On 20/08/2018 17:11, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 20 August 2018 16:48:38 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
snip


It always makes me laugh when the fanatic Brexiteers say something
like 'The people voted and decided'

that's what they did and the way all voting systems in democracy work.

Voting systems 'work' on the basis of reasonably informed choices.

Given the concept of 'Brexit' was never properly explained (and still
isn't clear); the campaigning was at best tainted, at worst illegal; and
the quality of information and debate was poor. On both sides.

So how is anyone supposed to make an informed choice? That isn't the way
a decent voting system or a democracy works.


--
Cheers, Rob

"RJH" wrote in message
news
On 20/08/2018 17:11, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 20 August 2018 16:48:38 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
snip


It always makes me laugh when the fanatic Brexiteers say something
like 'The people voted and decided'

that's what they did and the way all voting systems in democracy work.

Voting systems 'work' on the basis of reasonably informed choices.

Thats never true of general elections.

Given the concept of 'Brexit' was never properly explained (and still
isn't clear); the campaigning was at best tainted, at worst illegal; and
the quality of information and debate was poor. On both sides.

Just as true of general elections. Its still the best approach available.

So how is anyone supposed to make an informed choice?

Just as true of general elections.

That isn't the way a decent voting system or a democracy works.

Of course it is.

On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 08:50:50 +0100, RJH wrote:

On 20/08/2018 17:11, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 20 August 2018 16:48:38 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
snip


It always makes me laugh when the fanatic Brexiteers say something
like 'The people voted and decided'

that's what they did and the way all voting systems in democracy work.

Voting systems 'work' on the basis of reasonably informed choices.

I think you may be wasting your time trying to explain such things to
w-d as it's obvious he isn't interested in any opinion other than his
own.

But you are right, a why a referendum isn't considered the right tool
for that sort of job (and why they had to *******ise it away from it's
default status of an 'advisory poll').

Given the concept of 'Brexit' was never properly explained (and still
isn't clear);

Except to those who either already were on a crusade about it or we
just racists. Most people probably didn't have a strong opinion either
way (as reflected in the outcome of the vote)..

the campaigning was at best tainted, at worst illegal; and
the quality of information and debate was poor. On both sides.

Quite, but suggest therefore that the result should be annulled and
the Brexiteers are up in arms. Surely they should be keen to see real
democracy at work?

So how is anyone supposed to make an informed choice?

You can't, it's impossible (of course).

Many who voted to remain did so not from an 'informed choice but
because they were between a rock and a hard place and so opted for the
status quo 'because'.

Many who voted leave did so because they actually believed the BS
campaign, are racists (even if only as 'Little Englanders') or as a
protest against the powers that be. They were also of a mind set
where they were willing to gamble our cow for some magic beans.

That isn't the way
a decent voting system or a democracy works.

No, 'of course' it isn't and could well explain why nearly the same
number of people who voted leave or remain, didn't vote at all. I
didn't vote, not because I couldn't be bothered (I turned up at the
polling station) but I couldn't determine from the FACTS available at
the time, which 'would' (not 'might be' *if* it all goes in our
favour) be best for most people.

And that's based on the facts available at the time (or now for that
matter), because I wasn't already on some anti-EU campaign or arrogant
enough to think we still had the right to think we were 'Great Britain
and that the world owed us anything. Ask anyone for whom 15th of
August 1947, the 4th July, 1776 or 1st July 1997 are important dates
(to name but three) ... what they think of us and you will get the
idea.

Cheers, T i m

On Wednesday, 22 August 2018 08:50:54 UTC+1, RJH wrote:
On 20/08/2018 17:11, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 20 August 2018 16:48:38 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
snip


It always makes me laugh when the fanatic Brexiteers say something
like 'The people voted and decided'

that's what they did and the way all voting systems in democracy work.

Voting systems 'work' on the basis of reasonably informed choices.

No they don't voting is just a choice and that is it.
Politics isn't a science.


Given the concept of 'Brexit' was never properly explained (and still
isn't clear); the campaigning was at best tainted, at worst illegal; and
the quality of information and debate was poor. On both sides.

yes I know we see this in other areas too and it is part of politics.


So how is anyone supposed to make an informed choice? That isn't the way
a decent voting system or a democracy works.

And how anyone to make an infomred choice between a smoothie and a wagon wheel for breakfast ?

On Wednesday, 22 August 2018 10:22:04 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 08:50:50 +0100, RJH wrote:

On 20/08/2018 17:11, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 20 August 2018 16:48:38 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
snip


It always makes me laugh when the fanatic Brexiteers say something
like 'The people voted and decided'

that's what they did and the way all voting systems in democracy work.

Voting systems 'work' on the basis of reasonably informed choices.

I think you may be wasting your time trying to explain such things to
w-d as it's obvious he isn't interested in any opinion other than his
own.

That is you, the 0.2%


But you are right, a why a referendum isn't considered the right tool
for that sort of job

But it was considered the right tool for the job when we voted to remain in the EEC in 1975 so a referedum is OK when you get the result you want, isn't that what you are saying ?


(and why they had to *******ise it away from it's
default status of an 'advisory poll').

WHo is they they here ?, I thought that was down to david cameron.
He was a remainer wasn't he, he or perhaps his party.
Do you want a party that has been legally illected to make suchb decisions or should it be someone else that hasn't been voted in ?

But I do agree it shouldn't have been changed but ot wasn't me or those voting that changed it.



Given the concept of 'Brexit' was never properly explained (and still
isn't clear);

Except to those who either already were on a crusade about it or we
just racists. Most people probably didn't have a strong opinion either
way (as reflected in the outcome of the vote)..

That more than 60% knew what they wanted to do on arrival at the polling booth, a few couldn;t work out what to do when they got there and the others stayed at home just like in a general election you DO NOT add the those that don't vote to any party.



the campaigning was at best tainted, at worst illegal; and
the quality of information and debate was poor. On both sides.

Quite, but suggest therefore that the result should be annulled and
the Brexiteers are up in arms. Surely they should be keen to see real
democracy at work?

