On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 02:34:04 -0800 (PST), wrote:

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.


Lovely weasel words ... mate. ;-)

If you can't answer the questions because you don't really know why
you did or said what you did, that's fine. ;-(

All you have to do is see if you can put some sort of 'value' on the
things you voted for re the EU so I can understand what sort of things
are important to some Leavers and *why*?

Like, say they (the EU) ban 'Yeastspread' and you like 'Yeastspread'
then that could be a very simplistic example that you may well vote to
leave the EU for.

I might look into it and find there is some question about it's food
safety ... that is has some other side effect under some circumstances
and therefore I might be happy to go without because it was banned for
'good reasons' or with 'good intentions'. Further, nothing is for even
so I see no good reason why with sufficient research and scientific
proof, if 'Yeastspread' could be proven to be safe then I see no
reason it couldn't be re-instated?

Cheers, T i m

On Monday, 12 February 2018 17:41:56 UTC, wrote:
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.

Yep I know I went to southend in 1977 to check the pier out after the fire(s) I'd heard they were selling the pier for £1 ! Sounded like a bargin to me.

Ideal DIY project ;-)





NT

On Monday, 12 February 2018 18:15:34 UTC, T i m wrote:
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?

Well yes isn't that obvious. The reason they are so cheap is because it cost so much to repair them and bring them up to the standard required.
The same goes for building on a plot of land.


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

I don't think so otherwise the council could do up the houese themselves and sell them on for a profit or give them away to the homeless.

Strange the council can't afford £1 per house isn't it.

On Tuesday, 13 February 2018 10:21:58 UTC, T i m wrote:
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,

How will you get real democracy if you insist on counting those that don't vote or give an opinion ?

It's a really simple Q, will you include my cat ?

On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 03:58:02 -0800 (PST), whisky-dave
wrote:

snip

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

I don't think so otherwise the council could do up the houese themselves and sell them on for a profit or give them away to the homeless.

As usual, what you 'think' isn't the same as the facts ...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/...lling-homes-1/


Strange the council can't afford £1 per house isn't it.

No. The only thing round here that is strange is you.

Cheers, T i m

On Tuesday, 13 February 2018 12:08:11 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 03:58:02 -0800 (PST), whisky-dave
wrote:

snip

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

I don't think so otherwise the council could do up the houese themselves and sell them on for a profit or give them away to the homeless.

As usual, what you 'think' isn't the same as the facts ...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/...lling-homes-1/

Seems it is, why couldn't the council afford to do the homes up if they are such a bargin ?


Strange the council can't afford £1 per house isn't it.

No. The only thing round here that is strange is you.

Cheers, T i m

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Well yes isn't that obvious. The reason they are so cheap is because it
cost so much to repair them and bring them up to the standard required.
The same goes for building on a plot of land.

Not so. Some areas are so poor you couldn't sell a new house at a profit.
Supply and demand.

--
*Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it *

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

On Tuesday, 13 February 2018 11:13:19 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 02:34:04 -0800 (PST), tabbypurr wrote:
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.


Lovely weasel words ... mate. ;-)

I see you just have more silly bs. Welcome back to the plonk filter.


NT

On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 05:55:08 -0800 (PST), wrote:

snip

Lovely weasel words ... mate. ;-)

I see you just have more silly bs.

Just as I thought ... no actual factual answers, just more hopes and
hunches. ;-(

Welcome back to the plonk filter.

Thank feck for that. Less fanatic Brexiteer BS for me to have to
question.

Cheers, T i m

On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 14:31:46 +0100, Martin wrote:

snip

Restrictions did not prevent at least one person who owned a house in London
buying a house in Stoke on Trent for £1 doing it up and selling it a profit.

I'm not surprised Martin. There are always those who play the system
for their own gains. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

On Tuesday, 13 February 2018 13:51:02 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Well yes isn't that obvious. The reason they are so cheap is because it
cost so much to repair them and bring them up to the standard required.
The same goes for building on a plot of land.

Not so. Some areas are so poor you couldn't sell a new house at a profit.
Supply and demand.

Then show me such a place.
Where is the demand so low you can't sell a house there ?

On Tuesday, 13 February 2018 15:56:40 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 10:21:57 -0000, T i m wrote:

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

That part shows how stupid you really are.

an awful lot of parts do. But he hasn't noticed.

On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 15:56:35 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

snip

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

That part shows how stupid you really are.

Ok, let' see how this pans out ...

Why do you automatically assume the non-voters would have voted your way?

Where have I stated that?

Non-voters are not counted, end of story.

Well, they are 'counted' but not counted for or against etc. They are
also differentiated against those who spoiled their papers etc (and so
both *must* be 'counted').

The only sensible thing to do is assume they would have voted in the same proportions as those that bothered to get out of their arm chair.

And what does an assumption make out of you or I (and your use of
emotive words like 'bothered' says more than you realise).

