In article ,
T i m wrote:
You focus all your bile and bigotry into trying to convince yourself
that we are wrong and you are blessed with infallibility.

Oh the irony. Classic outpourings of a left brainer.

That tells me you are not sure of your own position at all, no matter
how much you rant and rave.


Of course that's the case, because we were never ready to answer such a
question (the referendum poll) in the first place. We weren't ready
because the majority (the 2/3rds that didn't vote to Leave) didn't have
a reason to.

Bit of a worry that Mr Reay claimed to have been a teacher. No questions
allowed in his classes. ;-)

--
*I'm planning to be spontaneous tomorrow *

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

In article ,
Pamela wrote:
Maybe you are uncertain why you voted the way you did. That doesn't
mean others are.

At the time of the referendum how did you manage to know those facts
which only emerged later? Such as details of the leaving deal, the
arrangement for the NI border (which no one knows, even now), the
impact on daily life in Britain, the amount of the divorce payment, and
so on?

A crystal ball and then hindsight.

On the other hand, all Remainers knew in minute details what staying was
like because they were already living it.

Quite.

--
*Indian Driver - Smoke signals only*

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

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Politics is nothing like religion.

Oh dear.

Holy Roman Empire.
Islamic Caliphate.
Communism.

Politics is EXACTLY like religion.

Especially on the Green'Red/Left/Eu side.

Be interesting to know who you think the god of communism is?

Why did you miss your idol Trump out?

--
*No hand signals. Driver on Viagra*

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

On Wednesday, 18 September 2019 13:25:36 UTC+1, Pamela wrote:
On 13:00 18 Sep 2019, whisky-dave wrote:

On Wednesday, 18 September 2019 12:14:45 UTC+1, Pamela wrote:
On 11:33 18 Sep 2019, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 18/09/2019 11:16, Clive Page wrote:

SNIP

Look at public opinion polls: all those published in the last 18
months show Remain ahead by several percentage points.

Complete lie. TRhe opposite is true.

Only in Daily Express polls.

Most polls indicated that remain would win last time. Perhaps we should
never had the referendum and just do what the polls indocate.

Not according to th efacts. Early polls got it wrong but later ones were
much more accurate, just as you would expect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U...um_polling.svg

Most polls weren't on TV or in the papers and did the undecided stay at home on polling day.?

In article ,
Clive Page wrote:
On 17/09/2019 16:07, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
I don't want a second referendum anymore than I wanted the first one.
But it does seem those who who did secretly believe it was a fluke.

The Brexit supporters are against a second referendum quite simply
because the Remain side would almost certainly win. Look at public
opinion polls: all those published in the last 18 months show Remain
ahead by several percentage points. Of course polls have errors but
this consistent lead in all of them is above any likely error, and means
Remain would almost certainly win in any re-run.

Hmm. Remain were predicted to win by a decent margin at the referendum.
And the polls were miles out at the last GE.

The reason is simple: in 3 years about 2 million electors have died,
most of them elderly, and we know that about 75% of the elderly (those
over 70_ voted to Leave. They have been replaced by about 2 million
people in the 18-21 age group, who we know are in favour of Remain by 80
to 90%.

You may think that as people get older their views get more conservative
and perhaps incline more towards Leave. But the limited evidence
available suggests this is not true. One reason is that Leave voting is
much more correlated with lack of education than with age: of course the
70+ group were young when only about 8% could go to college so it's
hardly their fault that they never got a decent education. This means
that many of them have the world-view of a little-Englander. Education
does not seem to vanish with age and neither, as far as pollsters can
tell, does being in favour of remaining in the EU.

That must explain me. I'm well over 70, but had a pretty reasonable
education. But is doesn't explain all my pals of the same sort of age. The
vast majority of whom voted remain. But moslty live in the SE.

Conclusion: the Leave side may have left it too late. Indeed if we left
now it would be profoundly anti-democratic, as the majority of the
population already don't want it and it will be hard to reverse. Even
if nobody has changed their mind, the electorate as a whole has. Hence
Boris's fanatical determination to leave as soon as possible. He knows
it will be too late to do it any later.