Real democracy is taking notice of those that got up of their arses to vote (or postal votes or proxy vote).

What sort of democracy takes notice of those that don't vote. ?


So how is anyone supposed to make an informed choice?

You can't, it's impossible (of course).

So nothing gets done then.


Many who voted to remain did so not from an 'informed choice but
because they were between a rock and a hard place and so opted for the
status quo 'because'.

Yes as did those sleeping with harvey weisnstien they didn;t know that they could get jobs as acresses unless they had sex with him no other jobs exsisted that;'s why they had sex with him or why they put up with his behavouir because they had no choi ce but to accept the status quo.


Many who voted leave did so because they actually believed the BS
campaign, are racists (even if only as 'Little Englanders') or as a
protest against the powers that be. They were also of a mind set
where they were willing to gamble our cow for some magic beans.

But unless you know those that voted to leave you don't know that, if you did know that then you'll be a leave voter too.
In the same way only a drug addict will know how a drug addict feels and will respond others just guess based on their perceptions of them.


And that's based on the facts available at the time (or now for that
matter), because I wasn't already on some anti-EU campaign or arrogant
enough to think we still had the right to think we were 'Great Britain

Well we are unless the scots leave.
You do know why it's called great britain , great doesnl;t mean good it means large in this context.

and that the world owed us anything. Ask anyone for whom 15th of
August 1947, the 4th July, 1776 or 1st July 1997 are important dates
(to name but three) ... what they think of us and you will get the
idea.

So the USA should never have left Great Britain, well we didn't given them the option to vote on it did we.
Same with the commonwealth previously all those countrieds 'belonged' to GB
when given the 'vote' they decided for themselves some kept the queen as head of state.



Cheers, T i m

On 22/08/2018 11:09, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 August 2018 08:50:54 UTC+1, RJH wrote:
On 20/08/2018 17:11, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 20 August 2018 16:48:38 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
snip


It always makes me laugh when the fanatic Brexiteers say something
like 'The people voted and decided'

that's what they did and the way all voting systems in democracy work.

Voting systems 'work' on the basis of reasonably informed choices.

No they don't voting is just a choice and that is it.

That's just ridiculous. 'Choice' means a range of options. Even if
they're not decent (and I would suggest they do need to be decent), you
do at least need to be clear on what the options mean.

Politics isn't a science.


Think my alma mater might disagree :-)


Given the concept of 'Brexit' was never properly explained (and still
isn't clear); the campaigning was at best tainted, at worst illegal; and
the quality of information and debate was poor. On both sides.

yes I know we see this in other areas too and it is part of politics.


Indeed. But even by UK standards the EU referendum was a complete horlicks.

If you were right there wouldn't be all this fuss about a re-run or a
sub-referendum.


So how is anyone supposed to make an informed choice? That isn't the way
a decent voting system or a democracy works.

And how anyone to make an infomred choice between a smoothie and a wagon wheel for breakfast ?


And your case rests.

:-)

--
Cheers, Rob

On Wednesday, 22 August 2018 14:01:15 UTC+1, RJH wrote:
On 22/08/2018 11:09, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 August 2018 08:50:54 UTC+1, RJH wrote:
On 20/08/2018 17:11, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 20 August 2018 16:48:38 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
snip


It always makes me laugh when the fanatic Brexiteers say something
like 'The people voted and decided'

that's what they did and the way all voting systems in democracy work.

Voting systems 'work' on the basis of reasonably informed choices.

No they don't voting is just a choice and that is it.

That's just ridiculous. 'Choice' means a range of options.

So in a genral election what choice to you get, it;s almost always just between the two main parties CON or LAB when was the last time you remember anyone else winning ?

Even if
they're not decent (and I would suggest they do need to be decent), you
do at least need to be clear on what the options mean.

So what did the last general election options mean ?


Politics isn't a science.


Think my alma mater might disagree :-)

I wasn' aware they are sentience objects, does it use a digital or analogue system. I've alsway considerd politic to be digital.




Given the concept of 'Brexit' was never properly explained (and still
isn't clear); the campaigning was at best tainted, at worst illegal; and
the quality of information and debate was poor. On both sides.

yes I know we see this in other areas too and it is part of politics.


Indeed. But even by UK standards the EU referendum was a complete horlicks.

If you were right there wouldn't be all this fuss about a re-run or a
sub-referendum.


So how is anyone supposed to make an informed choice? That isn't the way
a decent voting system or a democracy works.

And how anyone to make an infomred choice between a smoothie and a wagon wheel for breakfast ?


And your case rests.

:-)

--
Cheers, Rob

On Wednesday, 22 August 2018 14:01:15 UTC+1, RJH wrote:

And how anyone to make an infomred choice between a smoothie and a wagon wheel for breakfast ?

Well this was after watching a program last night that tested smoothies and found them useless and at worse bad for you.
I'm just glad I haven't gone over to smoothies (which I don't like) and stuck to my breakfast of one wagon wheel, one 2 bar kit-kat and a single twix.

No wonder I'm so healthy :-)



And your case rests.

It certainly does.
I'm not paying £3+ for poison I don't even enjoy. :-@



:-)

--
Cheers, Rob

In article , RJH writes
On 20/08/2018 17:11, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 20 August 2018 16:48:38 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
snip


It always makes me laugh when the fanatic Brexiteers say something
like 'The people voted and decided'
that's what they did and the way all voting systems in democracy
work.

Voting systems 'work' on the basis of reasonably informed choices.

Given the concept of 'Brexit' was never properly explained (and still
isn't clear); the campaigning was at best tainted, at worst illegal;
and the quality of information and debate was poor. On both sides.

In your opinion.
So how is anyone supposed to make an informed choice? That isn't the
way a decent voting system or a democracy works.



--
bert

whisky-dave wrote
RJH wrote
whisky-dave wrote

And how anyone to make an infomred choice between
a smoothie and a wagon wheel for breakfast ?

Well this was after watching a program last night that tested
smoothies and found them useless and at worse bad for you.
I'm just glad I haven't gone over to smoothies (which I don't like)
and stuck to my breakfast of one wagon wheel, one 2 bar kit-kat
and a single twix.

