Discussion:
If £350 Million a Week Was So Dishonest...
Add Reply
Yellow
2017-11-08 13:06:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
If £350 Million a week was so dishonest, why do we have so many folks
demanding it is paid up?

Either it is a real sum of money or it isn't - or is it in the box with
Schrodinger's cat? Existing in both states as it suits remoaners.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-41908302
Martin Brown
2017-11-08 13:51:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
If £350 Million a week was so dishonest, why do we have so many folks
demanding it is paid up?
It was one of the reasons that people voted for Brexit despite the
figure being an obvious fiction invented by the conmen for Brexit.
Post by Yellow
Either it is a real sum of money or it isn't - or is it in the box with
Schrodinger's cat? Existing in both states as it suits remoaners.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-41908302
They said "vote for Brexit, get £350M to the NHS" - it is perfectly
reasonable now that they have their Brexit to force the liars to pay up!
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
pamela
2017-11-08 15:12:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Martin Brown
Post by Yellow
If £350 Million a week was so dishonest, why do we have so many
folks demanding it is paid up?
It was one of the reasons that people voted for Brexit despite
the figure being an obvious fiction invented by the conmen for
Brexit.
Post by Yellow
Either it is a real sum of money or it isn't - or is it in the
box with Schrodinger's cat? Existing in both states as it suits
remoaners.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-41908302
They said "vote for Brexit, get £350M to the NHS" - it is
perfectly reasonable now that they have their Brexit to force
the liars to pay up!
Many observers called the £350 million a lie but Leave speakers
assured everyone it was correct. Almost half the public believed
it. The Leavers should now deliver.

------------

Nearly half of Britons BELIEVE Vote Leave's false '£350 million
a week to the EU' claim.

Meanwhile Treasury forecasts are widely disbelieved .

https://tinyurl.com/jrw5mqw

------------

Tory MP Gove says £350m-a-week promise REMAINS ROBUST

The former justice and education secretary, Micheal Gove, was
also asked about his use of statistics during the referendum
campaign, when Vote Leave claimed £350m a week would be spent
on the NHS.

Gove said the figure was robust and argued it could not yet be
proved true or false

https://tinyurl.com/zq7fd9f

------------
Ian Jackson
2017-11-08 16:07:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Many observers called the £350 million a lie but Leave speakers
assured everyone it was correct. Almost half the public believed
it. The Leavers should now deliver.
Realistically, they can't start delivering until we've actually settled
the bar bill and left the EU and - and even then, they'll need to see if
the post-Brexit economy ticking is over smoothly, and counted how many
pennies are left in the kitty at the end of each week.
--
Ian
pullgees
2017-11-08 16:33:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Martin Brown
Post by Yellow
If £350 Million a week was so dishonest, why do we have so many folks
demanding it is paid up?
It was one of the reasons that people voted for Brexit despite the
figure being an obvious fiction invented by the conmen for Brexit.
Post by Yellow
Either it is a real sum of money or it isn't - or is it in the box with
Schrodinger's cat? Existing in both states as it suits remoaners.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-41908302
They said "vote for Brexit, get £350M to the NHS" - it is perfectly
reasonable now that they have their Brexit to force the liars to pay up!
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Show where it said that please, I must have been too overwhelmed with project fear.
R. Mark Clayton
2017-11-08 16:49:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pullgees
Post by Martin Brown
Post by Yellow
If £350 Million a week was so dishonest, why do we have so many folks
demanding it is paid up?
It was one of the reasons that people voted for Brexit despite the
figure being an obvious fiction invented by the conmen for Brexit.
Post by Yellow
Either it is a real sum of money or it isn't - or is it in the box with
Schrodinger's cat? Existing in both states as it suits remoaners.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-41908302
They said "vote for Brexit, get £350M to the NHS" - it is perfectly
reasonable now that they have their Brexit to force the liars to pay up!
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Show where it said that please, I must have been too overwhelmed with project fear.
On the side of their battle bus, posters, leaflets, in interviews, speeches. They work on the basis that if you repeated the lie often enough people would believe it - and sadly it worked.
tim
2017-11-08 18:55:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by pullgees
Post by Martin Brown
Post by Yellow
If £350 Million a week was so dishonest, why do we have so many folks
demanding it is paid up?
It was one of the reasons that people voted for Brexit despite the
figure being an obvious fiction invented by the conmen for Brexit.
Post by Yellow
Either it is a real sum of money or it isn't - or is it in the box with
Schrodinger's cat? Existing in both states as it suits remoaners.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-41908302
They said "vote for Brexit, get £350M to the NHS" - it is perfectly
reasonable now that they have their Brexit to force the liars to pay up!
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Show where it said that please, I must have been too overwhelmed with project fear.
On the side of their battle bus, posters, leaflets, in interviews,
speeches. They work on the basis that if you repeated the lie often
enough people would believe it - and sadly it worked.
yes we know where it was said

you were asked for proof of what was said

There is no evidence that was categorically to give it to the HMS, it was
just used as a random possibility

tim
pamela
2017-11-08 21:07:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim
Post by R. Mark Clayton
On Wednesday, 8 November 2017 13:51:35 UTC, Martin Brown
Post by Martin Brown
If £350 Million a week was so dishonest, why do we have
so many folks demanding it is paid up?
It was one of the reasons that people voted for Brexit
despite the figure being an obvious fiction invented by the
conmen for Brexit.
Either it is a real sum of money or it isn't - or is it in the box with
Schrodinger's cat? Existing in both states as it suits
remoaners.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-41908302
They said "vote for Brexit, get £350M to the NHS" - it is
perfectly reasonable now that they have their Brexit to
force the liars to pay up!
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Show where it said that please, I must have been too
overwhelmed with project fear.
On the side of their battle bus, posters, leaflets, in
interviews, speeches. They work on the basis that if you
repeated the lie often enough people would believe it - and
sadly it worked.
yes we know where it was said
you were asked for proof of what was said
There is no evidence that was categorically to give it to the
HMS, it was just used as a random possibility
tim
More lying from Leavers.......

----------

Nearly half of Britons BELIEVE Vote Leave's false '£350 million
a week to the EU' claim.

https://tinyurl.com/jrw5mqw

-----------


Tory MP Gove says £350m-a-week promise REMAINS ROBUST

The former justice and education secretary, Micheal Gove, was
also asked about his use of statistics during the referendum
campaign, when Vote Leave claimed £350m a week would be spent
on the NHS.

Gove said the figure was robust and argued it could not yet be
proved true or false

https://tinyurl.com/zq7fd9f

------------
Ian Jackson
2017-11-08 21:39:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Nearly half of Britons BELIEVE Vote Leave's false '£350 million
a week to the EU' claim.
https://tinyurl.com/jrw5mqw
My wife was talking only last week to a specialist educationalist - who
had been discussing with teenagers the problem of distinguishing real
news from fake news. Their general opinion was that news could be
assumed to be true if most people believed it to be true.
--
Ian
Yellow
2017-11-08 22:25:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 8 Nov 2017 21:39:29 +0000, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by pamela
Nearly half of Britons BELIEVE Vote Leave's false '£350 million
a week to the EU' claim.
https://tinyurl.com/jrw5mqw
My wife was talking only last week to a specialist educationalist - who
had been discussing with teenagers the problem of distinguishing real
news from fake news. Their general opinion was that news could be
assumed to be true if most people believed it to be true.
Interesting comment to a link to some fake news - because the £350
million figure was in fact the real, gross number.

So excuse me while I chuckle. :-))))
James Harris
2017-11-09 06:26:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by tim
Post by R. Mark Clayton
On Wednesday, 8 November 2017 13:51:35 UTC, Martin Brown
Post by Martin Brown
If £350 Million a week was so dishonest, why do we have
so many folks demanding it is paid up?
It was one of the reasons that people voted for Brexit
despite the figure being an obvious fiction invented by the
conmen for Brexit.
Either it is a real sum of money or it isn't - or is it in the box with
Schrodinger's cat? Existing in both states as it suits
remoaners.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-41908302
They said "vote for Brexit, get £350M to the NHS" - it is
perfectly reasonable now that they have their Brexit to
force the liars to pay up!
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Show where it said that please, I must have been too
overwhelmed with project fear.
On the side of their battle bus, posters, leaflets, in
interviews, speeches. They work on the basis that if you
repeated the lie often enough people would believe it - and
sadly it worked.
yes we know where it was said
you were asked for proof of what was said
There is no evidence that was categorically to give it to the
HMS, it was just used as a random possibility
tim
More lying from Leavers.......
You have to laugh at the two-facedness of that! The link below does not
seem to show any lying - at least not by the Leave camp(*). And if
Pamela meant it to say that Tim was lying when he spoke of evidence that
the money would go to the NHS, the article she links to explicitly says
"Michael Gove said he believed around £100 million a week could go to
the health service". Note, "around" and "£100 million" and "could".

(*)As for the other side, the Remain camp, the article says "George
Osborne has said that his first budget after Brexit would have to
involve sharp cuts to the NHS and schools, and a 2 per cent increase in
the basic rate of income tax in order to paper over the black hole".

So if the Remain camp was being truthful, where are the sharp cuts? And
where is the 2% rise in income tax? They don't exist. They did not
happen. They were never possible. They were Remain-side lies.

Only a Remainer could try to prove that Leave was lying by posting
something which showed that the only lies came from the Remain camp.
Post by pamela
----------
Nearly half of Britons BELIEVE Vote Leave's false '£350 million
a week to the EU' claim.
https://tinyurl.com/jrw5mqw
-----------
Tory MP Gove says £350m-a-week promise REMAINS ROBUST
The former justice and education secretary, Micheal Gove, was
also asked about his use of statistics during the referendum
campaign, when Vote Leave claimed £350m a week would be spent
on the NHS.
Gove said the figure was robust and argued it could not yet be
proved true or false
https://tinyurl.com/zq7fd9f
------------
--
James Harris
R. Mark Clayton
2017-11-09 10:43:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by pullgees
Post by Martin Brown
Post by Yellow
If £350 Million a week was so dishonest, why do we have so many folks
demanding it is paid up?
It was one of the reasons that people voted for Brexit despite the
figure being an obvious fiction invented by the conmen for Brexit.
Post by Yellow
Either it is a real sum of money or it isn't - or is it in the box with
Schrodinger's cat? Existing in both states as it suits remoaners.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-41908302
They said "vote for Brexit, get £350M to the NHS" - it is perfectly
reasonable now that they have their Brexit to force the liars to pay up!
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Show where it said that please, I must have been too overwhelmed with project fear.
On the side of their battle bus, posters, leaflets, in interviews,
speeches. They work on the basis that if you repeated the lie often
enough people would believe it - and sadly it worked.
yes we know where it was said
you were asked for proof of what was said
There is no evidence that was categorically to give it to the HMS, it was
just used as a random possibility
tim
Google it yourself Joseph...
tim...
2017-11-09 15:04:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by tim
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by pullgees
Post by Martin Brown
Post by Yellow
If £350 Million a week was so dishonest, why do we have so many folks
demanding it is paid up?
It was one of the reasons that people voted for Brexit despite the
figure being an obvious fiction invented by the conmen for Brexit.
Post by Yellow
Either it is a real sum of money or it isn't - or is it in the box with
Schrodinger's cat? Existing in both states as it suits remoaners.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-41908302
They said "vote for Brexit, get £350M to the NHS" - it is perfectly
reasonable now that they have their Brexit to force the liars to pay up!
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Show where it said that please, I must have been too overwhelmed with project fear.
On the side of their battle bus, posters, leaflets, in interviews,
speeches. They work on the basis that if you repeated the lie often
enough people would believe it - and sadly it worked.
yes we know where it was said
you were asked for proof of what was said
There is no evidence that was categorically to give it to the HMS, it was
just used as a random possibility
tim
Google it yourself Joseph...
who the fuck is Joseph?

tim
Ophelia
2017-11-09 16:53:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by tim
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by pullgees
Post by Martin Brown
Post by Yellow
If £350 Million a week was so dishonest, why do we have so many folks
demanding it is paid up?
It was one of the reasons that people voted for Brexit despite the
figure being an obvious fiction invented by the conmen for Brexit.
Post by Yellow
Either it is a real sum of money or it isn't - or is it in the box with
Schrodinger's cat? Existing in both states as it suits remoaners.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-41908302
They said "vote for Brexit, get £350M to the NHS" - it is perfectly
reasonable now that they have their Brexit to force the liars to pay up!
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Show where it said that please, I must have been too overwhelmed with project fear.
On the side of their battle bus, posters, leaflets, in interviews,
speeches. They work on the basis that if you repeated the lie often
enough people would believe it - and sadly it worked.
yes we know where it was said
you were asked for proof of what was said
There is no evidence that was categorically to give it to the HMS, it was
just used as a random possibility
tim
Google it yourself Joseph...
who the fuck is Joseph?

tim

==

LOL it just goes to show they never read properly anything they see:))))
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
R. Mark Clayton
2017-11-09 18:04:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by tim
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by pullgees
Post by Martin Brown
Post by Yellow
If £350 Million a week was so dishonest, why do we have so many folks
demanding it is paid up?
It was one of the reasons that people voted for Brexit despite the
figure being an obvious fiction invented by the conmen for Brexit.
Post by Yellow
Either it is a real sum of money or it isn't - or is it in the box with
Schrodinger's cat? Existing in both states as it suits remoaners.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-41908302
They said "vote for Brexit, get £350M to the NHS" - it is perfectly
reasonable now that they have their Brexit to force the liars to pay up!
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Show where it said that please, I must have been too overwhelmed with
project fear.
On the side of their battle bus, posters, leaflets, in interviews,
speeches. They work on the basis that if you repeated the lie often
enough people would believe it - and sadly it worked.
yes we know where it was said
you were asked for proof of what was said
There is no evidence that was categorically to give it to the HMS, it was
just used as a random possibility
tim
Google it yourself Joseph...
who the fuck is Joseph?
Goebbels - infamous liar.
Post by tim...
tim
==
LOL it just goes to show they never read properly anything they see:))))
Or Jean-Marie le Pen...

infamous denier.
Post by tim...
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
R. Mark Clayton
2017-11-09 18:02:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
SNIP
Post by tim...
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by tim
There is no evidence that was categorically to give it to the HMS, it was
just used as a random possibility
tim
Google it yourself Joseph...
who the fuck is Joseph?
tim
Dr. Joeseph Goebbels

I can't be bothered citing the abundance of evidence you deny - just use Google to find it yourself.

