On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 18:09:42 +0000, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp
wrote:

snip

I agree totally, I would add though that there is another common
approach by employers in the UK, that is a reluctance to train workers
because they will then go to join a competitor, thus wasting the
investment.

That was mentioned when I was IT training (for 7 years, CNI, MCT,
A+CT) but most employers of the delegates we saw seemed to view it
from the other direction ... eg, if they make sure they train their
share then that means there will be plenty of trained people going
around?

The offer of training was also often used as a 'sweetener to keep
staff in lieu of increasing their wages (because the increased skills
and qualifications were 'theirs' and so also in their interests etc).

Then the financial bubble burst and training was seen as an expensive
luxury (AFA a company keeping it's head above water) and the existing
staff unlikely to push for pay rises or training for fear of losing
their jobs.

I'm not sure if that situation has recovered yet?

Cheers, T i m

In article ,
Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
I agree totally, I would add though that there is another common
approach by employers in the UK, that is a reluctance to train workers
because they will then go to join a competitor, thus wasting the
investment.

If they go to a competitor, the firm needs to look at its pay and
conditions of service, etc.

--
*Horn broken. - Watch for finger.

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

On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 18:47:36 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
I agree totally, I would add though that there is another common
approach by employers in the UK, that is a reluctance to train workers
because they will then go to join a competitor, thus wasting the
investment.

If they go to a competitor, the firm needs to look at its pay and
conditions of service, etc.

That's what you would assume, but a large number of employers just go
down the dont train route.

The last company I worked for that didn't take that approach was
American.

Mind you it was the gas industry and mistakes would inpinge on the
local topography slightly :-)

Funny really, my last training course was going to be French, I had a
rethink though after visiting a depot at Sunderland. :-)

AB

On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 09:49:07 -0800, tabbypurr wrote:

There's no eceonomic win either way, if we stay we get taken to the
cleaners and regulated by those not looking out for our interests at
all, if we leave we take a hit too, but it's one we're free to recover
from.

I suspect we'd be only very *slightly* worse off for a period of about 2
years, after which we'll catch back up and start to leave the remains of
the bloc in long and drawn out terminal decline.




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

On 11/02/2018 14:56, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
Is the current vogue for every young person gaining a meja degree
actually doing any good for the country?

No, In my view a lot of the people coming out of Uni with degree's are
filling jobs that have not traditionally required that level of
qualification.

Even more to the point, traditional skills like plumbing, electrics
mechanics etc that were once acquired via an apprenticeship seem to be
looked down upon by many. Resulting in those skills having to be imported
from other countries where blue collar jobs are still desired.

You could also blame industry. Why waste profits training staff when you
can get the taxpayer to do it? No point in planning for the future, when
there are present day shareholders to be satisfied.

I don't blame industry at all.

Are you saying the employee should be tied to the company until such
point he has paid all the training cost back?

Training is a personal / government responsibility.

On 11/02/2018 12:47, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 12:04:53 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

snip

I have asked and none of them have come up with any facts, only
fantasy and BS. Wanna give it a go?

That depends on if you're asking real questions or point scoring.

Given I don't have a dog in this fight, I have only / ever been
interested in the facts mate. In fact, it's the whole crux of my main
discussion. However, I don't count someone's 'hunches' or opinion,
hopes and desires as facts. So, if that doesn't completely tie your
hands, I would really like an answer please (even if it's only one
particular Brexiteers version of it).

For someone who claims not to have a dog in this fight, you make it look
so..


snip

And you think that's what your fellow fanatical Brexiteers 'voted for'
do you? Or maybe you all voted for something different so it will be
interesting to see how well they manage to placate that range.

I wouldn't have called myself fanatical, 99.9% of Brexiters.

But I'm not sure you would be in a position to judge that.

Maybe not. I have my reasons for supporting Brexit and have given them
here numerous times. I'm no so fanatical I have joined in or paid any
subscription to further Brexit.

Unlike many
here I have never started a topic on Brexit.

Fair enough. However (devils advocate) that may just mean you are more
respectful of the group than not a fanatical Brexiteer.

Perhaps, it is also a time thing.

Perhaps it's more a loser Remoaner thing.

'Remoaner', another classic Brexiteer comment. If I called you a
Brexsh1teer than your use of 'Remoaner' might be considered
reasonable.

Fair enough, but I see no need for Brexiters to be called thick or any
other negative quantity. Many remainers come out as poor losers. Many
remainers have embraced the will of the British people and moved on. My
reference to Remoaners are to those who haven't moved forward and would
with to thwart Brexit against the will of the electorate.

I note you snipped that for every 100 remain votes there were 108 Brexit
votes.

And what do you think the 'limited movement of labour' is going to do?
It's foxes and rabbits out there mate, if there are no jobs then there
won't be people 'migrating (not immigrating note) to fill them.

Then the laws of supply and demand take over.

Yes, I just said that ...

And therefore we can expect an increase in wages.

Its a Remoaner thing to
conveniently deny this.

They don't and I just suggested it.

They most certainly do even if you don't. I am talking of Remoaners
here, as described above.

Brilliant planning ... not!

I would say it was a lack of planning from politicians,

Well duh, nothing to do with the EU then?

Not really. The UK could have stopped the expansion of the EU with
developing Eastern European countries and agreeing to immediate free
movement of labour.

Quite. Something we certainly can't influence when *outside* the EU.

I can assure you it is easier to influence immigration into the UK when
outside the EU.

to **** off the
country and make false promises of house building and immigration.

So it's conspiracy theories now ... or can you offer any proof for
that?

What is the purpose of David Cameron promising to keep immigration to
30,000 or so and in reality 300,000 per year come here to work.

Pass. I'm not gullible enough to believe *any* of their promises (and
why I couldn't vote in the EU referendum).

Precisely, and as a result he got a blooded nose.

What
did David Cameron say about desired immigration levels?

No idea, I don't listen to any of their BS and empty promises.

Perhaps you should and be enlightened.

By listening to BS?

You are now showing your Remoan credentials, where any reason for
supporting Brexit has to be BS.

That is another reason for
Brexit. An end to the BS.

Yeah, that seems to make sense (not).

It might have helped if the EU didn't give him a bloody nose before the
referendum.

Did they? Or is it likely to be no different to what we could end up
with after the 'negotiations'?

You are entitled to your opinion, misguided or otherwise.

It was a question mate. Try to keep up. Fancy actually answering it
this time though?

As you have said before any reason I give will be regarded by you as BS.

DC asked for very few things. The most crucial was immigration:
https://www.ft.com/content/3901dd48-...c-36b487ebd80a

All I can imagine is you (Fanatic Brexiteers) are just on a wind-up
here, you really can't be serious?

That shows how clueless you are.

Well, me and the other 2/3rds of the electorate apparently ...

Its the ones who vote that count, best get used to it.

Get used to your version of democracy and ignoring the actual 'will of
the people' you mean?

My version is simple I note you snipped my post that highlighted for
every 100 remain votes there were 108 Brexit votes.

You go home and say to your family ... Hands up who wants to go on
holiday to Spain this year ... and only 1 of the three of you put your
hands up, do you all then go on holiday to Spain?

I know if it were you posing the question you would, if it were me
there would be a discussion about alternatives that at least 2/3rd of
us might agree on.

You seem to misunderstand democracy, it seems a loser Remoaner thing.

If 108 say Spain, and 100 say no to Spain, then the ones who don't
express their preference had their chance either way. One assumes by the
very nature of democracy they simple didn't care. Either way their
numbers simply don't count.

I assume you haven't worked for a while

I'm not sure what that's got to do with us leaving the EU?

A great deal, it means you don't understand the consequence of
immigration of wages.

Really? You think that just because I've stopped working I no longer
understand anything about working? That I don't have children, friends
or family that are working. Every time you come out with anything like
this as an attempt to diminish someone else's opinion or understanding
of something you further demonstrate you may well be a left brainer
and so not to be trusted with any decisions involving human beings
that are complex. And that's not an insult / slur, it's an
observation.

Perhaps you do understand but in denial of the consequence of
immigration of wages, or rather it wasn't so.

and have a house that has accumulated in value from housing demand.

Irrelevant.

Its very relevant. Its another reason why people voted Brexit.

Cite?

Do you deny the current housing shortage hasn't had an effect on the
Brexit vote?

Why are
you in denial why so many voted for Brexit.

I am fully aware of the reasons why people voted either way but most
of them can be proven to be bogus. I don't know (personally) of a
single person who voted for Brexit because of house prices.