I just have a massive great slab of my own whole grain
toast with my own marmalade and dont even bother
with a glass of water or coffee or tea now.

The slab of toast is about an inch thick, as thick as
will still go in the toaster, with the toaster bought
that will toast the thickest toast I can find.

So thick that when a mate of mine showed up
before the garage sale run to drop his trailer off
at my place so he didnt have to cart it round the
garage sales, his reaction when I was still
munching on it was 'what the **** is that'

No wonder I'm so healthy :-)

Pity about all that whiskey.

On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 16:35:41 +0100, bert wrote:

In article , RJH writes
On 20/08/2018 17:11, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 20 August 2018 16:48:38 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
snip


It always makes me laugh when the fanatic Brexiteers say something
like 'The people voted and decided'
that's what they did and the way all voting systems in democracy
work.

Voting systems 'work' on the basis of reasonably informed choices.

Given the concept of 'Brexit' was never properly explained (and still
isn't clear); the campaigning was at best tainted, at worst illegal;
and the quality of information and debate was poor. On both sides.

In your opinion.

In the opinion of many, if only you were open and interested enough to
care to look.

'The 'proof' is that two years after the event we still don't have a
fcking clue what the outcome of even the deal to be and the country is
still split of the topic.

You might have it all sorted out in your head, however, you aren't
'the people', you just represent the thoughts of a subset of a 1/3rd
of them.

Cheers, T i m

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , RJH wrote:

On 20/08/2018 17:11, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 20 August 2018 16:48:38 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
snip

It always makes me laugh when the fanatic Brexiteers say something
like 'The people voted and decided'

that's what they did and the way all voting systems in democracy work.

Voting systems 'work' on the basis of reasonably informed choices.

Given the concept of 'Brexit' was never properly explained (and still
isn't clear); the campaigning was at best tainted, at worst illegal; and
the quality of information and debate was poor. On both sides.

It was perfectly clear to me, and it was carefully pointed out by a
number of politicians: we would leave the EU, the CU, the SM, and the
jurisdiction of the ECJ. Article 50 makes it quite clear: two years
after declaring the intention to leave under Article 50 (that is by a
member state exercising its treaty rights), "the Treaties shall cease
to apply to the Member State".

Anything else I gotta know?

How is this country going to keep its trade balance in a positive account
under these circumstances?

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , RJH wrote:

On 20/08/2018 17:11, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 20 August 2018 16:48:38 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
snip

It always makes me laugh when the fanatic Brexiteers say something
like 'The people voted and decided'

that's what they did and the way all voting systems in democracy work.

Voting systems 'work' on the basis of reasonably informed choices.

Given the concept of 'Brexit' was never properly explained (and still
isn't clear); the campaigning was at best tainted, at worst illegal; and
the quality of information and debate was poor. On both sides.

It was perfectly clear to me, and it was carefully pointed out by a
number of politicians: we would leave the EU, the CU, the SM, and the
jurisdiction of the ECJ. Article 50 makes it quite clear: two years
after declaring the intention to leave under Article 50 (that is by a
member state exercising its treaty rights), "the Treaties shall cease
to apply to the Member State".

Anything else I gotta know?

How is this country going to keep its trade balance in a positive account
under these circumstances?

It isnt positive currently.

On 22/08/18 08:50, RJH wrote:
On 20/08/2018 17:11, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 20 August 2018 16:48:38 UTC+1, T i mÂ* wrote:
snip


It always makes me laugh when the fanatic Brexiteers say something
like 'The people voted and decided'

that's what they did and the way all voting systems in democracy work.

Voting systems 'work' on the basis of reasonably informed choices.

Given the concept of 'Brexit' was never properly explained (and still
isn't clear); the campaigning was at best tainted, at worst illegal; and
the quality of information and debate was poor. On both sides.

So how is anyone supposed to make an informed choice? That isn't the way
a decent voting system or a democracy works.


They inform themselves or dont vote.


--
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.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , RJH wrote:

On 20/08/2018 17:11, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 20 August 2018 16:48:38 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
snip

It always makes me laugh when the fanatic Brexiteers say something
like 'The people voted and decided'

that's what they did and the way all voting systems in democracy work.

Voting systems 'work' on the basis of reasonably informed choices.

Given the concept of 'Brexit' was never properly explained (and still
isn't clear); the campaigning was at best tainted, at worst illegal; and
the quality of information and debate was poor. On both sides.

It was perfectly clear to me, and it was carefully pointed out by a
number of politicians: we would leave the EU, the CU, the SM, and the
jurisdiction of the ECJ.

Do tell how these departures would benefit the country - and, indeed,
yourself, apart from giving you the warm feeling that once again we've
defeated Johnny Foreigner.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 23/08/18 09:03, charles wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , RJH wrote:

On 20/08/2018 17:11, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 20 August 2018 16:48:38 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
snip

It always makes me laugh when the fanatic Brexiteers say something
like 'The people voted and decided'

that's what they did and the way all voting systems in democracy work.

Voting systems 'work' on the basis of reasonably informed choices.

Given the concept of 'Brexit' was never properly explained (and still
isn't clear); the campaigning was at best tainted, at worst illegal; and
the quality of information and debate was poor. On both sides.

It was perfectly clear to me, and it was carefully pointed out by a
number of politicians: we would leave the EU, the CU, the SM, and the
jurisdiction of the ECJ.

Do tell how these departures would benefit the country - and, indeed,
yourself, apart from giving you the warm feeling that once again we've
defeated Johnny Foreigner.

Why?

You will just stick your fingers in your ears.


--
There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale
returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.

Mark Twain

On 22/08/2018 14:21, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 August 2018 14:01:15 UTC+1, RJH wrote:
On 22/08/2018 11:09, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 August 2018 08:50:54 UTC+1, RJH wrote:
On 20/08/2018 17:11, whisky-dave wrote:

snip

That's just ridiculous. 'Choice' means a range of options.

So in a genral election what choice to you get, it;s almost always just between the two main parties CON or LAB when was the last time you remember anyone else winning ?