Indeed the ludicrous denial was probably just a wind up.
Yellow
2017-11-09 18:24:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 9 Nov 2017 10:02:30 -0800 (PST), R. Mark Clayton
Post by R. Mark Clayton
SNIP
Post by tim...
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by tim
There is no evidence that was categorically to give it to the HMS, it was
just used as a random possibility
tim
Google it yourself Joseph...
who the fuck is Joseph?
tim
Dr. Joeseph Goebbels
I can't be bothered citing the abundance of evidence you deny - just use Google to find it yourself.
Indeed the ludicrous denial was probably just a wind up.
This is getting weird.....
harry
2017-11-12 08:27:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by tim
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by pullgees
Post by Martin Brown
Post by Yellow
If £350 Million a week was so dishonest, why do we have so many folks
demanding it is paid up?
It was one of the reasons that people voted for Brexit despite the
figure being an obvious fiction invented by the conmen for Brexit.
Post by Yellow
Either it is a real sum of money or it isn't - or is it in the box with
Schrodinger's cat? Existing in both states as it suits remoaners.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-41908302
They said "vote for Brexit, get £350M to the NHS" - it is perfectly
reasonable now that they have their Brexit to force the liars to pay up!
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Show where it said that please, I must have been too overwhelmed with
project fear.
On the side of their battle bus, posters, leaflets, in interviews,
speeches. They work on the basis that if you repeated the lie often
enough people would believe it - and sadly it worked.
yes we know where it was said
you were asked for proof of what was said
There is no evidence that was categorically to give it to the HMS, it was
just used as a random possibility
tim
Google it yourself Joseph...
who the fuck is Joseph?
tim
I imagine this one
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Goebbels
pullgees
2017-11-08 21:31:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by pullgees
Post by Martin Brown
Post by Yellow
If £350 Million a week was so dishonest, why do we have so many folks
demanding it is paid up?
It was one of the reasons that people voted for Brexit despite the
figure being an obvious fiction invented by the conmen for Brexit.
Post by Yellow
Either it is a real sum of money or it isn't - or is it in the box with
Schrodinger's cat? Existing in both states as it suits remoaners.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-41908302
They said "vote for Brexit, get £350M to the NHS" - it is perfectly
reasonable now that they have their Brexit to force the liars to pay up!
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Show where it said that please, I must have been too overwhelmed with project fear.
On the side of their battle bus, posters, leaflets, in interviews, speeches. They work on the basis that if you repeated the lie often enough people would believe it - and sadly it worked.
The battle bus did not say "vote for Brexit, get £350M to the NHS" as Martin Brown said.
Anyway how do you know the extra NHS funding talk won the referendum, show some evidence. You could equally argue that 'project' fear won over the Remainers.
I feel sorry for you, you are still fighting the referendum campaign. I've got news for you, it's over now.
Ophelia
2017-11-09 10:38:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by pullgees
Post by Martin Brown
Post by Yellow
If £350 Million a week was so dishonest, why do we have so many folks
demanding it is paid up?
It was one of the reasons that people voted for Brexit despite the
figure being an obvious fiction invented by the conmen for Brexit.
Post by Yellow
Either it is a real sum of money or it isn't - or is it in the box with
Schrodinger's cat? Existing in both states as it suits remoaners.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-41908302
They said "vote for Brexit, get £350M to the NHS" - it is perfectly
reasonable now that they have their Brexit to force the liars to pay up!
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Show where it said that please, I must have been too overwhelmed with project fear.
On the side of their battle bus, posters, leaflets, in interviews,
speeches. They work on the basis that if you repeated the lie often
enough people would believe it - and sadly it worked.
The battle bus did not say "vote for Brexit, get £350M to the NHS" as Martin
Brown said.
Anyway how do you know the extra NHS funding talk won the referendum, show
some evidence. You could equally argue that 'project' fear won over the
Remainers.
I feel sorry for you, you are still fighting the referendum campaign. I've
got news for you, it's over now.

===

I can't believe how remoaners are changing what they read into what they
want to have read! They are either illiterate, stupid or liars.
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
Mike Scott
2017-11-09 11:43:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 09/11/17 10:38, Ophelia wrote:
...
Post by pullgees
Post by R. Mark Clayton
On the side of their battle bus, posters, leaflets, in interviews,
speeches.  They work on the basis that if you repeated the lie often
enough people would believe it - and sadly it worked.
The battle bus did not say "vote for Brexit, get £350M to the NHS" as Martin Brown said.
Quite right.

It's not hard to google for "image leave battle bus".
The slogan was
"We send the EU £350 million a week
let's fund our NHS instead"

Ambiguous, in the best political tradition.
--
Mike Scott (unet2 <at> [deletethis] scottsonline.org.uk)
Harlow Essex
"The only way is Brexit" -- anon.
Martin Brown
2017-11-09 10:53:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pullgees
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by pullgees
Post by Martin Brown
Post by Yellow
If £350 Million a week was so dishonest, why do we have so many folks
demanding it is paid up?
It was one of the reasons that people voted for Brexit despite the
figure being an obvious fiction invented by the conmen for Brexit.
Post by Yellow
Either it is a real sum of money or it isn't - or is it in the box with
Schrodinger's cat? Existing in both states as it suits remoaners.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-41908302
They said "vote for Brexit, get £350M to the NHS" - it is perfectly
reasonable now that they have their Brexit to force the liars to pay up!
Show where it said that please, I must have been too overwhelmed with project fear.
On the side of their battle bus, posters, leaflets, in interviews, speeches. They work on the basis that if you repeated the lie often enough people would believe it - and sadly it worked.
The battle bus did not say "vote for Brexit, get £350M to the NHS" as Martin Brown said.
It is what they successfully implied to the public by their slogan in
letters 1m high on their battle bus. Even the Express agrees today.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/877049/Brexit-NHS-chief-demands-350million-Battle-Bus-promise-honoured

Strictly their message was
"We send the EU £50M a day, let's fund the NHS instead - vote leave"

I expect hair splitting Brexiteers to claim that "instead" has a special
Brexiteer meaning like the way they use "honesty" and "integrity".
Post by pullgees
Anyway how do you know the extra NHS funding talk won the referendum, show some evidence. You could equally argue that 'project' fear won over the Remainers.
I feel sorry for you, you are still fighting the referendum campaign. I've got news for you, it's over now.
It isn't over until we actually leave and with this complete shower of a
government losing ministers and with civil war raging inside it there is
every chance of preventing Brexit by bringing the government down.

They have a wafer thin majority and still no clear idea what they want
from EU negotiations beyond the facile mantra "Brexit means Brexit".

It is time for Remoaners to do exactly the same to the even more hapless
Theresa May as Brexiteers did to the unfortunate John Major over the EU.

Payback time!
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
James Harris
2017-11-09 13:23:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 09/11/2017 10:53, Martin Brown wrote:

...
Post by Martin Brown
It isn't over until we actually leave and with this complete shower of a
government losing ministers and with civil war raging inside it there is
every chance of preventing Brexit by bringing the government down.
Refreshing honesty! We know what you lot are up to but it's good to see
someone admit it.

A word to the wise, though. If you bring the government down too soon
you won't have changed public sentiment. You'd do better to wreck the UK
economy and then try. But I think you know that already....

Besides, even if you got a small victory next time - quite apart from
causing untold damage to trust in democracy in the UK - you would make
the country look small in the eyes of the EU and in the eyes of the
world, and make the British ashamed of themselves - and you would still
need to prevent the EU making the changes it plans or the Brexit issue
will only come up again.

So, better to let Brexit happen. Seek to make it work. If it's not a
good ideal we'll soon realise. Then you can have a referendum to take up
back in. But I think you know, really, that once we are out we will
never want to go back.
Post by Martin Brown
They have a wafer thin majority and still no clear idea what they want
from EU negotiations beyond the facile mantra "Brexit means Brexit".
It is time for Remoaners to do exactly the same to the even more hapless
Theresa May as Brexiteers did to the unfortunate John Major over the EU.
Payback time!
--
James Harris
Tim Woodall
2017-11-09 13:42:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
So, better to let Brexit happen. Seek to make it work. If it's not a
good ideal we'll soon realise. Then you can have a referendum to take up
back in. But I think you know, really, that once we are out we will
never want to go back.
You do realise that we'd need a unanimous vote in the EU to get back in,
lose our vetos (other than those everybody has) and have to take the
Euro?

No, we'll adopt the Norwegian model - all the same costs but no say in
the policies. We'll never go back into the EU.

I only hope the government realises that before permanent harm is done
and announces it in time for the December negotiations but I have little
hope.
Yellow
2017-11-09 14:12:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 9 Nov 2017 13:42:22 +0000 (UTC), Tim Woodall <news001
Post by Tim Woodall
Post by James Harris
So, better to let Brexit happen. Seek to make it work. If it's not a
good ideal we'll soon realise. Then you can have a referendum to take up
back in. But I think you know, really, that once we are out we will
never want to go back.
You do realise that we'd need a unanimous vote in the EU to get back in,
lose our vetos (other than those everybody has) and have to take the
Euro?
Of course we do, and thank the EU for that because will make the
Remoaner plan of an extended transition period so we can still change
our mind and remain members of the EU impossible in reality.
Post by Tim Woodall
No, we'll adopt the Norwegian model - all the same costs but no say in
the policies.
That will be politically unacceptable to the UK public - all the costs,
free movement of people and no say. Won't happen.
Post by Tim Woodall
We'll never go back into the EU.
:-))))
Post by Tim Woodall
I only hope the government realises that before permanent harm is done
and announces it in time for the December negotiations but I have little
hope.
The greatest risk to the UK, its culture and its people, is "ever closer
union" and that trumps the lot.
pamela
2017-11-09 15:13:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
On Thu, 9 Nov 2017 13:42:22 +0000 (UTC), Tim Woodall <news001
Post by Tim Woodall
Post by James Harris
So, better to let Brexit happen. Seek to make it work. If
it's not a good ideal we'll soon realise. Then you can have a
referendum to take up back in. But I think you know, really,
that once we are out we will never want to go back.
You do realise that we'd need a unanimous vote in the EU to get
back in, lose our vetos (other than those everybody has) and
have to take the Euro?
Of course we do, and thank the EU for that because will make the
Remoaner plan of an extended transition period so we can still
change our mind and remain members of the EU impossible in
reality.
Post by Tim Woodall
No, we'll adopt the Norwegian model - all the same costs but no
say in the policies.
That will be politically unacceptable to the UK public - all the
costs, free movement of people and no say. Won't happen.
Post by Tim Woodall
We'll never go back into the EU.
:-))))
Post by Tim Woodall
I only hope the government realises that before permanent harm
is done and announces it in time for the December negotiations
but I have little hope.
The greatest risk to the UK, its culture and its people, is
"ever closer union" and that trumps the lot.
Good job Cameron got an opt out from "ever closer union". You
don't seem to realise that.

From the House of Commons library....

"Ever closer union" is an EU aim and is enshrined in the EU
Treaties. David Cameron wanted to exempt the UK from it, and
this has been achieved in the new settlement for the UK in the
EU."
James Harris
2017-11-09 14:14:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim Woodall
Post by James Harris
So, better to let Brexit happen. Seek to make it work. If it's not a
good ideal we'll soon realise. Then you can have a referendum to take up
back in. But I think you know, really, that once we are out we will
never want to go back.
You do realise that we'd need a unanimous vote in the EU to get back in,
lose our vetos (other than those everybody has) and have to take the
Euro?
I used to accept that mantra. But no longer. Remainers who tend to think
the UK is a small country forget how much the EU will lose in terms of
money, influence, kudos and prestige by our departure. I've had this
discussion before so have been looking out for it. They /really/ don't
want us to leave. And if we did leave they would want to have us back.
For example, take a look at this from M Macron:

The French president, Emmanuel Macron, has set out his plans for a
“profound transformation” of the EU with deeper political integration to
win back the support of disgruntled citizens, but suggested a bloc
moving forward at differing speeds could become somewhere the UK may
“one day find its place again”.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/26/profound-transformation-macron-lays-out-vision-for-post-brexit-eu
Post by Tim Woodall
No, we'll adopt the Norwegian model - all the same costs but no say in
the policies. We'll never go back into the EU.
I only hope the government realises that before permanent harm is done
and announces it in time for the December negotiations but I have little
hope.
If you think the EU's federalist direction and its increasing budget are
good then you might want to stay in. But if you realise that it needs to
change profoundly for the sake of its peoples then - IMO - it is far
more likely to do so by us leaving if it wants us back.

