On 19/09/2019 10:04, 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
Of course it does.

and that
hardly anyone actually grovels to Junkers etc.

Hardly anyone actually grovels to the Archbishop of Canterbury either.


--
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign,
that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."

Jonathan Swift.

On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 23:52:41 -0700 (PDT), 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.

Nope. Prior the referendum white elephant we had the 4th highest GDP
but soon slipped to 5th when Brexit kicked off. Whilst we are wasting
millions (of pounds and man hours) on this wild goose chase we are
running less efficiently as a commercial organisation and so it's
highly reasonable to suspect we will drop further down the GDP table
because of it.

The fanatic Brexiteers will of course state that the GDP doesn't
matter. Had it been going up the fanatic Brexiteers would say it's
important and reflects Brexit etc.

Cheers, T i m

On Wednesday, 18 September 2019 17:28:39 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
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.

and if no one **** we wouldn't need sewers.
But what do you see as the first poll what was the date of this first poll
so we can check the results.


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.

Why, we've never used a supermajority for such things. We didnlt use that the last time in 1975 so why use it now ?

In Britain, qualified majorities have been required only in the devolution referendums in Scotland and Wales in 1979. In these referendums, as well as a majority yes vote, a 40% majority of the electorate was needed for parliament to implement the devolution legislation. In Wales, devolution was rejected by a four-to-one majority, and so the threshold was irrelevant. But in Scotland, on a 64% turnout, 33% of the electorate voted for devolution while 31% voted against. The government could not proceed with devolution even though a majority had voted for it. Many Scots argued that the rules had been rigged against them, since there had been no threshold requirement in the 1975 referendum on whether Britain should remain in the European Community. The referendum strengthened the Scottish sense of grievance which continues to poison relations with England.

What do you think would have happened if someone like you would have insisted on a supermajority.


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.

your usual BS.


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,

or the full impact of staying, like any club.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 19/09/2019 10:04, 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
Of course it does.

and that
hardly anyone actually grovels to Junkers etc.

Hardly anyone actually grovels to the Archbishop of Canterbury either.

But plenty are actually stupid enough to grovel to that fool
who was actually stupid enough to get nailed up by the romans.

No equivalent with the EU.

"harry" wrote in message
...
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.

We'll see...

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

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed drunken fantasys...

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

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...

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 ?

The EU is the only entity AFAIK that has given itself the power to
cancel someone's pension.

BULL**** with the worst of the criminals.

Tim Streater wrote:

In article , jeikppkywk
wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
. ..

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 ?

The EU is the only entity AFAIK that has given itself the power to
cancel someone's pension.

Sadly, and orthogonal to the Brexit debate, the civil service (and NHS)
disciplinary code includes this possibility although I agree it is
oppressive and unjustifiable; the law already provides for fines and
for recovery of criminal proceeds and this special type of fine for
those in government service would usually be unjust. You may remember
that David Kelly was threatened with this penalty for whistleblowing.[1]



Now **** off Woddles.
Can't argue with that.

[1] Though a conspiracy theorist might surmise that this threat was
made to give prospective credence to his "suicide".



--

Roger Hayter

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 19:04:21 +1000, jeikppkywk, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

FLUSH trolling senile Ozzietard's latest 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 19:41:49 +1000, jeikppkywk, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:



Corse nothing like that happens in the UK, eh ?

The UK? NONE of yours, senile Ozzie pest!

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

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 20:09:54 +1000, jeikppkywk, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:


BULL****

That one word would make the PERFECT nym for you, senile bull**** artist!

--
addressing nym-shifting senile Rodent:
"You on the other hand are a heavyweight bull****ter who demonstrates
your particular prowess at it every day."
MID:

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 20:02:26 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


But plenty are actually stupid enough to grovel to that fool
who was actually stupid enough to get nailed up by the romans.

It is not for a senile obnoxious trolling asshole from Oz to assess what
happened back then!

No equivalent with the EU.

That is NONE of yours, either, senile pest!

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

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 20:05:05 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


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

We'll see...

We'll see YOU trolling on the UK groups like there was no tomorrow, you
disgusting, 85-year-old trolling senile Ozzie pest!

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

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed drunken fantasys...

Just another of your pathetic, idiotic, little trolls, senile cretin!

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

In article ,
Roger Hayter wrote:
The EU is the only entity AFAIK that has given itself the power to
cancel someone's pension.

Sadly, and orthogonal to the Brexit debate, the civil service (and NHS)
disciplinary code includes this possibility although I agree it is
oppressive and unjustifiable;

Police too?

--
*When companies ship Styrofoam, what do they pack it in? *

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Roger Hayter wrote:
The EU is the only entity AFAIK that has given itself the power to
cancel someone's pension.

