In article ,
Jeff wrote:
Of course it is when the government stuffs up badly enough like Blair
and Brown did, the voters can see if the other lot can do any better.

I take it you'd agree that Thatcher stuffed things up too, then?

--
*What happens when none of your bees wax? *

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

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
This risible twaddle. And with a change of UK government out goes the
whole cabinet.

Could you clarify what you mean?

I'm saying (see other posts) that Huge is talking cock to suggest that
the EU system is democratic. When the UK govt changes, the whole
cabinet is replaced. The only comparable mechanism in the EU is that
the MEPs can sack the Commission. Which they've done just the once. And
again, it's not in our hands.

It would hardly be democratic if we and we alone could determine anything
about the EU.

--
*(on a baby-size shirt) "Party -- my crib -- two a.m

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

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/06/18 21:04, Jeff wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jeff wrote:
Of course there is with not having to accept anyone
from the EU that decides that their prospects in the
UK are better than where they are coming from

Let's hope you never need hospital treatment. Without those EU immigrants
it would simply stop working. As with so much else in many larger towns
across the UK.

But when no longer in the EU, the UK will be free to choose
which immigrants are useful in the UK and which like the
Romanians whose only 'skills' are washing cars should not be allowed.

When I was in hospital on Friday, I was treated by an English nurse and
a Balinese nurse. Ther was also an Indian nurse in evidence

Not a single 'European' to be seen.

Ah - right. Only ones needed to run a hospital are nurses. And a very
small one indeed if only employing three nurses.



-

--
*If God dropped acid, would he see people?

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

On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 23:07:43 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

But when no longer in the EU, the UK will be free to choose which
immigrants are useful in the UK and which like the Romanians
whose only 'skills' are washing cars should not be allowed.

The UK already controls immigration but still lets enough in to
account for 60% of immigrants + EU migrants.

These cars won't clean themselves you know!

On 01/07/2018 10:21, Jeff wrote:


"dennis@home" wrote in message
...
On 30/06/2018 23:45, Jeff wrote:


"dennis@home" wrote in message
...
On 30/06/2018 21:04, Jeff wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
* Jeff wrote:
Of course there is with not having to accept anyone
from the EU that decides that their prospects in the
UK are better than where they are coming from

Let's hope you never need hospital treatment. Without those EU
immigrants
it would simply stop working. As with so much else in many larger
towns
across the UK.

But when no longer in the EU, the UK will be free to choose
which immigrants are useful in the UK and which like the
Romanians whose only 'skills' are washing cars should not be allowed.

The UK already controls immigration

Not with the migrants from the EU it doesn’t.

but still lets enough in to account
for 60% of immigrants + EU migrants.

But does not allow immigrants whose only skill is cleaning cars
who decide that they will do that in the UK into the UK.


No they stop skilled doctors and nurses who have been recruited by the
NHS instead.

They clearly do not do that.

They clearly have been doing so

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-43898969

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jeff wrote:
Of course it is when the government stuffs up badly enough like Blair
and Brown did, the voters can see if the other lot can do any better.

I take it you'd agree that Thatcher stuffed things up too, then?

Very different with her, her party sacked her when she
insisted on having the poll tax and they decided that that
would be electoral suicide come the next general election.

The EU commissioners don’t have to care about what the next
EP election might do to them given that they can only be all
sacked at once by the EP and that has only ever happened once.
And the EP doesn’t even get to decide who the replacements will be.

On Sun, 01 Jul 2018 14:20:50 +0100, mechanic wrote:

On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 23:07:43 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

But when no longer in the EU, the UK will be free to choose which
immigrants are useful in the UK and which like the Romanians whose
only 'skills' are washing cars should not be allowed.

The UK already controls immigration but still lets enough in to account
for 60% of immigrants + EU migrants.

These cars won't clean themselves you know!

We can at least rely on Dennis the Dunce and his ilk to clean our cars
(and toilets) for us after the EU lot **** off. Their level of education
and erudition mark them out as ideally suited for it.



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

"mechanic" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 23:07:43 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

But when no longer in the EU, the UK will be free to choose which
immigrants are useful in the UK and which like the Romanians
whose only 'skills' are washing cars should not be allowed.

The UK already controls immigration but still lets enough in to
account for 60% of immigrants + EU migrants.

These cars won't clean themselves you know!