IMO Remainers are caught up in looking at the small and the short term.
It really does help to take a broader and longer-term view.
--
James Harris
pullgees
2017-11-09 14:23:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Martin Brown
Post by pullgees
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by pullgees
Post by Martin Brown
Post by Yellow
If £350 Million a week was so dishonest, why do we have so many folks
demanding it is paid up?
It was one of the reasons that people voted for Brexit despite the
figure being an obvious fiction invented by the conmen for Brexit.
Post by Yellow
Either it is a real sum of money or it isn't - or is it in the box with
Schrodinger's cat? Existing in both states as it suits remoaners.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-41908302
They said "vote for Brexit, get £350M to the NHS" - it is perfectly
reasonable now that they have their Brexit to force the liars to pay up!
Show where it said that please, I must have been too overwhelmed with project fear.
On the side of their battle bus, posters, leaflets, in interviews, speeches. They work on the basis that if you repeated the lie often enough people would believe it - and sadly it worked.
The battle bus did not say "vote for Brexit, get £350M to the NHS" as Martin Brown said.
It is what they successfully implied to the public by their slogan in
letters 1m high on their battle bus. Even the Express agrees today.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/877049/Brexit-NHS-chief-demands-350million-Battle-Bus-promise-honoured
Strictly their message was
"We send the EU £50M a day, let's fund the NHS instead - vote leave"
I expect hair splitting Brexiteers to claim that "instead" has a special
Brexiteer meaning like the way they use "honesty" and "integrity".
Post by pullgees
Anyway how do you know the extra NHS funding talk won the referendum, show some evidence. You could equally argue that 'project' fear won over the Remainers.
I feel sorry for you, you are still fighting the referendum campaign. I've got news for you, it's over now.
It isn't over until we actually leave and with this complete shower of a
government losing ministers and with civil war raging inside it there is
every chance of preventing Brexit by bringing the government down.
They have a wafer thin majority and still no clear idea what they want
from EU negotiations beyond the facile mantra "Brexit means Brexit".
It is time for Remoaners to do exactly the same to the even more hapless
Theresa May as Brexiteers did to the unfortunate John Major over the EU.
Payback time!
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Please don't insult leavers with your stupid inference, but that wasn't enough you had to change the wording to exaggerate what was actually said.
Yellow
2017-11-08 21:12:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 8 Nov 2017 13:51:32 +0000, Martin Brown
Post by Martin Brown
Post by Yellow
If £350 Million a week was so dishonest, why do we have so many folks
demanding it is paid up?
It was one of the reasons that people voted for Brexit
Certainly it made people realise how much we pay to the EU each day, it
being many fold more than what most people thought before the bus
highlighted the sort of sums involved.
Post by Martin Brown
despite the
figure being an obvious fiction invented by the conmen for Brexit.
Given that it was the actual, true, real life gross figure, I am curious
how you have concluded it to be an "obvious fiction".
Post by Martin Brown
Post by Yellow
Either it is a real sum of money or it isn't - or is it in the box with
Schrodinger's cat? Existing in both states as it suits remoaners.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-41908302
They said "vote for Brexit, get £350M to the NHS"
As I am sure you well know - no, they did not. But anyway....
Post by Martin Brown
- it is perfectly
reasonable now that they have their Brexit to force the liars to pay up!
From their own pocket you mean?
Mike Scott
2017-11-09 11:39:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 08/11/17 21:12, Yellow wrote:
...
Post by Yellow
Post by Martin Brown
They said "vote for Brexit, get £350M to the NHS"
As I am sure you well know - no, they did not. But anyway....
It seems very difficult now to find first-hand reports of what was
actually said. It's too easy FOT to report "could" as "would" when
reporting.

But on the Guardian's web site at
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/mar/05/vote-leave-threatened-over-use-of-nhs-logo
we read
Post by Yellow
Post by Martin Brown
[Leave] wants to “stop sending £350m every week to Brussels
and instead spend it on our priorities, like the NHS and
science research”.
Which, coming from that particular source, I'm include to believe is a
reasonably accurate report.

In other words, the NHS along with other priorities might share the
bounty. But no promise of anything, just a "want".

If anyone knows of an accurate report to the contrary, perhaps they'd
share it. "Everybody knows that......" is not an argument unless you're
looking for a witch to burn.
--
Mike Scott (unet2 <at> [deletethis] scottsonline.org.uk)
Harlow Essex
"The only way is Brexit" -- anon.
Yellow
2017-11-09 13:57:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 9 Nov 2017 11:39:34 +0000, Mike Scott <usenet.16
Post by Mike Scott
...
Post by Yellow
Post by Martin Brown
They said "vote for Brexit, get £350M to the NHS"
As I am sure you well know - no, they did not. But anyway....
It seems very difficult now to find first-hand reports of what was
actually said.
Just google "brexit bus".
Post by Mike Scott
It's too easy FOT to report "could" as "would" when
reporting.
I am in no doubt that everyone knows exactly what the bus said. :-)

And according to the guy who put the slogan on the bus, he was as
pleased as punch when it became headline news because it drew to the
attention of the UK public, exactly how much money we send to the EU.

And it keeps it in the public's mind because every time it comes back up
there are more news article about how much we actually sent and how it
could be alternatively spent.
Post by Mike Scott
But on the Guardian's web site at
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/mar/05/vote-leave-threatened-over-use-of-nhs-logo
we read
Post by Yellow
Post by Martin Brown
[Leave] wants to ?stop sending £350m every week to Brussels
and instead spend it on our priorities, like the NHS and
science research?.
Which, coming from that particular source, I'm include to believe is a
reasonably accurate report.
In other words, the NHS along with other priorities might share the
bounty. But no promise of anything, just a "want".
If anyone knows of an accurate report to the contrary, perhaps they'd
share it. "Everybody knows that......" is not an argument unless you're
looking for a witch to burn.
Crikey. The picture of the bus was all over the news again yesterday, so
I really really really am in no doubt that everyone has seen it and read
what it says.
Altroy1
2017-11-08 22:16:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
If £350 Million a week was so dishonest, why do we have so many folks
demanding it is paid up?
Either it is a real sum of money or it isn't - or is it in the box with
Schrodinger's cat? Existing in both states as it suits remoaners.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-41908302
The "remoaners" so called aren't arguing the details of quantum mechanics. Those
who promised the NHS that weekly extra £350 million are being held to account:


GiesLIAR Stuart:

Every week we send £350m to Brussels.

I'd rather that we control how to spend that money, and if I had
that control I would spend it on the NHS.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/2016/may/23/does-the-eu-really-cost-the-uk-350m-a-week

Verdict

The leave camp might just about have been able to get away with
saying that the UK sends £248m a week to Brussels (which at
least takes account of the rebate). It can argue all it likes
that £350m is a "gross figure". But it cannot, in all
conscience, get away with the use of the word "send".

Wollaston, the IFS, the UK Statistics Authority, Nicola
Sturgeon, Amber Rudd and Angela Eagle are right: Vote Leave's
claim that Britain sends £350m a week to Brussels is a lie.


http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_health.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/nigel-farage-350-million-pledge-to-fund-the-nhs-was-a-mistake/

http://metro.co.uk/2016/06/24/farage-says-350million-nhs-pledge-was-a-mistake-5963794/

https://infacts.org/uk-doesnt-send-eu-350m-a-week-or-55m-a-day/

http://www.itv.com/news/westcountry/update/2016-05-11/vote-leave-battle-bus-unveiled/
James Harris
2017-11-09 06:36:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Altroy1
Post by Yellow
If £350 Million a week was so dishonest, why do we have so many folks
demanding it is paid up?
Either it is a real sum of money or it isn't - or is it in the box with
Schrodinger's cat? Existing in both states as it suits remoaners.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-41908302
The "remoaners" so called aren't arguing the details of quantum mechanics. Those
Every week we send £350m to Brussels.
I'd rather that we control how to spend that money, and if I had
that control I would spend it on the NHS.
I wasn't impressed with Vote Leave but I have to say that Gisela Stuart
seems to be honest, there: (1) saying she doesn't have control of the
money, (2) saying that she would spend it on the NHS but only if it were
her choice. There's no claim there that the money would go to the NHS.
Post by Altroy1
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/2016/may/23/does-the-eu-really-cost-the-uk-350m-a-week
Verdict
The leave camp might just about have been able to get away with
saying that the UK sends £248m a week to Brussels (which at
least takes account of the rebate). It can argue all it likes
that £350m is a "gross figure". But it cannot, in all
conscience, get away with the use of the word "send".
Wollaston, the IFS, the UK Statistics Authority, Nicola
Sturgeon, Amber Rudd and Angela Eagle are right: Vote Leave's
claim that Britain sends £350m a week to Brussels is a lie.
So when it comes down to it, the 350 is not what upsets people; the only
real objection is the word "send"! Consider the following.

* The UK "sends" 350m per week to the EU.
* Your employer "pays" you £x,000 per year.

If both talk about the gross amount, why do you object to one but accept
the other...?
--
James Harris
pensive hamster
2017-11-09 19:28:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Post by Yellow
If £350 Million a week was so dishonest, why do we have so many folks
demanding it is paid up?
Either it is a real sum of money or it isn't - or is it in the box with
Schrodinger's cat? Existing in both states as it suits remoaners.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-41908302
The "remoaners" so called aren't arguing the details of quantum mechanics. Those
Every week we send £350m to Brussels.
I'd rather that we control how to spend that money, and if I had
that control I would spend it on the NHS.
I wasn't impressed with Vote Leave but I have to say that Gisela Stuart
seems to be honest, there: (1) saying she doesn't have control of the
money, (2) saying that she would spend it on the NHS but only if it were
her choice. There's no claim there that the money would go to the NHS.
Post by Altroy1
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/2016/may/23/does-the-eu-really-cost-the-uk-350m-a-week
Verdict
The leave camp might just about have been able to get away with
saying that the UK sends £248m a week to Brussels (which at
least takes account of the rebate). It can argue all it likes
that £350m is a "gross figure". But it cannot, in all
conscience, get away with the use of the word "send".
Wollaston, the IFS, the UK Statistics Authority, Nicola
Sturgeon, Amber Rudd and Angela Eagle are right: Vote Leave's
claim that Britain sends £350m a week to Brussels is a lie.
So when it comes down to it, the 350 is not what upsets people; the only
real objection is the word "send"! Consider the following.
* The UK "sends" 350m per week to the EU.
* Your employer "pays" you £x,000 per year.
If both talk about the gross amount, why do you object to one but accept
the other...?
Perhaps it also depends what you mean by "sends" and also
"gross amount".

As I understand it, £350m pw is the amount we would send
without the rebate which Margaret Thatcher negotiated.
This rebate is applied before we send the £350m, so we
don't actually send that much.

The amount we actually sent was £276m pw in 2014.
I would call that the gross amount.

The net amount is £156m pw, which is the £276m pw minus
the amount spent by the EU on funding things in the UK
such as supporting farmers and regional aid.

In other words, it costs us £156m pw net to be members
of the EU. There appears to be no agreement among
"experts" on whether that is value for money or not.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40860657
8 August 2017
'EU cost: Why £350m and £156m per week are both wrong

'... The figure of £156m is what you get if you take the gross
contribution and subtract the rebate and the amount spent by
the EU on funding things in the UK such as supporting farmers
and regional aid.

'So that's not, as the i and other headlines suggested, what we
send to Brussels each week - it's what we send to Brussels
minus some of what is spent in the UK.

'The £350m figure was also not what we sent to Brussels each
week because the UK's rebate is deducted before the money
is sent - the correct figure in 2014 for the amount sent was
£276m a week.'
Yellow
2017-11-09 22:31:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 9 Nov 2017 11:28:33 -0800 (PST), pensive hamster
Post by pensive hamster
Post by James Harris
* The UK "sends" 350m per week to the EU.
* Your employer "pays" you £x,000 per year.
If both talk about the gross amount, why do you object to one but accept
the other...?
Perhaps it also depends what you mean by "sends" and also
"gross amount".
As I understand it, £350m pw is the amount we would send
without the rebate which Margaret Thatcher negotiated.
This rebate is applied before we send the £350m, so we
don't actually send that much.
The amount we actually sent was £276m pw in 2014.
I would call that the gross amount.
You can call it Betsy and get it to sing show tunes, but that would not
make it the gross amount either.

The gross amount is the total owed to the EU, around £350 million a
week.

Then we have the amount actually sent, so without the rebate, which is
around £260 million a week.

And finally we have the net amount after grants etc that are paid back
to the UK, which leave something like £160 million paid to the EU each
week.

That means we send almost £23 million a day to the EU, never to been
seen by us again - so enough EACH DAY to educate over a 1,000 children
for a year.
pensive hamster
2017-11-10 00:04:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by pensive hamster
Post by James Harris
* The UK "sends" 350m per week to the EU.
* Your employer "pays" you £x,000 per year.
If both talk about the gross amount, why do you object to one but accept
the other...?
Perhaps it also depends what you mean by "sends" and also
"gross amount".
As I understand it, £350m pw is the amount we would send
without the rebate which Margaret Thatcher negotiated.
This rebate is applied before we send the £350m, so we
don't actually send that much.
The amount we actually sent was £276m pw in 2014.
I would call that the gross amount.
You can call it Betsy and get it to sing show tunes, but that would not
make it the gross amount either.
The gross amount is the total owed to the EU, around £350 million a
week.
Then we have the amount actually sent, so without the rebate, which is
around £260 million a week.
So what would you call this amount, the approx £260 million
a week, if (according to you) it is neither the gross amount
nor the net amount?
Post by Yellow
And finally we have the net amount after grants etc that are paid back
to the UK, which leave something like £160 million paid to the EU each
week.
That means we send almost £23 million a day to the EU, never to been
seen by us again - so enough EACH DAY to educate over a 1,000 children
for a year.
Yellow
2017-11-10 00:53:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 9 Nov 2017 16:04:43 -0800 (PST), pensive hamster
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Yellow
Post by pensive hamster
Post by James Harris
* The UK "sends" 350m per week to the EU.
* Your employer "pays" you £x,000 per year.
If both talk about the gross amount, why do you object to one but accept
the other...?
Perhaps it also depends what you mean by "sends" and also
"gross amount".
As I understand it, £350m pw is the amount we would send
without the rebate which Margaret Thatcher negotiated.
This rebate is applied before we send the £350m, so we
don't actually send that much.
The amount we actually sent was £276m pw in 2014.
I would call that the gross amount.
You can call it Betsy and get it to sing show tunes, but that would not
make it the gross amount either.
The gross amount is the total owed to the EU, around £350 million a
week.
Then we have the amount actually sent, so without the rebate, which is
around £260 million a week.
So what would you call this amount, the approx £260 million
a week, if (according to you) it is neither the gross amount
nor the net amount?
Gross means before any deductions, net means after but you have to
define what the deductions are or we cannot know what it is net of.