See, as a left brainer you are completely ignoring any potential
motivation (or lack thereof) behind why people didn't vote Leave or
Remain.

eg. Some thoughts for you ... (that you may not be able to understand,
let alone consider or accept).

We were already in the EU (and still are of course). In general people
don't bother to vote for what they already have, because they already
have it.

It wasn't clear what voting 'Leave' actually meant (and still isn't of
course) and how it might therefore compare with voting remain and so
they didn't vote for either (that was me).

Then we have the people who agreed between them that their votes would
cancel so they didn't vote. Therefore their votes weren't officially
counted as voting but their 'votes' were a controlled part of the
process nonetheless.

When asking people if they want to change or change from the status
quo, it's only necessary to count the hands of the people who actually
*want* to do that, not of those who don't or don't care.

What is it that the fanatic Brexiteers are so petrified of that means
they don't want to see true democracy, the real 'will of the people'
in action? It's just as if they have had a lucky break but don't think
they could get away with it again? (Which says it all).

IHTH, but suspect it won't.

Cheers, T i m

On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 08:01:00 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Tuesday, 13 February 2018 15:56:40 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 10:21:57 -0000, T i m wrote:

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

That part shows how stupid you really are.

an awful lot of parts do. But he hasn't noticed.

Oh look, the cowardly killfiler still throwing stones from behind his
cowardly killfile?

What's the point (apart from hiding you head in the sand like a
coward) if you are still going to read everything I write?

Cheers, T i m

On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 08:01:00 -0800 (PST), wrote:


That part shows how stupid you really are.

an awful lot of parts do. But he hasn't noticed.

Yep, he's stupid for engaging in a discussion with the abnormal Scottish
attention whore, and so are you!

On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 17:51:18 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 17:23:46 -0000, T i m wrote:

On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 15:56:35 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

snip

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

That part shows how stupid you really are.

Ok, let' see how this pans out ...

Why do you automatically assume the non-voters would have voted your way?

Where have I stated that?

Because you wanted them to be counted, even though they took their right to not vote.

Ok, let's try stating a couple of facts and see how you cope:

1/3rd of the electorate voted to leave the EU.
2/3rds of the electorate didn't vote to leave the EU.

Ok?

Non-voters are not counted, end of story.

Well, they are 'counted' but not counted for or against etc. They are
also differentiated against those who spoiled their papers etc (and so
both *must* be 'counted').

No, they don't count

I never said they 'counted' (to a left brainer).

or get counted whatsoever.

Did they just vanish then? According to all the results I saw there
were 46,500,001 people able to vote, 33,551,983 did vote and therefore
12,948,018 didn't. I can see those numbers, can't you ... or did you
think I meant they had special ballot papers that just appeared on
their own in the ballot box marked 'Didn't vote' that were actually
'counted'?

The only sensible thing to do is assume they would have voted in the same proportions as those that bothered to get out of their arm chair.

And what does an assumption make out of you or I (and your use of
emotive words like 'bothered' says more than you realise).

It's not an assumption, it's simple statistics.

No, the 'assumption' that those who didn't vote 'weren't bothered' is
complete and utter bollix. I didn't vote either way but was bothered
enough to go and spoil my paper and have been much much more concerned
/ interested in the whole process then and since than millions of
others who just tossed a coin on the day ... or voted Leave g and
haven't given it another thought since.

If you want to see what proportion of cars are Volvos are on the M6, you don't count every single one do you?

How else do you do it ... other than by counting all the Volvos that
aren't on the M6 and deducting that from the total?

See, as a left brainer you are completely ignoring any potential
motivation (or lack thereof) behind why people didn't vote Leave or
Remain.

If they didn't vote, they cannot be counted,

Of course they can, I did, see above.

as we cannot know which way they would have voted.

Ah, a different thing altogether. The point is, even those who didn't
vote (should and do) 'still count' in society and as part of the
electorate.

If they wanted to influence the decision, they should have voted.

Many of them wanted to play a part (like me), but weren't willing to
simply toss a coin and vote like you did. And you did, especially if
you voted Leave as you don't have a f'ing clue what your vote actually
means yet!

eg. Some thoughts for you ... (that you may not be able to understand,
let alone consider or accept).

We were already in the EU (and still are of course). In general people
don't bother to vote for what they already have, because they already
have it.

they do if they think they're going to lose it.

Them thinking anything won't change their drive to vote (human
nature).

It wasn't clear what voting 'Leave' actually meant (and still isn't of
course) and how it might therefore compare with voting remain and so
they didn't vote for either (that was me).

The internet is there for anyone to research the possible outcomes.

Yeah, right. Some people have lives mate and do you think anything
they find would be any more believable than the BS published and
televised at the time?

Then we have the people who agreed between them that their votes would
cancel so they didn't vote.

Never heard of someone doing that,

Of course you wouldn't, you only see other people at the 'Brexiteers
Club'.

lthough that of course would cancel as they suggest.