If we do leave, I think there will be an inexorable rise in demand to
rejoin within a few years. That will have left us all worse off.

What most seem to have failed to address is that leaving will only be the
start of the story. If we leave with no deal, we'll be down to many years
of negotiations to get a new trade deal with the EU. And very likely with
very worse conditions for some things than if we took the May one, and
negotiated based on on that later.

--
*The modem is the message *

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

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/09/2019 11:16, Clive Page wrote:
On 17/09/2019 16:07, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
I don't want a second referendum anymore than I wanted the first one.
But it does seem those who who did secretly believe it was a fluke.

The Brexit supporters are against a second referendum quite simply
because the Remain side would almost certainly win.

Complete lie.


Look at public opinion polls: all those published in the last 18
months show Remain ahead by several percentage points.

Complete lie. TRhe opposite is true.

Of course polls have errors but this consistent lead in all of them
is above any likely error, and means Remain would almost certainly
win in any re-run.

The reason is simple: in 3 years about 2 million electors have died,
most of them elderly, and we know that about 75% of the elderly (those
over 70_ voted to Leave. They have been replaced by about 2 million
people in the 18-21 age group, who we know are in favour of Remain by
80 to 90%.


Complete lie.

You may think that as people get older their views get more
conservative and perhaps incline more towards Leave. But the limited
evidence available suggests this is not true. One reason is that
Leave voting is much more correlated with lack of education than with
age: of course the 70+ group were young when only about 8% could go
to college so it's hardly their fault that they never got a decent
education. This means that many of them have the world-view of a
little-Englander. Education does not seem to vanish with age and
neither, as far as pollsters can tell, does being in favour of
remaining in the EU.

Complete lie.

Conclusion: the Leave side may have left it too late. Indeed if we
left now it would be profoundly anti-democratic, as the majority of
the population already don't want it and it will be hard to reverse.
Even if nobody has changed their mind, the electorate as a whole
has. Hence Boris's fanatical determination to leave as soon as
possible. He knows it will be too late to do it any later.

Complete lie.

If we do leave, I think there will be an inexorable rise in demand to
rejoin within a few years. That will have left us all worse off.

Complete lie.


You can be fairly certain you're on the money if Turnip answers 'complete
lie' to everything.

--
*I didn't like my beard at first. Then it grew on me.*

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

In article ,
Pamela wrote:
The Brexit supporters are against a second referendum quite simply
because the Remain side would almost certainly win.

Complete lie.

So why not hold the second referendum?

That is the $64,000 question.

I was against the first referendum, so quite logical in not wanting a
second one even though I'd hope the majority are rather better informed
now of the actual issues.

Leavers on here may go on and on about democracy and sovereignty etc, but
basically they just want their own way.

--
Is the hardness of the butter proportional to the softness of the bread?*

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

On Wednesday, 18 September 2019 15:13:32 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Pamela wrote:
The Brexit supporters are against a second referendum quite simply
because the Remain side would almost certainly win.

Complete lie.

So why not hold the second referendum?

That is the $64,000 question.

I was against the first referendum, so quite logical in not wanting a
second one even though I'd hope the majority are rather better informed
now of the actual issues.

Leavers on here may go on and on about democracy and sovereignty etc, but
basically they just want their own way.

doesnlt everyone including the 0.05% that didnlt fill in their papers properly in order to cast a vote.

On Wednesday, 18 September 2019 11:33:08 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 11:01:04 +0100, Pamela
wrote:

On 17:15 17 Sep 2019, Brian Reay wrote:

On 17/09/2019 16:07, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Brian Reay wrote:
The Remainers keep telling us what the Brexiteers (supposedly) think, so
why do you suddenly need to ask?

Perhaps the Remainers have come to their senses and realised just how
arrogant and stupid they look.

Odd really. Brexiteers are all so convinced a no deal exit is what the
people voted for. But very against a second referendum where that belief
could be tested.