So the £350 million is the gross figure, the £260 million is net of the
rebate and the £160 million is net of the rebate and money coming back
to the UK.
pamela
2017-11-15 16:18:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
On Thu, 9 Nov 2017 16:04:43 -0800 (PST), pensive hamster
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Yellow
On Thu, 9 Nov 2017 11:28:33 -0800 (PST), pensive hamster
On Thursday, 9 November 2017 06:36:32 UTC, James Harris
Post by James Harris
* The UK "sends" 350m per week to the EU.
* Your employer "pays" you £x,000 per year.
If both talk about the gross amount, why do you object to
one but accept the other...?
Perhaps it also depends what you mean by "sends" and also
"gross amount".
As I understand it, £350m pw is the amount we would send
without the rebate which Margaret Thatcher negotiated.
This rebate is applied before we send the £350m, so we
don't actually send that much.
The amount we actually sent was £276m pw in 2014.
I would call that the gross amount.
You can call it Betsy and get it to sing show tunes, but that
would not make it the gross amount either.
The gross amount is the total owed to the EU, around £350
million a week.
Then we have the amount actually sent, so without the rebate,
which is around £260 million a week.
So what would you call this amount, the approx £260 million
a week, if (according to you) it is neither the gross amount
nor the net amount?
Gross means before any deductions, net means after but you have
to define what the deductions are or we cannot know what it is
net of.
So the £350 million is the gross figure, the £260 million is net
of the rebate and the £160 million is net of the rebate and
money coming back to the UK.
That wasn't explained at the time. Voters now want their £350
million a week for the NHS.
James Harris
2017-11-15 16:53:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
On Thu, 9 Nov 2017 16:04:43 -0800 (PST), pensive hamster
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Yellow
On Thu, 9 Nov 2017 11:28:33 -0800 (PST), pensive hamster
On Thursday, 9 November 2017 06:36:32 UTC, James Harris
Post by James Harris
* The UK "sends" 350m per week to the EU.
* Your employer "pays" you £x,000 per year.
If both talk about the gross amount, why do you object to
one but accept the other...?
Perhaps it also depends what you mean by "sends" and also
"gross amount".
As I understand it, £350m pw is the amount we would send
without the rebate which Margaret Thatcher negotiated.
This rebate is applied before we send the £350m, so we
don't actually send that much.
The amount we actually sent was £276m pw in 2014.
I would call that the gross amount.
You can call it Betsy and get it to sing show tunes, but that
would not make it the gross amount either.
The gross amount is the total owed to the EU, around £350
million a week.
Then we have the amount actually sent, so without the rebate,
which is around £260 million a week.
So what would you call this amount, the approx £260 million
a week, if (according to you) it is neither the gross amount
nor the net amount?
Gross means before any deductions, net means after but you have
to define what the deductions are or we cannot know what it is
net of.
So the £350 million is the gross figure, the £260 million is net
of the rebate and the £160 million is net of the rebate and
money coming back to the UK.
That wasn't explained at the time.
Why do Remainers keep lying about anything to do with Brexit? For
example, here is Boris Johnson saying on video that it is a _gross_
figure, not net.

http://www.itv.com/news/2016-05-11/uk-does-get-back-some-of-350m-it-sends-to-eu-boris-johnson-admits/
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Voters now want their £350
million a week for the NHS.
--
James Harris
pensive hamster
2017-11-15 17:49:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Yellow
On Thu, 9 Nov 2017 11:28:33 -0800 (PST), pensive hamster
On Thursday, 9 November 2017 06:36:32 UTC, James Harris
Post by James Harris
* The UK "sends" 350m per week to the EU.
* Your employer "pays" you £x,000 per year.
If both talk about the gross amount, why do you object to
one but accept the other...?
Perhaps it also depends what you mean by "sends" and also
"gross amount".
As I understand it, £350m pw is the amount we would send
without the rebate which Margaret Thatcher negotiated.
This rebate is applied before we send the £350m, so we
don't actually send that much.
The amount we actually sent was £276m pw in 2014.
I would call that the gross amount.
You can call it Betsy and get it to sing show tunes, but that
would not make it the gross amount either.
The gross amount is the total owed to the EU, around £350
million a week.
Then we have the amount actually sent, so without the rebate,
which is around £260 million a week.
So what would you call this amount, the approx £260 million
a week, if (according to you) it is neither the gross amount
nor the net amount?
Gross means before any deductions, net means after but you have
to define what the deductions are or we cannot know what it is
net of.
So the £350 million is the gross figure, the £260 million is net
of the rebate and the £160 million is net of the rebate and
money coming back to the UK.
That wasn't explained at the time.
Why do Remainers keep lying about anything to do with Brexit?
It wasn't explained at the time, not on the bus anyway.
That's perfectly true, not a lie.
Post by James Harris
For
example, here is Boris Johnson saying on video that it is a _gross_
figure, not net.
http://www.itv.com/news/2016-05-11/uk-does-get-back-some-of-350m-it-sends-to-eu-boris-johnson-admits/
-----------------------------------
'Boris Johnson has admitted Britain does get back some
of the £350 million Brexit campaigners claim it sends to
the EU every week.

'But Mr Johnson told ITV News that EU officials decide how
the money is spent and the "gross figure is the right figure".

'The £350m claim is a central pillar of the "Leave" campaign
and takes pole position on the side of the campaign's battle
bus, which was unveiled in Cornwall on Wednesday morning.'
-----------------------------------

As I understand it, Boris is wrong.

£350 m is the gross amount we *don't* send to the EU every week

£276m is the gross amount we *do* send to the EU every week
(in 2014)

£156m is the net amount we send to the EU every week

-----------------------------------
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40860657
8 August 2017
'EU cost: Why £350m and £156m per week are both wrong

'... The figure of £156m is what you get if you take the gross
contribution and subtract the rebate and the amount spent by
the EU on funding things in the UK such as supporting farmers
and regional aid.

'So that's not, as the i and other headlines suggested, what we
send to Brussels each week - it's what we send to Brussels
minus some of what is spent in the UK.

'The £350m figure was also not what we sent to Brussels each
week because the UK's rebate is deducted before the money
is sent - the correct figure in 2014 for the amount sent was
£276m a week.'
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Voters now want their £350
million a week for the NHS.
pamela
2017-11-15 18:29:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
'The £350m figure was also not what we sent to Brussels each
week because the UK's rebate is deducted before the money is
sent - the correct figure in 2014 for the amount sent was £276m
a week.'
That was very clearly stated correctly before the referendum....
but Boris and Give chortled away as they repeatedly denied it. I
recall Gove on the Andrew Marr show saying ....

"What is a fact is that we give more than 350 million pounds to
the European Union"

"the European Union decides, they control that £350 million
every week. If we vote Leave we can control how that money is
spent."

Programme transcript:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/08051604.pdf
James Harris
2017-11-15 19:42:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Yellow
On Thu, 9 Nov 2017 11:28:33 -0800 (PST), pensive hamster
On Thursday, 9 November 2017 06:36:32 UTC, James Harris
Post by James Harris
* The UK "sends" 350m per week to the EU.
* Your employer "pays" you £x,000 per year.
If both talk about the gross amount, why do you object to
one but accept the other...?
Perhaps it also depends what you mean by "sends" and also
"gross amount".
As I understand it, £350m pw is the amount we would send
without the rebate which Margaret Thatcher negotiated.
This rebate is applied before we send the £350m, so we
don't actually send that much.
The amount we actually sent was £276m pw in 2014.
I would call that the gross amount.
You can call it Betsy and get it to sing show tunes, but that
would not make it the gross amount either.
The gross amount is the total owed to the EU, around £350
million a week.
Then we have the amount actually sent, so without the rebate,
which is around £260 million a week.
So what would you call this amount, the approx £260 million
a week, if (according to you) it is neither the gross amount
nor the net amount?
Gross means before any deductions, net means after but you have
to define what the deductions are or we cannot know what it is
net of.
So the £350 million is the gross figure, the £260 million is net
of the rebate and the £160 million is net of the rebate and
money coming back to the UK.
That wasn't explained at the time.
Why do Remainers keep lying about anything to do with Brexit?
It wasn't explained at the time, not on the bus anyway.
That's perfectly true, not a lie.
The video I posted a link to was from "the time". Pamela is simply wrong
to say it wasn't explained at the time. I remember it being explained
repeatedly - at the time - that the figure was gross EU fee, not the net
amount.

And isn't it notable that you say it wasn't explained "on the bus". Nor
was it all committed to the NHS "on the bus", was it!
--
James Harris
Ian Jackson
2017-11-15 19:53:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
Post by pensive hamster
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Yellow
On Thu, 9 Nov 2017 11:28:33 -0800 (PST), pensive hamster
On Thursday, 9 November 2017 06:36:32 UTC, James Harris
Post by James Harris
* The UK "sends" 350m per week to the EU.
* Your employer "pays" you £x,000 per year.
If both talk about the gross amount, why do you object to
one but accept the other...?
Perhaps it also depends what you mean by "sends" and also
"gross amount".
As I understand it, £350m pw is the amount we would send
without the rebate which Margaret Thatcher negotiated.
This rebate is applied before we send the £350m, so we
don't actually send that much.
The amount we actually sent was £276m pw in 2014.
I would call that the gross amount.
You can call it Betsy and get it to sing show tunes, but that
would not make it the gross amount either.
The gross amount is the total owed to the EU, around £350
million a week.
Then we have the amount actually sent, so without the rebate,
which is around £260 million a week.
So what would you call this amount, the approx £260 million
a week, if (according to you) it is neither the gross amount
nor the net amount?
Gross means before any deductions, net means after but you have
to define what the deductions are or we cannot know what it is
net of.
So the £350 million is the gross figure, the £260 million is net
of the rebate and the £160 million is net of the rebate and
money coming back to the UK.
That wasn't explained at the time.
Why do Remainers keep lying about anything to do with Brexit?
It wasn't explained at the time, not on the bus anyway.
That's perfectly true, not a lie.
The video I posted a link to was from "the time". Pamela is simply
wrong to say it wasn't explained at the time. I remember it being
explained repeatedly - at the time - that the figure was gross EU fee,
not the net amount.
And isn't it notable that you say it wasn't explained "on the bus". Nor
was it all committed to the NHS "on the bus", was it!
To your average Brexiteer-in-the-street, I doubt if it really made much
difference exactly how massively big the numbers were. The most
important thing would be that we send a helluva lot of money to the EU -
and instead we could be giving a helluva lot of money to the NHS. The
persuasion to vote 'leave' is highly convincing.
--
Ian
James Harris
2017-11-15 20:39:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by James Harris
Post by pensive hamster
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Yellow
On Thu, 9 Nov 2017 11:28:33 -0800 (PST), pensive hamster
On Thursday, 9 November 2017 06:36:32 UTC, James Harris
Post by James Harris
* The UK "sends" 350m per week to the EU.
* Your employer "pays" you £x,000 per year.
If both talk about the gross amount, why do you object to
one but accept the other...?
Perhaps it also depends what you mean by "sends" and also
"gross amount".
As I understand it, £350m pw is the amount we would send
without the rebate which Margaret Thatcher negotiated.
This rebate is applied before we send the £350m, so we
don't actually send that much.
The amount we actually sent was £276m pw in 2014.
I would call that the gross amount.
You can call it Betsy and get it to sing show tunes, but that
would not make it the gross amount either.
The gross amount is the total owed to the EU, around £350
million a week.
Then we have the amount actually sent, so without the rebate,
which is around £260 million a week.
So what would you call this amount, the approx £260 million
a week, if (according to you) it is neither the gross amount
nor the net amount?
Gross means before any deductions, net means after but you have
to define what the deductions are or we cannot know what it is
net of.
So the £350 million is the gross figure, the £260 million is net
of the rebate and the £160 million is net of the rebate and
money coming back to the UK.
That wasn't explained at the time.
Why do Remainers keep lying about anything to do with Brexit?
It wasn't explained at the time, not on the bus anyway.
That's perfectly true, not a lie.
The video I posted a link to was from "the time". Pamela is simply
wrong to say it wasn't explained at the time. I remember it being
explained repeatedly - at the time - that the figure was gross EU fee,
not the net amount.
And isn't it notable that you say it wasn't explained "on the bus". Nor
was it all committed to the NHS "on the bus", was it!
To your average Brexiteer-in-the-street, I doubt if it really made much
difference exactly how massively big the numbers were. The most
important thing would be that we send a helluva lot of money to the EU -
and instead we could be giving a helluva lot of money to the NHS. The
persuasion to vote 'leave' is highly convincing.
Well put. Such amounts are meaningless even to those of us who take an
interest in such things so I completely agree that the message to the
public was basically about the amount being high.

WRT the NHS you might find the following of interest. I wrote it (or
last changed it) on 6 June 2016.



What is not practical

Some other uses for the Brexit bonus have been suggested.

* Spend it on the NHS - proposed by the Vote Leave group. This is
woefully impractical. It would only add about 7% to the NHS budget which
would certainly be welcome but would soon be spent.

As explained above, what is needed is for the UK to increase its tax
take. It can only do that by stimulating the economy. One part of that
is reducing the cost of electricity to homes and businesses.

http://pensites.com/politics/article-1140/How-should-the-Brexit-bonus-be-used



While I would update the text now, I still agree with the basic point
that the money would be misspent on the NHS and we'd be better using it
to encourage economic growth.