Quite. And both my Mrs and daughter both voted Remain simply to
counter the votes of Leave from two racists they know. So there are 4
more votes in the 'voted' count that are for the wrong reasons.

If we added equal numbers of leave and remain to the outcome, it would not have changed the result.

Doh!

Therefore their votes weren't officially
counted as voting but their 'votes' were a controlled part of the
process nonetheless.

No, if the voting paper wasn't filled in, it's not counted AT ALL.

See above. A ballot paper posted but not filled in IS counted.

http://www.electoralcommission.org.u...ls-booklet.pdf

"Unmarked ballot papers should be rejected"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politic...endum-36044026

"Any ballots which are later rejected are included in these verified
ballots."

Anything else you want me to educate you on gambling Brexiteer?

When asking people if they want to change or change from the status
quo, it's only necessary to count the hands of the people who actually
*want* to do that, not of those who don't or don't care.

If people don't care, they don't care, we should only listen to those that do.

Of course you would say that, you are a left brained brexiteer and
from your POV, 1/3 of the electorate who voted Remain (or possibly 2/3
if you count those who didn't 'win') are completely disenfranchised?

That's 2/3rds of the electorate (and still ignoring the millions of
youngsters who are going to be impacted most but who couldn't vote)
you are now willing to ignore because they don't count for anything in
your black and white world.

And all those had the right to vote.

See above.

What is it that the fanatic Brexiteers are so petrified of that means
they don't want to see true democracy, the real 'will of the people'
in action? It's just as if they have had a lucky break but don't think
they could get away with it again? (Which says it all).

We got democracy,

No, we got what you consider to be democracy. Where were we given the
opportunity to change the default function of a UK referendum (a
plebiscite advisory poll) into something is should never have been?

we voted and chose to leave.

By 'we' you mean a minority of the electorate?

More people said leave than remain,

Yup, a 4% difference. Hardly a landslide or a clear indication of 'the
will of the people' eh?

so we leave.

So we might leave, it's not actually happened yet.

Funny that.

It might not be so funny for all of us if it really goes bad.


IHTH, but suspect it won't.

Nothing would help a normal person get into your warped mind.

Aww, the irony. Yup, I know, to many left brainers, right brainers are
just 'talking heads' and to be ignored.

Cheers, T i m

On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 20:46:01 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

snip

Ok, let's try stating a couple of facts and see how you cope:

1/3rd of the electorate voted to leave the EU.
2/3rds of the electorate didn't vote to leave the EU.

Ok?

No. 1/3rd of the electorate voted to leave,

Agreed. And the only group that made any change to the status quo or
difference to anything.

1/3rd voted to stay,

Agreed ... but therefore didn't attract any change from the status quo
whatsoever, just as if we didn't have the referendum in the first
place.

1/3rd didn't care.

Or didn't want to vote either way till they found out what they were
actually voting for if voting Leave. And lets face it, you still don't
have a clue what you will get from your vote so you just gambled (or
are arrogant enough to think you have the answers).

snip the rest unread as it's pointless

Aww, the irony. Yup, I know, to many left brainers, right brainers are
just 'talking heads' and to be ignored.

Classifying people into left and right brainers shows just how odd you really are.

What, so you think everone is identical then? (Classic left brainer
mistake).

Do you really want everyone to be artistic with no logic?

I didn't make the people how they were or the 'classification' mate.

I'll give you a hint, the world would survive with only lefts, but not only rights.

I'll give you a bigger hint, we need both and at all levels.

Cheers, T i m

On 08/02/2018 22:06, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 21:53:15 +0000, alan_m
wrote:

On 08/02/2018 21:41, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:

david-davis-in-swipe-at-eu-over-leaked-brexit-documents-a3762021.html



Do we need yet another pointless brexit thread in this group?

We already know that all our politicians are a bunch of self promoting
money/power grabbing losers.

We already know that all brexiteers are bigoted, racist and are of very
low intelligence.

We already know that the only people fit to rule the country are those
who voted remain.

Yes but are you aware that they are using our taxes to advertise the
poor educational standards of the country?

The fact that the people in power are so completley stupid should be
top secret information. They should be kept out of site and earshot
and only be let out in cases of dire national emergency.

An outbreak of plague might be appropriate.

AB

You are one very big loser Remoaner. Embrace democracy and get on with
your life.

On 10/02/2018 19:40, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 19:19:51 +0000, (Roger Hayter)
wrote:

Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:

On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 13:11:15 -0000, "tim..."
wrote:



"Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp" wrote in
message ...
On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 09:08:19 -0000, "tim..."
wrote:



"Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp" wrote in
message ...
On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 10:34:53 -0000, "tim..."
wrote:



"Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp" wrote in
message ...
Once again the idiots advertise their complete ignorance of how the
single market works.


https://www.standard.co.uk/news/poli...n-swipe-at-eu-
over-leaked-brexit-documents-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??


the same right that they have if the USA (or China) import it directly
to
them

that it doesn't comply with local product standards requirements

tim


Which is why customs will be needed,

but we don't have that system at the moment with imports from ROW

ROW?