Sadly, and orthogonal to the Brexit debate, the civil service (and NHS)
disciplinary code includes this possibility although I agree it is
oppressive and unjustifiable;

Police too?

I believe so, but I have no reliable information.

--

Roger Hayter

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
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.
Never heard of qualified majority voting? Vetoes are to be progressively
reduced in the new Empire.

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.


--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
In reality the vote boiled down to ever closer union or turning around
and walking away as fast as possible.

Making up history again? The vote was carried by existing immigration and
the threats of that escalating from Turkey.
Was it? On what authority do you claim to know why people voted?

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

You mean they've come to a decision and are keeping to it? Unlike the UK
parliament who can agree on very little.

That's down to the remainers.
I do often wonder if you actually follow what's going on.


--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
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 Leave preferably with an arrangement but if not then the default
would be wto deal.

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?

Parliament has no mandate to impose that condition. Parliament has taken
over the role of the executive. But parliament is supposed to hold the
executive to account so who can do that now? Why the electorate of
course so let's have a GE now.
--
bert

In article ,
writes
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
There is no disagreement. The vote was to Leave.
--
bert

In article , Pamela
writes
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?

The vote was to Leave. NI border is a fabricated problem.
On the other hand, all Remainers knew in minute details what staying was like
because they were already living it.

European army? European Empire? Brussels taxation control?
--
bert

In article , Pamela
writes
On 11:33 18 Sep 2019, 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.

So why not hold the second referendum?
Because the lead remainers have stated they wouldn't accept a leave
result - again. So best of 3/5/7?

Snip
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
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.

Nothing could be worse than starting trade negotiations from the basis
of the WA.
--
bert

In article , T i m
writes
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*).

But it didn't so stop whinging.
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



--
bert

In article ,
bert wrote:
Making up history again? The vote was carried by existing immigration and
the threats of that escalating from Turkey.

Was it? On what authority do you claim to know why people voted?

The same one where the likes of you claim it was the will of the people.
But based on facts.

--
*I wished the buck stopped here, as I could use a few*

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

On 20/09/2019 14:04, T i m wrote:

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.

And there was a good reason. £39bn good reasons.,plus some other ones


--
"Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They
always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them"

Margaret Thatcher

On 20/09/2019 15:39, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/09/2019 14:04, T i m wrote:

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.

And there was a good reason. £39bn good reasons.,plus some other ones



More brexiteer lies..
if there is no brexit we don't pay £39bn to the EU under Mays deal.

Its only because of brexiteers that we may have to.

On Friday, 20 September 2019 16:14:45 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 20/09/2019 15:39, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/09/2019 14:04, T i m wrote:

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.

And there was a good reason. £39bn good reasons.,plus some other ones



More brexiteer lies..
if there is no brexit we don't pay £39bn to the EU under Mays deal.

Its only because of brexiteers that we may have to.

While that is true, if we do remain in the EU we will be paying an amount to the EU at regular intervals most likely every month.
I don't know how much or what rebates, discounts 2-4-1 or whatever will be added or removed and I doubt anyone here knows although some will obviously be so sure they do know.

https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-m...ee-55-million/

In 2018 the UK government paid £13 billion to the EU budget, and EU spending on the UK was forecast to be £4 billion. So the UKs €˜net contribution was estimated at nearly £9 billion.

Each year the UK gets a discount on its contributions to the EU€”the €˜rebate€”worth about £4 billion last year. Without it the UK would have been liable for £17 billion in contributions.

On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 15:34:27 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
bert wrote:
Making up history again? The vote was carried by existing immigration and
the threats of that escalating from Turkey.

Was it? On what authority do you claim to know why people voted?

The same one where the likes of you claim it was the will of the people.
But based on facts.

https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/the-brexiters-guide-to-misunderstanding-democracy-20190920189191

More than a grain of truth ... ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 13:14:49 +0100, TimW wrote:

On 17/09/2019 11:50, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Andy Burns
writes
harry wrote:

26 Reasons for Leaving the EU.

[snip list]

https://fullfact.org/europe/viral-list-about-lisbon-treaty-wrong

I'll be interested to read our Brexiteers views on the above.


Brexiters don't even care if it's true or not. Just as long as they can
be shouty, angry and win. it's populism, it's nationalism, it's
post-truth politics.

It sounds damn plausible to me, as half of it has or is already happened/ing.

bert wrote:
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
There is no disagreement. The vote was to Leave.

Of course, leave with a deal exactly like the one Teresa May
negotiated? I am so glad you agree!

#Paul

On 21/09/2019 09:07, wrote:
bert wrote:
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
There is no disagreement. The vote was to Leave.

Of course, leave with a deal exactly like the one Teresa May
negotiated? I am so glad you agree!

