And we still had union bosses on over £100k living in council houses
subsidised by nurses and teachers.

Bless. And they were the only well off living in council houses, then?

But then the likes of you don't want anyone living in a council house to
ever do well. Goes against everything you believe.

But the answer was simple. Charge those who can afford it a true economic
rate for their council house. Which is what happened. If they decide
they'd rather live somewhere else, that house is then available for
others. But the income from it, if not, can go towards building more.

--
*Some days we are the flies; some days we are the windscreen.*

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

On 10/02/18 19:53, Ash Burton wrote:
On 10/02/2018 19:35, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 19:05:57 +0000, Ash Burton
wrote:

snip

What was *undemocratic* about the 2016 referendum?

Really?

Beside the fact that your lot *lost*?

For that to be the case I would have to have been part of a 'lot' and
I wasn't.

I couldn't because the whole thing was a farce ... and therefore
undemocratic. How could it represent the 'will of the people' when so
much BS was bandied about?

If I have to explain it any further you probably wouldn't understand
... ;-(

Cheers, T i m



Condescending nonsense, the people who voted leave understood very well
the issues and what was at stake, remainers just can't accept it.

precisely.
having been brainwashed by the EU, they cannot accept that fact. They
have to conclude that people who have not been are utterly deluded etc etc.

the alternative - that they have been completely deluded themselves, is
more than their precious egos can stand.

On 11/02/2018 00:05, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
bert wrote:
And we still had union bosses on over £100k living in council houses
subsidised by nurses and teachers.

Bless. And they were the only well off living in council houses, then?

But then the likes of you don't want anyone living in a council house to
ever do well. Goes against everything you believe.

Those who 'do well' and live in a council house, hopefully can afford to
buy. Social Mobility etc. The left don't like Social Mobility as, once
people graft and succeed, they tend to see through the politics of the
left. Oh, there are the Claret Lefties who spout their politics, like
the pigs in Animal Farm but most people see through them.



But the answer was simple. Charge those who can afford it a true economic
rate for their council house. Which is what happened. If they decide
they'd rather live somewhere else, that house is then available for
others. But the income from it, if not, can go towards building more.


If that was done, the screams of anguish would be heard on Mars.

I support social housing etc (sadly we don't have true council housing
in most areas, if any these days). There will invariably be those who
need homes but can't afford to buy and they should have access to decent
homes etc. A decent, responsible, society should ensure such homes are
available.

However, but allowing those houses to be filled with people who can more
than afford to buy etc is simply an abuse of the system- unless they pay
an economic rent. I don't care what their politics are.

--

Suspect someone is claiming a benefit under false pretences? Incapacity
Benefit or Personal Independence Payment when they don't need it? They
are depriving those in real need!

https://www.gov.uk/report-benefit-fraud

On Saturday, February 10, 2018 at 10:37:53 PM UTC, bert wrote:
In article , Mark
writes
On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 21:53:18 +0000, Vir Campestris
wrote:

On 08/02/2018 16:52, Mark wrote:
a) We don't have ZIRP.

I'm saving for my retirement. I struggle to find something with a real
positive interest rate - one above inflation.

Interest rates for saving have always been lower then interest rates
on loans. And it's usually the case that safe investments pay less
than inflation.

b) Low interest rates are a good thing, given the indebtidness that is
prevalent now.

And it also discourages people from saving.

Few people have enough money to save at all.

Which means they'll all be
completely dependent on the few taxpayers left once they stop working.

Given that benefits are continually being cut, I doubt it.
We're heading towards the 'perfect' right-wing world where the poor
starve.

No that's the perfect left wing world AKA North Korea.
--
bert

General elections in this country aren't usually won by the party with the most votes. This was our first taste of true democracy, one man one vote. Get over it. I voted remain by the way

On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 02:13:02 +0000, Tjoepstil
wrote:

On 10/02/18 19:53, Ash Burton wrote:
snip

Condescending nonsense, the people who voted leave understood very well
the issues and what was at stake, remainers just can't accept it.

precisely.

Not even close ...

having been brainwashed by the EU,

You might have been, because you might be into the politics of it all.
I suggest that 'most people' aren't, they have no conscious dealing
with or feelings for (or against) the EU *at all*.