We do have customs, I assume that technically we have some level of
customs intervention even with traffic from the EU, otherwise there
would be no blue channel at airports.

Customers checks are for the purposes of collecting duty, not checking
against product standards.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt in you choice of words. I am happy to
use the term customs checks for this process as long as you understand that
collecting duty and standards compliance are two distinct and separate tasks

Commercial importation is the same

manifests are read so that duty can be assessed.

Individual boxes are not opened so that product can be tested for product
compliance.

Hopefully we will have agreed an FTA so that there is no need for any duty
to be assessed and that part will be dispensed with too.

Customs does seem to have a low involvement now, at one time half the
type of stuff I order from Ebay would be opened and I think it was
over £12-00 in value before money had to be sent, but they never
failed to bill One.

domestic importation has been seen to cost them more than they collect

unless they suspect importation of an illegal substance you will often get
away with it.

I notice that the stuff that comes directly from China is labelled up
"samples" or suchlike, makes a change from "used clothing left after
holiday".

Even posting houseplants to Ireland was a customs holdup, I seem to
recollect it wasn't straight duty though, it was an "import licence".

This wasn't a payment of duty, this was payment for a right to import
a specific type of product. i.e compliance.

The actual costs was miniscule, but I remember the balls of dried
earth that fell from the package when it was finally delivered.

Maybe the issuing department was the ministry of agriculture or
suchlike, but the interception was done by customs.

We have a system of checking product compliance at point of sale (usually
initiated by extra-governmental bodies such as consumer advice
organizations)

Because the theory that, just because a product has come from inside the
EU
it must automatically comply (because all EU companies are good boys who
will followed the rules) is incorrect.

The two biggest scandals of broken standards in that past 10 years, the
beef
that was really horse and Dieselgate were both perpetrated by companies
from
INSIDE the EU, so that method of checking at point of sale cannot be
dismantled and replaced with checks at point of entry..

if a product line is not in
keeping with internal standards, trading cannot continue unimpeded.

Of course it can.

It is. Try buying sodium chlorate or a 2.5kW domestic vacuum.

and this is enforced at point of sale

what point are you making?

Trading in the items is impeded, I would have to go to a lot of effort
to try to obtain sodium chlorate for instance.

Unless you want a prolonged 14 day interview in an unidentified cellar,
with a lawyer who is on the other side and forbidden to tell you what
you are accused of, I advise against it.

(Home synthesis is probably safer.)

I bought some sodium nitrate from Amazon for tree stump removal.
I still get ads for things like aluminium powder, magnesium ribbon and
the like popping up when I log in.

If my interest in "pyrotechnics" has been "deduced" by Amazon, I hate
to think what other databases I might be included on :-(

'Wouldn,t mind but by the time I got around to the job, I found it was
rotten anyway. Did't even need a spade.


AB
You are one very big loser Remoaner. Embrace democracy and get on with
your life.

On Tuesday, 13 February 2018 14:37:36 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 05:55:08 -0800 (PST), wrote:

snip

Lovely weasel words ... mate. ;-)

I see you just have more silly bs.

Just as I thought ... no actual factual answers, just more hopes and
hunches. ;-(

Is this the same hope and hunch that tells us if farage would have had a heart attck or an accidetn on the way to the olling station that his politics would have changed and he would then be a remainer, what sort of brain dead moron would think that ?
I supose you also believe that Hitler became a pacifist when he died.

On Tuesday, 13 February 2018 20:27:50 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 17:51:18 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:


Ok, let's try stating a couple of facts and see how you cope:

1/3rd of the electorate voted to leave the EU.
2/3rds of the electorate didn't vote to leave the EU.

These are NOT the facts.
How can 1/3rd be equal to 16,141,241 and be 17,410,742 ?

how can you claim these two figures are the same or even mean the same ?


I see now in yuor world a 1/3 can be almost any number depending on how you want it seen, ever thought of going into politics ?



Non-voters are not counted, end of story.

Well, they are 'counted' but not counted for or against etc.

And that includes leave or remain , Yes or no, black or white, right or left.

On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 14:06:11 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 21:20:20 -0000, T i m wrote:

On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 20:46:01 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

snip

Ok, let's try stating a couple of facts and see how you cope:

1/3rd of the electorate voted to leave the EU.
2/3rds of the electorate didn't vote to leave the EU.

Ok?

No. 1/3rd of the electorate voted to leave,

Agreed. And the only group that made any change to the status quo or
difference to anything.

1/3rd voted to stay,

Agreed ... but therefore didn't attract any change from the status quo
whatsoever, just as if we didn't have the referendum in the first
place.

1/3rd didn't care.

Or didn't want to vote either way till they found out what they were
actually voting for if voting Leave

Anyone not voting can be considered a "don't care".