I just lend my car to my mates when they need one.

Its been cleaned every time. Cant work out whether
they are too ashamed to drive around in my filthy
car which is certainly the filthiest car in town or what.

One of them said he washed it to **** me off.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...
On 01/07/2018 10:21, Jeff wrote:


"dennis@home" wrote in message
...
On 30/06/2018 23:45, Jeff wrote:


"dennis@home" wrote in message
...
On 30/06/2018 21:04, Jeff wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jeff wrote:
Of course there is with not having to accept anyone
from the EU that decides that their prospects in the
UK are better than where they are coming from

Let's hope you never need hospital treatment. Without those EU
immigrants
it would simply stop working. As with so much else in many larger
towns
across the UK.

But when no longer in the EU, the UK will be free to choose
which immigrants are useful in the UK and which like the
Romanians whose only 'skills' are washing cars should not be allowed.

The UK already controls immigration

Not with the migrants from the EU it doesn’t.

but still lets enough in to account
for 60% of immigrants + EU migrants.

But does not allow immigrants whose only skill is cleaning cars
who decide that they will do that in the UK into the UK.


No they stop skilled doctors and nurses who have been recruited by the
NHS instead.

They clearly do not do that.

They clearly have been doing so

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-43898969

No they have not. Those knocked back haven't been stopped,
they have just exceeded the monthly quota and are free to
apply again.

On Mon, 2 Jul 2018 02:04:17 +1000, cantankerous geezer Rot Speed blabbered,
again:


FLUSH yet more of the senile troll's usual troll ****

....and much better air in here again.

--
Richard addressing Rot Speed:
"**** you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll."
MID:

On 01/07/2018 11:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/06/18 15:35, Huge wrote:
On 2018-06-30, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* Tim Streater wrote:
A chimera. I would like to remove the present government and
replace it
with people who don't put internal politics before the good of the
country, but I can't.

You can at the next election. That's the difference.

Whereas after the next EUParl elections, there will be the same
unelected commissioners, and broadly the same MEPs, elected on their
****ty list system.

How do you think prospective MPs are chosen in the UK? By the voters in
that constituency?

I wouldn't bother. Tim is utterly convinced of his (incorrect) position
and you're wasting your time.


In te end its not about what you or Tim think, its about what 17m people
were strongly motivated enough to vote for.

It is what they voted for two years ago, when they thought the Leave
campaigners must have a coherent idea of how to achieve Brexit in the
simple and easy way they predicted it would happen, when the refugee
crisis was at its height and most people didn't realise that the EU
couldn't force the UK to take any of them, and when, according to a
later survey, 35% of leave voters believed that Brexit would give the
NHS £350 million a week. It is unlikely they would make the same choice
today, having seen some of the realities of the Brexit process.




--
--

Colin Bignell

On 30/06/2018 15:28, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
A chimera. I would like to remove the present government and replace it
with people who don't put internal politics before the good of the
country, but I can't.

You can at the next election. That's the difference.

Whereas after the next EUParl elections, there will be the same
unelected commissioners, and broadly the same MEPs, elected on their
****ty list system.

How do you think prospective MPs are chosen in the UK? By the voters in
that constituency?

Do we vote in our civil service?

And how about the H of L? Very democratic, that.

Giving the population the chance to elect absolutely everyone does not
guarantee getting the best people for the job.

It may not have occurred to you, but giving anyone a job solely on their
political beliefs matching yours may be a good thing to help keep your job
secure, but may well not be in the best interests of all.


In any case, the EU can only pass laws that affect the UK in those areas
that the UK has agreed to allow it to and the 'unelected' (more
accurately indirectly elected) members of the EU Commission may propose
laws, but they cannot pass them. They have to be approved by the EU
Council, on which the UK is represented and where the UK has supported
95% of all proposals since 1999 and opposed just 2%, and the EU
Parliament. This article discusses the process in detail:

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/20...d-bureaucrats/

--
--

Colin Bignell

On 01/07/2018 17:04, Rod Speed wrote:

One of them said he washed it to **** me off.

You probably misheard - he ****ed on it to wash it.

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

alan_m wrote
Rod Speed wrote

One of them said he washed it to **** me off.

You probably misheard

Nope.

- he ****ed on it to wash it.

Nope. You dont have a ****ing clue how filthy it was.
Even a ****ing downpour wouldnt wash it.