Even if
they're not decent (and I would suggest they do need to be decent), you
do at least need to be clear on what the options mean.

So what did the last general election options mean ?


You're sort of making my point for me. Shouting 'democracy' doesn't make
it right. Democracy isn't an/off concept or method - there's good, bad,
and lots in between. Our general elections have been getting worse since
1979. And the EU referendum was the worst modern UK example of democracy
yet (off the top of my head).

But better, I'd add, than those poor sods in Zimbabwe (to choose one of
many examples), who have suffer your Zimbabwean alter ego chanting 'the
election was democratic, live with it, will of the people'.



--
Cheers, Rob

On 23/08/18 10:29, RJH wrote:
On 22/08/2018 14:21, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 August 2018 14:01:15 UTC+1, RJHÂ* wrote:
On 22/08/2018 11:09, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 August 2018 08:50:54 UTC+1, RJHÂ* wrote:
On 20/08/2018 17:11, whisky-dave wrote:

snip

That's just ridiculous. 'Choice' means a range of options.

So in a genral election what choice to you get, it;s almost always
just between the two main parties CON or LABÂ* when was the last time
you remember anyone else winning ?

Even if
they're not decent (and I would suggest they do need to be decent), you
do at least need to be clear on what the options mean.

So what did the last general election options mean ?


You're sort of making my point for me. Shouting 'democracy' doesn't make
it right. Democracy isn't an/off concept or method - there's good, bad,
and lots in between. Our general elections have been getting worse since
1979. And the EU referendum was the worst modern UK example of democracy
yet (off the top of my head).

But better, I'd add, than those poor sods in Zimbabwe (to choose one of
many examples), who have suffer your Zimbabwean alter ego chanting 'the
election was democratic, live with it, will of the people'.



"Democracy measns one man, one vote, and I am that man".

What remoanres do not understand is that democracy is a way to settle
contentious issues without civil war and bloodshed.

if 90% of the populatin thought the EU was crap, there wouldnt be a need
for a vote,.

That's why we had one, and it's result has to be respected.





--
No Apple devices were knowingly used in the preparation of this post.

In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 23/08/18 09:03, charles wrote:
In article , Tim Streater
wrote:
In article , RJH
wrote:

On 20/08/2018 17:11, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 20 August 2018 16:48:38 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
snip

It always makes me laugh when the fanatic Brexiteers say something
like 'The people voted and decided'

that's what they did and the way all voting systems in democracy
work.

Voting systems 'work' on the basis of reasonably informed choices.

Given the concept of 'Brexit' was never properly explained (and still
isn't clear); the campaigning was at best tainted, at worst illegal;
and the quality of information and debate was poor. On both sides.

It was perfectly clear to me, and it was carefully pointed out by a
number of politicians: we would leave the EU, the CU, the SM, and the
jurisdiction of the ECJ.

Do tell how these departures would benefit the country - and, indeed,
yourself, apart from giving you the warm feeling that once again we've
defeated Johnny Foreigner.

Why?

You will just stick your fingers in your ears.

funny - I tend to read on-screen messages - not listen to them

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 23/08/18 10:37, charles wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 23/08/18 09:03, charles wrote:
In article , Tim Streater
wrote:
In article , RJH
wrote:

On 20/08/2018 17:11, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 20 August 2018 16:48:38 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
snip

It always makes me laugh when the fanatic Brexiteers say something
like 'The people voted and decided'

that's what they did and the way all voting systems in democracy
work.

Voting systems 'work' on the basis of reasonably informed choices.

Given the concept of 'Brexit' was never properly explained (and still
isn't clear); the campaigning was at best tainted, at worst illegal;
and the quality of information and debate was poor. On both sides.

It was perfectly clear to me, and it was carefully pointed out by a
number of politicians: we would leave the EU, the CU, the SM, and the
jurisdiction of the ECJ.

Do tell how these departures would benefit the country - and, indeed,
yourself, apart from giving you the warm feeling that once again we've
defeated Johnny Foreigner.

Why?

You will just stick your fingers in your ears.

funny - I tend to read on-screen messages - not listen to them

You read them, but you instantly deny their validity.

Let's put it this way, your view of the statuses of the the EU, the CU,
the SM, and the jurisdiction of the ECJ, is that they are altogether
Goodd Things. Because they have all spent lots on money employing people
to tell you this.

Supposing they were not in fact Good Things, merely tentacles of a giant
squid in cahoots with an elite who dont give a tuppenny **** about you,
and to whom your democratic vote is just an irritant.

AS shown by their determined efforts to completely ignore it.

NOTHING has confirmed peoples opinions more anbout leaving the EU than
the antics OF the EU post referendum.

This is communist totalitarianism by stealth now out in the open.


--
"When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."

Josef Stalin

On 22/08/2018 18:25, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , RJH wrote:

snip

That's just ridiculous. 'Choice' means a range of options. Even if
they're not decent (and I would suggest they do need to be decent),
you do at least need to be clear on what the options mean.

See my other post. If it wasn't clear to you then you were nodding off.
Perhaps you still are.


Probably :-)

You mean this:

--
we would leave the EU, the CU, the SM, and the
jurisdiction of the ECJ. Article 50 makes it quite clear: two years
after declaring the intention to leave under Article 50 (that is by a
member state exercising its treaty rights), "the Treaties shall cease
to apply to the Member State"
--

Well, no, that wasn't the choice presented. it was a question:

"Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or
leave the European Union?"

Nothing about the single market (like Norway), etc.

I suppose it was reasonably implicit that the treaties would end, but
where was the discussion about what would be put in their place?

I gathered that all EU rules and laws would be rolled over and modified
as and when - that was the only reasonably clear point that I remember.

And did anyone explain, in clear terms, what that would likely mean in
practice? An individual's freedoms, job security, freedom of movement,
standard of living? Do you seriously expect me to believe that they did?
The only emphatic messages (£350m etc) came from 'Leave', and we all
know what become of those.

