In article , "dennis@home"
writes
On 10/03/2019 23:05, Fredxx wrote:

A step into the unknown can lead to greater things.

And it can lead to disaster too.

The odds on brexit leading to better things for the majority are pretty low.
There will be plenty of opportunity for the rich to exploit brexit though.

We do know, hard Brexit is on the cards because the EU want to split
up the UK. Imagine how Spain would feel if there was a new border
between Catalonia and the rest of Spain, or a new border separating
East and West Germany. Do get real. No deal where there is a border
in the Irish Sea will ever be acceptable.

The EU doesn't want the UK split up.
"NI is the price the UK must pay for Brexit"
They don't want an open border unless the other country applies its
import rules.
So they should come up with a solution then.
Its the brexiteers that want to split the UK because they can't think
of any way to achieve what is wanted by the EU.
Of course they can but the EU is determined to say No regardless
Its not surprising that they can't they thought the EU would just cave
in and accept whatever they said.


Well we haven't pushed them yet. May has given them everything they've
asked for in the abysmal WA
--
bert

On 11/03/2019 08:47, T i m wrote:


If
you (or your kind) did you would 'get' how a near 50:50 of those who
voted and 2/3rds of the electorate DID NOT vote to leave the EU.

Tim stop using this '2/3 rds did not vote to leave' as if it has ANY
relevance', yes it is factually true but you seem to use it as meaning
2/3 rds had expressed a preference for staying.
Nearly a third could not be bothered to get of their a&*e and vote
(and lets be honest virtually everyone was catered for[polling booths
were open at 7 in the morning until 10 at night, there were postal votes
for anyone who couldn't make that 15 hour slot) either way.
Using this precise logic we could say 2/3 rds DID NOT vote
to remain.

Yes it was only a SLIGHT majority of those who could be bothered to
vote who voted leave but in a democracy (when no limits are set. As
they were in the Scottish independance referendum in '79) a slight
majority is still a majority (50%+1)

On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 16:59:59 +0000, soup
wrote:

On 11/03/2019 08:47, T i m wrote:


If
you (or your kind) did you would 'get' how a near 50:50 of those who
voted and 2/3rds of the electorate DID NOT vote to leave the EU.

Tim stop using this '2/3 rds did not vote to leave' as if it has ANY
relevance', yes it is factually true

Good. That's something at least and a *massive* point in all this.

but you seem to use it as meaning
2/3 rds had expressed a preference for staying.

Nope. You might be taking it that way but I can't be held responsible
for how you choose to take things.

Nearly a third could not be bothered ..

snip the rest unread as it's bound to be more outpourings and excuses
from a left brainer

Cheers, T i m

dennis@home wrote
Fredxx wrote

A step into the unknown can lead to greater things.

And it can lead to disaster too.

Not with this situation it can't. We can see that the bulk of the
economys that matter do fine with WTO rules and dont need
a free trade area to avoid a disaster for their economy.

The odds on brexit leading to better things for the majority are pretty
low.

Another lie. A no deal brexit means that the majority will be free
to buy the best the world produces with no tariff applying instead
of having to pay a tariff premium if they prefer what the rest of the
world produces instead of what is produced in the EU.

There will be plenty of opportunity for the rich to exploit brexit though.

Another bare faced lie.

We do know, hard Brexit is on the cards because the EU want to split up
the UK. Imagine how Spain would feel if there was a new border between
Catalonia and the rest of Spain, or a new border separating East and West
Germany. Do get real. No deal where there is a border in the Irish Sea
will ever be acceptable.

The EU doesn't want the UK split up.

They clearly do with the hare brained scheme to have northern ireland
continue in the EU free trade area once the rest of Britain has left it.

They don't want an open border unless the other country applies its import
rules.

Which is splitting the UK up, stupid.

Its the brexiteers that want to split the UK because they can't think of
any way to achieve what is wanted by the EU.

More of your flagrant dishonesty you are notorious for.

Its not surprising that they can't they thought the EU would just cave in
and accept whatever they said.

More of your flagrant dishonesty you are notorious for.

"T i m" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 10:07:38 +0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 10/03/2019 23:05, Fredxx wrote:

A step into the unknown can lead to greater things.

And it can lead to disaster too.

The odds on brexit leading to better things for the majority are pretty
low.
There will be plenty of opportunity for the rich to exploit brexit though.


We do know, hard Brexit is on the cards because the EU want to split
up the UK. Imagine how Spain would feel if there was a new border
between Catalonia and the rest of Spain, or a new border separating
East and West Germany. Do get real. No deal where there is a border
in the Irish Sea will ever be acceptable.