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
A chimera. I would like to remove the present government and replace it
with people who don't put internal politics before the good of the
country, but I can't.

You can at the next election. That's the difference.

Whereas after the next EUParl elections, there will be the same
unelected commissioners, and broadly the same MEPs, elected on their
****ty list system.

How do you think prospective MPs are chosen in the UK? By the voters in
that constituency?

Do we vote in our civil service?

And how about the H of L? Very democratic, that.

Giving the population the chance to elect absolutely everyone does not
guarantee getting the best people for the job.

That is not actually the leading criteria for a democratic government.
It may not have occurred to you, but giving anyone a job solely on their
political beliefs matching yours may be a good thing to help keep your job
secure, but may well not be in the best interests of all.

But that is the EU way.
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Tim's had it repeatedly pointed out to him that the UK electoral system
is no more democratic than the EU one (debateably less so, since MEPs
are elected by PR, unlike the UK's deeply unfair FPTP system) ...

This risible twaddle. And with a change of UK government out goes the
whole cabinet.

Could you clarify what you mean? Are you implying the present cabinet is
doing a good job? If not, are you suggesting a labour one (the only likely
alternative) would do better?

Or do you prefer keeping things at some theoretical level? The one where
the UK system is just perfect?

There was a chap on Any Questions yesterday. Said the main reason to get
out of the EU was so we could make our own decisions. Good luck with that
under WTO rules. Or in any other trade agreement, come to that.

But first WE decide whether we wish to play by WTO rules. Now its pretty
obvious that there are massive advantages to accepting those rules so we
will. Just as we will decide to join in other treaties and alliances
which we see as being to our benefit. Is that simple enough for you?
--
bert

In article , "dennis@home"
writes
On 30/06/2018 23:45, Jeff wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
...
On 30/06/2018 21:04, Jeff wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Â* Jeff wrote:
Of course there is with not having to accept anyone
from the EU that decides that their prospects in the
UK are better than where they are coming from

Let's hope you never need hospital treatment. Without those EU
immigrants
it would simply stop working. As with so much else in many larger towns
across the UK.

But when no longer in the EU, the UK will be free to choose
which immigrants are useful in the UK and which like the
Romanians whose only 'skills' are washing cars should not be allowed.

The UK already controls immigration
Not with the migrants from the EU it doesnt.
but still lets enough in to account
for 60% of immigrants + EU migrants.
But does not allow immigrants whose only skill is cleaning cars
who decide that they will do that in the UK into the UK.


No they stop skilled doctors and nurses who have been recruited by the
NHS instead.

Out of date again. They are excluded from the cap.

Why is there a demand for them to clean cars and why don't the British
do it? They aren't taking jobs off British people as they didn't do
that job before. They probably won't after either.


--
bert

In article , "dennis@home"
writes
On 01/07/2018 10:21, Jeff wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
...
On 30/06/2018 23:45, Jeff wrote:


"dennis@home" wrote in message
...
On 30/06/2018 21:04, Jeff wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Â* Jeff wrote:
Of course there is with not having to accept anyone
from the EU that decides that their prospects in the
UK are better than where they are coming from

Let's hope you never need hospital treatment. Without those EU
immigrants
it would simply stop working. As with so much else in many
larger towns
across the UK.

But when no longer in the EU, the UK will be free to choose
which immigrants are useful in the UK and which like the
Romanians whose only 'skills' are washing cars should not be allowed.

The UK already controls immigration

Not with the migrants from the EU it doesnt.

but still lets enough in to account
for 60% of immigrants + EU migrants.

But does not allow immigrants whose only skill is cleaning cars
who decide that they will do that in the UK into the UK.


No they stop skilled doctors and nurses who have been recruited by
the NHS instead.
They clearly do not do that.

They clearly have been doing so

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-43898969


27/04/2018
Do keep up.
--
bert

In article , Jeff
writes


"dennis@home" wrote in message
...
On 01/07/2018 10:21, Jeff wrote:


"dennis@home" wrote in message
...
On 30/06/2018 23:45, Jeff wrote:


"dennis@home" wrote in message
...
On 30/06/2018 21:04, Jeff wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jeff wrote:
Of course there is with not having to accept anyone
from the EU that decides that their prospects in the
UK are better than where they are coming from

Let's hope you never need hospital treatment. Without those EU
immigrants
it would simply stop working. As with so much else in many
larger towns
across the UK.

