OT Boris' BREXIT (Not actually Brexit)
 

https://www.thebrexitparty.org/read-this/#compare

OT Boris' BREXIT (Not actually Brexit)
 

On Tue, 5 Nov 2019 02:00:37 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

https://www.thebrexitparty.org/read-this/#compare

Yup, an awful lot at risk and so something we shouldn't rush into
(especially without supermajority support).

Cheers, T i m

OT Boris' BREXIT (Not actually Brexit)
 

On 05/11/2019 10:00, harry wrote:
https://www.thebrexitparty.org/read-this/#compare


It's Brexit Jim, but not as you know it.

--
Colin Bignell

OT Boris' BREXIT (Not actually Brexit)
 

On Tue, 5 Nov 2019 11:54:03 +0000, nightjar wrote:

On 05/11/2019 10:00, harry wrote:
https://www.thebrexitparty.org/read-this/#compare


It's Brexit Jim, but not as you know it.

Or more accurately, as any of the fanatical Brexiteers hoped / guessed
it might be?

They behave like 'Q', thinking what they do is good, right and in the
best interest of everyone (when it's generally none of those). ;-)

Cheers, T i m

OT Boris' BREXIT (Not actually Brexit)
 

On Tue, 05 Nov 2019 02:00:37 -0800, harry wrote:

https://www.thebrexitparty.org/read-this/#compare

https://www.monckton.com/whats-or-wh...johnson-draft-
withdrawal-agreement-bill/

Just for a bit of context and detail.

Cheers



Dave R


--
AMD FX-6300 in GA-990X-Gaming SLI-CF running Windows 7 Pro x64

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

OT Boris' BREXIT (Not actually Brexit)
 

On 05/11/2019 10:00, harry wrote:
https://www.thebrexitparty.org/read-this/#compare


You won, live with it!

OT Boris' BREXIT (Not actually Brexit)
 

On Tuesday, 5 November 2019 12:22:39 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 5 Nov 2019 11:54:03 +0000, nightjar wrote:

On 05/11/2019 10:00, harry wrote:
https://www.thebrexitparty.org/read-this/#compare


It's Brexit Jim, but not as you know it.

Or more accurately, as any of the fanatical Brexiteers hoped / guessed
it might be?

They behave like 'Q', thinking what they do is good, right and in the
best interest of everyone (when it's generally none of those). ;-)

The Q isn't one person but a continuum of Qs all members of the are called Q male, or female or whatever they all refer to each other as Q.
In fact the Q continuum is beyond the comprehension of humans so I wouldn't try equating it with brexit. ;-P





Cheers, T i m

OT Boris' BREXIT (Not actually Brexit)
 

In article ,
Spike wrote:
Well, we've had nearly five decades to see how the EEC/EC/EU runs, and
it's resulted in a significant fall in support.

Given it has been the fall guy for much of the UK press during that time,
not surprising.

--
*Don't byte off more than you can view *

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

OT Boris' BREXIT (Not actually Brexit)
 

On 05/11/2019 13:09, dennis@home wrote:
On 05/11/2019 10:00, harry wrote:
https://www.thebrexitparty.org/read-this/#compare


You won, live with it!

Quite.
You lost, live with it. Now let's move on.

OT Boris' BREXIT (Not actually Brexit)
 

On Tue, 05 Nov 2019 13:38:14 +0000, Spike wrote:

Well, we've had nearly five decades to see how the EEC/EC/EU runs, and
it's resulted in a significant fall in support.

A supermajority in 1975 wasn't a requirement for staying in, but ~66
percent didn't vote to stay in in 2016, so it could be said there was a
supermajority for leaving. At least, that's what the bigger picture
looks like.

Well, I think you make a fair point there, Spike. The BIG difference of
course is we were told membership was only about a *common market* for
goods and services - a proposition no rational person would reject. NOW,
however, we *know* membership involves far, far, far more than that:
membership of a United States of Europe - a prospect that no rational
person could possibly *accept*.




--
Leave first - THEN negotiate!

OT Boris' BREXIT (Not actually Brexit)
 

In article ,
Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 05 Nov 2019 13:38:14 +0000, Spike wrote:

Well, we've had nearly five decades to see how the EEC/EC/EU runs, and
it's resulted in a significant fall in support.

A supermajority in 1975 wasn't a requirement for staying in, but ~66
percent didn't vote to stay in in 2016, so it could be said there was a
supermajority for leaving. At least, that's what the bigger picture
looks like.

Well, I think you make a fair point there, Spike. The BIG difference of
course is we were told membership was only about a *common market* for
goods and services - a proposition no rational person would reject. NOW,
however, we *know* membership involves far, far, far more than that:
membership of a United States of Europe - a prospect that no rational
person could possibly *accept*.

We know you don't even want a United Kingdom, since you've left it.

--
*Why do we say something is out of whack? What is a whack?

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