Perhaps its so obvious. You now know of one. If you had actually asked
the question, "did the increase in housing demand and house prices
affect your vote", you might have got the odd 'yes'.

You are doing very nicely,

By living in the house I bought 40 years ago?

Precisely. Many will never be able to own a house for so long. When was
the last time you knew a NQT purchase their house in the first year
after qualifying?

and those trying to get on the housing ladder aren't.

And that has been the same long before any supposed impact because of
the EU. Please try to stick to facts.

The facts are simple, just look at house-price earnings ratios of the
past few decades.

When was the last time you knew a NQT purchase their house in the first
year after qualifying?

Houses have always accumulated in value and I can't ever
remember a time when there were loads standing empty anywhere ... till
now of course.

They have accumulated in value in relation to wages. The past 10 years
has seen unprecedented house-price wage ratio.

See above. If you can sell every house you build, why aren't all the
developers jumping on the bandwagon?

Governments and local authorities make builder jump through hoops, plus
there are substantial local taxes to pay for infrastructure.

http://metro.co.uk/2018/02/03/amazin...ust-1-7283928/

http://www.emptyhomes.com/

"Latest Government data suggests that there are over 200,000 homes
that have been empty for over six months."

That might take the edge off at least?

I have no problem in the likes of business rates and other inducements
for businesses to move to these areas. However most transport subsidies
tend to be centred on a few cities and these areas are in a downward spiral.

But not everone works, or needs to travel to work?

I also have no problems with escalating rates for empty houses.

So why didn't we try that first before throwing the baby out with the
bath water?

Because no party showed the will to sort out the housing problem. As you
said earlier we should never believe politicians, hence Brexit.

But hey, many of the migrant workers who have come here to work , pay
taxes and for our pensions may well choose to migrate home again and
leave the older immigrants and their families who have come here
though our existing immigration and customs controls and may not be so
keen / able to work to take over? Or not.

And create the need for in-work benefits and top up Housing Benefits.

Quite. Immigration we have and have had *full control* over since the
beginning?

Certainly more control. When was the last time the UK population swelled
by over 3 million in 10 years?

On 11/02/2018 12:52, dennis@home wrote:
On 11/02/2018 12:04, Fredxx wrote:


I wouldn't have called myself fanatical, 99.9% of Brexiters. Unlike
many here I have never started a topic on Brexit.

But you do insist on repeating the brexit lies on every thread.

What lies?

On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 22:23:17 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

On 11/02/2018 14:56, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
Is the current vogue for every young person gaining a meja degree
actually doing any good for the country?

No, In my view a lot of the people coming out of Uni with degree's are
filling jobs that have not traditionally required that level of
qualification.

Even more to the point, traditional skills like plumbing, electrics
mechanics etc that were once acquired via an apprenticeship seem to be
looked down upon by many. Resulting in those skills having to be imported
from other countries where blue collar jobs are still desired.

You could also blame industry. Why waste profits training staff when you
can get the taxpayer to do it? No point in planning for the future, when
there are present day shareholders to be satisfied.

I don't blame industry at all.

Are you saying the employee should be tied to the company until such
point he has paid all the training cost back?

Training is a personal / government responsibility.

Far from it, but I think it's a pity employers don't see it as a
direct advantage to the company.


Training is a personal responsibility, I paid for my 17th edition
course and exam.

It helps the company I work for, but I will not get the cost refunded.
The exam was at a weekend in my own time, and I will get not one penny
more for passing.

Not many employees can spare the funds or adjust their hours to do
this.

Government should be more involved, no doubt about it. It wont happen
though.

Not sure how accurate it was, but I was told that my original heavily
state sponsored college education was brought about because of the
unions.


AB

In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
You could also blame industry. Why waste profits training staff when
you can get the taxpayer to do it? No point in planning for the
future, when there are present day shareholders to be satisfied.

I don't blame industry at all.

Are you saying the employee should be tied to the company until such
point he has paid all the training cost back?

Training is a personal / government responsibility.

Which is why we have so many leaving uni qualified for nothing of use at
all.

--
*Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial

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

On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 22:54:47 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

On 11/02/2018 12:47, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 12:04:53 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

snip

I have asked and none of them have come up with any facts, only
fantasy and BS. Wanna give it a go?

That depends on if you're asking real questions or point scoring.

Given I don't have a dog in this fight, I have only / ever been
interested in the facts mate. In fact, it's the whole crux of my main
discussion. However, I don't count someone's 'hunches' or opinion,
hopes and desires as facts. So, if that doesn't completely tie your
hands, I would really like an answer please (even if it's only one
particular Brexiteers version of it).

For someone who claims not to have a dog in this fight, you make it look
so..

Of course, to you. Anyone with an open mind and able to see things
objectively would see it for what it is.


snip

And you think that's what your fellow fanatical Brexiteers 'voted for'
do you? Or maybe you all voted for something different so it will be
interesting to see how well they manage to placate that range.

I wouldn't have called myself fanatical, 99.9% of Brexiters.

But I'm not sure you would be in a position to judge that.

Maybe not. I have my reasons for supporting Brexit and have given them
here numerous times.

Ok.

I'm no so fanatical I have joined in or paid any
subscription to further Brexit.

I'm afraid that isn't the only sign of a fanatical Brexiteer. Other
examples would be the complete dismissal of anyone who doesn't think
your way, so 2/3rds of the electorate in this case.

Or the complete inability to present any facts that support your
'hunch' that the UK *will* be better off outside the EU.

Or you ability to answer the question of 'what things you think you
voted for in the referendum do you believe to come to pass and of
those things that do, what percentage strength will they be?

Look, I realise you don't *actually* have any answers to those
questions, but it would be interesting to even see how your 'hunches'
work out in time.

Unlike many
here I have never started a topic on Brexit.

Fair enough. However (devils advocate) that may just mean you are more
respectful of the group than not a fanatical Brexiteer.

Perhaps, it is also a time thing.

Ok.

Perhaps it's more a loser Remoaner thing.

'Remoaner', another classic Brexiteer comment. If I called you a
Brexsh1teer than your use of 'Remoaner' might be considered
reasonable.

Fair enough, but I see no need for Brexiters to be called thick or any
other negative quantity.

Maybe not ... however, if someone keep stating their hunches as if
they are fact, what is any outside supposed to make of that?

Many remainers come out as poor losers.

I'm sure they do (to you) and I'm sure many are. However, maybe many
of them also just want what's best for the UK and don't see any sign
of it in anything anyone is saying? And trust me, we are desperately
looking for some as it's going to affect is all. ;-(

Many
remainers have embraced the will of the British people and moved on.

Why is it you seem totally unable (left brainer?), or unwilling
(stubborn Brexiteer) to see that *ONLY* 1/3rd of the electorate voting
*FOR CHANGE* is not, the 'will of the people'?

Yes, I know that in your world, 52% voted leave and only 48% voted
remain so 'leave won' but do you not remember that even Farage stated
that he wouldn't count it a remain win if they didn't get 2/3rds of
the votes? Are you happy for such suggestions to be raised but not
applied fairly to both sides (and that's just the start of the long
list).

My
reference to Remoaners are to those who haven't moved forward and would
with to thwart Brexit against the will of the electorate.

See above. Try to consider that the people who voted Leave and many
of those who couldn't vote at all simply weren't / aren't convinced
that the whole thing was sufficiently well planned, well thought out
to risk doing it under those circumstances?

*Maybe* once the final deal is worked out, you would get your 2/3rds
to Leave or if the deal looks bad enough, you would get 2/3rds to
remain. And if that's what 'the people' think, *that* would be real
democracy in action.

What we have at the moment looks to many reasonable people like you
(Brexiteers) have found a fiver that just dropped out of an old lady's
handbag and you have stuck it in your pocket and are hoping no one has
noticed.

If you were so sure that leaving is the right thing to do *and* still
the will of the people, what have you got to fear by asking the
electorate again, now they have more facts to base their decision on?

I note you snipped that for every 100 remain votes there were 108 Brexit
votes.

Irrelevant mate, see above (and this applies either way round).

And what do you think the 'limited movement of labour' is going to do?
It's foxes and rabbits out there mate, if there are no jobs then there
won't be people 'migrating (not immigrating note) to fill them.

Then the laws of supply and demand take over.

Yes, I just said that ...

And therefore we can expect an increase in wages.

Yes, so you keep saying (but not proving / justifying) and the full
justification would take several pages and with respect, *way* outside
your comprehension. You have a 'hunch' that you understand enough to
make an educated decision. I know you don't ... because no one does
yet.

Its a Remoaner thing to
conveniently deny this.