But when no longer in the EU, the UK will be free to choose
which immigrants are useful in the UK and which like the
Romanians whose only 'skills' are washing cars should not be allowed.

The UK already controls immigration

Not with the migrants from the EU it doesnt.

but still lets enough in to account
for 60% of immigrants + EU migrants.

But does not allow immigrants whose only skill is cleaning cars
who decide that they will do that in the UK into the UK.


No they stop skilled doctors and nurses who have been recruited by
the NHS instead.

They clearly do not do that.

They clearly have been doing so

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-43898969

No they have not. Those knocked back haven't been stopped,
they have just exceeded the monthly quota and are free to
apply again.
And are now excluded from the quota thanks to a Home Secretary with a
bit more initiative.
--
bert

In article , mechanic
writes
On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 23:07:43 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

But when no longer in the EU, the UK will be free to choose which
immigrants are useful in the UK and which like the Romanians
whose only 'skills' are washing cars should not be allowed.

The UK already controls immigration but still lets enough in to
account for 60% of immigrants + EU migrants.

These cars won't clean themselves you know!
Ssh. I tell them in Sainsburys car park that my Defender is
self-cleaning.
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Jeff wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jeff wrote:
Of course there is with not having to accept anyone
from the EU that decides that their prospects in the
UK are better than where they are coming from

Let's hope you never need hospital treatment. Without those EU
immigrants it would simply stop working. As with so much else in many
larger towns across the UK.

But when no longer in the EU, the UK will be free to choose
which immigrants are useful in the UK and which like the
Romanians whose only 'skills' are washing cars should not be allowed.

Quite simple really. Wash your own car and those Romanians would not
bother coming here. Same with all the various delivery services. Coffee
shops and so on.

Immigrants come here because they can find work. Makes no difference what
sort of work.

And flood the labour market thus forcing down wages at the bottom to the
minimum wage or even below. More profit for the evil share holders - oh
hang on - that's your pension fund.
--
bert

On 02/07/2018 09:23, Nightjar wrote:
On 30/06/2018 15:28, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* Tim Streater wrote:
A chimera. I would like to remove the present government and replace it
with people who don't put internal politics before the good of the
country, but I can't.

You can at the next election. That's the difference.

Whereas after the next EUParl elections, there will be the same
unelected commissioners, and broadly the same MEPs, elected on their
****ty list system.

How do you think prospective MPs are chosen in the UK? By the voters in
that constituency?

Do we vote in our civil service?

And how about the H of L? Very democratic, that.

Giving the population the chance to elect absolutely everyone does not
guarantee getting the best people for the job.

It may not have occurred to you, but giving anyone a job solely on their
political beliefs matching yours may be a good thing to help keep your
job
secure, but may well not be in the best interests of all.


In any case, the EU can only pass laws that affect the UK in those areas
that the UK has agreed to allow it to and the 'unelected' (more
accurately indirectly elected) members of the EU Commission may propose
laws, but they cannot pass them. They have to be approved by the EU
Council, on which the UK is represented and where the UK has supported
95% of all proposals since 1999 and opposed just 2%, and the EU
Parliament. This article discusses the process in detail:

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/20...d-bureaucrats/



Don't confuse them with facts, their brains will explode.

On 02/07/2018 13:50, bert wrote:

But first WE decide whether we wish to play by WTO rules. Now its pretty
obvious that there are massive advantages to accepting those rules so we
will. Just as we will decide to join in other treaties and alliances
which we see as being to our benefit. Is that simple enough for you?

Only if the other parties want us to join under terms that are to our
benefit, simple enough for you?

On 02/07/2018 14:40, bert wrote:
In article , Jeff
writes


"dennis@home" wrote in message
...
On 01/07/2018 10:21, Jeff wrote:


"dennis@home" wrote in message
...
On 30/06/2018 23:45, Jeff wrote:


"dennis@home" wrote in message
...
On 30/06/2018 21:04, Jeff wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Â* Jeff wrote:
Of course there is with not having to accept anyone
from the EU that decides that their prospects in the
UK are better than where they are coming from

Let's hope you never need hospital treatment. Without those EU
immigrants
it would simply stop working. As with so much else in many
largerÂ* towns
across the UK.