The nearest most might come to having any dealing with it is going on
holiday there and no longer having so many issues with borders etc.

they cannot accept that fact.

Because it isn't 'a fact', it's just your warped opinion and so
classic Bradical BS.

snip drool

Cheers, T i m

On 10/02/2018 20:05, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 19:53:55 +0000, Ash Burton
wrote:

snip

Condescending nonsense,

If the cap fits ...

the people who voted leave understood very well
the issues and what was at stake,

Total and utter BS. The government themselves don't know what the
final deal is going to be *now* so how good was your crystal ball to
know what it was then!

remainers just can't accept it.

Of course not, because it simply neither makes sense nor therefore be
a true reflection of 'the will of the people' (and what democracy is
supposed to be about).

They gave everyone a bit of paper with Leave or Remain tick-boxes on
it and 'ordinary people' were supposed, amid all sorts of lies, spin
and BS make a logical and rational decision on something where few of
the real facts were known and are still unknown now ...

Do me a favour ...

Cheers, T i m

No!

On 10/02/2018 20:05, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 19:53:55 +0000, Ash Burton
wrote:

snip

Condescending nonsense,

If the cap fits ...

the people who voted leave understood very well
the issues and what was at stake,

Total and utter BS. The government themselves don't know what the
final deal is going to be *now* so how good was your crystal ball to
know what it was then!

remainers just can't accept it.

Of course not, because it simply neither makes sense nor therefore be
a true reflection of 'the will of the people' (and what democracy is
supposed to be about).

They gave everyone a bit of paper with Leave or Remain tick-boxes on
it and 'ordinary people' were supposed, amid all sorts of lies, spin
and BS make a logical and rational decision on something where few of
the real facts were known and are still unknown now ...

Do me a favour ...

Cheers, T i m

No! Do yourself a favour!

On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 10:37:38 +0000, Ash Burton
wrote:

snip

They gave everyone a bit of paper with Leave or Remain tick-boxes on
it and 'ordinary people' were supposed, amid all sorts of lies, spin
and BS make a logical and rational decision on something where few of
the real facts were known and are still unknown now ...

Do me a favour ...



No!

Thought not. ;-)

If only *one* fanatical Brexiteer (the ordinary people who voted leave
for some reasonable reason aren't fanatical Brexiteers) could actually
answer the question I would be supervised. But they can't, because
they can't, because then don't have any factual answers, just
'hunches'.

What things did *you* think were included in a vote to Leave the EU,
how many of those things do you *think* are likely to happen and what
percentage of each of those things do you *think* you are going to
actually get?

I emphasise the *think* because no one *knows* the actual answers to
those questions yet, even the 1/3rd of the electorate voted for them!

Cheers, T i m

On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 10:46:25 +0000, Ash Burton
wrote:

snip

Of course not, because it simply neither makes sense nor therefore be
a true reflection of 'the will of the people' (and what democracy is
supposed to be about).

They gave everyone a bit of paper with Leave or Remain tick-boxes on
it and 'ordinary people' were supposed, amid all sorts of lies, spin
and BS make a logical and rational decision on something where few of
the real facts were known and are still unknown now ...

Do me a favour ...


No! Do yourself a favour!

Awww, still don't have the answers to the perfectly reasonable
questions?

Poor fanatical Brexiteer. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

In article ,
Brian Reay wrote:
On 11/02/2018 00:05, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
bert wrote:
And we still had union bosses on over £100k living in council houses
subsidised by nurses and teachers.

Bless. And they were the only well off living in council houses, then?

But then the likes of you don't want anyone living in a council house to
ever do well. Goes against everything you believe.

Those who 'do well' and live in a council house, hopefully can afford to
buy.

I have zero objection to anyone being allowed to buy the council house
they live in, if and when their circumstances change. At a true market
value, and that money going towards building more.


Social Mobility etc. The left don't like Social Mobility as, once
people graft and succeed, they tend to see through the politics of the
left. Oh, there are the Claret Lefties who spout their politics, like
the pigs in Animal Farm but most people see through them.

Condescending twaddle. And just what is expected from the selfish right
wing. At one time the Tories did at least give lip service to wanting to
improve the lots of all in this country. Now it is just personal greed.