Only by left brainers.

It really doesn't matter how many people vote, the side that gets the most wins, that's how voting works.

For left brainers, especially on such a fine margin.

You sound like a 6 year old and I'm trying to explain a basic concept here.

And you sound like a left brainer with a complete inability to see
things from any other POV than your own. I can fully understand how
you can see it your way, shame you can't reciprocate. ;-(

And lets face it, you still don't
have a clue what you will get from your vote so you just gambled (or
are arrogant enough to think you have the answers).

Everyone had the chance to do research.

With a time machine or crystal ball I'm guessing.

State exactly what facets of leaving the EU we are going to see, or
prove you really don't have a clue what your Leave vote meant.

snip the rest unread as it's pointless

Aww, the irony. Yup, I know, to many left brainers, right brainers are
just 'talking heads' and to be ignored.

Classifying people into left and right brainers shows just how odd you really are.

What, so you think everone is identical then? (Classic left brainer
mistake).

I think you're being absurd for dismissing left brainers as stupid when they're the intelligent ones.

I never said any such thing so what you are doing is demonstrating
*exactly* my point. Left brainers don't have the ability to see past
black and white. People are either on your side or they are your
enemies. They can't read between the lines, aren't interested in the
bigger picture and are fixated on what they believe to be fact /
right. Just as you are doing here.

Arty farty right brainers can't think logically, so shouldn't even be allowed to vote.

Except they can see the bigger picture and do realise that they may
not have all the answers or even sufficient answers to accurately
support a binary question on an analogue situation that will affect
other people.

If you need to gas and dispose millions of people in a very efficient
way then being a left brainer is probably the only way (as no right
brainer could do such a thing in the first place).

Eg. Ok, we vote out of the EU but what are we *actually* going to do
about the NI border? Waving some magic IT solution at it is no answer
at all.

Do you really want everyone to be artistic with no logic?

I didn't make the people how they were or the 'classification' mate.

But you keep saying right is better.

No I don't. Why do you keep making stuff up? You are reacting just
like yer classic Linux geek (also left brainers) when anyone even
tells the truth about it and suggests the *fact* that Windows is
'better' for most things for most people ... because they are members
of a 'cult' and so feel the need to defend their position? Against who
/ what, only they know.

I'll give you a hint, the world would survive with only lefts, but not only rights.

I'll give you a bigger hint, we need both and at all levels.

Absolute bull****.

Classic left brainer again ...

Would you rather go without artwork or without computers?

Like I said, it's not black and white so important we make use of all
skills and abilities of everyone.

I detect a hint of jealousy.

You couldn't 'detect' anything if it was stood in front of you.

I can think, you can only imagine.

Bwhahaha. The problem is, you don't *actually* fully understand what's
going on in the world so have NO idea what others are thinking or can
do.

You lose.

It's not a competition mate ...

Cheers, T i m

On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 03:47:04 -0800 (PST), whisky-dave
wrote:

On Tuesday, 13 February 2018 20:27:50 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 17:51:18 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:


Ok, let's try stating a couple of facts and see how you cope:

1/3rd of the electorate voted to leave the EU.
2/3rds of the electorate didn't vote to leave the EU.

These are NOT the facts.

They are, to all right brainers, troll.

the rest snipped unread as it's bound to be crazy noise

Cheers, T i m

On Wednesday, 14 February 2018 15:25:14 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 03:47:04 -0800 (PST), whisky-dave
wrote:

On Tuesday, 13 February 2018 20:27:50 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 17:51:18 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:


Ok, let's try stating a couple of facts and see how you cope:

1/3rd of the electorate voted to leave the EU.
2/3rds of the electorate didn't vote to leave the EU.

These are NOT the facts.

They are, to all right brainers, troll.

Arsehole.
They were NOT 1/3rds. How stupid are you.
There were leave votes, remain votes spoilt votes and people that didn't go to the polling station and didn;t use a postal vote.

So how the **** can you divide 4 into a whole and only come out with 3 explain.





the rest snipped unread as it's bound to be crazy noise

Cheers, T i m

It's not my fault you only use 0.08% or less of your brain, it's no suprise that you can't work it out.
I think that both those that voted remain or leave use both halves of their brain both left and right, even the penis drawers seem to have at least one working brain cell but as for those that decide not to make a mark other than a scribble and say well I;m leaving teh decision up to those that can't be bothered to vote, I wouldn't call them the brain boxes of any society, culture or country.

On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 15:58:33 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

snip

Anyone not voting can be considered a "don't care".

Only by left brainers.

They were given the opportunity to vote, if they didn't that's their choice/problem.

No, it could be all our problems. As you are a left brainer you would
never understand why so I'll try and help you out.

Let's say that many of the people who didn't vote at all, did so
because they weren't willing to vote on something when there were no
clear signs exactly what that vote would mean.