But when no longer in the EU, the UK will be free to choose
which immigrants are useful in the UK and which like the
Romanians whose only 'skills' are washing cars should not be
allowed.

The UK already controls immigration

Not with the migrants from the EU it doesnt.

but still lets enough in to account
for 60% of immigrants + EU migrants.

But does not allow immigrants whose only skill is cleaning cars
who decide that they will do that in the UK into the UK.


No they stop skilled doctors and nurses who have been recruited by
theÂ* NHS instead.

They clearly do not do that.

They clearly have been doing so

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-43898969

No they have not. Those knocked back haven't been stopped,
they have just exceeded the monthly quota and are free to
apply again.
And are now excluded from the quota thanks to a Home Secretary with a
bit more initiative.

I think you mean media pressure.

On 02/07/2018 14:38, bert wrote:
In article , "dennis@home"
writes
On 01/07/2018 10:21, Jeff wrote:
Â* "dennis@home" wrote in message
...
On 30/06/2018 23:45, Jeff wrote:


"dennis@home" wrote in message
...
On 30/06/2018 21:04, Jeff wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Â* Jeff wrote:
Of course there is with not having to accept anyone
from the EU that decides that their prospects in the
UK are better than where they are coming from

Let's hope you never need hospital treatment. Without those EU
immigrants
it would simply stop working. As with so much else in many
largerÂ* towns
across the UK.

But when no longer in the EU, the UK will be free to choose
which immigrants are useful in the UK and which like the
Romanians whose only 'skills' are washing cars should not be
allowed.

The UK already controls immigration

Not with the migrants from the EU it doesnt.

but still lets enough in to account
for 60% of immigrants + EU migrants.

But does not allow immigrants whose only skill is cleaning cars
who decide that they will do that in the UK into the UK.


No they stop skilled doctors and nurses who have been recruited by
theÂ* NHS instead.
Â*They clearly do not do that.

They clearly have been doing so

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-43898969


27/04/2018
Do keep up.

What makes you think that is the end of it?

On 02/07/2018 14:43, bert wrote:
8

And flood the labour market thus forcing down wages at the bottom to the
minimum wage or even below. More profit for the evil share holders - oh
hang on - that's your pension fund.

Are you saying you are a sponger without a pension fund?

In article ,
bert wrote:
There was a chap on Any Questions yesterday. Said the main reason to
get out of the EU was so we could make our own decisions. Good luck
with that under WTO rules. Or in any other trade agreement, come to
that.

But first WE decide whether we wish to play by WTO rules. Now its pretty
obvious that there are massive advantages to accepting those rules so we
will. Just as we will decide to join in other treaties and alliances
which we see as being to our benefit. Is that simple enough for you?

It is simple in the extreme to think the UK can make the rules it wants to
for trade with other countries.

Are you really so stupid you can't see that any rules that gave us an
advantage in trade would be countered by other countries doing the same?
As in the current trade wars?

But carry on dreaming, pet.

--
*He who laughs last has just realised the joke.

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

In article ,
bert wrote:
And flood the labour market thus forcing down wages at the bottom to the
minimum wage or even below. More profit for the evil share holders - oh
hang on - that's your pension fund.

Just when did you start giving a stuff what the low paid actually get?
Except when you think it gives some weight to your Brexit rubbish. Sadly,
lots of the lower paid were conned by this strategy too. More fool them.

--
*I yell because I care

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

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
On 02/07/2018 13:50, bert wrote:

But first WE decide whether we wish to play by WTO rules. Now its
pretty obvious that there are massive advantages to accepting those
rules so we will. Just as we will decide to join in other treaties
and alliances which we see as being to our benefit. Is that simple
enough for you?

Only if the other parties want us to join under terms that are to our
benefit, simple enough for you?

But bert still thinks Britain rules the waves and can impose any
conditions it wants to on other countries. Likely what he sees as
democracy. ;-)

--
*I pretend to work. - they pretend to pay me.

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

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
What counts is actually *leaving*.

And, of course, no cost of any sort would be too high. Thanks for that.

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

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

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Tim's had it repeatedly pointed out to him that the UK electoral system
is no more democratic than the EU one (debateably less so, since MEPs
are elected by PR, unlike the UK's deeply unfair FPTP system) ...

This risible twaddle. And with a change of UK government out goes the
whole cabinet.