Of course not.
Why do you persist in nym shifting and lying?

#Paul



--
How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.

Adolf Hitler

On 18/09/2019 09:36, T i m wrote:

We weren't ready
because the majority (the 2/3rds that didn't vote to Leave) didn't
have a reason to.

What a silly argument. By the same token 2/3rds didn't vote for Remain.


--
Spike

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 21/09/2019 09:07, wrote:
bert wrote:
wrote:
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
There is no disagreement. The vote was to Leave.

Of course, leave with a deal exactly like the one Teresa May
negotiated? I am so glad you agree!

Of course not.

Wait, so we don't all agree what the "Leave" vote meant? But
Bert quite clearly said that we did! Was Bert wrong, and there
is, after all, no general agreement about it? And so maybe
a new democratic vote needs to be held, to see which "leave"
variation is most supported?

#Paul

On 21/09/2019 10:58, Spike wrote:
On 18/09/2019 09:36, T i m wrote:

We weren't ready
because the majority (the 2/3rds that didn't vote to Leave) didn't
have a reason to.

What a silly argument. By the same token 2/3rds didn't vote for Remain.


I am really worried about remoaners.
First of all I thought they were simply venal trolls, but I am coming to
reaslise that they are in complete and utter denial: They have swallowed
project fear hook line and sinker, and are really genuinely scared and
in utter denial because they not only believe it, but believe that
politicians will reverse it. Because it is 'wrong'

Its a good thing only a small minority (33%) voted to stay.




--
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow witted
man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest
thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly
persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid
before him."

- Leo Tolstoy

On Sat, 21 Sep 2019 09:58:38 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 18/09/2019 09:36, T i m wrote:

We weren't ready
because the majority (the 2/3rds that didn't vote to Leave) didn't
have a reason to.

What a silly argument.

Only if you aren't looking at it from the bigger picture.

By the same token 2/3rds didn't vote for Remain.

But remaining is what we were doing already so many wouldn't see the
point of voting for what they already had?

'Hands up who wants an ice cream' is what the actual question should
have been as only those who *want* such would then respond.

What such a question doesn't cover is those who might prefer an ice
lolly or just a cold drink.

Part of managing democracy is asking the right questions to the right
people and ensuring enough of them agree to any *change* that doesn't
have a very reasonable predicted outcome for 'most people'.

MP's have a duty of care to ensure we don't hurt ourselves, like if
50%+1 want crocodiles in all local swimming pools.

We were going along a road that whilst may have had a few bends, was
generally straight and we all had a reasonable idea about what
tomorrow would be like.

Then, a tiny minority of people made the statement that if we turned
of that road, 90 degrees, we would all have better lives, without
anyone actually knowing if that was true or even likely. In fact, some
scouts that looked suggested that it might be a touch of the grass
being greener and could actually just be weed on a stagnant ford.

Cheers, T i m

On Sat, 21 Sep 2019 11:31:42 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 21/09/2019 10:58, Spike wrote:
On 18/09/2019 09:36, T i m wrote:

We weren't ready
because the majority (the 2/3rds that didn't vote to Leave) didn't
have a reason to.

What a silly argument. By the same token 2/3rds didn't vote for Remain.


I am really worried about remoaners.

We are more worried about you. ;-(

First of all I thought they were simply venal trolls, but I am coming to
reaslise that they are in complete and utter denial: They have swallowed
project fear hook line and sinker, and are really genuinely scared and
in utter denial because they not only believe it, but believe that
politicians will reverse it. Because it is 'wrong'

Correct, but not because we believe in any hype or spin, put out by
the Brexiteers but because we haven't seen anything yet that justifies
the whole clusterfcuk to 'most people'.

Brexit was the answer to the question that few were asking and became
an answer by default, not because it was right or sensible.

Cheers, T i m

On 21/09/2019 12:19, T i m wrote:

Correct, but not because we believe in any hype or spin, put out by
the Brexiteers but because we haven't seen anything yet that justifies
the whole clusterfcuk to 'most people'.

How about 'that's what people voted for?'

Remember, 2/3rds of people didn't vote to Remain - according to your
method of counting.

--
Spike

On 21/09/2019 10:39, T i m wrote:
On 21 Sep 2019 09:58:38 +0000, Spike wrote:
On 18/09/2019 09:36, T i m wrote:

We weren't ready
because the majority (the 2/3rds that didn't vote to Leave) didn't
have a reason to.

What a silly argument.

Only if you aren't looking at it from the bigger picture.

And that's a silly argument s well.

By the same token 2/3rds didn't vote for Remain.

But remaining is what we were doing already so many wouldn't see the
point of voting for what they already had?

'Hands up who wants an ice cream' is what the actual question should
have been as only those who *want* such would then respond.