You on the other hand were willing to vote (Leave) because you are so
sure that it is the right thing to do, even if only for you personally
and on little in the way of hard evidence what your vote would
actually mean.

Which of those two would you say was being the most real world, the
most interested in real democracy, the one most considerate of 'other
people', the most respectful of the democratic system?

ou can't count them as "leave" or "remain", so you have to not count them at all.

Yes, I understand *YOU* can't count them at all, I'm saying that if
you were a right brainer, if you were at all interested in seeing 'the
will of the people' in action, you wouldn't proceed when only 1/3rd of
the electorate voted for it.

It really doesn't matter how many people vote, the side that gets the most wins, that's how voting works.

For left brainers, especially on such a fine margin.

Why do you keep saying "left brainer" for "person with intelligence"?

Because whilst you may have a high(er) IQ you would have a low(er) EQ
and it's these human level things we are talking about here.

You sound like a 6 year old and I'm trying to explain a basic concept here.

And you sound like a left brainer with a complete inability to see
things from any other POV than your own. I can fully understand how
you can see it your way, shame you can't reciprocate. ;-(

I can become a right brainer by getting blind drunk and stoned.

No you can't, you would get an idiot.

Otherwise I can actually think.

I haven't said you can't think, it's the way you think I'm talking
about here (and you keep demonstrating).

OK, in your world there is black and white, right and wrong, leave or
remain but in most instances, what is actually 'right', what is
'fair', what is 'reasonable', isn't black or white it's grey. So,
using your binary thinking, of course even one more vote to Leave than
Remain would be a 'decisive vote' in your mind. In fact 1 or 1,269,501
votes in favour of Leave (potentially) are exactly the same to you.

And whilst I'm not arguing that counts as a 'leave win' within the
system we used at the time, I question the use of that system for that
task and question the tiny size of the win majority as being anything
like indicative of the 'will of the people'.

And lets face it, you still don't
have a clue what you will get from your vote so you just gambled (or
are arrogant enough to think you have the answers).

Everyone had the chance to do research.

With a time machine or crystal ball I'm guessing.

State exactly what facets of leaving the EU we are going to see, or
prove you really don't have a clue what your Leave vote meant.

Look up the internet, on the internet.

Yeah, everone is going to do that aren't they left brainer?

snip the rest unread as it's pointless

Aww, the irony. Yup, I know, to many left brainers, right brainers are
just 'talking heads' and to be ignored.

Classifying people into left and right brainers shows just how odd you really are.

What, so you think everone is identical then? (Classic left brainer
mistake).

I think you're being absurd for dismissing left brainers as stupid when they're the intelligent ones.

I never said any such thing so what you are doing is demonstrating
*exactly* my point. Left brainers don't have the ability to see past
black and white. People are either on your side or they are your
enemies.

No, I didn't count non-voters as voting against me, I just didn't count them at all.

We know.

And it would appear that's how every single snip expletive government works.

What, we actually required the supermajority from both camps for it to
be counted as a win did we? Farage said he would only count Remain as
willing id they got at least 2/3rds of the votes.

Please lower your medicaition.

Please raise yours.

They can't read between the lines, aren't interested in the
bigger picture and are fixated on what they believe to be fact /
right. Just as you are doing here.

Arty farty right brainers can't think logically, so shouldn't even be allowed to vote.

Except they can see the bigger picture

No they just float around in a daze.

Again with your black and white view of an analogue world.

I give up,

I know, it was inevitable, all the Brexiteers do when their backs are
to the wall.

there's no point in trying to have a sensible discussion with you.

Translation: "You won't simply roll over to the continuous repetition
of my biased left brained BS so I'm now going to go off and sulk."

You reaction is perfectly typical of your mindset. You are right,
anyone who disagrees is wrong, and if shouting that at them doesn't
change their minds, you are going to run away as I can't cope ...

Mate, we were given one mouth and two ears for a reason.

Off you go into the bin.....

Thanks goodness for that. One less troll to have to keep correcting!

Cheers, T i m

On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 07:54:47 -0800 (PST), whisky-dave
wrote:

On Wednesday, 14 February 2018 15:25:14 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 03:47:04 -0800 (PST), whisky-dave
wrote:

On Tuesday, 13 February 2018 20:27:50 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 17:51:18 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:


Ok, let's try stating a couple of facts and see how you cope:

1/3rd of the electorate voted to leave the EU.
2/3rds of the electorate didn't vote to leave the EU.

These are NOT the facts.

They are, to all right brainers, troll.

snip crazy bs

Cheers, T i m

On Wednesday, 14 February 2018 16:27:32 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 15:58:33 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

snip

Anyone not voting can be considered a "don't care".

Only by left brainers.

They were given the opportunity to vote, if they didn't that's their choice/problem.

No, it could be all our problems. As you are a left brainer you would
never understand why so I'll try and help you out.

Let's say that many of the people who didn't vote at all, did so
because they weren't willing to vote on something when there were no
clear signs exactly what that vote would mean.