I don't want a second referendum anymore than I wanted the first one. But
it does seem those who who did secretly believe it was a fluke.


There you go again.

Maybe you are uncertain why you voted the way you did. That doesn't mean
others are.

At the time of the referendum how did you manage to know those facts which
only emerged later? Such as details of the leaving deal, the arrangement for
the NI border (which no one knows, even now), the impact on daily life in
Britain, the amount of the divorce payment, and so on?

Of course he didn't and even if he did, he didn't consider them of
sufficient importance for *him* not to be confident that we should
*ALL* leave the EU.

On the other hand, all Remainers knew in minute details what staying was like
because they were already living it.

Quite, even if it should change in the future as we would be part of
that process ('of course').


The problem is we won't be part of it.
Lying politicians have signed us up for stuff on the quiet and would do so again.

On Wednesday, 18 September 2019 14:53:21 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Politics is nothing like religion.

Oh dear.

Holy Roman Empire.
Islamic Caliphate.
Communism.

Politics is EXACTLY like religion.

Especially on the Green'Red/Left/Eu side.

Be interesting to know who you think the god of communism is?

Oh people like Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, Stalin, Osama bin Laden, Fidel Castro, Che Gueverra, Chavez.
The one's Jeremy'd love to emulate.

On Wednesday, 18 September 2019 14:17:27 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
In reality the vote boiled down to ever closer union or turning
around and walking away as fast as possible.

Or even walking away if anything actually happened that we didn't like.

Or using our veto as we had done before.

Not just run away because some bunch of anti eu people lied about
everything they could.

And seem to think the UK can stand up near alone to anyone in the world.
Just like WW2.


We are the fifth largest economy. Yes we can.

On Wednesday, 18 September 2019 11:16:44 UTC+1, Clive Page wrote:
On 17/09/2019 16:07, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
I don't want a second referendum anymore than I wanted the first one. But
it does seem those who who did secretly believe it was a fluke.

The Brexit supporters are against a second referendum quite simply because the Remain side would almost certainly win. Look at public opinion polls: all those published in the last 18 months show Remain ahead by several percentage points. Of course polls have errors but this consistent lead in all of them is above any likely error, and means Remain would almost certainly win in any re-run.

The reason is simple: in 3 years about 2 million electors have died, most of them elderly, and we know that about 75% of the elderly (those over 70_ voted to Leave. They have been replaced by about 2 million people in the 18-21 age group, who we know are in favour of Remain by 80 to 90%.

You may think that as people get older their views get more conservative and perhaps incline more towards Leave. But the limited evidence available suggests this is not true. One reason is that Leave voting is much more correlated with lack of education than with age: of course the 70+ group were young when only about 8% could go to college so it's hardly their fault that they never got a decent education. This means that many of them have the world-view of a little-Englander. Education does not seem to vanish with age and neither, as far as pollsters can tell, does being in favour of remaining in the EU.

Conclusion: the Leave side may have left it too late. Indeed if we left now it would be profoundly anti-democratic, as the majority of the population already don't want it and it will be hard to reverse. Even if nobody has changed their mind, the electorate as a whole has. Hence Boris's fanatical determination to leave as soon as possible. He knows it will be too late to do it any later.

If we do leave, I think there will be an inexorable rise in demand to rejoin within a few years. That will have left us all worse off.

Drivel.
If a second referendum went the "wrong" way, that would be ignored too if they could get away with it.

On Wednesday, 18 September 2019 15:13:32 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Pamela wrote:
The Brexit supporters are against a second referendum quite simply
because the Remain side would almost certainly win.

Complete lie.

So why not hold the second referendum?

That is the $64,000 question.

I was against the first referendum, so quite logical in not wanting a
second one even though I'd hope the majority are rather better informed
now of the actual issues.

Leavers on here may go on and on about democracy and sovereignty etc, but
basically they just want their own way.

Mind reader too are you?