They don't and I just suggested it.

They most certainly do even if you don't.

Ok.

I am talking of Remoaners
here, as described above.

And hopefully I've outlined their reticence and resistance to what
they see as no more than 'hunches' (that at least you were honest to
admit) and unlike you, don't want to gamble their houses on such vague
/ low odds.

Brilliant planning ... not!

I would say it was a lack of planning from politicians,

Well duh, nothing to do with the EU then?

Not really. The UK could have stopped the expansion of the EU with
developing Eastern European countries and agreeing to immediate free
movement of labour.

Quite. Something we certainly can't influence when *outside* the EU.

I can assure you it is easier to influence immigration into the UK when
outside the EU.

Maybe, but immigration is not *the* issue, it's an issue to some and
it's a solution to / for many.

to **** off the
country and make false promises of house building and immigration.

So it's conspiracy theories now ... or can you offer any proof for
that?

What is the purpose of David Cameron promising to keep immigration to
30,000 or so and in reality 300,000 per year come here to work.

Pass. I'm not gullible enough to believe *any* of their promises (and
why I couldn't vote in the EU referendum).

Precisely, and as a result he got a blooded nose.

Like I said, I'm not into politics, only the politics of democracy and
seeing 'real' democracy in action. Come up with some fully reasoned
and unequivocal *facts* to support your 'hunch' that we will all be
better off outside the EU and I'll give you my full support.

What
did David Cameron say about desired immigration levels?

No idea, I don't listen to any of their BS and empty promises.

Perhaps you should and be enlightened.

By listening to BS?

You are now showing your Remoan credentials, where any reason for
supporting Brexit has to be BS.

No, your vague and pointless comments were BS. You have already stated
that Cameron 'got a bloody nose' so whatever he was trying to do was
obviously not appreciated eh?

Like I said, come up with *real* reasons and justifications that are
based on facts not hunches and if I consider them good and valid (in
the bigger picture) then you will have my full support. Feck, if you
can get me on the Leavers side then you can probably get enough of the
electorate onside also to *actually* make leaving the 'will of the
people. Why wouldn't it?

snip

It was a question mate. Try to keep up. Fancy actually answering it
this time though?

As you have said before any reason I give will be regarded by you as BS.

Nice weasel words. ;-(

Cummon, you must be pretty sure, you must have looked into it all and
therefore you must have a whole load of facts you could give us to
support your beliefs?

DC asked for very few things. The most crucial was immigration:
https://www.ft.com/content/3901dd48-...c-36b487ebd80a

Subscription only? ;-(

But you shouldn't need to quote anyone else, you are the one who is
sure leaving to be the right thing and so you personally must have a
bunch of *facts* to support your feelings, shirley? I mean, you come
across as a reasonable and inelegant person, it really can't be that
difficult can it ... assuming you do actually have some facts that is?

snip

Get used to your version of democracy and ignoring the actual 'will of
the people' you mean?

My version is simple I note you snipped my post that highlighted for
every 100 remain votes there were 108 Brexit votes.

Because it's just you repeating that paragraph from the Brexiteers
equivalent of 'The Watchtower', it doesn't actually change the *fact*
that only 1/3rd of the electorate voted *for change*. It isn't up to
the incumbent to for to keep it the same (I know that's how they made
it on the day, I'm saying that is was bogus).

You go home and say to your family ... Hands up who wants to go on
holiday to Spain this year ... and only 1 of the three of you put your
hands up, do you all then go on holiday to Spain?

I know if it were you posing the question you would, if it were me
there would be a discussion about alternatives that at least 2/3rd of
us might agree on.

You seem to misunderstand democracy, it seems a loser Remoaner thing.

See above.

If 108 say Spain, and 100 say no to Spain,

It's Spain or nothing, why do you need to count those who don't vote
yes?

then the ones who don't
express their preference had their chance either way.

Quite, but ignoring their feelings and opinions isn't 'democracy' is
it? Especially when they represent the majority?

One assumes by the
very nature of democracy they simple didn't care.

Yes and we know what assumption makes of us?

Either way their
numbers simply don't count.

Yes, I know, in your very warped use of the word 'democracy'. FFS, the
referendum was never supposed to be used for such things or held to be
binding ... they just twisted it to be like that.

I assume you haven't worked for a while

I'm not sure what that's got to do with us leaving the EU?

A great deal, it means you don't understand the consequence of
immigration of wages.

Really? You think that just because I've stopped working I no longer
understand anything about working? That I don't have children, friends
or family that are working. Every time you come out with anything like
this as an attempt to diminish someone else's opinion or understanding
of something you further demonstrate you may well be a left brainer
and so not to be trusted with any decisions involving human beings
that are complex. And that's not an insult / slur, it's an
observation.

Perhaps you do understand but in denial of the consequence of
immigration of wages, or rather it wasn't so.

Then state some facts that prove your suggestion. Prove it's not just
another of your 'hunches'?

and have a house that has accumulated in value from housing demand.

Irrelevant.

Its very relevant. Its another reason why people voted Brexit.

Cite?

Do you deny the current housing shortage hasn't had an effect on the
Brexit vote?

No, of course not, but so did the '£350M/week could go to the NHS
instead' and we know that to be irrelevant as well. Ok, what if all
the immigrants and migrants (working here temporarily) went home ...
and we have a nice house for everyone ... who is going to be manning
the hospitals, the shops, the transport system? Where do you think we
can get those people from and do you expect them all to commute back
to their own countries every night?

So, we are back in the situation where there are simply not enough
houses being built to support the population required to sustain us
all, especially as we are all living longer.

Why are
you in denial why so many voted for Brexit.

I am fully aware of the reasons why people voted either way but most
of them can be proven to be bogus. I don't know (personally) of a
single person who voted for Brexit because of house prices.

Perhaps its so obvious. You now know of one. If you had actually asked
the question, "did the increase in housing demand and house prices
affect your vote", you might have got the odd 'yes'.

I'm sure I would ... but most people I know have little interest in
the who farce. They had little interest in it at the time and have
little interest in it now. What's the point till any of us know what
the final deal will be and then they could be an uprising if it looks
like we *will* all be much worse off and for a long time.


You are doing very nicely,

By living in the house I bought 40 years ago?

Precisely. Many will never be able to own a house for so long.

That was already happening when I bought mine.

When was
the last time you knew a NQT purchase their house in the first year
after qualifying?

Pass. But for you to attribute that to the EU and it not just down to
a lack on investment in housing by the government and private
developers will require you to make a very good case. Very few but
those on a bandwagon are going to simply accept your hunch. ;-(

and those trying to get on the housing ladder aren't.

And that has been the same long before any supposed impact because of
the EU. Please try to stick to facts.

The facts are simple, just look at house-price earnings ratios of the
past few decades.

See above.

When was the last time you knew a NQT purchase their house in the first
year after qualifying?

See above.

Houses have always accumulated in value and I can't ever
remember a time when there were loads standing empty anywhere ... till
now of course.

They have accumulated in value in relation to wages. The past 10 years
has seen unprecedented house-price wage ratio.

See above. If you can sell every house you build, why aren't all the
developers jumping on the bandwagon?

Governments and local authorities make builder jump through hoops, plus
there are substantial local taxes to pay for infrastructure.

So what has that got to do with the EU?

snip

I also have no problems with escalating rates for empty houses.

So why didn't we try that first before throwing the baby out with the
bath water?

Because no party showed the will to sort out the housing problem.

Then we needed to create a new party and vote them in?

said earlier we should never believe politicians, hence Brexit.

Quite. Some of us have never believed them. ;-)

But hey, many of the migrant workers who have come here to work , pay
taxes and for our pensions may well choose to migrate home again and
leave the older immigrants and their families who have come here
though our existing immigration and customs controls and may not be so
keen / able to work to take over? Or not.

And create the need for in-work benefits and top up Housing Benefits.

Quite. Immigration we have and have had *full control* over since the
beginning?

Certainly more control. When was the last time the UK population swelled
by over 3 million in 10 years?

When was the last time we were bombing the sh1t out of other countries
and making their population homeless?

The last thing we in the UK / EU need right now is any instability,
given the whole world is upside down.

And we weren't actually doing that bad ... 4th highest GDP, pretty low
unemployment, reasonable standard of living for those in work and no
starvation for those who weren't. Whilst it may not have been perfect,
I can't see it getting worse helping anyone with anything.

Cheers, T i m

On Sunday, 11 February 2018 22:54:50 UTC, Fredxx wrote:
On 11/02/2018 12:47, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 12:04:53 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

snip

I have asked and none of them have come up with any facts, only
fantasy and BS. Wanna give it a go?