I say 'in clear terms', because there was of course a good deal of
detail. Fore example:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/alternatives-to-membership-possible-models-for-the-united-kingdom-outside-the-european-union

That's a 50 page document skimming three versions of what 'leave' means.
Which version were people voting for? Is that a reasonable way to
present a referendum?

I've no idea why you are so seemingly obtuse on all of this.

--
Cheers, Rob

On Wednesday, 22 August 2018 16:53:59 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
RJH wrote
whisky-dave wrote

And how anyone to make an infomred choice between
a smoothie and a wagon wheel for breakfast ?

Well this was after watching a program last night that tested
smoothies and found them useless and at worse bad for you.
I'm just glad I haven't gone over to smoothies (which I don't like)
and stuck to my breakfast of one wagon wheel, one 2 bar kit-kat
and a single twix.

I just have a massive great slab of my own whole grain
toast with my own marmalade and dont even bother
with a glass of water or coffee or tea now.

The slab of toast is about an inch thick, as thick as.......
will still go .........
that will toast the thickest ......


So thick .......

Yes I see a conection here.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/08/18 10:37, charles wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 23/08/18 09:03, charles wrote:
In article , Tim Streater
wrote:
In article , RJH
wrote:

On 20/08/2018 17:11, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 20 August 2018 16:48:38 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
snip

It always makes me laugh when the fanatic Brexiteers say something
like 'The people voted and decided'

that's what they did and the way all voting systems in democracy
work.

Voting systems 'work' on the basis of reasonably informed choices.

Given the concept of 'Brexit' was never properly explained (and still
isn't clear); the campaigning was at best tainted, at worst illegal;
and the quality of information and debate was poor. On both sides.

It was perfectly clear to me, and it was carefully pointed out by a
number of politicians: we would leave the EU, the CU, the SM, and the
jurisdiction of the ECJ.

Do tell how these departures would benefit the country - and, indeed,
yourself, apart from giving you the warm feeling that once again we've
defeated Johnny Foreigner.

Why?

You will just stick your fingers in your ears.

funny - I tend to read on-screen messages - not listen to them

You read them, but you instantly deny their validity.

Let's put it this way, your view of the statuses of the the EU, the CU,
the SM, and the jurisdiction of the ECJ, is that they are altogether
Goodd Things. Because they have all spent lots on money employing people
to tell you this.

Supposing they were not in fact Good Things, merely tentacles of a giant
squid in cahoots with an elite who dont give a tuppenny **** about you,
and to whom your democratic vote is just an irritant.

AS shown by their determined efforts to completely ignore it.

NOTHING has confirmed peoples opinions more anbout leaving the EU than
the antics OF the EU post referendum.

This is communist totalitarianism by stealth now out in the open.

You have not said why leaving the EU will be good for the UK.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 23/08/2018 10:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/08/18 10:29, RJH wrote:
On 22/08/2018 14:21, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 August 2018 14:01:15 UTC+1, RJHÂ* wrote:
On 22/08/2018 11:09, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 August 2018 08:50:54 UTC+1, RJHÂ* wrote:
On 20/08/2018 17:11, whisky-dave wrote:

snip

That's just ridiculous. 'Choice' means a range of options.

So in a genral election what choice to you get, it;s almost always
just between the two main parties CON or LABÂ* when was the last time
you remember anyone else winning ?

Even if
they're not decent (and I would suggest they do need to be decent), you
do at least need to be clear on what the options mean.

So what did the last general election options mean ?


You're sort of making my point for me. Shouting 'democracy' doesn't
make it right. Democracy isn't an/off concept or method - there's
good, bad, and lots in between. Our general elections have been
getting worse since 1979. And the EU referendum was the worst modern
UK example of democracy yet (off the top of my head).

But better, I'd add, than those poor sods in Zimbabwe (to choose one
of many examples), who have suffer your Zimbabwean alter ego chanting
'the election was democratic, live with it, will of the people'.



"Democracy measns one man, one vote, and I am that man".

What remoanres do not understand is that democracy is a way to settle
contentious issues without civil war and bloodshed.


In the short term at least, yes, I agree.

if 90% of the populatin thought the EU was crap, there wouldnt be a need
for a vote,.

That's why we had one, and it's result has to be respected.


That is why we had one - but our government made a mess of of it. So
that mess has to be corrected if the UK is going to call itself 'a good
example of a democratic state'.


--
Cheers, Rob

On 23/08/18 10:55, RJH wrote:
On 23/08/2018 10:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/08/18 10:29, RJH wrote:
On 22/08/2018 14:21, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 August 2018 14:01:15 UTC+1, RJHÂ* wrote:
On 22/08/2018 11:09, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 August 2018 08:50:54 UTC+1, RJHÂ* wrote:
On 20/08/2018 17:11, whisky-dave wrote:

snip

That's just ridiculous. 'Choice' means a range of options.

So in a genral election what choice to you get, it;s almost always
just between the two main parties CON or LABÂ* when was the last time
you remember anyone else winning ?

Even if
they're not decent (and I would suggest they do need to be decent),
you
do at least need to be clear on what the options mean.

So what did the last general election options mean ?


You're sort of making my point for me. Shouting 'democracy' doesn't
make it right. Democracy isn't an/off concept or method - there's
good, bad, and lots in between. Our general elections have been
getting worse since 1979. And the EU referendum was the worst modern
UK example of democracy yet (off the top of my head).

But better, I'd add, than those poor sods in Zimbabwe (to choose one
of many examples), who have suffer your Zimbabwean alter ego chanting
'the election was democratic, live with it, will of the people'.



"Democracy measns one man, one vote, and I am that man".

What remoanres do not understand is that democracy is a way to settle
contentious issues without civil war and bloodshed.


In the short term at least, yes, I agree.

if 90% of the populatin thought the EU was crap, there wouldnt be a
need for a vote,.

That's why we had one, and it's result has to be respected.


That is why we had one - but our government made a mess of of it. So
that mess has to be corrected if the UK is going to call itself 'a good
example of a democratic state'.


Our government has shown itself nto be unwilling to act as our
government, and is still acting as a vassal state of the EU.

It has to go, too.