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Brian Reay wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
bert wrote:
Odd really. Brexiteers are all so convinced a no deal exit is what the
people voted for. But very against a second referendum where that belief
could be tested.

Not at all. It's remainers who insist people didn't vote for a
no-deal brexit whereas in fact it was made perfectly clear during
the referendum campaign by both sides that it was a possible outcome
if negotiations did not succeed.

Really? Then there was no need for leave to tell us the EU would be a
pushover and give in to our every demand? They need us more than we
need them? And so on?

Remain did try and tell us what would happen with no deal. Screams of
project fear from leavers. But oddly no one predicted the present
fiasco.


Just because you didn‘t predict the EU would be so �difficult‘ (to put
it mildly) doesn‘t mean others didn‘t.

Not up to me to predict anything when being reasonably happy with the
status quo. Up to those who wanted change to say what exactly they wanted,
and how it is to be achieved. If they wished others to see their point if
view.

The problem is, you and your fellow Remainers are convinced you know what
others, in particular Leavers, think / believe.

And that is down to leavers not having anywhere near as united reasons to
leave as remain had to stay. If you can't agree among yourselves, how do
you except others to understand you?

You focus all your bile and bigotry into trying to convince yourself that
we are wrong and you are blessed with infallibility.

Perhaps being a teacher has made you think you can simply impose your
views on others? Rather than show them the method and way they were
arrived at?


Im not trying to impose anything.

There was a Vote. The result was leave.

It was made clear the result would be honoured.

Im just expecting that to be done.

Im not trying to tell people what they think etc. Or impose my views on
others. I expect a democratic vote to be honoured.

In article ,
Brian Reay wrote:
Perhaps being a teacher has made you think you can simply impose your
views on others? Rather than show them the method and way they were
arrived at?


I‘m not trying to impose anything.

There was a Vote. The result was leave.

Was that leave with a deal or without?

It was made clear the result would be honoured.

See above.

I‘m just expecting that to be done.

I‘m not trying to tell people what they think etc. Or impose my views on
others. I expect a democratic vote to be honoured.

Like the one in parliament stopping leaving with no deal? Or just those
that suit you at this moment in time?

--
*It ain't the size, it's... er... no, it IS ..the size.

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

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
It would be better for the enviroment if the majoroty of petrol/diesel
cars were banned from cities. you either get an electric car or learn
how to walk or bike it.

And then presumably ban gas boilers too? They are also a major source of
pollution in towns.

Electric cars look like a nice solution at the moment. Wait until they
become the norm, and government has to raise taxes from them in the same
way as they do from IC engined ones. Or have to put up other taxes.

--
*A bicycle can't stand alone because it's two tyred.*

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

harry wrote:
If a second referendum went the "wrong" way, that would be ignored
too if they could get away with it.

I think it is pretty clear from the discussions on this ng
that whichever way a new referendum went, it'd be the wrong
way.

#Paul

On Wednesday, 18 September 2019 17:04:35 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
It would be better for the enviroment if the majoroty of petrol/diesel
cars were banned from cities. you either get an electric car or learn
how to walk or bike it.

And then presumably ban gas boilers too? They are also a major source of
pollution in towns.

Are they, never heard that POV before.


Electric cars look like a nice solution at the moment. Wait until they
become the norm, and government has to raise taxes from them in the same
way as they do from IC engined ones. Or have to put up other taxes.

yes I know, I have expected them to do that for some time now.

On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 08:17:38 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Wednesday, 18 September 2019 11:33:08 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 11:01:04 +0100, Pamela
wrote:

On 17:15 17 Sep 2019, Brian Reay wrote:

On 17/09/2019 16:07, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Brian Reay wrote:
The Remainers keep telling us what the Brexiteers (supposedly) think, so
why do you suddenly need to ask?

Perhaps the Remainers have come to their senses and realised just how
arrogant and stupid they look.

Odd really. Brexiteers are all so convinced a no deal exit is what the
people voted for. But very against a second referendum where that belief
could be tested.