The EU doesn't want the UK split up.
They don't want an open border unless the other country applies its
import rules.
Its the brexiteers that want to split the UK because they can't think of
any way to achieve what is wanted by the EU.
Its not surprising that they can't they thought the EU would just cave
in and accept whatever they said.

I wonder what it is about these fanatic Brexiteers that allows them to
get it all so wrong?

Just a couple of weeks and we will see if they have got it wrong
at all and whether Project Fear was ever anything more than lies.

On 11/03/2019 19:12, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 16:59:59 +0000, soup
wrote:

On 11/03/2019 08:47, T i m wrote:


If
you (or your kind) did you would 'get' how a near 50:50 of those who
voted and 2/3rds of the electorate DID NOT vote to leave the EU.

Tim stop using this '2/3 rds did not vote to leave' as if it has ANY
relevance', yes it is factually true

Good. That's something at least and a *massive* point in all this.

but you seem to use it as meaning
2/3 rds had expressed a preference for staying.

Nope.

Good, we've moved forward a very long way here.

You might be taking it that way but I can't be held responsible
for how you choose to take things.

Nearly a third could not be bothered ..

snip the rest unread as it's bound to be more outpourings and excuses
from a left brainer

Typical from a remainer who has lost his argument.

Cheers, T i m

On 10/03/2019 13:15, dennis@home wrote:
On 10/03/2019 10:57, T i m wrote:

Interesting one (that I'm sure someone here could answer from a legal
viewpoint). Like is it acceptable for the police to speed and jump
traffic lights whilst on a shout? (I believe the answer is 'yes', but
they are still personally responsible for any repercussions they
cause).

They can be done for dangerous driving if it is dangerous.

Ambulances and fire engines can exceed the speed limit.
They are not supposed to jump red lights, etc. but I am not going to
stop them.

I'm sure they're very grateful to you for your generosity.



snip

If you weren't able to get somewhere on time because of someone
parking inappropriately, would you not mind?

Cheers, T i m


The wife got a parking ticket recently, I got it cancelled.

You turned up, they felt her pain.


I have never had a parking ticket in over 40 years of driving.

Or any other fine.

Rough translation, you've never been caught.


I did go through a red light in Paris once but there wasn't anyone to
see it.

I am in awe of your recklessness.

On 11/03/2019 19:12, T i m wrote:

snip the rest unread as it's bound to be more outpourings and excuses
from a left brainer

Plop.

It's bound to come out with other statements without reading
others opinions.

On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 01:58:11 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

On 11/03/2019 19:12, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 16:59:59 +0000, soup
wrote:

On 11/03/2019 08:47, T i m wrote:


If
you (or your kind) did you would 'get' how a near 50:50 of those who
voted and 2/3rds of the electorate DID NOT vote to leave the EU.

Tim stop using this '2/3 rds did not vote to leave' as if it has ANY
relevance', yes it is factually true

Good. That's something at least and a *massive* point in all this.

but you seem to use it as meaning
2/3 rds had expressed a preference for staying.

Nope.

Good, we've moved forward a very long way here.

By we you mean you, as I knew what I was saying from the outset.

You might be taking it that way but I can't be held responsible
for how you choose to take things.

Nearly a third could not be bothered ..

snip the rest unread as it's bound to be more outpourings and excuses
from a left brainer

Typical from a remainer who has lost his argument.

Typical fanatic leaver with no real argument in the first place
(because there isn't one, or one that is agreed on by 'most people'
anyway).

Cheers, T i m

On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 08:14:34 +0000, soup
wrote:

On 11/03/2019 19:12, T i m wrote:

snip the rest unread as it's bound to be more outpourings and excuses
from a left brainer

Plop.

Aww bless.

It's bound to come out with other statements without reading
others opinions.

I don't need to read your 'opinion' to know just how little you
understand about human beings. I don't blame you for that because as a
left brainer, how could you?

The facts are all there for anyone with an open / human / high EQ
ability to see.

Very few people were thinking of us leaving the EU as a solution to
our (mostly internal) problems.

When pushed into doing it and the highly questionable vote went the
way it did (and the only way that made any difference), the PM
resigned.

Then the leader of the very party that caused it all resigned.

Then two Brexit secretaries resigned.

Then numerous MP's resigned.

Now, two years later we are still arguing over if we should do it or
not and if we do it we have no idea what impact that will have on us.

If it was actually a good idea, a real solution to anything then 1)
More people would have requested it, 2) more people would have voted
for it and 3) we would have done it by now.

So, until I see your opinions deal with the real world (not some
arbitrary numerical threshold) and you start considering the opinions
of the *vast majority* who didn't vote to leave the EU, I'll not
consider your arrogant (lazy voters etc) opinion seriously.