--
Renewable energy: Expensive solutions that don't work to a problem that
doesn't exist instituted by self legalising protection rackets that
don't protect, masquerading as public servants who don't serve the public.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Given the concept of 'Brexit' was never properly explained (and still
isn't clear); the campaigning was at best tainted, at worst illegal; and
the quality of information and debate was poor. On both sides.

It was perfectly clear to me, and it was carefully pointed out by a
number of politicians: we would leave the EU, the CU, the SM, and the
jurisdiction of the ECJ. Article 50 makes it quite clear: two years
after declaring the intention to leave under Article 50 (that is by a
member state exercising its treaty rights), "the Treaties shall cease
to apply to the Member State".

Anything else I gotta know?

If the referendum had made it clear that leaving the EU would end up with
no new trade deal between us at all, why did so many tell us the EU would
roll over and give us a decent new deal after we'd left?

--
*The sooner you fall behind, the more time you'll have to catch up *

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

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/08/18 10:55, RJH wrote:
On 23/08/2018 10:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/08/18 10:29, RJH wrote:
On 22/08/2018 14:21, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 August 2018 14:01:15 UTC+1, RJH wrote:
On 22/08/2018 11:09, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 August 2018 08:50:54 UTC+1, RJH wrote:
On 20/08/2018 17:11, whisky-dave wrote:

snip

That's just ridiculous. 'Choice' means a range of options.

So in a genral election what choice to you get, it;s almost always
just between the two main parties CON or LAB when was the last time
you remember anyone else winning ?

Even if
they're not decent (and I would suggest they do need to be decent),
you
do at least need to be clear on what the options mean.

So what did the last general election options mean ?


You're sort of making my point for me. Shouting 'democracy' doesn't
make it right. Democracy isn't an/off concept or method - there's
good, bad, and lots in between. Our general elections have been
getting worse since 1979. And the EU referendum was the worst modern
UK example of democracy yet (off the top of my head).

But better, I'd add, than those poor sods in Zimbabwe (to choose one
of many examples), who have suffer your Zimbabwean alter ego chanting
'the election was democratic, live with it, will of the people'.



"Democracy measns one man, one vote, and I am that man".

What remoanres do not understand is that democracy is a way to settle
contentious issues without civil war and bloodshed.


In the short term at least, yes, I agree.

if 90% of the populatin thought the EU was crap, there wouldnt be a
need for a vote,.

That's why we had one, and it's result has to be respected.


That is why we had one - but our government made a mess of of it. So
that mess has to be corrected if the UK is going to call itself 'a good
example of a democratic state'.


Our government has shown itself nto be unwilling to act as our
government, and is still acting as a vassal state of the EU.

No - the goverenment are trying to save the UK from the Boaty McBoatfacers.

--

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 12:49:32 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:
snip

And did anyone explain, in clear terms, what that would likely mean in
practice? An individual's freedoms, job security, freedom of movement,
standard of living? Do you seriously expect me to believe that they did?

No, and anyone claiming to know is a liar, and would be the case
whether we leave or remain, whether Blair got in in 1997 or whether
John Major did etc etc et-bloody-cetra.

How about using your common sense and realising that, gosh, we can't
predict the future, eh?

No, those of us with common sense realised that at the beginning and
therefore required more information before we would be able to vote on
it.

That said, I'm guessing you have never heard the phrase, 'Better the
devil you know' and good or bad, the status quo was / is *much* more
of a known than anything else. We obviously also realised that the
status quo wasn't going to be forever but we also knew we could do
something about it whenever we wanted, should the need arise.

Now wasn't the right time (apparently) for the 2/3rds of the
electorate who didn't vote for it.

Common sense would also allow folk to comprehend that we are talking
about what should happen now, about the situation now, not focusing on
events that happened in the past.

It's my understanding that 'most people' had no feelings about the EU,
had no issues with immigrants (in general) ad CGAF about where any
rules were made.

What they will be bothered about is any increased cost of living, no
extra jobs or housing, more difficulty traveling around the EU, plus
loads of other issues we have and haven't even considered yet and all
for what? Just to massage the ideals of a (mostly blinkered /
gullible) minority?

Cheers, T i m

On 23/08/18 10:53, charles wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/08/18 10:37, charles wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 23/08/18 09:03, charles wrote:
In article , Tim Streater
wrote:
In article , RJH
wrote:

On 20/08/2018 17:11, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 20 August 2018 16:48:38 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
snip

It always makes me laugh when the fanatic Brexiteers say something
like 'The people voted and decided'

that's what they did and the way all voting systems in democracy
work.

Voting systems 'work' on the basis of reasonably informed choices.

Given the concept of 'Brexit' was never properly explained (and still
isn't clear); the campaigning was at best tainted, at worst illegal;
and the quality of information and debate was poor. On both sides.

It was perfectly clear to me, and it was carefully pointed out by a
number of politicians: we would leave the EU, the CU, the SM, and the
jurisdiction of the ECJ.

Do tell how these departures would benefit the country - and, indeed,
yourself, apart from giving you the warm feeling that once again we've
defeated Johnny Foreigner.

Why?

You will just stick your fingers in your ears.

funny - I tend to read on-screen messages - not listen to them

You read them, but you instantly deny their validity.

Let's put it this way, your view of the statuses of the the EU, the CU,
the SM, and the jurisdiction of the ECJ, is that they are altogether
Goodd Things. Because they have all spent lots on money employing people
to tell you this.

Supposing they were not in fact Good Things, merely tentacles of a giant
squid in cahoots with an elite who dont give a tuppenny **** about you,
and to whom your democratic vote is just an irritant.

AS shown by their determined efforts to completely ignore it.

NOTHING has confirmed peoples opinions more anbout leaving the EU than
the antics OF the EU post referendum.

This is communist totalitarianism by stealth now out in the open.

You have not said why leaving the EU will be good for the UK.

Oh dear. Typical remoaner. Cant even read.


--
In a Time of Universal Deceit, Telling the Truth Is a Revolutionary Act.