I don't want a second referendum anymore than I wanted the first one. But
it does seem those who who did secretly believe it was a fluke.


There you go again.

Maybe you are uncertain why you voted the way you did. That doesn't mean
others are.

At the time of the referendum how did you manage to know those facts which
only emerged later? Such as details of the leaving deal, the arrangement for
the NI border (which no one knows, even now), the impact on daily life in
Britain, the amount of the divorce payment, and so on?

Of course he didn't and even if he did, he didn't consider them of
sufficient importance for *him* not to be confident that we should
*ALL* leave the EU.

On the other hand, all Remainers knew in minute details what staying was like
because they were already living it.

Quite, even if it should change in the future as we would be part of
that process ('of course').


The problem is we won't be part of it.

Of course we will and certainly far more then we would if out of it
and still be obliged to such decisions (as we would, irrespective of
how you fantasise otherwise).

Lying politicians have signed us up for stuff on the quiet and would do so again.

Of course they have and will again but how can we rectify that when we
not part of the process?

Cheers, T i m

On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 08:25:41 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

snip

If a second referendum went the "wrong" way, that would be ignored too if they could get away with it.

1) If the first poll was left at that (rather than the questionable
*******isation we actually got), we wouldn't be in the position we are
now.

2) If after the poll, we agreed that we would hold an actual vote on
it, that vote could have required a supermajority to determine the
outcome.

3) As neither of those things happened and it's still patently obvious
to anyone actually interested in the 'will of the people' (rather than
just 1/3 of those eligible to vote) that it's still undecided because
so much is still unknown.

The only things that are known are what the status quo is and that we
don't have a clue what the full impact of us leaving will be, other
than it doesn't look good (by the measure most people would use and
that's how much things cost and how well they can live).

Come up with some facts rather than your beliefs and opinions and
maybe more people will take notice of you. Till then you will just be
another of those people you hear muttering to themselves in the park.

Cheers, T i m

On 18/09/2019 16:23, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 18 September 2019 14:17:27 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
In reality the vote boiled down to ever closer union or turning
around and walking away as fast as possible.

Or even walking away if anything actually happened that we didn't like.

Or using our veto as we had done before.

Not just run away because some bunch of anti eu people lied about
everything they could.

And seem to think the UK can stand up near alone to anyone in the world.
Just like WW2.


We are the fifth largest economy. Yes we can.


We were the fourth before the brexiteers started the troubles.

Soon to be the sixth or seventh.

On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 17:05:23 +0100, wrote:

harry wrote:
If a second referendum went the "wrong" way, that would be ignored
too if they could get away with it.

I think it is pretty clear from the discussions on this ng
that whichever way a new referendum went, it'd be the wrong
way.

;-)

Except, had it required a supermajority then at least we would all see
it was a more realistic representation of the 'will of the people'
(rather than just 1/3rd of the electorate ... *then*).

If it doesn't make that threshold then there is nothing stopping
anyone continuing to work on it until it actually does.

Most people need 'good reason' to detour off the well trodden and the
relative safety of a known route.

Cheers, T i m

On 16:28 18 Sep 2019, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 18 September 2019 15:13:32 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Pamela wrote:


The Brexit supporters are against a second referendum quite simply
because the Remain side would almost certainly win.

Complete lie.

So why not hold the second referendum?

That is the $64,000 question.

I was against the first referendum, so quite logical in not wanting a
second one even though I'd hope the majority are rather better informed
now of the actual issues.

Leavers on here may go on and on about democracy and sovereignty etc, but
basically they just want their own way.

Mind reader too are you?

What do you want to get out of Leave?

"Pamela" wrote in message
...
On 17:15 17 Sep 2019, Brian Reay wrote:

On 17/09/2019 16:07, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Brian Reay wrote:
The Remainers keep telling us what the Brexiteers (supposedly) think,
so
why do you suddenly need to ask?

Perhaps the Remainers have come to their senses and realised just how
arrogant and stupid they look.

Odd really. Brexiteers are all so convinced a no deal exit is what the
people voted for. But very against a second referendum where that belief
could be tested.