That depends on if you're asking real questions or point scoring.

Given I don't have a dog in this fight, I have only / ever been
interested in the facts mate. In fact, it's the whole crux of my main
discussion. However, I don't count someone's 'hunches' or opinion,
hopes and desires as facts. So, if that doesn't completely tie your
hands, I would really like an answer please (even if it's only one
particular Brexiteers version of it).

For someone who claims not to have a dog in this fight, you make it look
so..


snip

And you think that's what your fellow fanatical Brexiteers 'voted for'
do you? Or maybe you all voted for something different so it will be
interesting to see how well they manage to placate that range.

I wouldn't have called myself fanatical, 99.9% of Brexiters.

But I'm not sure you would be in a position to judge that.

Maybe not. I have my reasons for supporting Brexit and have given them
here numerous times. I'm no so fanatical I have joined in or paid any
subscription to further Brexit.

Unlike many
here I have never started a topic on Brexit.

Fair enough. However (devils advocate) that may just mean you are more
respectful of the group than not a fanatical Brexiteer.

Perhaps, it is also a time thing.

Perhaps it's more a loser Remoaner thing.

'Remoaner', another classic Brexiteer comment. If I called you a
Brexsh1teer than your use of 'Remoaner' might be considered
reasonable.

Fair enough, but I see no need for Brexiters to be called thick or any
other negative quantity. Many remainers come out as poor losers. Many
remainers have embraced the will of the British people and moved on. My
reference to Remoaners are to those who haven't moved forward and would
with to thwart Brexit against the will of the electorate.

I note you snipped that for every 100 remain votes there were 108 Brexit
votes.

And what do you think the 'limited movement of labour' is going to do?
It's foxes and rabbits out there mate, if there are no jobs then there
won't be people 'migrating (not immigrating note) to fill them.

Then the laws of supply and demand take over.

Yes, I just said that ...

And therefore we can expect an increase in wages.

Its a Remoaner thing to
conveniently deny this.

They don't and I just suggested it.

They most certainly do even if you don't. I am talking of Remoaners
here, as described above.

Brilliant planning ... not!

I would say it was a lack of planning from politicians,

Well duh, nothing to do with the EU then?

Not really. The UK could have stopped the expansion of the EU with
developing Eastern European countries and agreeing to immediate free
movement of labour.

Quite. Something we certainly can't influence when *outside* the EU.

I can assure you it is easier to influence immigration into the UK when
outside the EU.

to **** off the
country and make false promises of house building and immigration.

So it's conspiracy theories now ... or can you offer any proof for
that?

What is the purpose of David Cameron promising to keep immigration to
30,000 or so and in reality 300,000 per year come here to work.

Pass. I'm not gullible enough to believe *any* of their promises (and
why I couldn't vote in the EU referendum).

Precisely, and as a result he got a blooded nose.

What
did David Cameron say about desired immigration levels?

No idea, I don't listen to any of their BS and empty promises.

Perhaps you should and be enlightened.

By listening to BS?

You are now showing your Remoan credentials, where any reason for
supporting Brexit has to be BS.

That is another reason for
Brexit. An end to the BS.

Yeah, that seems to make sense (not).

It might have helped if the EU didn't give him a bloody nose before the
referendum.

Did they? Or is it likely to be no different to what we could end up
with after the 'negotiations'?

You are entitled to your opinion, misguided or otherwise.

It was a question mate. Try to keep up. Fancy actually answering it
this time though?

As you have said before any reason I give will be regarded by you as BS.

DC asked for very few things. The most crucial was immigration:
https://www.ft.com/content/3901dd48-...c-36b487ebd80a

All I can imagine is you (Fanatic Brexiteers) are just on a wind-up
here, you really can't be serious?

That shows how clueless you are.

Well, me and the other 2/3rds of the electorate apparently ...

Its the ones who vote that count, best get used to it.

Get used to your version of democracy and ignoring the actual 'will of
the people' you mean?

My version is simple I note you snipped my post that highlighted for
every 100 remain votes there were 108 Brexit votes.

You go home and say to your family ... Hands up who wants to go on
holiday to Spain this year ... and only 1 of the three of you put your
hands up, do you all then go on holiday to Spain?

I know if it were you posing the question you would, if it were me
there would be a discussion about alternatives that at least 2/3rd of
us might agree on.

You seem to misunderstand democracy, it seems a loser Remoaner thing.

If 108 say Spain, and 100 say no to Spain, then the ones who don't
express their preference had their chance either way. One assumes by the
very nature of democracy they simple didn't care. Either way their
numbers simply don't count.

I assume you haven't worked for a while

I'm not sure what that's got to do with us leaving the EU?

A great deal, it means you don't understand the consequence of
immigration of wages.

Really? You think that just because I've stopped working I no longer
understand anything about working? That I don't have children, friends
or family that are working. Every time you come out with anything like
this as an attempt to diminish someone else's opinion or understanding
of something you further demonstrate you may well be a left brainer
and so not to be trusted with any decisions involving human beings
that are complex. And that's not an insult / slur, it's an
observation.

Perhaps you do understand but in denial of the consequence of
immigration of wages, or rather it wasn't so.

and have a house that has accumulated in value from housing demand.

Irrelevant.

Its very relevant. Its another reason why people voted Brexit.

Cite?

Do you deny the current housing shortage hasn't had an effect on the
Brexit vote?

Why are
you in denial why so many voted for Brexit.

I am fully aware of the reasons why people voted either way but most
of them can be proven to be bogus. I don't know (personally) of a
single person who voted for Brexit because of house prices.

Perhaps its so obvious. You now know of one. If you had actually asked
the question, "did the increase in housing demand and house prices
affect your vote", you might have got the odd 'yes'.

You are doing very nicely,

By living in the house I bought 40 years ago?

Precisely. Many will never be able to own a house for so long. When was
the last time you knew a NQT purchase their house in the first year
after qualifying?

and those trying to get on the housing ladder aren't.

And that has been the same long before any supposed impact because of
the EU. Please try to stick to facts.

The facts are simple, just look at house-price earnings ratios of the
past few decades.

When was the last time you knew a NQT purchase their house in the first
year after qualifying?

Houses have always accumulated in value and I can't ever
remember a time when there were loads standing empty anywhere ... till
now of course.

They have accumulated in value in relation to wages. The past 10 years
has seen unprecedented house-price wage ratio.

See above. If you can sell every house you build, why aren't all the
developers jumping on the bandwagon?

Governments and local authorities make builder jump through hoops, plus
there are substantial local taxes to pay for infrastructure.

http://metro.co.uk/2018/02/03/amazin...ust-1-7283928/

http://www.emptyhomes.com/

"Latest Government data suggests that there are over 200,000 homes
that have been empty for over six months."

That might take the edge off at least?

I have no problem in the likes of business rates and other inducements
for businesses to move to these areas. However most transport subsidies
tend to be centred on a few cities and these areas are in a downward spiral.

But not everone works, or needs to travel to work?

I also have no problems with escalating rates for empty houses.

So why didn't we try that first before throwing the baby out with the
bath water?

Because no party showed the will to sort out the housing problem. As you
said earlier we should never believe politicians, hence Brexit.

But hey, many of the migrant workers who have come here to work , pay
taxes and for our pensions may well choose to migrate home again and
leave the older immigrants and their families who have come here
though our existing immigration and customs controls and may not be so
keen / able to work to take over? Or not.

And create the need for in-work benefits and top up Housing Benefits.

Quite. Immigration we have and have had *full control* over since the
beginning?

Certainly more control. When was the last time the UK population swelled
by over 3 million in 10 years?

It's optimistic to debate with t i m, he does not require reason. That has been made quite clear.

On 11/02/18 21:27, Cursitor Doom wrote:
I suspect we'd be only very*slightly* worse off for a period of about 2
years, after which we'll catch back up and start to leave the remains of
the bloc in long and drawn out terminal decline.


The UK is big enough to impact the EU massively by leaving.

What happens to the EU now is more in doubt than what happens to the UK,
and we will never know what might have haqpned if the vote had gone the
other way.

The world is a complicated place (except in the minds of remoaners), and
everybody (except remoaners of course) knows that no decisions in real
life are made in the face of absolute certainty.

Brexit will be waht we make of it. The outcomes are not guranteed and
far from certain.

A corbyn government wouyld probably destroy Britain.

A Rees Mogg one might be the start of a golden era of common sense.