While I am going down memory lane, I see I also wrote this about timing:

To explain why there might be increased startup costs, the Brexit
schedule would roughly be:

2016 (June) Brexit vote
2019 (Between January and June) Independence day

That timing allows the government from six months to a year for informal
negotiations then two years for the government to complete its
withdrawal from the EU. The UK may be able to regain control of some or
all of its membership payments beforehand but 2019 is a reasonable
target for the UK to withdraw its payments completely.

http://pensites.com/politics/article-1145/Brexit-and-the-Hinkley-nuclear-reactor


As you can see, I expected a period of "informal negotiations" before
Article 50 was triggered. I didn't anticipate that the EU would simply
refuse to talk. That still seems as daft as a box of frogs, but there it
is. And I anticipated a complete separation after two years - which
won't now happen. But I'm pleased I got 2019 about right. :-)
--
James Harris
pamela
2017-11-15 20:49:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by James Harris
On Wednesday, 15 November 2017 16:53:30 UTC, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
On Thu, 9 Nov 2017 16:04:43 -0800 (PST), pensive hamster
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Yellow
On Thu, 9 Nov 2017 11:28:33 -0800 (PST), pensive hamster
On Thursday, 9 November 2017 06:36:32 UTC, James Harris
Post by James Harris
* The UK "sends" 350m per week to the EU.
* Your employer "pays" you £x,000 per year.
If both talk about the gross amount, why do you object
to one but accept the other...?
Perhaps it also depends what you mean by "sends" and
also "gross amount".
As I understand it, £350m pw is the amount we would send
without the rebate which Margaret Thatcher negotiated.
This rebate is applied before we send the £350m, so we
don't actually send that much.
The amount we actually sent was £276m pw in 2014.
I would call that the gross amount.
You can call it Betsy and get it to sing show tunes, but
that would not make it the gross amount either.
The gross amount is the total owed to the EU, around £350
million a week.
Then we have the amount actually sent, so without the
rebate, which is around £260 million a week.
So what would you call this amount, the approx £260
million a week, if (according to you) it is neither the
gross amount nor the net amount?
Gross means before any deductions, net means after but you
have to define what the deductions are or we cannot know
what it is net of.
So the £350 million is the gross figure, the £260 million
is net of the rebate and the £160 million is net of the
rebate and money coming back to the UK.
That wasn't explained at the time.
Why do Remainers keep lying about anything to do with Brexit?
It wasn't explained at the time, not on the bus anyway.
That's perfectly true, not a lie.
The video I posted a link to was from "the time". Pamela is
simply wrong to say it wasn't explained at the time. I remember
it being explained repeatedly - at the time - that the figure
was gross EU fee, not the net amount.
And isn't it notable that you say it wasn't explained "on the
bus". Nor was it all committed to the NHS "on the bus", was it!
To your average Brexiteer-in-the-street, I doubt if it really
made much difference exactly how massively big the numbers were.
The most important thing would be that we send a helluva lot of
money to the EU - and instead we could be giving a helluva lot
of money to the NHS. The persuasion to vote 'leave' is highly
convincing.
This is how one influential person, Miuchael Gove, stated it at
the time and denying any other interpretation. No wonder Joe
Public didn't know what to believe.

"What is a fact is that we give more than 350 million pounds to
the European Union"

"the European Union decides, they control that £350 million
every week. If we vote Leave we can control how that money is
spent."

TV programme transcript:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/08051604.pdf
James Harris
2017-11-15 21:09:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by James Harris
On Wednesday, 15 November 2017 16:53:30 UTC, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
On Thu, 9 Nov 2017 16:04:43 -0800 (PST), pensive hamster
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Yellow
On Thu, 9 Nov 2017 11:28:33 -0800 (PST), pensive hamster
On Thursday, 9 November 2017 06:36:32 UTC, James Harris
Post by James Harris
* The UK "sends" 350m per week to the EU.
* Your employer "pays" you £x,000 per year.
If both talk about the gross amount, why do you object
to one but accept the other...?
Perhaps it also depends what you mean by "sends" and
also "gross amount".
As I understand it, £350m pw is the amount we would send
without the rebate which Margaret Thatcher negotiated.
This rebate is applied before we send the £350m, so we
don't actually send that much.
The amount we actually sent was £276m pw in 2014.
I would call that the gross amount.
You can call it Betsy and get it to sing show tunes, but
that would not make it the gross amount either.
The gross amount is the total owed to the EU, around £350
million a week.
Then we have the amount actually sent, so without the
rebate, which is around £260 million a week.
So what would you call this amount, the approx £260
million a week, if (according to you) it is neither the
gross amount nor the net amount?
Gross means before any deductions, net means after but you
have to define what the deductions are or we cannot know
what it is net of.
So the £350 million is the gross figure, the £260 million
is net of the rebate and the £160 million is net of the
rebate and money coming back to the UK.
That wasn't explained at the time.
Why do Remainers keep lying about anything to do with Brexit?
It wasn't explained at the time, not on the bus anyway.
That's perfectly true, not a lie.
The video I posted a link to was from "the time". Pamela is
simply wrong to say it wasn't explained at the time. I remember
it being explained repeatedly - at the time - that the figure
was gross EU fee, not the net amount.
And isn't it notable that you say it wasn't explained "on the
bus". Nor was it all committed to the NHS "on the bus", was it!
To your average Brexiteer-in-the-street, I doubt if it really
made much difference exactly how massively big the numbers were.
The most important thing would be that we send a helluva lot of
money to the EU - and instead we could be giving a helluva lot
of money to the NHS. The persuasion to vote 'leave' is highly
convincing.
This is how one influential person, Miuchael Gove, stated it at
the time and denying any other interpretation. No wonder Joe
Public didn't know what to believe.
"What is a fact is that we give more than 350 million pounds to
the European Union"
"the European Union decides, they control that £350 million
every week. If we vote Leave we can control how that money is
spent."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/08051604.pdf
Picking up on Mr Gove's "more than" 350 comment, the EU membership fee
is not static; it is set to rise! According to document CBP-7886.pdf,
taking the annual amount after the rebate, 2016 and the subsequent
forecasts were:

2016: 13 bn
2017: 12 bn
2018: 15 bn
2019: 15 bn
2020: 15 bn
2021: 15 bn

In other words, if we had stayed in, the amount it cost us would have
gone up.

And, AIUI, on top of that the EU takes a cut from our VAT receipts, too.
So as we prosper the EU takes even more.
--
James Harris
pensive hamster
2017-11-15 20:40:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
Post by pensive hamster
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Yellow
On Thu, 9 Nov 2017 11:28:33 -0800 (PST), pensive hamster
On Thursday, 9 November 2017 06:36:32 UTC, James Harris
Post by James Harris
* The UK "sends" 350m per week to the EU.
* Your employer "pays" you £x,000 per year.
If both talk about the gross amount, why do you object to
one but accept the other...?
Perhaps it also depends what you mean by "sends" and also
"gross amount".
As I understand it, £350m pw is the amount we would send
without the rebate which Margaret Thatcher negotiated.
This rebate is applied before we send the £350m, so we
don't actually send that much.
The amount we actually sent was £276m pw in 2014.
I would call that the gross amount.
You can call it Betsy and get it to sing show tunes, but that
would not make it the gross amount either.
The gross amount is the total owed to the EU, around £350
million a week.
Then we have the amount actually sent, so without the rebate,
which is around £260 million a week.
So what would you call this amount, the approx £260 million
a week, if (according to you) it is neither the gross amount
nor the net amount?
Gross means before any deductions, net means after but you have
to define what the deductions are or we cannot know what it is
net of.
So the £350 million is the gross figure, the £260 million is net
of the rebate and the £160 million is net of the rebate and
money coming back to the UK.
That wasn't explained at the time.
Why do Remainers keep lying about anything to do with Brexit?
It wasn't explained at the time, not on the bus anyway.
That's perfectly true, not a lie.
The video I posted a link to was from "the time". Pamela is simply wrong
to say it wasn't explained at the time. I remember it being explained
repeatedly - at the time - that the figure was gross EU fee, not the net
amount.
Where was it explained repeatedly - at the time - ??

Boris doesn't seem to explain it in the link you provided, he says
the "gross figure is the right figure".

How is that explaining that we *don't* send £350m to the EU
every week ??
Post by James Harris
And isn't it notable that you say it wasn't explained "on the bus". Nor
was it all committed to the NHS "on the bus", was it!
James Harris
2017-11-15 20:53:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
Post by James Harris
Post by pensive hamster
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Yellow
On Thu, 9 Nov 2017 11:28:33 -0800 (PST), pensive hamster
On Thursday, 9 November 2017 06:36:32 UTC, James Harris
Post by James Harris
* The UK "sends" 350m per week to the EU.
* Your employer "pays" you £x,000 per year.
If both talk about the gross amount, why do you object to
one but accept the other...?
Perhaps it also depends what you mean by "sends" and also
"gross amount".
As I understand it, £350m pw is the amount we would send
without the rebate which Margaret Thatcher negotiated.
This rebate is applied before we send the £350m, so we
don't actually send that much.
The amount we actually sent was £276m pw in 2014.
I would call that the gross amount.
You can call it Betsy and get it to sing show tunes, but that
would not make it the gross amount either.
The gross amount is the total owed to the EU, around £350
million a week.
Then we have the amount actually sent, so without the rebate,
which is around £260 million a week.
So what would you call this amount, the approx £260 million
a week, if (according to you) it is neither the gross amount
nor the net amount?
Gross means before any deductions, net means after but you have
to define what the deductions are or we cannot know what it is
net of.
So the £350 million is the gross figure, the £260 million is net
of the rebate and the £160 million is net of the rebate and
money coming back to the UK.
That wasn't explained at the time.
Why do Remainers keep lying about anything to do with Brexit?
It wasn't explained at the time, not on the bus anyway.
That's perfectly true, not a lie.
The video I posted a link to was from "the time". Pamela is simply wrong
to say it wasn't explained at the time. I remember it being explained
repeatedly - at the time - that the figure was gross EU fee, not the net
amount.
Where was it explained repeatedly - at the time - ??
Boris doesn't seem to explain it in the link you provided, he says
the "gross figure is the right figure".
How is that explaining that we *don't* send £350m to the EU
every week ??
Just to check we are talking about the same thing: AIUI Pamela claimed
that it wasn't explained at the time that the £350 million was a gross
figure. The link showed Boris Johnson talking about the gross figure.
Some others:

27 May. The continued use of a gross figure in contexts that imply it is
a net figure is misleading and undermines trust in official statistics."
http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2016/05/27/leave-campaign-slammed-by-statistics-watchdog-for-false-eu-c

1 June. The £350m-a-week claim derives from the fact that the country’s
gross annual contribution to the budget averages £18bn. “About £4.5bn is
returned to Britain every year” The key word here is “gross”
https://inews.co.uk/explainers/iq/sum-fears-350m-figure-leave-campaign-refuses-admit-wrong/

9 June. I cannot imagine there are many people in Britain whose precise
point of annoyance lies at the fact that the gross EU contributions are
£350m a week rather than £276m.
https://news.sky.com/story/can-wollaston-call-163350m-brexit-claim-a-lie-10308489
--
James Harris
pamela
2017-11-15 21:01:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
Post by James Harris
On Wednesday, 15 November 2017 16:53:30 UTC, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
On Thu, 9 Nov 2017 16:04:43 -0800 (PST), pensive hamster
Post by Yellow
On Thu, 9 Nov 2017 11:28:33 -0800 (PST), pensive hamster
On Thursday, 9 November 2017 06:36:32 UTC, James Harris
Post by James Harris
* The UK "sends" 350m per week to the EU.
* Your employer "pays" you £x,000 per year.
If both talk about the gross amount, why do you object
to one but accept the other...?
Perhaps it also depends what you mean by "sends" and
also "gross amount".
As I understand it, £350m pw is the amount we would
send without the rebate which Margaret Thatcher
negotiated. This rebate is applied before we send the
£350m, so we don't actually send that much.
The amount we actually sent was £276m pw in 2014.
I would call that the gross amount.
You can call it Betsy and get it to sing show tunes, but
that would not make it the gross amount either.
The gross amount is the total owed to the EU, around
£350 million a week.
Then we have the amount actually sent, so without the
rebate, which is around £260 million a week.
So what would you call this amount, the approx £260
million a week, if (according to you) it is neither the
gross amount nor the net amount?
Gross means before any deductions, net means after but you
have to define what the deductions are or we cannot know
what it is net of.
So the £350 million is the gross figure, the £260
million is net of the rebate and the £160 million is net
of the rebate and money coming back to the UK.
That wasn't explained at the time.
Why do Remainers keep lying about anything to do with
Brexit?
It wasn't explained at the time, not on the bus anyway.
That's perfectly true, not a lie.
The video I posted a link to was from "the time". Pamela is
simply wrong
to say it wasn't explained at the time. I remember it being
explained repeatedly - at the time - that the figure was gross
EU fee, not the net
amount.
Where was it explained repeatedly - at the time - ??
Boris doesn't seem to explain it in the link you provided, he
says the "gross figure is the right figure".
How is that explaining that we *don't* send £350m to the EU
every week ??
A very large part of the population (and an even larger proportion
of the Leave vote) believed the £350 million figure.

They dismissed any correction offered as part of an imagined
"Project Fear", just as the pro-Leave propagandists had intended.

Leave fought a brilliant propaganda war and won, but they falsely
raised expectations.
James Harris
2017-11-15 21:15:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
...
Post by pamela
Post by pensive hamster
Post by James Harris
to say it wasn't explained at the time. I remember it being
explained repeatedly - at the time - that the figure was gross
EU fee, not the net
amount.
Where was it explained repeatedly - at the time - ??
Boris doesn't seem to explain it in the link you provided, he
says the "gross figure is the right figure".
How is that explaining that we *don't* send £350m to the EU
every week ??
A very large part of the population (and an even larger proportion
of the Leave vote) believed the £350 million figure.
That is just another claim without evidence.
Post by pamela
They dismissed any correction offered as part of an imagined
"Project Fear", just as the pro-Leave propagandists had intended.
Where's the evidence that a large part of the population dismissed any
such "correction"?
Post by pamela
Leave fought a brilliant propaganda war and won, but they falsely
raised expectations.
People (like Pamela?) assume that NHS funding is static. It is not. It
is already getting more and more each year in real terms.