I don't want a second referendum anymore than I wanted the first one.
But
it does seem those who who did secretly believe it was a fluke.


There you go again.

Maybe you are uncertain why you voted the way you did. That doesn't mean
others are.

At the time of the referendum how did you manage to know those facts which
only emerged later? Such as details of the leaving deal, the arrangement
for
the NI border (which no one knows, even now), the impact on daily life in
Britain, the amount of the divorce payment, and so on?

On the other hand, all Remainers knew in minute details what staying was
like
because they were already living it.

But had no way of knowing what the EU would continue to morph into
and how much staying in the EU would cost in the future, or how many
EUians would choose to move to the UK etc etc etc.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 18/09/2019 09:52, jeikppkywk wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 18/09/2019 03:18, jeikppkywk wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Unfortunately te EU and remainers are hanging onto our coat tails and
whining like a spoilt two year old that has lost its dummy.

For quite a few in the EU, they just believe in the EU project.

It all boils down to religion, in the end...

Politics is nothing like religion.

Oh dear.

Holy Roman Empire.
Islamic Caliphate.

Nothing like that with the EU.

Communism.

That isnt a religion either.

Politics is EXACTLY like religion.

Not in the modern first world it isnt.

Especially on the Green'Red/Left/Eu side.

Even sillier than you usually manage and thats saying something.

Even you should have noticed that the stupid believers
dont actually get to vote on the policy of the roman
catholic church, or even with the anglicans either.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...
On 18/09/2019 16:23, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 18 September 2019 14:17:27 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
In reality the vote boiled down to ever closer union or turning
around and walking away as fast as possible.

Or even walking away if anything actually happened that we didn't like.

Or using our veto as we had done before.

Not just run away because some bunch of anti eu people lied about
everything they could.

And seem to think the UK can stand up near alone to anyone in the world.
Just like WW2.


We are the fifth largest economy. Yes we can.


We were the fourth before the brexiteers started the troubles.

Soon to be the sixth or seventh.

More project fear lies.

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 05:05:38 +1000, jeikppkywk, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

FLUSH trolling Ozzietard's usual troll****

05:05??? Are you sick or what? Or why did you stay in bed that long, senile
Rodent? BG

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

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 05:12:36 +1000, jeikppkywk, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

FLUSH more of the trolling senile asshole's troll****

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 05:57:34 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


More project fear lies.

Nope, but more insipid trolling on your part, senile troll!

--
about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID:

On 18/09/2019 20:12, jeikppkywk wrote:
Even you should have noticed that the stupid believers
dont actually get to vote on the policy of the roman
catholic church, or even with the anglicans either.

So its the same as the EU then.



--
Microsoft : the best reason to go to Linux that ever existed.

On Wednesday, 18 September 2019 17:13:07 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 08:17:38 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Wednesday, 18 September 2019 11:33:08 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 11:01:04 +0100, Pamela
wrote:

On 17:15 17 Sep 2019, Brian Reay wrote:

On 17/09/2019 16:07, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Brian Reay wrote:
The Remainers keep telling us what the Brexiteers (supposedly) think, so
why do you suddenly need to ask?

Perhaps the Remainers have come to their senses and realised just how
arrogant and stupid they look.

Odd really. Brexiteers are all so convinced a no deal exit is what the
people voted for. But very against a second referendum where that belief
could be tested.

I don't want a second referendum anymore than I wanted the first one. But
it does seem those who who did secretly believe it was a fluke.


There you go again.

Maybe you are uncertain why you voted the way you did. That doesn't mean
others are.

At the time of the referendum how did you manage to know those facts which
only emerged later? Such as details of the leaving deal, the arrangement for
the NI border (which no one knows, even now), the impact on daily life in
Britain, the amount of the divorce payment, and so on?

Of course he didn't and even if he did, he didn't consider them of
sufficient importance for *him* not to be confident that we should
*ALL* leave the EU.