- George Orwell

On 23/08/18 12:05, charles wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/08/18 10:55, RJH wrote:
On 23/08/2018 10:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/08/18 10:29, RJH wrote:
On 22/08/2018 14:21, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 August 2018 14:01:15 UTC+1, RJH wrote:
On 22/08/2018 11:09, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 August 2018 08:50:54 UTC+1, RJH wrote:
On 20/08/2018 17:11, whisky-dave wrote:

snip

That's just ridiculous. 'Choice' means a range of options.

So in a genral election what choice to you get, it;s almost always
just between the two main parties CON or LAB when was the last time
you remember anyone else winning ?

Even if
they're not decent (and I would suggest they do need to be decent),
you
do at least need to be clear on what the options mean.

So what did the last general election options mean ?


You're sort of making my point for me. Shouting 'democracy' doesn't
make it right. Democracy isn't an/off concept or method - there's
good, bad, and lots in between. Our general elections have been
getting worse since 1979. And the EU referendum was the worst modern
UK example of democracy yet (off the top of my head).

But better, I'd add, than those poor sods in Zimbabwe (to choose one
of many examples), who have suffer your Zimbabwean alter ego chanting
'the election was democratic, live with it, will of the people'.



"Democracy measns one man, one vote, and I am that man".

What remoanres do not understand is that democracy is a way to settle
contentious issues without civil war and bloodshed.


In the short term at least, yes, I agree.

if 90% of the populatin thought the EU was crap, there wouldnt be a
need for a vote,.

That's why we had one, and it's result has to be respected.


That is why we had one - but our government made a mess of of it. So
that mess has to be corrected if the UK is going to call itself 'a good
example of a democratic state'.


Our government has shown itself nto be unwilling to act as our
government, and is still acting as a vassal state of the EU.

No - the goverenment are trying to save the UK from the Boaty McBoatfacers.

That is simply the bull**** you have swallowed.



--



--
All political activity makes complete sense once the proposition that
all government is basically a self-legalising protection racket, is
fully understood.

On 23/08/2018 13:24, T i m wrote:
On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 12:49:32 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:
snip

And did anyone explain, in clear terms, what that would likely mean in
practice? An individual's freedoms, job security, freedom of movement,
standard of living? Do you seriously expect me to believe that they did?

No, and anyone claiming to know is a liar, and would be the case
whether we leave or remain, whether Blair got in in 1997 or whether
John Major did etc etc et-bloody-cetra.

How about using your common sense and realising that, gosh, we can't
predict the future, eh?

No, those of us with common sense realised that at the beginning and
therefore required more information before we would be able to vote on
it.


Quite. I really don't understand why Tim S and others don't see that. To
say 'vote leave' means one of several very different things, but we
won't tell you which one, is not much use in a vote.

--
Cheers, Rob

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
That is why we had one - but our government made a mess of of it. So
that mess has to be corrected if the UK is going to call itself 'a good
example of a democratic state'.


Our government has shown itself nto be unwilling to act as our
government, and is still acting as a vassal state of the EU.

It has to go, too.

Yup. And the only viable alternative is that awfully nice Mr Corbyn. Since
your favourite Farage is very much yesterday's man.

Nice to know you've seen the light.

--
*Many people quit looking for work when they find a job *

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

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
The EU is not a democracy. It has some of the trappings of one - a
Parliament comprised of members that no one has ever heard of, and who
can't easily be removed. But that Parliament can neither initiate nor
repeal legislation. Those powers reside with the unelected Commission,
which unsurprisingly, therefore, behave like any powerful body or
person in the situation: like an oligarchy.

Ah - right. So it's not Germany ruling the roost today, then?

--
*A conscience is what hurts when all your other parts feel so good *

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

On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 18:20:50 +0100, RJH wrote:

snip

No, those of us with common sense realised that at the beginning and
therefore required more information before we would be able to vote on
it.


Quite. I really don't understand why Tim S and others don't see that.

Because they are on their own crusade and have no concerns re any
collateral damage all of us may suffer, as long as they get what
*they* (1/3rd of the electorate) want.

To
say 'vote leave' means one of several very different things,

Of course, and if someone voted purely because they wanted £360M/w to
the 'NHS instead' or the fear of hordes of immigrants pouring in (both
formal posters from the leave campaign) and didn't look behind the
lies to find the real truth.

but we
won't tell you which one, is not much use in a vote.

And those of us with common sense (and a dab of empathy which allows
us to differentiate between what's legal, formal and what's right (or
wrong) etc), see that there is no way that only 1/3rd of the
electorate should be allowed to decide what happens to the rest (given
the question was really, 'Hands up who want's to leave the EU?',
especially when it's still far from clear that 'forging ahead' *is*
the right thing to do (especially in light of the papers published so
far today).

It would be enough of a disturbance to go though if everyone (or at
least a supermajority) actually wanted it but considering the country
is split, the government needing support from the DLP just to retain
power and all the other things that are far from certain over it, I
really can't see why we should perceiver with it.

But the option of another public vote is being aired more and more
(and both Farige and Mogg have suggested it should happen over the
period). Let's hope if they do give us the option of a more informed
vote, they actually publish all the information they have so far and
make it a criminal act to print or post bogus information and lies.

Cheers, T i m

On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 18:39:13 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , RJH wrote:

On 23/08/2018 13:24, T i m wrote:
On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 12:49:32 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:
snip

And did anyone explain, in clear terms, what that would likely mean in
practice? An individual's freedoms, job security, freedom of movement,
standard of living? Do you seriously expect me to believe that they did?

No, and anyone claiming to know is a liar, and would be the case
whether we leave or remain, whether Blair got in in 1997 or whether
John Major did etc etc et-bloody-cetra.

How about using your common sense and realising that, gosh, we can't
predict the future, eh?

No, those of us with common sense realised that at the beginning and
therefore required more information before we would be able to vote on
it.

Then why didn't you look for it, ask questions, discuss it? Why d'ye
expect to be spoon-fed?

Quite. I really don't understand why Tim S and others don't see that. To
say 'vote leave' means one of several very different things, but we
won't tell you which one, is not much use in a vote.