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/nhs-budget
--
James Harris
Ian Jackson
2017-11-15 21:52:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
A very large part of the population (and an even larger proportion
of the Leave vote) believed the £350 million figure.
That is just another claim without evidence.
I see no reason why a lot of us would query the figures too much. Both
Remainers and Brexiteers know we pay a lot of dosh to the EU. The real
question is whether, taking absolutely everything into account, it's
actually good value for money - and if we weren't in the EU, just how
much extra there would then be in the coffers to augment what we already
give to the NHS.
--
Ian
James Harris
2017-11-15 22:05:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
A very large part of the population (and an even larger proportion
of the Leave vote) believed the £350 million figure.
That is just another claim without evidence.
I see no reason why a lot of us would query the figures too much. Both
Remainers and Brexiteers know we pay a lot of dosh to the EU. The real
question is whether, taking absolutely everything into account, it's
actually good value for money - and if we weren't in the EU, just how
much extra there would then be in the coffers to augment what we already
give to the NHS.
Understood, though I was querying Pamela's claim that "a very large part
of the population" believed the figure. Unless there has been a study
then I presume Pam is just guessing.
--
James Harris
pamela
2017-11-10 11:18:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
On Thu, 9 Nov 2017 11:28:33 -0800 (PST), pensive hamster
Post by pensive hamster
Post by James Harris
* The UK "sends" 350m per week to the EU.
* Your employer "pays" you £x,000 per year.
If both talk about the gross amount, why do you object to one
but accept the other...?
Perhaps it also depends what you mean by "sends" and also
"gross amount".
As I understand it, £350m pw is the amount we would send
without the rebate which Margaret Thatcher negotiated.
This rebate is applied before we send the £350m, so we
don't actually send that much.
The amount we actually sent was £276m pw in 2014.
I would call that the gross amount.
You can call it Betsy and get it to sing show tunes, but that
would not make it the gross amount either.
The gross amount is the total owed to the EU, around £350
million a week.
We don't owe a total of £350 million.

That bill for £350 million is never presented. £350 million is
just the starting point to determine the price we pay which is
£350 million less the Thatcher rebate. Ever since Thatcher, that
reduced amount is the bill we get asked to pay.
Post by Yellow
Then we have the amount actually sent, so without the rebate,
which is around £260 million a week.
And finally we have the net amount after grants etc that are
paid back to the UK, which leave something like £160 million
paid to the EU each week.
That means we send almost £23 million a day to the EU, never to
been seen by us again - so enough EACH DAY to educate over a
1,000 children for a year.
Edcuation? Leavers promised to spend an extra £350 million a week
on the NHS.

Farage said it was wrong to make such a pledge but £350 million
for the NHS is what was promised.....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/nigel-farage-350-
million-pledge-to-fund-the-nhs-was-a-mistake/
James Harris
2017-11-10 20:47:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Post by Yellow
If £350 Million a week was so dishonest, why do we have so many folks
demanding it is paid up?
Either it is a real sum of money or it isn't - or is it in the box with
Schrodinger's cat? Existing in both states as it suits remoaners.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-41908302
The "remoaners" so called aren't arguing the details of quantum mechanics. Those
Every week we send £350m to Brussels.
I'd rather that we control how to spend that money, and if I had
that control I would spend it on the NHS.
I wasn't impressed with Vote Leave but I have to say that Gisela Stuart
seems to be honest, there: (1) saying she doesn't have control of the
money, (2) saying that she would spend it on the NHS but only if it were
her choice. There's no claim there that the money would go to the NHS.
Post by Altroy1
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/2016/may/23/does-the-eu-really-cost-the-uk-350m-a-week
Verdict
The leave camp might just about have been able to get away with
saying that the UK sends £248m a week to Brussels (which at
least takes account of the rebate). It can argue all it likes
that £350m is a "gross figure". But it cannot, in all
conscience, get away with the use of the word "send".
Wollaston, the IFS, the UK Statistics Authority, Nicola
Sturgeon, Amber Rudd and Angela Eagle are right: Vote Leave's
claim that Britain sends £350m a week to Brussels is a lie.
So when it comes down to it, the 350 is not what upsets people; the only
real objection is the word "send"! Consider the following.
* The UK "sends" 350m per week to the EU.
* Your employer "pays" you £x,000 per year.
If both talk about the gross amount, why do you object to one but accept
the other...?
Perhaps it also depends what you mean by "sends" and also
"gross amount".
As I understand it, £350m pw is the amount we would send
without the rebate which Margaret Thatcher negotiated.
This rebate is applied before we send the £350m, so we
don't actually send that much.
Yes, except that, as below, the amount which we literally send is
reduced only by the rebate on funds we have previously handed over.
Effectively, we would send the EU a certain amount and the EU would send
us a refund on last year's payments. But rather than doing that, they
literally send us nothing (except maybe telling us the figure) and we
reduce the amount we literally send by that figure.
Post by pensive hamster
The amount we actually sent was £276m pw in 2014.
I would call that the gross amount.
The net amount is £156m pw, which is the £276m pw minus
the amount spent by the EU on funding things in the UK
such as supporting farmers and regional aid.
In other words, it costs us £156m pw net to be members
of the EU. There appears to be no agreement among
"experts" on whether that is value for money or not.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40860657
8 August 2017
'EU cost: Why £350m and £156m per week are both wrong
'... The figure of £156m is what you get if you take the gross
contribution and subtract the rebate and the amount spent by
the EU on funding things in the UK such as supporting farmers
and regional aid.
'So that's not, as the i and other headlines suggested, what we
send to Brussels each week - it's what we send to Brussels
minus some of what is spent in the UK.
'The £350m figure was also not what we sent to Brussels each
week because the UK's rebate is deducted before the money
is sent - the correct figure in 2014 for the amount sent was
£276m a week.'
As a bit of fun, from the internet:

"I've just mugged a 'Remain' supporter - I took £350 out of his wallet,
but he negotiated for me to give £105 back, saying it was unfair. I
agreed, and I decided to take even more pity on him, and give an another
£77 back, but only on the condition that he spent it on the things I say
he can, and that everything he buys with that money should have a
picture next to it of me saying I paid for it. He agreed! I only took
£168 in the end.

We are meeting again next week to do the same thing, although I'm
considering keeping that extra £105 at some point, and have plans to
increase the £350 soon. He said it was a fantastic idea and that he
wouldn't be able to survive without me."
--
James Harris
Ophelia
2017-11-11 14:59:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"James Harris" wrote in message news:ou539p$3q2$***@dont-email.me...
As a bit of fun, from the internet:

"I've just mugged a 'Remain' supporter - I took £350 out of his wallet,
but he negotiated for me to give £105 back, saying it was unfair. I
agreed, and I decided to take even more pity on him, and give an another
£77 back, but only on the condition that he spent it on the things I say
he can, and that everything he buys with that money should have a
picture next to it of me saying I paid for it. He agreed! I only took
£168 in the end.

We are meeting again next week to do the same thing, although I'm
considering keeping that extra £105 at some point, and have plans to
increase the £350 soon. He said it was a fantastic idea and that he
wouldn't be able to survive without me."

James Harris

==

Another one:

David Davis MP is at the golf club returning his
locker key when Mr Barnier (the membership secretary) sees him.

"Hello Mr Davis", says Mr Barnier. "I'm sorry to
hear you are no longer renewing your club
membership, if you would like to come to my office we can settle your
account".

"I have settled my bar bill" says Mr Davis..

"Ah yes Mr Davis", says Mr Barnier, "but there
are other matters that need settlement"

In Mr Barnier’s office Mr Davis explains that he
has settled his bar bill so wonders what else he
can possibly owe the Golf Club?

"Well Mr Davis" begins Mr Barnier, "you did
agree to buy one of our Club Jackets".

"Yes" agrees Mr Davis "I did agree to buy a
jacket but I haven't received it yet. As soon as
you supply the jacket I will send you a cheque for the full amount".

"That will not be possible" explains Mr Barnier.
"As you are no longer a club member you will not
be entitled to buy one of our jackets"!

"But you still want me to pay for it" exclaims Mr Davis.

"Yes" says Mr Barnier, "That will be £300 for
the jacket and there is also your bar bill".

"But I've already settled my bar bill" says Mr Davis.

"Yes" says Mr Barnier, "but as you can
appreciate, we need to place our orders with the Brewery
in advance to ensure our bar is properly
stocked. You regularly used to spend at least
£50 a week in the bar so we have placed orders
with the brewery accordingly for the coming
year. You therefore owe us £2600 for the year".

"Will you still allow me to have these drinks?" asks Mr Davis.

"No of course not Mr Davis as you are no longer
a club member!" says Mr Barnier.

"Next is your restaurant bill" continues Mr
Barnier. "In the same manner we have to make
arrangements in advance with our catering
suppliers. Your average restaurant bill was in >the order of £300 a month,
so we'll require
payment of £3600 for the next year".

"I don't suppose you'll be letting me have these meals either" asks Mr
Davis.

"No, of course not" says an irritated Mr
Barnier, "you are no longer a club member! Then
of course" Mr Barnier continues, "there are repairs to the clubhouse roof".

"Clubhouse roof" exclaims Mr Davis, "What's that got to do with me?"

"Well it still needs to be repaired and the
builders are coming in next week. Your share of the bill is £2000".

"I see" says Mr Davis, "anything else?".

"Now you mention it" says Mr Barnier, "there is
Fred the Barman's pension. We would like you to
pay £5 a week towards Fred's pension when he
retires next month. He's not well you know so I
doubt we'll need to ask you for payment for
longer than about five years, so £1500 should do
it. This brings your total bill to £10,000”.
"Let me get this straight" says Mr Davis, "you
want me to pay £300 for a jacket you won't let
me have, £2600 for beverages you won't let me
drink and £3600 for food you won't let me eat,
all under a roof I won't be allowed under and
not served by a bloke who's going to retire next month!"

"Yes, it's all perfectly clear and quite reasonable" says Mr Barnier.
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
James Harris
2017-11-11 16:50:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 11/11/2017 14:59, Ophelia wrote:

...
Post by Ophelia
David Davis MP is at the golf club returning his
locker key when Mr Barnier (the membership secretary) sees him.
"Hello Mr Davis", says Mr Barnier. "I'm sorry to
hear you are no longer renewing your club
membership, if you would like to come to my office we can settle your
account".
"I have settled my bar bill" says Mr Davis..
"Ah yes Mr Davis", says Mr Barnier, "but there
are other matters that need settlement"
In Mr Barnier’s office Mr Davis explains that he
has settled his bar bill so wonders what else he
can possibly owe the Golf Club?
"Well Mr Davis" begins Mr Barnier, "you did
agree to buy one of our Club Jackets".
"Yes" agrees Mr Davis "I did agree to buy a
jacket but I haven't received it yet. As soon as
you supply the jacket I will send you a cheque for the full amount".
"That will not be possible" explains Mr Barnier.
"As you are no longer a club member you will not
be entitled to buy one of our jackets"!
"But you still want me to pay for it" exclaims Mr Davis.
"Yes" says Mr Barnier, "That will be £300 for
the jacket and there is also your bar bill".
"But I've already settled my bar bill" says Mr Davis.
"Yes" says Mr Barnier, "but as you can
appreciate, we need to place our orders with the Brewery
in advance to ensure our bar is properly
stocked. You regularly used to spend at least
£50 a week in the bar so we have placed orders
with the brewery accordingly for the coming
year. You therefore owe us £2600 for the year".
"Will you still allow me to have these drinks?" asks Mr Davis.
"No of course not Mr Davis as you are no longer
a club member!" says Mr Barnier.
"Next is your restaurant bill" continues Mr
Barnier. "In the same manner we have to make
arrangements in advance with our catering
suppliers. Your average restaurant bill was in >the order of £300 a month,
so we'll require
payment of £3600 for the next year".
"I don't suppose you'll be letting me have these meals either" asks Mr
Davis.
"No, of course not" says an irritated Mr
Barnier, "you are no longer a club member! Then
of course" Mr Barnier continues, "there are repairs to the clubhouse roof".
"Clubhouse roof" exclaims Mr Davis, "What's that got to do with me?"
"Well it still needs to be repaired and the
builders are coming in next week. Your share of the bill is £2000".
"I see" says Mr Davis, "anything else?".
"Now you mention it" says Mr Barnier, "there is
Fred the Barman's pension. We would like you to
pay £5 a week towards Fred's pension when he
retires next month. He's not well you know so I
doubt we'll need to ask you for payment for
longer than about five years, so £1500 should do
it. This brings your total bill to £10,000”.
"Let me get this straight" says Mr Davis, "you
want me to pay £300 for a jacket you won't let
me have, £2600 for beverages you won't let me
drink and £3600 for food you won't let me eat,
all under a roof I won't be allowed under and
not served by a bloke who's going to retire next month!"
"Yes, it's all perfectly clear and quite reasonable" says Mr Barnier.
Very good! It helps point out the difference between things we are
willing to pay for - such as Erasmus, space programmes, research, atomic
energy cooperation and so on, i.e. any facilities we want to use - and
things we are not willing to pay for such as those things which keep the
EU in the luxury to which it has become accustomed - on our money.
--
James Harris
Ophelia
2017-11-11 18:18:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"James Harris" wrote in message news:ou79p2$4ei$***@dont-email.me...

On 11/11/2017 14:59, Ophelia wrote:

...
Post by Ophelia
David Davis MP is at the golf club returning his
locker key when Mr Barnier (the membership secretary) sees him.
"Hello Mr Davis", says Mr Barnier. "I'm sorry to
hear you are no longer renewing your club
membership, if you would like to come to my office we can settle your
account".
"I have settled my bar bill" says Mr Davis..
"Ah yes Mr Davis", says Mr Barnier, "but there
are other matters that need settlement"
In Mr Barnier’s office Mr Davis explains that he
has settled his bar bill so wonders what else he
can possibly owe the Golf Club?
"Well Mr Davis" begins Mr Barnier, "you did
agree to buy one of our Club Jackets".
"Yes" agrees Mr Davis "I did agree to buy a
jacket but I haven't received it yet. As soon as
you supply the jacket I will send you a cheque for the full amount".
"That will not be possible" explains Mr Barnier.
"As you are no longer a club member you will not
be entitled to buy one of our jackets"!
"But you still want me to pay for it" exclaims Mr Davis.
"Yes" says Mr Barnier, "That will be £300 for
the jacket and there is also your bar bill".
"But I've already settled my bar bill" says Mr Davis.
"Yes" says Mr Barnier, "but as you can
appreciate, we need to place our orders with the Brewery
in advance to ensure our bar is properly
stocked. You regularly used to spend at least
£50 a week in the bar so we have placed orders
with the brewery accordingly for the coming
year. You therefore owe us £2600 for the year".
"Will you still allow me to have these drinks?" asks Mr Davis.
"No of course not Mr Davis as you are no longer
a club member!" says Mr Barnier.
"Next is your restaurant bill" continues Mr
Barnier. "In the same manner we have to make
arrangements in advance with our catering
suppliers. Your average restaurant bill was in >the order of £300 a month,
so we'll require
payment of £3600 for the next year".
"I don't suppose you'll be letting me have these meals either" asks Mr
Davis.
"No, of course not" says an irritated Mr
Barnier, "you are no longer a club member! Then
of course" Mr Barnier continues, "there are repairs to the clubhouse roof".
"Clubhouse roof" exclaims Mr Davis, "What's that got to do with me?"
"Well it still needs to be repaired and the
builders are coming in next week. Your share of the bill is £2000".
"I see" says Mr Davis, "anything else?".
"Now you mention it" says Mr Barnier, "there is
Fred the Barman's pension. We would like you to
pay £5 a week towards Fred's pension when he
retires next month. He's not well you know so I
doubt we'll need to ask you for payment for
longer than about five years, so £1500 should do
it. This brings your total bill to £10,000”.
"Let me get this straight" says Mr Davis, "you
want me to pay £300 for a jacket you won't let
me have, £2600 for beverages you won't let me
drink and £3600 for food you won't let me eat,
all under a roof I won't be allowed under and
not served by a bloke who's going to retire next month!"
"Yes, it's all perfectly clear and quite reasonable" says Mr Barnier.
Very good! It helps point out the difference between things we are
willing to pay for - such as Erasmus, space programmes, research, atomic
energy cooperation and so on, i.e. any facilities we want to use - and
things we are not willing to pay for such as those things which keep the
EU in the luxury to which it has become accustomed - on our money.