On the other hand, all Remainers knew in minute details what staying was like
because they were already living it.

Quite, even if it should change in the future as we would be part of
that process ('of course').


The problem is we won't be part of it.

Of course we will and certainly far more then we would if out of it
and still be obliged to such decisions (as we would, irrespective of
how you fantasise otherwise).

Lying politicians have signed us up for stuff on the quiet and would do so again.

Of course they have and will again but how can we rectify that when we
not part of the process?

I'm talking about our own politicians not the dross in the EUSSR. They can go **** themselves.

On Wednesday, 18 September 2019 17:31:09 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 18/09/2019 16:23, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 18 September 2019 14:17:27 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
In reality the vote boiled down to ever closer union or turning
around and walking away as fast as possible.

Or even walking away if anything actually happened that we didn't like.

Or using our veto as we had done before.

Not just run away because some bunch of anti eu people lied about
everything they could.

And seem to think the UK can stand up near alone to anyone in the world.
Just like WW2.


We are the fifth largest economy. Yes we can.


We were the fourth before the brexiteers started the troubles.

Soon to be the sixth or seventh.

Bollix. Usual project fear crap.

On Wednesday, 18 September 2019 17:49:00 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 17:05:23 +0100, wrote:

harry wrote:
If a second referendum went the "wrong" way, that would be ignored
too if they could get away with it.

I think it is pretty clear from the discussions on this ng
that whichever way a new referendum went, it'd be the wrong
way.

;-)

Except, had it required a supermajority then at least we would all see
it was a more realistic representation of the 'will of the people'
(rather than just 1/3rd of the electorate ... *then*).

If it doesn't make that threshold then there is nothing stopping
anyone continuing to work on it until it actually does.

Most people need 'good reason' to detour off the well trodden and the
relative safety of a known route.

It became apparent the "known route" was heading to disaster.
Pointers, Italy, Spain, Portugal etc
France and Germany next.

Brian Reay wrote:
I?m not trying to tell people what they think etc. Or
impose my views on others. I expect a democratic vote
to be honoured.

If there happens to be widespread disagreement about what
"honoured" might mean in terms of specific policy, would
it not (also) be democratic to have another vote, to decide
between policy options?

#Paul

The Natural Philosopher wrote
jeikppkywk wrote

Even you should have noticed that the stupid believers
dont actually get to vote on the policy of the roman
catholic church, or even with the anglicans either.

So its the same as the EU then.

Only on that detail. Even you should have noticed that
the top banana in the EU gets change periodically
and that that doesnt happen with religions and that
hardly anyone actually grovels to Junkers etc.

On 19/09/2019 07:52, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 18 September 2019 17:31:09 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 18/09/2019 16:23, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 18 September 2019 14:17:27 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
In reality the vote boiled down to ever closer union or turning
around and walking away as fast as possible.

Or even walking away if anything actually happened that we didn't like.

Or using our veto as we had done before.

Not just run away because some bunch of anti eu people lied about
everything they could.

And seem to think the UK can stand up near alone to anyone in the world.
Just like WW2.


We are the fifth largest economy. Yes we can.


We were the fourth before the brexiteers started the troubles.

Soon to be the sixth or seventh.

Bollix. Usual project fear crap.


See exactly, what you expect from brexiteers, don't like it , call it
project fear and ignore it.

Standard answer from the dim and stupid.

On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 23:50:32 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Wednesday, 18 September 2019 17:13:07 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 08:17:38 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Wednesday, 18 September 2019 11:33:08 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 11:01:04 +0100, Pamela
wrote:

On 17:15 17 Sep 2019, Brian Reay wrote:

On 17/09/2019 16:07, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Brian Reay wrote:
The Remainers keep telling us what the Brexiteers (supposedly) think, so
why do you suddenly need to ask?

Perhaps the Remainers have come to their senses and realised just how
arrogant and stupid they look.

Odd really. Brexiteers are all so convinced a no deal exit is what the
people voted for. But very against a second referendum where that belief
could be tested.