--
"The great thing about Glasgow is that if there's a nuclear attack it'll
look exactly the same afterwards."

Billy Connolly

On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 20:09:41 -0800 (PST), wrote:



It's optimistic to debate with t i m, he does not require reason. That has been made quite clear.

1) FFS mate, learn to snip.

2) Just because you are incapable of doing something, doesn't mean
others aren't.

3) The *very thing* I require in any discussion is reason. What I
don't want is hunches, blind / blinkered optimism or someone thinking
that if they shout something at me, that makes it right.

4) I share my opinions with at least 1/3rd of the electorate who for
some reason or another, completely disagree with you.

5) Thanks for playing.

Cheers, T i m

On Monday, 12 February 2018 10:28:58 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 20:09:41 -0800 (PST), tabbypurr wrote:

It's optimistic to debate with t i m, he does not require reason. That has been made quite clear.

1) FFS mate, learn to snip.

2) Just because you are incapable of doing something, doesn't mean
others aren't.

3) The *very thing* I require in any discussion is reason. What I

then relearn the basics of it. You've completely lost it on the EU question. No, it's not worth discussing, as your comments show yet again.

On Saturday, 10 February 2018 21:26:56 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 21:14:04 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

On 08/02/2018 21:41, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
Once again the idiots advertise their complete ignorance of how the
single market works.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/poli...-a3762021.html

When Britain becomes a pathway for every bit of substandard crud the
US wants to throw at us, what right has the rest of the EU to refuse
it??


Well Davis, I don't want the garbage, so I don't blame the rest of
Europe one bit!!

You're a typical bad loser Remoaner.

Your type is why so many voted for Brexit.

By the 'so many' you actually mean the 4% who specifically voted for
Brexit? A landslide result if there ever wasn't one.

I see you're still having problems counting.
17,410,742 voted to leave which was 51.89% of those that voted.



The 1/3rd of the electorate who voted for something pretty well
unknown.

No that was the invalid votes by peolpe that drew penisies on the paper or couldn;t work out whther or not tpo put a tick, cross or take a dump were about 0.08%


now where dis you get the 4% from ?



All I can imagine

stop imagining and look at the actual votes cast.

On Saturday, 10 February 2018 22:34:10 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 21:36:06 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

snip

By the 'so many' you actually mean the 4% who specifically voted for
Brexit? A landslide result if there ever wasn't one.

8% more voted for Brexit than remain.

Yeah, 52 over 48, that's 8 alright.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/e...rendum/results

Yes take a good look at the results and 0.0% voted NOT to have brexit.

See how easy it is to distort the figures to show what you want.
But as you see from the actual results they are what they are.
But you seem to have problems counting.
Yes 4% more voted to leave than any other option.
The next closest was you and the penis artists at 0.08%.



That ended in a modest majority, perhaps you should be asking why they
voted Brexit. Calling them academically challenged (like Tory voters)
shows you don't want to know.

I have asked and none of them have come up with any facts, only
fantasy and BS. Wanna give it a go?

You mean you didn't understand, so what's new you didn't even understand the ballott paper options.





So it's conspiracy theories now ... or can you offer any proof for
that?

What
did David Cameron say about desired immigration levels?

No idea, I don't listen to any of their BS and empty promises.

Exactly which is why a lot of voters got sick of the excuses.



All I can imagine is you (Fanatic Brexiteers) are just on a wind-up
here, you really can't be serious?

That shows how clueless you are.

Well, me and the other 2/3rds of the electorate apparently ...

you weren't in the so called 2/3rd you are in the same group as the penis drawers or 2/25th




I assume you haven't worked for a while

I'm not sure what that's got to do with us leaving the EU?

I'd say everything, as it's mostly the workers or those starting out working that have had their saleries reduced workign hours increased, pensions reduced, and not being able to afford their own homes.
And all this for the good of the country.



and have a house that has accumulated in value from housing demand.

Irrelevant. Houses have always accumulated in value and I can't ever
remember a time when there were loads standing empty anywhere ... till
now of course.

Because the poor can't even afford a run down house.
They aren't good enough to house refegees then why should tax payers have to pay for them.


http://metro.co.uk/2018/02/03/amazin...ust-1-7283928/

http://www.emptyhomes.com/

"Latest Government data suggests that there are over 200,000 homes
that have been empty for over six months."

So ask yourself why they are empty, why don't you buy one or two then ?

Why did the car clean from Poland rather than buy a coffee buy a house and do it up, why didnl;t the local concil do them out and rent them out for a profit or even at cost they were sellign for £1 each rememeber.


First who has £40k to spend on a property in the 1st year before even being able to move in ?




That might take the edge off at least?

How few mortage lenders wouldn't lend you even the £1 it costs to buy them.


But hey, many of the migrant workers who have come here to work ,

for a £1 they do could own a home fo their own so why didn't they ?
Perhaps they have more sense than you, which wouldn't be hard to imagine.

But it does make me wonder why builders or housing co-ops didn't buy them.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:




A Rees Mogg one might be the start of a golden era of common sense.

Or rioting and martial law. Who knows?

--

Roger Hayter

On 12/02/2018 12:15, whisky-dave wrote:
On Saturday, 10 February 2018 22:34:10 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 21:36:06 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

snip

By the 'so many' you actually mean the 4% who specifically voted for
Brexit? A landslide result if there ever wasn't one.

8% more voted for Brexit than remain.

Yeah, 52 over 48, that's 8 alright.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/e...rendum/results

Yes take a good look at the results and 0.0% voted NOT to have brexit.

See how easy it is to distort the figures to show what you want.
But as you see from the actual results they are what they are.
But you seem to have problems counting.
Yes 4% more voted to leave than any other option.

Is your maths up to it?

8% more people voted for Bexit than the numbers voting for remain.

100 x (52-48)/48 = 8.3%

The next closest was you and the penis artists at 0.08%.

It's a typical Remoan thing to resort to abuse when the reality is
distasteful to them.

That ended in a modest majority, perhaps you should be asking why they
voted Brexit. Calling them academically challenged (like Tory voters)
shows you don't want to know.

I have asked and none of them have come up with any facts, only
fantasy and BS. Wanna give it a go?

You mean you didn't understand, so what's new you didn't even understand the ballott paper options.

You seem to have difficulty to accept a once in a lifetime referendum.
Best live with it or be ever seen as a poor loser.

So it's conspiracy theories now ... or can you offer any proof for
that?

What
did David Cameron say about desired immigration levels?

No idea, I don't listen to any of their BS and empty promises.

Exactly which is why a lot of voters got sick of the excuses.

And the cause of Brexit.

All I can imagine is you (Fanatic Brexiteers) are just on a wind-up
here, you really can't be serious?

That shows how clueless you are.

Well, me and the other 2/3rds of the electorate apparently ...

you weren't in the so called 2/3rd you are in the same group as the penis drawers or 2/25th

Once again you resort to abuse, when you cannot accept that for every
100 remain votes there were 108 for Brexit.

I assume you haven't worked for a while

I'm not sure what that's got to do with us leaving the EU?

I'd say everything, as it's mostly the workers or those starting out working that have had their saleries reduced workign hours increased, pensions reduced, and not being able to afford their own homes.
And all this for the good of the country.



and have a house that has accumulated in value from housing demand.

Irrelevant. Houses have always accumulated in value and I can't ever
remember a time when there were loads standing empty anywhere ... till
now of course.

Because the poor can't even afford a run down house.
They aren't good enough to house refegees then why should tax payers have to pay for them.

That's a typical Remoan thing, abuse those who financially support you
with their taxes, while you draw your nice pension and see your house
accumulate in value out of proportion to the economy through increased
housing demand.

But you're too myopic to see that, aren't you.

http://metro.co.uk/2018/02/03/amazin...ust-1-7283928/

http://www.emptyhomes.com/

"Latest Government data suggests that there are over 200,000 homes
that have been empty for over six months."

So ask yourself why they are empty, why don't you buy one or two then ?

Why did the car clean from Poland rather than buy a coffee buy a house and do it up, why didnl;t the local concil do them out and rent them out for a profit or even at cost they were sellign for £1 each rememeber.


There were strings attached, otherwise I would have bought one.

First who has £40k to spend on a property in the 1st year before even being able to move in ?


That might take the edge off at least?

How few mortage lenders wouldn't lend you even the £1 it costs to buy them.


But hey, many of the migrant workers who have come here to work ,

for a £1 they do could own a home fo their own so why didn't they ?
Perhaps they have more sense than you, which wouldn't be hard to imagine.

But it does make me wonder why builders or housing co-ops didn't buy them.