James Harris

==

I suspect they will begrudge not getting the luxury to which they are
accustomed. I read that Germany is having to raise its input hugely.
Perhaps mutti will keep a better eye on the purse strings.
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
Altroy1
2017-11-09 21:26:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
[....]
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Every week we send £350m to Brussels.
I'd rather that we control how to spend that money, and if I had
that control I would spend it on the NHS.
I wasn't impressed with Vote Leave but I have to say that Gisela Stuart
seems to be honest, there: (1) saying she doesn't have control of the
money, (2) saying that she would spend it on the NHS but only if it were
her choice. There's no claim there that the money would go to the NHS.
Post by Altroy1
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/2016/may/23/does-the-eu-really-cost-the-uk-350m-a-week
Verdict
The leave camp might just about have been able to get away with
saying that the UK sends £248m a week to Brussels (which at
least takes account of the rebate). It can argue all it likes
that £350m is a "gross figure". But it cannot, in all
conscience, get away with the use of the word "send".
Wollaston, the IFS, the UK Statistics Authority, Nicola
Sturgeon, Amber Rudd and Angela Eagle are right: Vote Leave's
claim that Britain sends £350m a week to Brussels is a lie.
So when it comes down to it, the 350 is not what upsets people; the only
real objection is the word "send"! Consider the following.
The keyword of deception was the word "send". The cost of EU membership
according to GiesLIAR Stuart was £350 million per week. Post referendum when
challenged by Peston on Sunday she amended her lie to the £350 million that we
don't have control of. This was on the basis of EU funding of UK projects. This
too was disingenuous. It is almost certain that any competent UK government that
gained control of that EU funding would still have to support the poorer regions
and strategic investments. Every penny that such a competent government would so
spend would be according to the lying battlebus logic, be taken from the NHS.
Moreover some of these Brexiteers downright hate the NHS. I'm writing of such as
Daniel J Hannan but if you recall my previous posts you will be across that
story quite well.

In fact if I recall righly arch Be LEAVE er Owen Paterson was on radio assuring
continued agriculture subsidy spending post-Brexit. Looks like the NHS will have
to wait quite some time for that £350 million weekly bonanza.
Post by James Harris
* The UK "sends" 350m per week to the EU.
* Your employer "pays" you £x,000 per year.
If both talk about the gross amount, why do you object to one but accept
the other...?
Bad analogy. Get a grip. Your Employer agrees to pay you £1000 per week. However
you employer provides you with a nice house, a car, a mobile phone all expenses
paid and you agree that is worth £500 per week. So each week your employer puts
£500 into your bank acount. To suggest that your employer "sends" you a notional
£1000 per week is the sort of nonsense that was put upon the side of that lying
battlebus.

Whilst the Brexit mindset may moan about how unfair the EU is in valuing the
house or setting the rent, even arch Brexiteer Hannan is dead keen on a swiss
style FTA and has in the past waxed lyrical about the SM. So the idea that the
EU doesnt offer anything or shouldnt get a sub is so much old hot air.
James Harris
2017-11-10 20:54:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Altroy1
[....]
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Every week we send £350m to Brussels.
I'd rather that we control how to spend that money, and if I had
that control I would spend it on the NHS.
I wasn't impressed with Vote Leave but I have to say that Gisela Stuart
seems to be honest, there: (1) saying she doesn't have control of the
money, (2) saying that she would spend it on the NHS but only if it were
her choice. There's no claim there that the money would go to the NHS.
Post by Altroy1
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/2016/may/23/does-the-eu-really-cost-the-uk-350m-a-week
Verdict
The leave camp might just about have been able to get away with
saying that the UK sends £248m a week to Brussels (which at
least takes account of the rebate). It can argue all it likes
that £350m is a "gross figure". But it cannot, in all
conscience, get away with the use of the word "send".
Wollaston, the IFS, the UK Statistics Authority, Nicola
Sturgeon, Amber Rudd and Angela Eagle are right: Vote Leave's
claim that Britain sends £350m a week to Brussels is a lie.
So when it comes down to it, the 350 is not what upsets people; the only
real objection is the word "send"! Consider the following.
The keyword of deception was the word "send". The cost of EU membership
according to GiesLIAR Stuart was £350 million per week. Post referendum when
challenged by Peston on Sunday she amended her lie to the £350 million that we
don't have control of. This was on the basis of EU funding of UK projects. This
too was disingenuous. It is almost certain that any competent UK government that
gained control of that EU funding would still have to support the poorer regions
and strategic investments. Every penny that such a competent government would so
spend would be according to the lying battlebus logic, be taken from the NHS.
Moreover some of these Brexiteers downright hate the NHS. I'm writing of such as
Daniel J Hannan but if you recall my previous posts you will be across that
story quite well.
In fact if I recall righly arch Be LEAVE er Owen Paterson was on radio assuring
continued agriculture subsidy spending post-Brexit. Looks like the NHS will have
to wait quite some time for that £350 million weekly bonanza.
So you say we don't literally send £350 million but when we leave you
literally want £350 million to go to the NHS...?
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
* The UK "sends" 350m per week to the EU.
* Your employer "pays" you £x,000 per year.
If both talk about the gross amount, why do you object to one but accept
the other...?
Bad analogy. Get a grip. Your Employer agrees to pay you £1000 per week.
With you so far.
Post by Altroy1
However
you employer provides you with a nice house, a car, a mobile phone all expenses
paid
He does...?
Post by Altroy1
and you agree that is worth £500 per week. So each week your employer puts
£500 into your bank acount. To suggest that your employer "sends" you a notional
£1000 per week is the sort of nonsense that was put upon the side of that lying
battlebus.
No, but we might say that we get paid £12,000 a year when our employer
deducts from that our tax and NI.
Post by Altroy1
Whilst the Brexit mindset may moan about how unfair the EU is in valuing the
house or setting the rent, even arch Brexiteer Hannan is dead keen on a swiss
style FTA and has in the past waxed lyrical about the SM. So the idea that the
EU doesnt offer anything or shouldnt get a sub is so much old hot air.
--
James Harris
Altroy1
2017-11-11 01:36:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
[....]
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
In fact if I recall righly arch Be LEAVE er Owen Paterson was on radio assuring
continued agriculture subsidy spending post-Brexit. Looks like the NHS will have
to wait quite some time for that £350 million weekly bonanza.
So you say we don't literally send £350 million but when we leave you
literally want £350 million to go to the NHS...?
No. I'm following on from the flawed logic on that lying Battlebus that
suggested a zero-sum game between payments to the EU vs. NHS.
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
* The UK "sends" 350m per week to the EU.
* Your employer "pays" you £x,000 per year.
If both talk about the gross amount, why do you object to one but accept
the other...?
Bad analogy. Get a grip. Your Employer agrees to pay you £1000 per week.
With you so far.
Post by Altroy1
However
you employer provides you with a nice house, a car, a mobile phone all expenses
paid
He does...?
Alright. Let me put it this way. Going back to the Hotel California and the
Hotel EU metaphor:

Resident UK signs up with Hotel EU. The Hotel offers facilties such as
electricity, lighting, mentoring, being able to sell unhindered to other
residents. Rules prevent other residents forming cliques that could keep
resident UK's goods and services from fair competition. Resident UK's good at
finance so makes a fair living selling stocks, shares, mortgages, banking
accounts, credit cards and so on to the other residents.

Resident UK agrees to pay £350 per week for these sort of facilities.

After being a resident for more than 10 years, resident UK negotiates with Hotel
EU's management. During that 10 years resident UK's played it's part in the
Hotel EU's prosperity. The Hotel EU agrees to a rebate. From now on resident UK
only has to write out a cheque for £160 to the Hotel EU each week.

Most people would now say that resident UK is now only sending the Hotel EU £160
per week.

A couple of UK resident's children, their minds befuddled by a lying battlebus,
are convinced that their dad is still sending Hotel EU £350 per week. They
complain about having to buy more kitchen utensils, clothing and so on from
other residents than the other residents buy from them. Conveniently they ignore
all the trade in financial services their dad makes with the other residents day
and daily. They want that £350 per week taken off the Hotel EU to be spent
instead on bandages and medicines to deal with occasions when they scrape their
knees or catch measles or mumps. They are so angry that they persuade dad to
leave the Hotel EU to search for another hotel that they can stay in for free.
Yellow
2017-11-11 01:09:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Altroy1
[....]
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
In fact if I recall righly arch Be LEAVE er Owen Paterson was on radio assuring
continued agriculture subsidy spending post-Brexit. Looks like the NHS will have
to wait quite some time for that £350 million weekly bonanza.
So you say we don't literally send £350 million but when we leave you
literally want £350 million to go to the NHS...?
No. I'm following on from the flawed logic on that lying Battlebus that
suggested a zero-sum game between payments to the EU vs. NHS.
Why? Given you believe it both to be flawed and a lie.
Altroy1
2017-11-11 20:28:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by Altroy1
[....]
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
In fact if I recall righly arch Be LEAVE er Owen Paterson was on radio assuring
continued agriculture subsidy spending post-Brexit. Looks like the NHS will have
to wait quite some time for that £350 million weekly bonanza.
So you say we don't literally send £350 million but when we leave you
literally want £350 million to go to the NHS...?
No. I'm following on from the flawed logic on that lying Battlebus that
suggested a zero-sum game between payments to the EU vs. NHS.
Why? Given you believe it both to be flawed and a lie.
I wrote about Owen Paterson's assurances that post Brexit, that EU money going
to agriculture would be continued by the UK government.

But by the logic of that lying battlebus, every penny drawn back from the EU
should go to the NHS.

I wasn't articulating a personal belief. It is that lying battlebus that
proposed the zero sum game. What I wrote was to apply the logic set out on the
side of that lying battlebus. I think you knew that quite well.

Mr Paterson, perhaps unwittingly, undermined his own battlebus by effectively
admitting that domestically a UK government would spend retrieved EU money not
all on the NHS but on agricultural subsidies. So even if we stopped allegedly
sending the EU that questionable £350 million each week, no less than Owen
Paterson is stating not all of it would go to the NHS.

Anyway its all silliness. The voteleavetakecontrol/stop HoL reform crowd that
came up with that battlebus slogan were the same NO2AV crowd that claimed that
the cost of the Alternate Vote was £250 million then listed the number of
doctors and nurses that money could have been spent on instead. I don't recall
those types having any issue with the many millions spent on the overthrow of
the Iraq "Saddam must go" and Libyan "Gaddafi must go" regimes and the (so far)
failed attempt to remove the Syrian regime "Assad has to go". None of these
cheerleaders for foreign military adventures it would appear has the wit or the
wisdom to suggest that such war money might be better spent on our NHS instead.
Yellow
2017-11-11 20:00:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Altroy1
Post by Yellow
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
So you say we don't literally send £350 million but when we leave you
literally want £350 million to go to the NHS...?
No. I'm following on from the flawed logic on that lying Battlebus that
suggested a zero-sum game between payments to the EU vs. NHS.
Why? Given you believe it both to be flawed and a lie.
I wrote about Owen Paterson's assurances that post Brexit, that EU money going
to agriculture would be continued by the UK government.
But by the logic of that lying battlebus, every penny drawn back from the EU
should go to the NHS.
I wasn't articulating a personal belief. It is that lying battlebus that
proposed the zero sum game. What I wrote was to apply the logic set out on the
side of that lying battlebus. I think you knew that quite well.
I understand that you are saying that you believe what was written on
the bus to be "flawed and a lie" but what I do not understand is why you
therefore think £350 million a week should be given to the NHS because
of it.

Your logic makes no sense to me whatsoever, because even if you choose
to view what it said to be a promise that £350 million would go to the
NHS, which you say you do not, it was not promise from government.

So you do not believe what it said, you understand it was not a promise
from government in any case, yet you are demanding that the money is
paid. I am simply asking you 'why'.

So why?
Post by Altroy1
Mr Paterson,
Mr Paterson has nothing to do with what I am asking you because as far
as I am aware, he had nothing to do with what was written on the bus.

<snip>
MM
2017-11-12 12:19:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Your logic makes no sense to me whatsoever, because even if you choose
to view what it said to be a promise that £350 million would go to the
NHS, which you say you do not, it was not promise from government.
It was Boris who kept harping on about the £350 million that could be
better spent by the NHS, the strong implication being that it would be
going to the NHS.