Lets say that isn't true as there are always those that don't vote even when we had a general election the turn out was 68.7% the referdum was 72.2%.

What does that tell your neither half of the brain working ?

On Wednesday, 14 February 2018 16:28:25 UTC, T i m wrote:

snip crazy bs

Cheers, T i m

fixed that for ya

On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 11:22:25 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Wednesday, 14 February 2018 16:28:25 UTC, T i m wrote:

snip crazy bs

Cheers, T i m

fixed that for ya

Killfile not working? Need help understanding that as well (and I'd be
happy to help)!

Oh, and you are to Brexit what Boris is to Brexit!!

Cheers, T i m

On 11/02/2018 13:00, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 12:07:43 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

On 10/02/2018 21:54, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp 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.

Are you for real?

I wouldn't want the substandard garbage myself, Thicko's all over the
country can leave the UK open to whateve rubbish remains when the
production costs are shaved. It does not mean that I have to consume
the crud.

I don't blame Europe for trying to isolate themselves from the cut
price, deregulated garbage either.

Your type is why so many voted for Brexit.

I wasn't aware that it was an issue? I doubt that many of the dimwits
thought things through to the point of consumption, they were too busy
flag waving and denouncing migrants.

Anyway I want to take control of what I eat and I want to know that
the rest of the products I buy are of an acceptable quality.

If the idiots think there is something wrong with that, I can't help
it. Wasnt it what the IQ zero's voted for? Taking control?

As I pointed out elsewhere, the Brexit voters wouldn't be bothered
about food quality anyway, you are a classic example, you are
attempting to swing everything around to for and against. You are
incapable of looking into the facts.

You come across as a myopic poor loser Remoaner who believes his own
rhetoric.

That's impressive, the whole argument now that you have screwed the
country is not, how do we sort the disaster out, let's just criticise
anyone that doesn't go along with the stupid farce.

You and your ilk have destroyed Britain, not only that, you have
burdened generations to come with the task of having to pay for your
stupidity.

You come across as a myopic poor loser Remoaner who believes his own
rhetoric.

In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
You come across as a myopic poor loser Remoaner who believes his own
rhetoric.

I'd say he does believe what he says. It tend to be leavers who have
conned themselves into believing what they write.
Like it's going to be easy to replace any lost trade with the EU after we
leave - and more to the point improve upon it. Just what are these killer
products the rest of the world is gagging for?

--
*Nostalgia isn't what is used to be.

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

On 14/02/2018 23:33, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
You come across as a myopic poor loser Remoaner who believes his own
rhetoric.

I'd say he does believe what he says.

Then that is very sad.

What is most sad, he didn't see Brexit happening and still hasn't a clue
why anyone might vote for it.

On 15/02/18 01:03, Fredxx wrote:
On 14/02/2018 23:33, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* Fredxx wrote:
You come across as a myopic poor loser Remoaner who believes his own
rhetoric.

I'd say he does believe what he says.

Then that is very sad.

What is most sad, he didn't see Brexit happening and still hasn't a clue
why anyone might vote for it.

The most chilling thought is that either way you look at it, upwards of
30% of the population have been completely conned by political propaganda.



--
"I am inclined to tell the truth and dislike people who lie consistently.
This makes me unfit for the company of people of a Left persuasion, and
all women"

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/02/18 01:03, Fredxx wrote:
On 14/02/2018 23:33, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
You come across as a myopic poor loser Remoaner who believes his own
rhetoric.

I'd say he does believe what he says.

Then that is very sad.

What is most sad, he didn't see Brexit happening and still hasn't a
clue why anyone might vote for it.

The most chilling thought is that either way you look at it, upwards of
30% of the population have been completely conned by political
propaganda.

It is, isn't it? So many actually believing that the likes of Boris and
Farage actually give a stuff for the least privileged of the land. And
voted out because they were promised it would improve their lot. When all
data before and since the referendum says they will be hardest hit by
leaving the EU. Sadly they will only finally believe they were wrong in
time.



--

--
*I didn't say it was your fault, I said I was blaming you.

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

On Thursday, 15 February 2018 11:03:37 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/02/18 01:03, Fredxx wrote:
On 14/02/2018 23:33, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxx wrote:

You come across as a myopic poor loser Remoaner who believes his own
rhetoric.

I'd say he does believe what he says.

Then that is very sad.

What is most sad, he didn't see Brexit happening and still hasn't a
clue why anyone might vote for it.

The most chilling thought is that either way you look at it, upwards of
30% of the population have been completely conned by political
propaganda.

It is, isn't it? So many actually believing that the likes of Boris and
Farage actually give a stuff for the least privileged of the land. And
voted out because they were promised it would improve their lot. When all
data before and since the referendum says they will be hardest hit by
leaving the EU. Sadly they will only finally believe they were wrong in
time.