Cheers, T i m

In article ,
T i m wrote:
So, until I see your opinions deal with the real world (not some
arbitrary numerical threshold) and you start considering the opinions
of the *vast majority* who didn't vote to leave the EU, I'll not
consider your arrogant (lazy voters etc) opinion seriously.

It would be funny if it weren't so serious. Brexiteers like Moggie
claiming the moral high ground just because of a simple majority in a
vote. When it is plainly obvious even the well informed didn't fully
understand the issues. So how could Joe Public be expected to?

Perhaps we should go back to the days of buying votes with money. At least
then the voter gets something. Unlike the false promises of the leave
campaign.

--
*Can atheists get insurance for acts of God? *

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

On 12/03/2019 07:36, Richard wrote:
On 10/03/2019 13:15, dennis@home wrote:
On 10/03/2019 10:57, T i m wrote:

Interesting one (that I'm sure someone here could answer from a legal
viewpoint). Like is it acceptable for the police to speed and jump
traffic lights whilst on a shout? (I believe the answer is 'yes', but
they are still personally responsible for any repercussions they
cause).

They can be done for dangerous driving if it is dangerous.

Ambulances and fire engines can exceed the speed limit.
They are not supposed to jump red lights, etc. but I am not going to
stop them.

I'm sure they're very grateful to you for your generosity.



snip

If you weren't able to get somewhere on time because of someone
parking inappropriately, would you not mind?

Cheers, T i m


The wife got a parking ticket recently, I got it cancelled.

You turned up, they felt her pain.

I actually had the head of parking enforcement call me to thank me and
say they were cancelling the fine.
I don't know if anyone else had their fine cancelled as a result of what
I told them.



I have never had a parking ticket in over 40 years of driving.

Or any other fine.

Rough translation, you've never been caught.

Well some people pay attention while driving and some don't.
The ones that don't get caught doing things they shouldn't.



I did go through a red light in Paris once but there wasn't anyone to
see it.

I am in awe of your recklessness.


So was my passenger.

On 10/03/2019 10:57, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 04:04:24 +0000, ARW
wrote:

snip

Is the parking permit marked 'valid for 24 hours' or 'one day'? ;-)

(I get the issue though).


OK so it says 1 days parking. And a day is 24 hours.

Yes, so if it says you heat a meal in an oven for 20 minutes, would
you do say 15 mins today and the remaining 5 the next, when you are
ready to eat it? The point is that yes, whilst 'a day' is 24 hours, it
isn't how many things interpret the term. A 'day ticket' for fishing
is just that, valid on the day you bought it and often excluding night
fishing (so would typically expire at dusk, no matter what time you
bought it). Neither would you be able to claim the unused hours the
next day because that's a 'different day'.

I have emailed the council to ask them

I bet I can predict the outcome. ;-)

and I also asked them if it is
normal for parking attendants[1] to park on double yellow lines and then
start issuing tickets to cars parked on the double yellow lines.

Interesting one (that I'm sure someone here could answer from a legal
viewpoint). Like is it acceptable for the police to speed and jump
traffic lights whilst on a shout? (I believe the answer is 'yes', but
they are still personally responsible for any repercussions they
cause).

snip

If you weren't able to get somewhere on time because of someone
parking inappropriately, would you not mind?


I would kick up a bigger stink if the person inappropriately parked and
holding me up was the parking attendant.

--
Adam

On 12/03/2019 07:36, Richard wrote:
On 10/03/2019 13:15, dennis@home wrote:
On 10/03/2019 10:57, T i m wrote:

Interesting one (that I'm sure someone here could answer from a legal
viewpoint). Like is it acceptable for the police to speed and jump
traffic lights whilst on a shout? (I believe the answer is 'yes', but
they are still personally responsible for any repercussions they
cause).

They can be done for dangerous driving if it is dangerous.

Ambulances and fire engines can exceed the speed limit.
They are not supposed to jump red lights, etc. but I am not going to
stop them.

I'm sure they're very grateful to you for your generosity.



snip

If you weren't able to get somewhere on time because of someone
parking inappropriately, would you not mind?

Cheers, T i m


The wife got a parking ticket recently, I got it cancelled.

You turned up, they felt her pain.


I have never had a parking ticket in over 40 years of driving.

Or any other fine.

Rough translation, you've never been caught.


I did go through a red light in Paris once but there wasn't anyone to
see it.

I am in awe of your recklessness.

Total rebel IMHO.

Marlon Brando eat your heart out.