Could you clarify what you mean? Are you implying the present cabinet is
doing a good job? If not, are you suggesting a labour one (the only likely
alternative) would do better?

Or do you prefer keeping things at some theoretical level? The one where
the UK system is just perfect?

There was a chap on Any Questions yesterday. Said the main reason to get
out of the EU was so we could make our own decisions. Good luck with that
under WTO rules. Or in any other trade agreement, come to that.

But first WE decide whether we wish to play by WTO rules.

That decision was made long ago when the UK decided to be a signatory
to the WTO and in fact was one of the primary driver of those rules.

Now its pretty
obvious that there are massive advantages to accepting those rules so we
will.

Have already done that long ago now.

Just as we will decide to join in other treaties and alliances
which we see as being to our benefit. Is that simple enough for you?

On 02/07/18 09:16, Nightjar wrote:

It is what they voted for two years ago, when they thought the Leave
campaigners must have a coherent idea of how to achieve Brexit in the
simple and easy way they predicted it would happen,

We did. But the government and the mandarins decdied to totally **** it
upo ny puttinga in incompoetent remoaner n charge

when the refugee
crisis was at its height

The refugee crisis has barely begun.

and most people didn't realise that the EU
couldn't force the UK to take any of them,

Quite the opposite. Oncfe someonbe gives them an EU passport, we cant
refuse.

and when, according to a
later survey,

Presumably commissioned top discover ecatly. that...
35% of leave voters believed that Brexit would give the
NHS £350 million a week. It is unlikely they would make the same choice
today, having seen some of the realities of the Brexit process.



No indeeed, The would in fact haviong seen te naked arrogance greed and
refusal act in an adult fashion of the EU. they are more likley to vote
leave than remain.




--
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for
the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the
truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Joseph Goebbels

On 02/07/2018 21:44, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:

On 01/07/2018 11:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
....
In te end its not about what you or Tim think, its about what 17m
people were strongly motivated enough to vote for.

It is what they voted for two years ago, when they thought the Leave
campaigners must have a coherent idea of how to achieve Brexit in the
simple and easy way they predicted it would happen ...

How do you know they thought that?

Balance of probabilities, unless you think that the vast majority of
people would knowingly vote for the sort of chaos that Brexit has turned
out to be.

In any case (1), the simple and easy
way is WTO rules. And in any case (2) I for one voted to have it happen
*somehow*, given the trouble we had getting *any* sort of referendum.
For my money, getting a Leave decision at all was the *most* important
aspect. The rest is detail.

Yes, but that is you. All political groups have their core of hard liners.

... when the refugee crisis was at its height and most people didn't
realise that the EU couldn't force the UK to take any of them ...

How d'ye know this?

It is what came over in interviews at the time. Some even appeared to
believe that taking back control of our borders would mean sending all
immigrants back to the lands of their fathers (or grandfathers).

and when, according to a later survey 35% of leave voters believed that
Brexit would give the NHS £350 million a week.

Ah, a survey. Whose survey? And I don't know how anyone could think the
£350 million was done and dusted, since it wasn't a promise (which the
promisers were in no position to promise anyway, not being government
policymakers), it was a suggestion.

It doesn't really matter what it was or was not. What matters is that
lots of people believed it was a promise. The Vote Leave director,
Dominic Cummings even admitted that they would not have won without it:

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/ne...-public/08/02/

It is unlikely they would make the same choice today, having seen some
of the realities of the Brexit process.

WTF has the *process* got to do with it? The *process* has been
difficult because of the ****ty behaviour of the EU, and the lying
behaviour of some Remainers, who in their hypocritical way say they
respect the result, but then do all in their power to undermine it.

The process has been difficult because of political infighting inside
the Conservative party. The responses of the EU were both reasonable and
predictable. It was only in the Brexiteer dream world that they would
have done anything different. The government should have ironed out all
its differences and come up with a firm set of proposals, with fall-back
positions in place, before issuing the Article 50 notification.

What counts is actually *leaving*.

Only to the hard liners and, of course, the very rich who would
otherwise have to comply with the EU rules on tax avoidance and tax
evasion that are due to come into effect next year.


--
--

Colin Bignell

In article , "dennis@home"
writes
On 02/07/2018 13:50, bert wrote:

But first WE decide whether we wish to play by WTO rules. Now its
pretty obvious that there are massive advantages to accepting those
rules so we will. Just as we will decide to join in other treaties
and alliances which we see as being to our benefit. Is that simple
enough for you?