The £1 sale had a raft of stings attached. Few people could have
purchased these houses. It was a gimmick.

On 12/02/18 12:33, Roger Hayter wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:




A Rees Mogg one might be the start of a golden era of common sense.

Or rioting and martial law. Who knows?

Both. If the hard left take to the streets expect a Thatcher moment.


To those outside the islington bubble of the guradian and the CBB the
country is fed up with whining lefty****s.


--
"The great thing about Glasgow is that if there's a nuclear attack it'll
look exactly the same afterwards."

Billy Connolly

On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 02:55:09 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Monday, 12 February 2018 10:28:58 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 20:09:41 -0800 (PST), tabbypurr wrote:

It's optimistic to debate with t i m, he does not require reason. That has been made quite clear.

1) FFS mate, learn to snip.

2) Just because you are incapable of doing something, doesn't mean
others aren't.

3) The *very thing* I require in any discussion is reason. What I

then relearn the basics of it.

No need. I seem to be able to communicate the facts and feelings of
Brexit to many (here and elsewhere).

You've completely lost it on the EU question.

Translation: 'I don't have any answers to your questions ... (because
there aren't any) so I'll throw my toys out the pram instead.'

No, it's not worth discussing, as your comments show yet again.

Thanks goodness for that. Another lot of hot air I don't have to
bother questioning.

Cheers, T i m

On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 12:38:14 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

On 12/02/2018 12:15, whisky-dave wrote:

snip

Bwhahahaha ... the fanatic Brexiter is slagging off a Brexiteer troll,
thinking he's talking to me (probably) because he's confused and lost
the plot!

You can't make this sort of thing up! No wonder they are so confused
re Brexit!

Cheers, T i m

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
What happens to the EU now is more in doubt than what happens to the UK,

Care to give some reliable figures for that?

Or is it just one of your gut feelings?

--
*When you get a bladder infection urine trouble.*

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

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
A Rees Mogg one might be the start of a golden era of common sense.

Common sense to ban abortions even if the result of a rape, eh?

So not only do you not have much in common with your fellow man, but zero
with women too.

Must admit to be surprised you appear to want someone in power who
believes everything his catholic church has taught him. So much for being
an original thinker.

--
*If horrific means to make horrible, does terrific mean to make terrible?

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

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/02/18 12:33, Roger Hayter wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:




A Rees Mogg one might be the start of a golden era of common sense.

Or rioting and martial law. Who knows?

Both. If the hard left take to the streets expect a Thatcher moment.

The moment when she left in tears? Or was that just because her Scotch had
run out?

--
*No hand signals. Driver on Viagra*

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

On 12/02/2018 13:40, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 12:38:14 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

On 12/02/2018 12:15, whisky-dave wrote:

snip

Bwhahahaha ... the fanatic Brexiter is slagging off a Brexiteer troll,
thinking he's talking to me (probably) because he's confused and lost
the plot!

You can't make this sort of thing up! No wonder they are so confused
re Brexit!

You snipped the pertinent point. Typical of a Remoaner, blind to the
cause of Brexit.

In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
You snipped the pertinent point. Typical of a Remoaner, blind to the
cause of Brexit.

Keep on asking for some tangible benefits of leaving the EU totally. With
no form of trade or services agreement. Just WTO or whatever.

All I ever read is some *very* optimistic guesses.

But at least we'll have taken back control. To be given to the likes of
Rees Mogg. Just what the poor in Boston thought they were voting for.
Someone, by his voting record, who wants the worst off in the country even
poorer, and the rich even richer.

--
*You can't teach an old mouse new clicks *

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

On 11/02/2018 22:55, Fredxx wrote:
On 11/02/2018 12:52, dennis@home wrote:
On 11/02/2018 12:04, Fredxx wrote:


I wouldn't have called myself fanatical, 99.9% of Brexiters. Unlike
many here I have never started a topic on Brexit.

But you do insist on repeating the brexit lies on every thread.

What lies?


Which ones aren't?

On Monday, 12 February 2018 12:38:16 UTC, Fredxx wrote:
On 12/02/2018 12:15, whisky-dave wrote:
On Saturday, 10 February 2018 22:34:10 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 21:36:06 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

snip

By the 'so many' you actually mean the 4% who specifically voted for
Brexit? A landslide result if there ever wasn't one.

8% more voted for Brexit than remain.

Yeah, 52 over 48, that's 8 alright.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/e...rendum/results

Yes take a good look at the results and 0.0% voted NOT to have brexit.

See how easy it is to distort the figures to show what you want.
But as you see from the actual results they are what they are.
But you seem to have problems counting.
Yes 4% more voted to leave than any other option.

Is your maths up to it?

Maths or statistics ?


8% more people voted for Bexit than the numbers voting for remain.

100 x (52-48)/48 = 8.3%

but 4% of the people per hundred.
For every hundred that voted 4 more voted to leave than voted remain NOT 8..


The next closest was you and the penis artists at 0.08%.

It's a typical Remoan thing to resort to abuse when the reality is
distasteful to them.

I guess so , but we can't really tell what penis drawers wanted to vote for or those that made or didn't make a mark that was consider valid enough to work out how they wanted to vote.


That ended in a modest majority, perhaps you should be asking why they
voted Brexit. Calling them academically challenged (like Tory voters)
shows you don't want to know.

I have asked and none of them have come up with any facts, only
fantasy and BS. Wanna give it a go?

You mean you didn't understand, so what's new you didn't even understand the ballott paper options.

You seem to have difficulty to accept a once in a lifetime referendum.

Was it once in a lifetime ?
I was at school when we joined (was there a vote) I was still at school when some were asked whether we wanted to remain, and in 2016 we were asked again.
For some strange reason you see these events as once in a lifetime.



So it's conspiracy theories now ... or can you offer any proof for
that?

What
did David Cameron say about desired immigration levels?

No idea, I don't listen to any of their BS and empty promises.

Exactly which is why a lot of voters got sick of the excuses.

And the cause of Brexit.

So it's those that ignored the complaints and just came back with but it's better for the country to have low wages for the majority so the rich can get richer.


All I can imagine is you (Fanatic Brexiteers) are just on a wind-up
here, you really can't be serious?

That shows how clueless you are.

Well, me and the other 2/3rds of the electorate apparently ...

you weren't in the so called 2/3rd you are in the same group as the penis drawers or 2/25th

Once again you resort to abuse, when you cannot accept that for every
100 remain votes there were 108 for Brexit.

I never said anything of the kind I think you're getting be confused with T i m.

There were votes for leave and votes for remain there were NO brexit votes.



Because the poor can't even afford a run down house.
They aren't good enough to house refegees then why should tax payers have to pay for them.

That's a typical Remoan thing,

Really ?

abuse those who financially support you
with their taxes, while you draw your nice pension and see your house
accumulate in value out of proportion to the economy through increased
housing demand.

But you're too myopic to see that, aren't you.

you're that myopic you still think I'm T i m .


http://metro.co.uk/2018/02/03/amazin...ust-1-7283928/

http://www.emptyhomes.com/

"Latest Government data suggests that there are over 200,000 homes
that have been empty for over six months."

So ask yourself why they are empty, why don't you buy one or two then ?

Why did the car clean from Poland rather than buy a coffee buy a house and do it up, why didnl;t the local concil do them out and rent them out for a profit or even at cost they were sellign for £1 each rememeber.


There were strings attached, otherwise I would have bought one.

What sort of strings, that stoped you buying them, that the poor could cut ?.

rememeber you need more than the £1


First who has £40k to spend on a property in the 1st year before even being able to move in ?


That might take the edge off at least?

How few mortage lenders wouldn't lend you even the £1 it costs to buy them.


But hey, many of the migrant workers who have come here to work ,

for a £1 they do could own a home fo their own so why didn't they ?
Perhaps they have more sense than you, which wouldn't be hard to imagine.

But it does make me wonder why builders or housing co-ops didn't buy them.

The £1 sale had a raft of stings attached. Few people could have
purchased these houses. It was a gimmick.

yes I know.

On Monday, 12 February 2018 13:40:29 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 12:38:14 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

On 12/02/2018 12:15, whisky-dave wrote:

snip

Bwhahahaha ... the fanatic Brexiter is slagging off a Brexiteer troll,
thinking he's talking to me (probably) because he's confused and lost
the plot!

That's what I thought.


You can't make this sort of thing up! No wonder they are so confused
re Brexit!

Cheers, T i m

From someone that could work out how to vote remain.