But the answer was simple. Charge those who can afford it a true economic
rate for their council house. Which is what happened. If they decide
they'd rather live somewhere else, that house is then available for
others. But the income from it, if not, can go towards building more.


If that was done, the screams of anguish would be heard on Mars.

It was done many years ago.

I support social housing etc (sadly we don't have true council housing
in most areas, if any these days). There will invariably be those who
need homes but can't afford to buy and they should have access to decent
homes etc. A decent, responsible, society should ensure such homes are
available.

We've not had that society for many a year. Hence my point.

However, but allowing those houses to be filled with people who can more
than afford to buy etc is simply an abuse of the system- unless they pay
an economic rent. I don't care what their politics are.

Be very interesting to know the percentage of council tenants who can well
afford to buy their own house. But of course it it was 0.00001% there
would still be plenty who would spew out righteous indignation and want
the whole thing changed. Ie, exactly what Thatcher did in the main many
years ago. Resulting in the existing housing mess for all. At least in
part.

--
*When chemists die, they barium.*

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

On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 17:46:34 +0000, Tim Watts
wrote:

On 10/02/18 17:26, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
On 10/02/18 17:03, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
harry wrote:
Except for migration, our population would be falling. Houses would be
standing empty. And dirt cheap. It only takes a small shortfall in
life's essentials to cause a massive price hike.

You could use all those spare houses to pile up the bodies in after our
health and care system collapses, with no immigrant workers.


Immigrant workers do not require open borders.

They work perfectly well with fully controlled borders and temporary
residency permits.

You think those who voted Brexit based on their perception there were too
many immigrant workers will buy that?

They want all immigrant workers stopped. To push up the wages in the jobs
they don't want to do, apparently.


How many people who voted for BREXIT was that? I'll wait...

And if they did, so what? A nation's interests is first and foremost in
its own citizens, if it is functioning correctly. That does not mean it
should not treat others fairly - but the priorities are clear.

I also dispute any claim that it will lead to the NHS failing, or fruit
picking collapsing or any other wild claims.

Well, we already losing people owning to Brexit.

The market will have to adapt and pay what it needs to pay and if
there's shortfall in certain skilled areas, work permits and temporary
residency and suitable wages can be arranged to attract foreign nationals.

The market isn't adapting ATM. Immigrants want stability as well as
good pay and the former is in doubt.

Longer term, with respect to the medical profession, we will simply have
to attract more of our citizens towards training for the medical profession.

I agree. However this country is moving in the opposite direction.
Getting medical training has become probhibitively expensive for most.
And also other professional training is too expensive.

We've been riding on this globalist dream of cheap foreign labour[1] for
too long.

[1] If a country has an economy where £1 has a spending power of £4 over
there, it's highly attractive for that national to come and do a stint
here, live cheap for a few years, then go home with a decent pot of
cash. Good for him - and fair game if that's what the rules say.

But at the same time, an employer here is hardly going to offer the wage
required to get a Brit in, if he can pay less and still have his arm
bitten off by a foreign worker.

But this doesn't happen. Many vacancies cannot be filled by
"natives".


--
insert witty sig here

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:


[Snip]

Be very interesting to know the percentage of council tenants who can
well afford to buy their own house. But of course it it was 0.00001%
there would still be plenty who would spew out righteous indignation and
want the whole thing changed. Ie, exactly what Thatcher did in the main
many years ago. Resulting in the existing housing mess for all. At least
in part.

A housing manager in Kent said to at the time: "we've got left with the
rubbish tenants"

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On 11/02/2018 00:05, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
bert wrote:
And we still had union bosses on over £100k living in council houses
subsidised by nurses and teachers.

Bless. And they were the only well off living in council houses, then?

But then the likes of you don't want anyone living in a council house to
ever do well. Goes against everything you believe.

But the answer was simple. Charge those who can afford it a true economic
rate for their council house. Which is what happened. If they decide
they'd rather live somewhere else, that house is then available for
others. But the income from it, if not, can go towards building more.


There was a lot of protesting when maggie wanted to have council houses
rented at proper rates.
It didn't affect those on benefits but labour party and unions were dead
against it.
They still aren't as high as they should be now.