So you're saying that the question in the second referendum should have
been 'Who wants to Remain?'

That's even sillier than your previous argument.

What such a question doesn't cover is those who might prefer an ice
lolly or just a cold drink.

Part of managing democracy is asking the right questions to the right
people and ensuring enough of them agree to any *change* that doesn't
have a very reasonable predicted outcome for 'most people'.

Is it?

MP's have a duty of care to ensure we don't hurt ourselves, like if
50%+1 want crocodiles in all local swimming pools.

MPs have a duty to implement the voters choice, not some made-up fantasy
of yours.

We were going along a road that whilst may have had a few bends, was
generally straight and we all had a reasonable idea about what
tomorrow would be like.

Then, a tiny minority of people made the statement that if we turned
of that road, 90 degrees, we would all have better lives, without
anyone actually knowing if that was true or even likely. In fact, some
scouts that looked suggested that it might be a touch of the grass
being greener and could actually just be weed on a stagnant ford.

So, how many rules, regulations, directives, and other imperatives have
been imposed on the UK by the EU since the second referendum vote? Did
*you* see them all coming?

Do you always put forward such silly arguments?


--
Spike

On 21/09/2019 16:06, Spike wrote:
On 21/09/2019 10:39, T i m wrote:
...
So, how many rules, regulations, directives, and other imperatives have
been imposed on the UK by the EU since the second referendum vote? Did
*you* see them all coming?

Do you always put forward such silly arguments?


He does.


--
The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all
private property.

Karl Marx

On Sat, 21 Sep 2019 15:05:51 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 21/09/2019 12:19, T i m wrote:

Correct, but not because we believe in any hype or spin, put out by
the Brexiteers but because we haven't seen anything yet that justifies
the whole clusterfcuk to 'most people'.

How about 'that's what people voted for?'

And again, by 'the people' you mean *only* 1/3rd of those eligible to
vote *then*.

Remember, 2/3rds of people didn't vote to Remain - according to your
method of counting.

Whoosh.

It wasn't (actually) a vote for who want's to carry on doing the same,
it was a vote for who want's to change. Many of those who voted Remain
did so not because they knew remaining was the best thing for 'most
people' but because they didn't know Leaving was either and the risks
with Leaving were greater. Unfortunately, many Brexiteers *THINK* they
*KNOW* that Leaving *WILL* be best for (at least) *THEM* and that's
all that seems to count.

The ONLY vote that would make any difference was the Leave vote.

Only 1/3rd of the electorate voted *for* that, for the change.

Cheers, T i m

On Sat, 21 Sep 2019 15:06:30 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 21/09/2019 10:39, T i m wrote:
On 21 Sep 2019 09:58:38 +0000, Spike wrote:
On 18/09/2019 09:36, T i m wrote:

We weren't ready
because the majority (the 2/3rds that didn't vote to Leave) didn't
have a reason to.

What a silly argument.

Only if you aren't looking at it from the bigger picture.

And that's a silly argument s well.

In your opinion of course ... and you are? ...

By the same token 2/3rds didn't vote for Remain.

But remaining is what we were doing already so many wouldn't see the
point of voting for what they already had?

'Hands up who wants an ice cream' is what the actual question should
have been as only those who *want* such would then respond.

So you're saying that the question in the second referendum should have
been 'Who wants to Remain?'

What second referendum?

That's even sillier than your previous argument.

Only because you don't understand the position. But that's fine.

What such a question doesn't cover is those who might prefer an ice
lolly or just a cold drink.

Part of managing democracy is asking the right questions to the right
people and ensuring enough of them agree to any *change* that doesn't
have a very reasonable predicted outcome for 'most people'.

Is it?

Of course.

MP's have a duty of care to ensure we don't hurt ourselves, like if
50%+1 want crocodiles in all local swimming pools.

MPs have a duty to implement the voters choice, not some made-up fantasy
of yours.

Nope, BS. Shame you actually believe yourself.

We were going along a road that whilst may have had a few bends, was
generally straight and we all had a reasonable idea about what
tomorrow would be like.

Then, a tiny minority of people made the statement that if we turned
of that road, 90 degrees, we would all have better lives, without
anyone actually knowing if that was true or even likely. In fact, some
scouts that looked suggested that it might be a touch of the grass
being greener and could actually just be weed on a stagnant ford.

So, how many rules, regulations, directives, and other imperatives have
been imposed on the UK by the EU since the second referendum vote?

Pass ... but none that have affected 'most people' enough to even have
them on their radar and certainly not enough to lose loads of money
over.

Did
*you* see them all coming?

I'm not the one predicting the future, it's the Brexiteers.

Do you always put forward such silly arguments?

Why are you so selfish?

Cheers, T i m