On Monday, 12 February 2018 12:15:38 UTC, whisky-dave wrote:
On Saturday, 10 February 2018 22:34:10 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 21:36:06 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

Irrelevant. Houses have always accumulated in value and I can't ever
remember a time when there were loads standing empty anywhere ... till
now of course.

Because the poor can't even afford a run down house.
They aren't good enough to house refegees then why should tax payers have to pay for them.


http://metro.co.uk/2018/02/03/amazin...ust-1-7283928/

http://www.emptyhomes.com/

"Latest Government data suggests that there are over 200,000 homes
that have been empty for over six months."

So ask yourself why they are empty, why don't you buy one or two then ?

Why did the car clean from Poland rather than buy a coffee buy a house and do it up, why didnl;t the local concil do them out and rent them out for a profit or even at cost they were sellign for £1 each rememeber.


First who has £40k to spend on a property in the 1st year before even being able to move in ?




That might take the edge off at least?

How few mortage lenders wouldn't lend you even the £1 it costs to buy them.


But hey, many of the migrant workers who have come here to work ,

for a £1 they do could own a home fo their own so why didn't they ?
Perhaps they have more sense than you, which wouldn't be hard to imagine.

But it does make me wonder why builders or housing co-ops didn't buy them..

When houses are sold for £1 it's conditional on the new owner spending a fortune on them.


NT

On Monday, 12 February 2018 12:50:56 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 02:55:09 -0800 (PST), tabbypurr wrote:
On Monday, 12 February 2018 10:28:58 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 20:09:41 -0800 (PST), tabbypurr wrote:

It's optimistic to debate with t i m, he does not require reason. That has been made quite clear.

1) FFS mate, learn to snip.

2) Just because you are incapable of doing something, doesn't mean
others aren't.

3) The *very thing* I require in any discussion is reason. What I

then relearn the basics of it.

No need. I seem to be able to communicate the facts and feelings of
Brexit to many (here and elsewhere).

You've completely lost it on the EU question.

Translation: 'I don't have any answers to your questions ... (because
there aren't any) so I'll throw my toys out the pram instead.'

No, it's not worth discussing, as your comments show yet again.

Thanks goodness for that. Another lot of hot air I don't have to
bother questioning.

Cheers, T i m

you're as lost as ever.


NT

On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 09:41:51 -0800 (PST), wrote:
snip

When houses are sold for £1 it's conditional on the new owner spending a fortune on them.

And by 'a fortune' you mean 'far less than it would cost to buy the
same house already in a 'done up' condition?

And I think the local authority can offer a loan or summat to help the
owners out.

Cheers, T i m

On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 10:09:18 -0800 (PST), wrote:

snip

Thanks goodness for that. Another lot of hot air I don't have to
bother questioning.


you're as lost as ever.

Right, direct Brexiteer challenge, just to probe how lost you aren't?

Q1. What things did you vote for when ticking the 'Leave' box?

Q2. Of the things you think you voted for, how many of them do you
think you will get?

Q3. Of the things you think you are going to get, how 'hard / soft' do
you think they will be (were 10=very hard).

Q4. If you get the softest of all the things you think you voted for,
would that still make leaving a no brainer?

Cheers, T i m

On Monday, 12 February 2018 18:26:46 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 10:09:18 -0800 (PST), tabbypurr wrote:

snip

Thanks goodness for that. Another lot of hot air I don't have to
bother questioning.


you're as lost as ever.

Right, direct Brexiteer challenge, just to probe how lost you aren't?

Q1. What things did you vote for when ticking the 'Leave' box?

Q2. Of the things you think you voted for, how many of them do you
think you will get?

Q3. Of the things you think you are going to get, how 'hard / soft' do
you think they will be (were 10=very hard).

Q4. If you get the softest of all the things you think you voted for,
would that still make leaving a no brainer?

Cheers, T i m

I didn't expect to but I don't mind answering those.
1. Government by people who depend on our vote. Freedom from paying the EU an ever increasing fortune. There may well be other benefits too, but those are the big 2.
2. Both.
3. You forgot to define/explain/state clearly what you meant
4. ditto


NT

On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 14:17:04 -0800 (PST), wrote:

snip

Right, direct Brexiteer challenge, just to probe how lost you aren't?

Q1. What things did you vote for when ticking the 'Leave' box?

Q2. Of the things you think you voted for, how many of them do you
think you will get?

Q3. Of the things you think you are going to get, how 'hard / soft' do
you think they will be (were 10=very hard).

Q4. If you get the softest of all the things you think you voted for,
would that still make leaving a no brainer?


I didn't expect to but I don't mind answering those.

Ok, thank you.

1. Government by people who depend on our vote.

Ok So this is the 'Un elected bureaucrats in Brussels' one.

1a) Have you actually suffered anything directly / personally because
of this arrangement or is it just a principal thing?

Freedom from paying the EU an ever increasing fortune.

1b) In turn for not getting a lot of it back and other 'perks' of
membership?

There may well be other benefits too, but those are the big 2.

Ok, thanks.

2. Both.

Ok. So, you are willing to forego all the benefits (and even the
Brexiteers admit there are some) for those two alone?

3. You forgot to define/explain/state clearly what you meant

Ok, I thought I had. From your previous answers I'm guessing you would
prefer a 'hard Brexit' and so your answer would be 10 and 10. eg, You
would expect a complete disconnection from EU rules affecting us at
all and not having to pay a penny into the EU from the point we leave?

4. ditto

Again, I thought it was pretty straightforward ... Ok, so let's say
you don't get exactly what you wanted re us having to abide by ANY EU
rules post Brexit ... at what point (if any) would you consider the
risk might outweigh the gain (as perceived by you)?

eg. Let's say we are currently obliged to 1000 EU controlled laws and
as a result of us leaving the EU we are still effectively beholden to
100 EU controlled laws (because of some deal). Would you consider that
a net gain, compared with all the benefits that we will also lose by
leaving (baby out with bath water sorta thing)?

Cheers, T i m

On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 22:32:34 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

On Monday, 12 February 2018 18:26:46 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 10:09:18 -0800 (PST), tabbypurr wrote:

snip

Thanks goodness for that. Another lot of hot air I don't have to
bother questioning.


you're as lost as ever.

Right, direct Brexiteer challenge, just to probe how lost you aren't?

Q1. What things did you vote for when ticking the 'Leave' box?

I already answered this:

Not all the levels you didn't and in a coherent way.

no SM, no CU, no ECJ, no dosh to Brussels, no
more EU laws.

Ok, thanks.

Q2. Of the things you think you voted for, how many of them do you
think you will get?

All of them, otherwise it isn't brexit.

Ok.

Q3. Of the things you think you are going to get, how 'hard / soft' do
you think they will be (were 10=very hard).

This is a meaningless question.

To you, left brainer.

Ok, lets say you don't get all of the things to 100%, are you saying
that 2 of them are only 75% (say we still have to pay something and
are still bound by a subset of rules), you would rather remain?

Q4. If you get the softest of all the things you think you voted for,
would that still make leaving a no brainer?

Another meaningless question.
Again, to a left brainer maybe.
Depending on how you answered my secondary question to 3), what if
(say) we were still paying 50% of what we are now and obliged by 50%
of EU laws, would you *then* consider we haven't left?

eg, We might as well stay as we were ... or ... it's still worth
leaving?

The only soft thing around here is your
alleged brain.

Yes, of course you are right, left brainer (that will case your brain
to explode because of a logic failure). ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Monday, 12 February 2018 22:58:15 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 14:17:04 -0800 (PST), tabbypurr wrote:

snip

Right, direct Brexiteer challenge, just to probe how lost you aren't?

Q1. What things did you vote for when ticking the 'Leave' box?

Q2. Of the things you think you voted for, how many of them do you
think you will get?

Q3. Of the things you think you are going to get, how 'hard / soft' do
you think they will be (were 10=very hard).

Q4. If you get the softest of all the things you think you voted for,
would that still make leaving a no brainer?


I didn't expect to but I don't mind answering those.

Ok, thank you.

1. Government by people who depend on our vote.

Ok So this is the 'Un elected bureaucrats in Brussels' one.

1a) Have you actually suffered anything directly / personally because
of this arrangement or is it just a principal thing?

Freedom from paying the EU an ever increasing fortune.

1b) In turn for not getting a lot of it back and other 'perks' of
membership?

There may well be other benefits too, but those are the big 2.

Ok, thanks.

2. Both.

Ok. So, you are willing to forego all the benefits (and even the
Brexiteers admit there are some) for those two alone?