I don't want a second referendum anymore than I wanted the first one. But
it does seem those who who did secretly believe it was a fluke.


There you go again.

Maybe you are uncertain why you voted the way you did. That doesn't mean
others are.

At the time of the referendum how did you manage to know those facts which
only emerged later? Such as details of the leaving deal, the arrangement for
the NI border (which no one knows, even now), the impact on daily life in
Britain, the amount of the divorce payment, and so on?

Of course he didn't and even if he did, he didn't consider them of
sufficient importance for *him* not to be confident that we should
*ALL* leave the EU.

On the other hand, all Remainers knew in minute details what staying was like
because they were already living it.

Quite, even if it should change in the future as we would be part of
that process ('of course').


The problem is we won't be part of it.

Of course we will and certainly far more then we would if out of it
and still be obliged to such decisions (as we would, irrespective of
how you fantasise otherwise).

Lying politicians have signed us up for stuff on the quiet and would do so again.

Of course they have and will again but how can we rectify that when we
not part of the process?

I'm talking about our own politicians not the dross in the EUSSR.

My reply applies to both.

If we don't have representation in the EU but are (and we will be)
obliged to still conform to most of their rules (manufacturing
standards etc, because we still need to deal with them on many
levels), we will be even less empowered than we were before we left.

You (lot) didn't think it though did you, now you are too embarrassed
to admit it.

Most people write a list with two headings, Pros and Cons. Our
membership has both (of course) and most right minded people would
have a good quantity of each. Fanatic Brexiteers of course would have
*nothing* in the Pro column, demonstrating just how blinkered, biased
and in denial they are.

For the reasonable people, the bottom line might come down to how any
change from the status quo looks like it's going to affect 'most
people' (eg, not just harry) because it's when the majority of people
are happy, most / more things can get done.

Deciding something as big as this (where 'big' = 'potential negative
impact') on voting noise is ridiculous and will never be respected by
me.

Cheers, T i m

On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 23:56:09 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

snip

Most people need 'good reason' to detour off the well trodden and the
relative safety of a known route.

It became apparent the "known route" was heading to disaster.

Not to the majority of the electorate who *didn't* actively vote to
support that 'guess'.

Pointers, Italy, Spain, Portugal etc
France and Germany next.

Or not.

Do you *really* think the EU wouldn't respond (proactively) to such an
uprising, if it were the case? Without it's member states it would
wouldn't exist so who, even if they were only thinking of themselves
would self destruct like that?

Cheers, T i m

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , jeikppkywk
wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote
jeikppkywk wrote

Even you should have noticed that the stupid believers
dont actually get to vote on the policy of the roman
catholic church, or even with the anglicans either.

So its the same as the EU then.

Only on that detail. Even you should have noticed that
the top banana in the EU gets change periodically
and that that doesnt happen with religions

Sure it does. We got a new ArchBish of Canterbury 6 years ago

Thats not the one the stupid grovel to when their brat gets
leukaemia etc. Hardly anyone does that with Junkers etc.

and the Bishop of Rome gets replaced (usually when he pegs it).

Ditto. A few more are actually stupid enough to kiss the ring
of that child molester, but hardly any do that with Junkers.

and that hardly anyone actually grovels to Junkers etc.

No, they just bribe them with expenses they don't have to declare and
stonking great pensions - although they risk losing the pension if they
don't kow-tow to the EU in perpetuity.

Corse nothing like that happens in the UK, eh ?

On 19/09/2019 09:19, wrote:
Brian Reay wrote:
I?m not trying to tell people what they think etc. Or
impose my views on others. I expect a democratic vote
to be honoured.

If there happens to be widespread disagreement about what
"honoured" might mean in terms of specific policy, would
it not (also) be democratic to have another vote, to decide
between policy options?

There isnt widespread disagreement.
Just a small minority of the elite looking at the end of their careers,
lying to their useful idiots

VVVVVV
#Paul



--
"Nature does not give up the winter because people dislike the cold."

ۥ Confucius