--
Adam

On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 06:48:48 +1100, cantankerous trolling senile geezer Rot
Speed blabbered, again:


I wonder what it is about these fanatic Brexiteers that allows them to
get it all so wrong?

Just a couple of weeks and we will see if they have got it wrong
at all and whether Project Fear was ever anything more than lies.

ONLY in your senile psychopathic head, senile psychopath!

--
Cursitor Doom about Rot Speed:
"I'm not the least surprised. The man is a conspicuous and unashamed
ignoramus."
MID:

On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 06:22:00 +1100, cantankerous trolling senile geezer Rot
Speed blabbered, again:



More of your flagrant dishonesty you are notorious for.

Nope, but more of your senile psychopathic trolling that you are "famous"
for, you senile psychopathic Ozzie cretin!

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

On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 21:03:51 +0000, ARW
wrote:

snip

If you weren't able to get somewhere on time because of someone
parking inappropriately, would you not mind?


I would kick up a bigger stink if the person inappropriately parked and
holding me up was the parking attendant.

Hehe.

Cheers, T i m

On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 10:59:41 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
T i m wrote:
So, until I see your opinions deal with the real world (not some
arbitrary numerical threshold) and you start considering the opinions
of the *vast majority* who didn't vote to leave the EU, I'll not
consider your arrogant (lazy voters etc) opinion seriously.

It would be funny if it weren't so serious.

Quite. ;-(

Brexiteers like Moggie
claiming the moral high ground just because of a simple majority in a
vote.

They are either left brainers (=can't help it) or think they have got
away with a scam and are clinging onto the outcome as long as
possible.

When it is plainly obvious even the well informed didn't fully
understand the issues.

To me this is no different to yer old aunty falling for 'builder'
offering to fix her non-broken roof or being able to do their drive
'cheap' because they have some tarmac left over from another job.

So how could Joe Public be expected to?

They couldn't (of course). Just like the pressure salesmen using the
old 'I can only give you this deal if you sign today ...' scam, Brexit
was a trap for those with axes to grind about a whole load of other
things, the majority nothing to do with our membership of the EU (or
that couldn't be resolved using existing laws, like sending EU workers
home if they haven't found work after 6 months).

Perhaps we should go back to the days of buying votes with money.

I'm not sure how that would have helped me as it wasn't the voting or
the resulting outcome that was the issue, but the process used to get
there.

It would be like the Police fabricating evidence against you (or being
frugal with the truth / facts) to force a prosecution though.

We saw (or I saw) the program covering the referendum campaign and it
was as one expected, people doing all they could to buy / trick / con
often targeted / gullible people into voting Leave.

This reminds me of the Leave campaign ... hordes of Turks coming in
etc:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXi35VowjMI

At least
then the voter gets something. Unlike the false promises of the leave
campaign.

There is that I guess. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

T i m Wrote in message:
On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 01:58:11 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

On 11/03/2019 19:12, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 16:59:59 +0000, soup
wrote:

On 11/03/2019 08:47, T i m wrote:


If
you (or your kind) did you would 'get' how a near 50:50 of those who
voted and 2/3rds of the electorate DID NOT vote to leave the EU.

Tim stop using this '2/3 rds did not vote to leave' as if it has ANY
relevance', yes it is factually true

Good. That's something at least and a *massive* point in all this.

but you seem to use it as meaning
2/3 rds had expressed a preference for staying.

Nope.

Good, we've moved forward a very long way here.

By we you mean you, as I knew what I was saying from the outset.


Interesting past tense there...


--
Jim K


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

On 12/03/2019 10:34, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 01:58:11 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

On 11/03/2019 19:12, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 16:59:59 +0000, soup
wrote:

On 11/03/2019 08:47, T i m wrote:


If
you (or your kind) did you would 'get' how a near 50:50 of those who
voted and 2/3rds of the electorate DID NOT vote to leave the EU.

Tim stop using this '2/3 rds did not vote to leave' as if it has ANY
relevance', yes it is factually true

Good. That's something at least and a *massive* point in all this.

but you seem to use it as meaning
2/3 rds had expressed a preference for staying.

Nope.

Good, we've moved forward a very long way here.

By we you mean you, as I knew what I was saying from the outset.

Then your English language skills need honing.

You might be taking it that way but I can't be held responsible
for how you choose to take things.

Nearly a third could not be bothered ..

snip the rest unread as it's bound to be more outpourings and excuses
from a left brainer

Typical from a remainer who has lost his argument.

Typical fanatic leaver with no real argument in the first place
(because there isn't one, or one that is agreed on by 'most people'
anyway).

From a typical fanatical remoaner.

There were reasons, but none we should expect a 'right brainer' to
understand.