3. You forgot to define/explain/state clearly what you meant

Ok, I thought I had. From your previous answers I'm guessing you would
prefer a 'hard Brexit' and so your answer would be 10 and 10. eg, You
would expect a complete disconnection from EU rules affecting us at
all and not having to pay a penny into the EU from the point we leave?

4. ditto

Again, I thought it was pretty straightforward ... Ok, so let's say
you don't get exactly what you wanted re us having to abide by ANY EU
rules post Brexit ... at what point (if any) would you consider the
risk might outweigh the gain (as perceived by you)?

eg. Let's say we are currently obliged to 1000 EU controlled laws and
as a result of us leaving the EU we are still effectively beholden to
100 EU controlled laws (because of some deal). Would you consider that
a net gain, compared with all the benefits that we will also lose by
leaving (baby out with bath water sorta thing)?

Cheers, T i m

I'm sure you mean well but we both know you're not going to engage in a reasoned discussion on this one.


NT

On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 17:14:36 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Monday, 12 February 2018 22:58:15 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 14:17:04 -0800 (PST), tabbypurr wrote:

snip

Right, direct Brexiteer challenge, just to probe how lost you aren't?

Q1. What things did you vote for when ticking the 'Leave' box?

Q2. Of the things you think you voted for, how many of them do you
think you will get?

Q3. Of the things you think you are going to get, how 'hard / soft' do
you think they will be (were 10=very hard).

Q4. If you get the softest of all the things you think you voted for,
would that still make leaving a no brainer?


I didn't expect to but I don't mind answering those.

Ok, thank you.

1. Government by people who depend on our vote.

Ok So this is the 'Un elected bureaucrats in Brussels' one.

1a) Have you actually suffered anything directly / personally because
of this arrangement or is it just a principal thing?

Freedom from paying the EU an ever increasing fortune.

1b) In turn for not getting a lot of it back and other 'perks' of
membership?

There may well be other benefits too, but those are the big 2.

Ok, thanks.

2. Both.

Ok. So, you are willing to forego all the benefits (and even the
Brexiteers admit there are some) for those two alone?

3. You forgot to define/explain/state clearly what you meant

Ok, I thought I had. From your previous answers I'm guessing you would
prefer a 'hard Brexit' and so your answer would be 10 and 10. eg, You
would expect a complete disconnection from EU rules affecting us at
all and not having to pay a penny into the EU from the point we leave?

4. ditto

Again, I thought it was pretty straightforward ... Ok, so let's say
you don't get exactly what you wanted re us having to abide by ANY EU
rules post Brexit ... at what point (if any) would you consider the
risk might outweigh the gain (as perceived by you)?

eg. Let's say we are currently obliged to 1000 EU controlled laws and
as a result of us leaving the EU we are still effectively beholden to
100 EU controlled laws (because of some deal). Would you consider that
a net gain, compared with all the benefits that we will also lose by
leaving (baby out with bath water sorta thing)?

Cheers, T i m

I'm sure you mean well but we both know you're not going to engage in a reasoned discussion on this one.

sigh

So what are you saying now ... I've got you in a dead end, you have no
way out and so feel the need to make that statement? ;-(

They were honest and real points that I would be interested to hear
your answers to. If *you* don't have them then that's not my fault.

See, I'm still trying to understand how you might differentiate
between what you are doing just because of your beliefs or hunches (no
problem with that *if* it only affected you and yours).

Maybe you don't and are just doing what you do because of a principal
(which is what it looks like so far) or that you have fully thought it
trough and are still happy to go ahead, even if you only get a
fraction of what you assume (or hope) will be the outcome of the deal
that hasn't been agreed yet?

Like, the other day a good friend offered us quite a nice car that was
one of his reles that had passed away.

At the first thought I could have said yes and possibly found a home
for it in our family. *Except* whilst it was newer than anything we
already had, after some research it turned out to be quite expensive
to tax and insure and didn't have a particularly good reputation for
ride or reliability. I didn't feel it was in the sprit of the offer to
take it off him just to sell, so I sad 'thanks very much but no
thanks' and he gave it to someone else.

My point with the above is *everything* has a cause and effect and I'd
like to learn that you have researched all the effects of your EU
Leave wishes coming true and if there is a point at which they would
be so diluted that even you would concede they would do more harm than
good?

Cheers, T i m

On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 23:08:29 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 22:34:10 -0000, T i m wrote:

On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 21:36:06 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

snip

By the 'so many' you actually mean the 4% who specifically voted for
Brexit? A landslide result if there ever wasn't one.

8% more voted for Brexit than remain.

Yeah, 52 over 48, that's 8 alright.

Who cares,

Right brainers, people looking for real democracy in action, people
with something to loose from a decision randomly made by people
ill-equipped to fully differentiate fact from fiction.

the point is it was a majority.

The point it the majority did not vote to leave the EU, a minority did
(1/3rd of the electorate).

Take that with Farages own demand that for Remain to be considered a
win it had to be 2/3rds of the vote and also suggested a second
referendum would be a good idea, shows even he understands it's no
good trying to move forward against the will of the people.

Apart from all that, you hit the nail on the head! (Not)

Cheers, T i m

On Tuesday, 13 February 2018 10:16:56 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 17:14:36 -0800 (PST), tabbypurr wrote:
On Monday, 12 February 2018 22:58:15 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 14:17:04 -0800 (PST), tabbypurr wrote:

snip

Right, direct Brexiteer challenge, just to probe how lost you aren't?

Q1. What things did you vote for when ticking the 'Leave' box?

Q2. Of the things you think you voted for, how many of them do you
think you will get?

Q3. Of the things you think you are going to get, how 'hard / soft' do
you think they will be (were 10=very hard).

Q4. If you get the softest of all the things you think you voted for,
would that still make leaving a no brainer?


I didn't expect to but I don't mind answering those.

Ok, thank you.

1. Government by people who depend on our vote.

Ok So this is the 'Un elected bureaucrats in Brussels' one.

1a) Have you actually suffered anything directly / personally because
of this arrangement or is it just a principal thing?

Freedom from paying the EU an ever increasing fortune.

1b) In turn for not getting a lot of it back and other 'perks' of
membership?

There may well be other benefits too, but those are the big 2.

Ok, thanks.

2. Both.

Ok. So, you are willing to forego all the benefits (and even the
Brexiteers admit there are some) for those two alone?

3. You forgot to define/explain/state clearly what you meant

Ok, I thought I had. From your previous answers I'm guessing you would
prefer a 'hard Brexit' and so your answer would be 10 and 10. eg, You
would expect a complete disconnection from EU rules affecting us at
all and not having to pay a penny into the EU from the point we leave?

4. ditto

Again, I thought it was pretty straightforward ... Ok, so let's say
you don't get exactly what you wanted re us having to abide by ANY EU
rules post Brexit ... at what point (if any) would you consider the
risk might outweigh the gain (as perceived by you)?

eg. Let's say we are currently obliged to 1000 EU controlled laws and
as a result of us leaving the EU we are still effectively beholden to
100 EU controlled laws (because of some deal). Would you consider that
a net gain, compared with all the benefits that we will also lose by
leaving (baby out with bath water sorta thing)?

Cheers, T i m

I'm sure you mean well but we both know you're not going to engage in a reasoned discussion on this one.

sigh

So what are you saying now ... I've got you in a dead end, you have no
way out and so feel the need to make that statement? ;-(

They were honest and real points that I would be interested to hear
your answers to. If *you* don't have them then that's not my fault.

See, I'm still trying to understand how you might differentiate
between what you are doing just because of your beliefs or hunches (no
problem with that *if* it only affected you and yours).

Maybe you don't and are just doing what you do because of a principal
(which is what it looks like so far) or that you have fully thought it
trough and are still happy to go ahead, even if you only get a
fraction of what you assume (or hope) will be the outcome of the deal
that hasn't been agreed yet?

Like, the other day a good friend offered us quite a nice car that was
one of his reles that had passed away.

At the first thought I could have said yes and possibly found a home
for it in our family. *Except* whilst it was newer than anything we
already had, after some research it turned out to be quite expensive
to tax and insure and didn't have a particularly good reputation for
ride or reliability. I didn't feel it was in the sprit of the offer to
take it off him just to sell, so I sad 'thanks very much but no
thanks' and he gave it to someone else.

My point with the above is *everything* has a cause and effect and I'd
like to learn that you have researched all the effects of your EU
Leave wishes coming true and if there is a point at which they would
be so diluted that even you would concede they would do more harm than
good?

Cheers, T i m

I see that once again you have been unable to understand the situation or be particularly sensible.


NT