I guess that's one way to show you don't understand the issues

On Thu, 15 Feb 2018 02:01:17 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 15/02/18 01:03, Fredxx wrote:
On 14/02/2018 23:33, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
*** Fredxx wrote:
You come across as a myopic poor loser Remoaner who believes his own
rhetoric.

I'd say he does believe what he says.

Then that is very sad.

What is most sad, he didn't see Brexit happening and still hasn't a clue
why anyone might vote for it.

The most chilling thought is that either way you look at it, upwards of
30% of the population have been completely conned by political propaganda.

Yup, that there really was ever the intention to give £350M/week we
don't actually pay to the EU to the NHS 'instead', that not being
'Ruled by un elected bureaucrats in Brussels' is *actually* going to
make any real difference to anyone (other than making it more
expensive for 'most people') or that there were any magic solutions to
all the trade arrangements, the NI border, 'immigrants' or pretty well
everything else the fanatic Brexiteers *think* is important.

But as you admit, it was only important to the 1/3rd of the electorate
who actually voted to leave.

And I wonder what they think they actually voted for ...given our own
government still don't know, all these months on?

It was like asking a group of people if they all want dinner, only
1/3rd of them putting their hands up but outside of it being 'dinner',
giving them little idea what 'dinner' actually is. It could be steak
or it could be 'a dog's dinner' ... and so far it looks like we are
getting the latter ... ;-(

Cheers, T i m

On Thu, 15 Feb 2018 03:57:07 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Thursday, 15 February 2018 11:03:37 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/02/18 01:03, Fredxx wrote:
On 14/02/2018 23:33, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxx wrote:

You come across as a myopic poor loser Remoaner who believes his own
rhetoric.

I'd say he does believe what he says.

Then that is very sad.

What is most sad, he didn't see Brexit happening and still hasn't a
clue why anyone might vote for it.

The most chilling thought is that either way you look at it, upwards of
30% of the population have been completely conned by political
propaganda.

It is, isn't it? So many actually believing that the likes of Boris and
Farage actually give a stuff for the least privileged of the land. And
voted out because they were promised it would improve their lot. When all
data before and since the referendum says they will be hardest hit by
leaving the EU. Sadly they will only finally believe they were wrong in
time.

I guess that's one way to show you don't understand the issues

It's funny how you fanatic Brexiteers are so absolutely convinced that
'your opinion' is 100% right?

You are 100% right even when you didn't have the faintest clue what it
was you were actually voting for at the time and aren't much better
informed now.

*That's* a lack of understanding if there ever was one, or gambling
for that matter!

Cheers, T i m

In article ,
wrote:
It is, isn't it? So many actually believing that the likes of Boris and
Farage actually give a stuff for the least privileged of the land. And
voted out because they were promised it would improve their lot. When all
data before and since the referendum says they will be hardest hit by
leaving the EU. Sadly they will only finally believe they were wrong in
time.

I guess that's one way to show you don't understand the issues

And you don't understand that without the vote of those in depressed areas
of the UK, Brexit would not have been carried. And they voted on a lie
from the likes of Farage that leaving would improve their lot.

--
*"I am " is reportedly the shortest sentence in the English language. *

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

In article ,
T i m wrote:
You are 100% right even when you didn't have the faintest clue what it
was you were actually voting for at the time and aren't much better
informed now.

They appeared to be voting for England to win the World Cup. All that's
needed for that is the spectators pulling together and plenty of cheering.

--
*I started out with nothing, and I still have most of it*

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

On 15/02/18 11:57, wrote:
On Thursday, 15 February 2018 11:03:37 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/02/18 01:03, Fredxx wrote:
On 14/02/2018 23:33, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxx wrote:

You come across as a myopic poor loser Remoaner who believes his own
rhetoric.

I'd say he does believe what he says.

Then that is very sad.

What is most sad, he didn't see Brexit happening and still hasn't a
clue why anyone might vote for it.

The most chilling thought is that either way you look at it, upwards of
30% of the population have been completely conned by political
propaganda.

It is, isn't it? So many actually believing that the likes of Boris and
Farage actually give a stuff for the least privileged of the land. And
voted out because they were promised it would improve their lot. When all
data before and since the referendum says they will be hardest hit by
leaving the EU. Sadly they will only finally believe they were wrong in
time.

I guess that's one way to show you don't understand the issues

Pore Ole Dave. He still hasnt twigged that in the years of Labour
government since WWII almost none of the problems Labour was voted into
power to solve, have been solved.

Farage said he would try to get a referendum to get us out of the EU, he
did, and we are and he has stepped back. Job done.

Pity Labour aren't honest like that eh?


--
Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its proper
name. They must face the full meaning of that which they are advocating
or condoning; the full, exact, specific meaning of collectivism, of its
logical implications, of the principles upon which it is based, and of
the ultimate consequences to which these principles will lead. They must
face it, then decide whether this is what they want or not.

Ayn Rand.