I don't know where you get your funny idea that brexit means one of
several things. I told you what it meant to me and why. And I formed my
conclusions having seen the EU bully the smaller nations and force them
to "vote again" on a number of issues. After that I started considering
the EU, its Commission, and its parliament, and their relationships to
each other and the public.

It's all simple enough.

For a left brainer?

All you have listed is those things that *you* are bothered about but
that doesn't reflect the feelings of 2/3rds of the electorate as I'm
guessing they would have also voted for it?

What you aren't doing is conceding any of the benefits our EU
membership has brought and accepted there could be a big price everone
has to pay to cater for your personal crusade?

You seem more than happy / willing to Throw the baby out with the bath
water' but with no signs of any tangible gains for most people.

You may be willing to cut your nose off to spite your face but the
majority in the UK obviously aren't.

So, if you are even slightly bothered with the continuation in any
level of democracy, you will support the idea of a second (and
potentially better educated) peoples vote and if it's still that we
should leave (and ideally a supermajority that Firage demanded
himself) then that's what we do.

At lest we can do so knowing that it really was the will of the people
(not just you and yer band of crusaders).

Cheers, T i m

On 23/08/2018 18:39, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , RJH wrote:

On 23/08/2018 13:24, T i m wrote:
On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 12:49:32 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:
snip

And did anyone explain, in clear terms, what that would likely mean in
practice? An individual's freedoms, job security, freedom of movement,
standard of living? Do you seriously expect me to believe that they
did?

No, and anyone claiming to know is a liar, and would be the case
whether we leave or remain, whether Blair got in in 1997 or whether
John Major did etc etc et-bloody-cetra.

How about using your common sense and realising that, gosh, we can't
predict the future, eh?

No, those of us with common sense realised that at the beginning and
therefore required more information before we would be able to vote on
it.

Then why didn't you look for it, ask questions, discuss it? Why d'ye
expect to be spoon-fed?

Quite. I really don't understand why Tim S and others don't see that.
To say 'vote leave' means one of several very different things, but we
won't tell you which one, is not much use in a vote.

I don't know where you get your funny idea that brexit means one of
several things.

I have explained in another post. And I gave a link to the government's
presentation of 3 variants (plus some discussion of Ireland) before the
referendum (still being peddled). I really can't be any clearer.

I told you what it meant to me and why.

Good, of course. And presumably you voted with the reasonable
expectation that your meaning would be realised if your side won?


It's all simple enough.


Well, seemingly so - to you.

--
Cheers, Rob

On Thursday, 23 August 2018 18:20:53 UTC+1, RJH wrote:
On 23/08/2018 13:24, T i m wrote:
On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 12:49:32 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:
snip

And did anyone explain, in clear terms, what that would likely mean in
practice? An individual's freedoms, job security, freedom of movement,
standard of living? Do you seriously expect me to believe that they did?

No, and anyone claiming to know is a liar, and would be the case
whether we leave or remain, whether Blair got in in 1997 or whether
John Major did etc etc et-bloody-cetra.

How about using your common sense and realising that, gosh, we can't
predict the future, eh?

No, those of us with common sense realised that at the beginning and
therefore required more information before we would be able to vote on
it.


Quite. I really don't understand why Tim S and others don't see that. To
say 'vote leave' means one of several very different things, but we
won't tell you which one, is not much use in a vote.

Any idea what was on the original paper in 1973 then in 1975 when some were given the option to vote on it.

I just don't remmebr anyone asking ....
About do you want to join the customs union....
I don;t remmebr them asking do you want house prices to rise fasster than peolpes wages. (well the poors wages) .

If you have to tick boxes for leaving why weren;t we asked those same Qs when joining.
Maybe as in marriage and divorce we did say we'll love honour and obey till death do us part, I dont; know I wasn;t involved.
All I got told was the futre was bright free electric and a 30 hour working week or less. (which wasn't part of the EEC or any deal)

Who here hasnt realised you vote for liars, it's just whether or not you agree with them is where you put your mark, or penis image.

In article ,
RJH wrote:
Quite. I really don't understand why Tim S and others don't see that. To
say 'vote leave' means one of several very different things, but we
won't tell you which one, is not much use in a vote.

We were certainly told the EU would roll over and give us the version of
trading with the EU we wanted. The they need us more than we need them
syndrome. Called by the EU cherry picking. Since Germany sell us far more
cars than we sell them, their industry wouldn't allow anything to change
that. And so on.

Just another example of where Brexiteers were very very wrong.

--
*Why is the word abbreviation so long?

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

In article ,
RJH wrote:
On 23/08/2018 13:24, T i m wrote:
On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 12:49:32 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:
snip

And did anyone explain, in clear terms, what that would likely mean in
practice? An individual's freedoms, job security, freedom of movement,
standard of living? Do you seriously expect me to believe that they did?

No, and anyone claiming to know is a liar, and would be the case
whether we leave or remain, whether Blair got in in 1997 or whether
John Major did etc etc et-bloody-cetra.

How about using your common sense and realising that, gosh, we can't
predict the future, eh?

No, those of us with common sense realised that at the beginning and
therefore required more information before we would be able to vote on
it.


Quite. I really don't understand why Tim S and others don't see that. To
say 'vote leave' means one of several very different things, but we
won't tell you which one, is not much use in a vote.

Quite, again. When people try to convince me to do something I'm not sure
about, I need concrete reasons. Not a different one from everyone.
Especially when so many of those reasons are just hopes and prayers. And
certainly don't believe 'thrust me it will all be OK' from the likes of
Farage, Boris and Rees Mogg. None of which I'd trust with anything, other
than looking after themselves.

--
*Real men don't waste their hormones growing hair

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

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Quite. I really don't understand why Tim S and others don't see that. To
say 'vote leave' means one of several very different things, but we
won't tell you which one, is not much use in a vote.

I don't know where you get your funny idea that brexit means one of
several things. I told you what it meant to me and why.

Which would be fine if you were in the position of making it happen. But
you're not - unless Ms May posting under an alias.

I'd like to win the Euro Lottery. Can you make that happen for me too?

--
*All men are idiots, and I married their King.

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