Only if the other parties want us to join under terms that are to our
benefit, simple enough for you?

OK simpleton I should not have assumed you had enough sense to
comprehend "benefit" would mean "net benefit".
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
On 02/07/2018 13:50, bert wrote:

But first WE decide whether we wish to play by WTO rules. Now its
pretty obvious that there are massive advantages to accepting those
rules so we will. Just as we will decide to join in other treaties
and alliances which we see as being to our benefit. Is that simple
enough for you?

Only if the other parties want us to join under terms that are to our
benefit, simple enough for you?

But bert still thinks Britain rules the waves and can impose any
conditions it wants to on other countries. Likely what he sees as
democracy. ;-)

I see it wasn't simple enough for you. I should have known.
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
bert wrote:
There was a chap on Any Questions yesterday. Said the main reason to
get out of the EU was so we could make our own decisions. Good luck
with that under WTO rules. Or in any other trade agreement, come to
that.

But first WE decide whether we wish to play by WTO rules. Now its pretty
obvious that there are massive advantages to accepting those rules so we
will. Just as we will decide to join in other treaties and alliances
which we see as being to our benefit. Is that simple enough for you?

It is simple in the extreme to think the UK can make the rules it wants to
for trade with other countries.

Are you really so stupid you can't see that any rules that gave us an
advantage in trade would be countered by other countries doing the same?
As in the current trade wars?

I didn't say advantage I said benefit.
But carry on dreaming, pet.

A term you always resort to when rattled.
--
bert

In article , Jeff
writes


"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Tim's had it repeatedly pointed out to him that the UK electoral system
is no more democratic than the EU one (debateably less so, since MEPs
are elected by PR, unlike the UK's deeply unfair FPTP system) ...

This risible twaddle. And with a change of UK government out goes the
whole cabinet.

Could you clarify what you mean? Are you implying the present cabinet is
doing a good job? If not, are you suggesting a labour one (the only likely
alternative) would do better?

Or do you prefer keeping things at some theoretical level? The one where
the UK system is just perfect?

There was a chap on Any Questions yesterday. Said the main reason to get
out of the EU was so we could make our own decisions. Good luck with that
under WTO rules. Or in any other trade agreement, come to that.

But first WE decide whether we wish to play by WTO rules.

That decision was made long ago when the UK decided to be a signatory
to the WTO and in fact was one of the primary driver of those rules.

I'm not sure whether still are or whether that has been usurped by the
EU. Theoretically of course we could still decide to withdraw - not that
I am suggesting that that is likely to happen.
Now its pretty
obvious that there are massive advantages to accepting those rules so
we will.

Have already done that long ago now.

Just as we will decide to join in other treaties and alliances
which we see as being to our benefit. Is that simple enough for you?



--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
What counts is actually *leaving*.

And, of course, no cost of any sort would be too high. Thanks for that.

What cost would that be?
I see inward investment is up again.
Exports are up again and by far more to India and Canada than to the EU.
I see Airbus are threatening to leave the UK if we leave the EU and
relocate to that other well known EU aerospace location - China.
Airbus are in the brown stuff because they backed the wrong horse with
the A380. Boeing got it right with the Dreamliner.
JLR have announced another £30bn investment in the UK or maybe that was
the same £30bn over again. There's so much of it I lose track.
--
bert

In article , "dennis@home"
writes
On 02/07/2018 14:43, bert wrote:
8

And flood the labour market thus forcing down wages at the bottom to
the minimum wage or even below. More profit for the evil share
holders - oh hang on - that's your pension fund.

Are you saying you are a sponger without a pension fund?

More selective snipping. Deceit seems to be a common trait amongst
remainers.
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
bert wrote:
And flood the labour market thus forcing down wages at the bottom to the
minimum wage or even below. More profit for the evil share holders - oh
hang on - that's your pension fund.

Just when did you start giving a stuff what the low paid actually get?
Well you obviously don't.
Except when you think it gives some weight to your Brexit rubbish. Sadly,
lots of the lower paid were conned by this strategy too. More fool them.

The lower paid are the ones to gain most from Brexit and a reduction in
the flood of unskilled incomers. But socialist actually don't care about
the people they claim to represent. They are happy to see them dumped on
a sink estate in Glasgow.
--
bert