MM
pamela
2017-11-15 16:03:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 11 Nov 2017 20:00:56 -0000, Yellow
Post by Yellow
Your logic makes no sense to me whatsoever, because even if you
choose to view what it said to be a promise that £350 million
would go to the NHS, which you say you do not, it was not
promise from government.
It was Boris who kept harping on about the £350 million that
could be better spent by the NHS, the strong implication being
that it would be going to the NHS.
MM
If everyone misunderstood (allegedly) about where the £350 million
would be spent then why didn't Boris and Gove provide everyone a
correction?

Fact is, Gove was arguing in December of last year about how accurate
the Leave statement about the £350 million had been.
n***@gmail.com
2017-11-17 07:42:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
It was a suggestion, like 'let's go to the seaside'. That's not a promise.
James Harris
2017-11-11 16:58:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Altroy1
[....]
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
In fact if I recall righly arch Be LEAVE er Owen Paterson was on radio assuring
continued agriculture subsidy spending post-Brexit. Looks like the NHS will have
to wait quite some time for that £350 million weekly bonanza.
So you say we don't literally send £350 million but when we leave you
literally want £350 million to go to the NHS...?
No. I'm following on from the flawed logic on that lying Battlebus that
suggested a zero-sum game between payments to the EU vs. NHS.
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
* The UK "sends" 350m per week to the EU.
* Your employer "pays" you £x,000 per year.
If both talk about the gross amount, why do you object to one but accept
the other...?
Bad analogy. Get a grip. Your Employer agrees to pay you £1000 per week.
With you so far.
Post by Altroy1
However
you employer provides you with a nice house, a car, a mobile phone all expenses
paid
He does...?
Alright. Let me put it this way. Going back to the Hotel California and the
Resident UK signs up with Hotel EU. The Hotel offers facilties such as
electricity, lighting, mentoring, being able to sell unhindered to other
residents. Rules prevent other residents forming cliques that could keep
resident UK's goods and services from fair competition. Resident UK's good at
finance so makes a fair living selling stocks, shares, mortgages, banking
accounts, credit cards and so on to the other residents.
Resident UK agrees to pay £350 per week for these sort of facilities.
After being a resident for more than 10 years, resident UK negotiates with Hotel
EU's management. During that 10 years resident UK's played it's part in the
Hotel EU's prosperity. The Hotel EU agrees to a rebate. From now on resident UK
only has to write out a cheque for £160 to the Hotel EU each week.
Most people would now say that resident UK is now only sending the Hotel EU £160
per week.
A couple of UK resident's children, their minds befuddled by a lying battlebus,
are convinced that their dad is still sending Hotel EU £350 per week. They
complain about having to buy more kitchen utensils, clothing and so on from
other residents than the other residents buy from them. Conveniently they ignore
all the trade in financial services their dad makes with the other residents day
and daily. They want that £350 per week taken off the Hotel EU to be spent
instead on bandages and medicines to deal with occasions when they scrape their
knees or catch measles or mumps. They are so angry that they persuade dad to
leave the Hotel EU to search for another hotel that they can stay in for free.
An illustration Ophelia posted recently maybe helps. We are willing to
pay the "hotel" for facilities we will continue to benefit from - such
as joint education and research programmes - but we are not willing to
pay for things from which we will get no direct benefit - such as
motorway extensions in Hungary Bulgaria and luxurious living of EU
politicians.

This comes down to whether we see free trade as a benefit for which a
country has to pay. The EU believes the single market is such a benefit
and must be paid for. It has always used the SM as a bait and was
designed that way back in the 1950s.

However, the UK has been clear that it does not expect to be in the
single market. All we want is a level of mutual access which benefits
both sides.
--
James Harris
Altroy1
2017-11-11 21:27:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
[....]
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
In fact if I recall righly arch Be LEAVE er Owen Paterson was on radio assuring
continued agriculture subsidy spending post-Brexit. Looks like the NHS will have
to wait quite some time for that £350 million weekly bonanza.
So you say we don't literally send £350 million but when we leave you
literally want £350 million to go to the NHS...?
No. I'm following on from the flawed logic on that lying Battlebus that
suggested a zero-sum game between payments to the EU vs. NHS.
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
* The UK "sends" 350m per week to the EU.
* Your employer "pays" you £x,000 per year.
If both talk about the gross amount, why do you object to one but accept
the other...?
Bad analogy. Get a grip. Your Employer agrees to pay you £1000 per week.
With you so far.
Post by Altroy1
However
you employer provides you with a nice house, a car, a mobile phone all expenses
paid
He does...?
Alright. Let me put it this way. Going back to the Hotel California and the
Resident UK signs up with Hotel EU. The Hotel offers facilties such as
electricity, lighting, mentoring, being able to sell unhindered to other
residents. Rules prevent other residents forming cliques that could keep
resident UK's goods and services from fair competition. Resident UK's good at
finance so makes a fair living selling stocks, shares, mortgages, banking
accounts, credit cards and so on to the other residents.
Resident UK agrees to pay £350 per week for these sort of facilities.
After being a resident for more than 10 years, resident UK negotiates with Hotel
EU's management. During that 10 years resident UK's played it's part in the
Hotel EU's prosperity. The Hotel EU agrees to a rebate. From now on resident UK
only has to write out a cheque for £160 to the Hotel EU each week.
Most people would now say that resident UK is now only sending the Hotel EU £160
per week.
A couple of UK resident's children, their minds befuddled by a lying battlebus,
are convinced that their dad is still sending Hotel EU £350 per week. They
complain about having to buy more kitchen utensils, clothing and so on from
other residents than the other residents buy from them. Conveniently they ignore
all the trade in financial services their dad makes with the other residents day
and daily. They want that £350 per week taken off the Hotel EU to be spent
instead on bandages and medicines to deal with occasions when they scrape their
knees or catch measles or mumps. They are so angry that they persuade dad to
leave the Hotel EU to search for another hotel that they can stay in for free.
An illustration Ophelia posted recently maybe helps. We are willing to
pay the "hotel" for facilities we will continue to benefit from - such
as joint education and research programmes
In other words: expect the Hotel EU allow one of its members to ostensibly leave
and stop abiding by the rules only to sneak in the side door to dine a la carte
whenever it wants.

Aint gonna happen. That would be a slap in the face to for example to Hotel EU
resident Germany that pays a significantly greater sub and would have more
reason than anyone else to stampede to the exit door moaning and groaning about
how hard it's been done by.
Post by James Harris
- but we are not willing to
pay for things from which we will get no direct benefit - such as
motorway extensions in Hungary Bulgaria and luxurious living of EU
politicians.
Short termism, nationalism and chauvinism. One of the things even Cameron got
right was to resist demands to cut the overseas aid budget. The logic is simple.
A rising tide lifts all boats. Lifting the world's economies is not charity. It
is investment. Fair play to the EU if its infrastructure investment raises both
the European economic tide along with Europe's economic boats.

You have a better point when it comes to the wealth of some of the EU
glitterati, though to follow on from such logic and you might end up advocating
doing away with the UN gravy train or all those NATO lavish dinners and military
posturing on borders near Russia. Finally by such logic the world's second
largest unelected "£300 a day just for signing-in" chamber could be abolished
and be replaced by a PR elected revising senate. Not gonna happen though.
voteleavetakecontrol is as resolutely opposed to that as it is opposed to voting
system reform.
Post by James Harris
This comes down to whether we see free trade as a benefit for which a
country has to pay. The EU believes the single market is such a benefit
and must be paid for.
So does Norway. So Norway pays for access to the SM per capita as UK although
unlike the UK not having representation on the SM's board of management.

Brexiters are going to learn the hard way. When they approach Make America Great
Again(MAGA) for a trade deal the lesson underlying the core of economic theory
is going to rammed home to a place where the sun don't shine. This is the lesson:

"There's no such thing as a free lunch"

When MAGA's unelected USITC bureaucrats impose a 300% tariff because they deem
the UK's not played by the rules, Brexit people are going to find out a bit more
about the concept of "no taxation without representation".
Post by James Harris
It has always used the SM as a bait and was
designed that way back in the 1950s.
Clever EU. They have fooled Norway and Iceland both succesful and advanced
democratic societies in their own right.
Post by James Harris
However, the UK has been clear that it does not expect to be in the
single market. All we want is a level of mutual access which benefits
both sides.
In other words to be able to dine a la carte in a Hotel claimed to be evil and
undemocratic. It is NOT in the EU's interests to allow such an arrangement. Such
an arrangement is a kick in the teeth to other members such as Germany that are
massive net contributors that have played by the rules for many years with
little complaint and don't have this love affair on the side with a certain
nation that the Brexit mindset holds to be the greatest nation on Earth.
James Harris
2017-11-11 22:42:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
...
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
A couple of UK resident's children, their minds befuddled by a lying battlebus,
are convinced that their dad is still sending Hotel EU £350 per week. They
complain about having to buy more kitchen utensils, clothing and so on from
other residents than the other residents buy from them. Conveniently they ignore
all the trade in financial services their dad makes with the other residents day
and daily. They want that £350 per week taken off the Hotel EU to be spent
instead on bandages and medicines to deal with occasions when they scrape their
knees or catch measles or mumps. They are so angry that they persuade dad to
leave the Hotel EU to search for another hotel that they can stay in for free.
An illustration Ophelia posted recently maybe helps. We are willing to
pay the "hotel" for facilities we will continue to benefit from - such
as joint education and research programmes
In other words: expect the Hotel EU allow one of its members to ostensibly leave
and stop abiding by the rules only to sneak in the side door to dine a la carte
whenever it wants.
No. The basic flaw with all such analogies is that the one paying is a
taker. In reality, participation benefits all who get involved. For
example, according to the following, the top-ranked university in the
EU27 is down at position 43. In stark contrast, the UK has four in the
top 10..!

https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2017/jun/07/top-200-universities-in-the-world-2018-the-table

In other words, the UK is the one holding the aces and the EU27 will
benefit from strong educational links with the UK. And we are willing to
work with them because that benefits everyone. Similar applies to lots
of areas. The UK would be more givers than takers. And the EU side knows
it.
Post by Altroy1
Aint gonna happen. That would be a slap in the face to for example to Hotel EU
resident Germany that pays a significantly greater sub and would have more
reason than anyone else to stampede to the exit door moaning and groaning about
how hard it's been done by.
Post by James Harris
- but we are not willing to
pay for things from which we will get no direct benefit - such as
motorway extensions in Hungary Bulgaria and luxurious living of EU
politicians.
Short termism, nationalism and chauvinism. One of the things even Cameron got
right was to resist demands to cut the overseas aid budget. The logic is simple.
A rising tide lifts all boats. Lifting the world's economies is not charity. It
is investment. Fair play to the EU if its infrastructure investment raises both
the European economic tide along with Europe's economic boats.
If you want to make payments to support Hungarian motorways or Ethiopian
girl bands you are welcome to do so but please don't try to spend
everyone else's taxes on them. They may lift all boats but only as much
as a light shower, and I can think of much more effective ways to help
the disadvantaged.
Post by Altroy1
You have a better point when it comes to the wealth of some of the EU
glitterati, though to follow on from such logic and you might end up advocating
doing away with the UN gravy train or all those NATO lavish dinners and military
posturing on borders near Russia. Finally by such logic the world's second
largest unelected "£300 a day just for signing-in" chamber could be abolished
and be replaced by a PR elected revising senate. Not gonna happen though.
voteleavetakecontrol is as resolutely opposed to that as it is opposed to voting
system reform.
Post by James Harris
This comes down to whether we see free trade as a benefit for which a
country has to pay. The EU believes the single market is such a benefit
and must be paid for.
So does Norway. So Norway pays for access to the SM per capita as UK although
unlike the UK not having representation on the SM's board of management.
The Norway payments are not for SM access according to this Norwegian
ambassador.

http://www.dcbmep.org/norwegian-ambassador-reveals-norway-doesnt-pay-for-eu-single-market-access/

As above, trade benefits both sides. There's no need to pay to trade.
--
James Harris
Altroy1
2017-11-12 23:05:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
...
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
An illustration Ophelia posted recently maybe helps. We are willing to
pay the "hotel" for facilities we will continue to benefit from - such
as joint education and research programmes
In other words: expect the Hotel EU allow one of its members to ostensibly leave
and stop abiding by the rules only to sneak in the side door to dine a la carte
whenever it wants.
No. The basic flaw with all such analogies is that the one paying is a
taker. In reality, participation benefits all who get involved. For
example, according to the following, the top-ranked university in the
EU27 is down at position 43. In stark contrast, the UK has four in the
top 10..!
https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2017/jun/07/top-200-universities-in-the-world-2018-the-table
In other words, the UK is the one holding the aces and the EU27 will
benefit from strong educational links with the UK. And we are willing to
You avoided the point about the Brexit case being about sneaking in by the Hotel
EU's side door to dine a la carte on the cheap while the other residents have to
pay in full.

But OK I'll bite. The hotel EU likes former resident UK's childrens educational
qualifications. It would like to offer a deal which means UK's children would
come back from time to time to help with other Hotel EU residents children's
education. However the Hotel EU realises that many residents might resent this
new status for former resident UK, because since UK left - the Hotel EU's bills
have had to rise for the other residents.

The Hotel EU then realises there is a solution to avoid any resentment. Hotel EU
approaches Hotel MAGA(Make America Great Again). Some of MAGA's children have
been to MAGA's top world ranked universities. MAGA agrees to send over some of
her children over to replace the shortfall caused by resident UK's departure.
Hotel MAGA spokesman, Wilbur Ross, commended the new deal as marking true his
words about how Brexit is a God-given opportunity to steal former resident UK's
business.


http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/27/brexit-is-a-god-given-opportunity-to-steal-trade-from-uk-wilbur-ross.html
Post by James Harris
work with them because that benefits everyone. Similar applies to lots
of areas. The UK would be more givers than takers. And the EU side knows
it.
Post by Altroy1
Aint gonna happen. That would be a slap in the face to for example to Hotel EU
resident Germany that pays a significantly greater sub and would have more
reason than anyone else to stampede to the exit door moaning and groaning about
how hard it's been done by.
Post by James Harris
- but we are not willing to
pay for things from which we will get no direct benefit - such as
motorway extensions in Hungary Bulgaria and luxurious living of EU
politicians.
Short termism, nationalism and chauvinism. One of the things even Cameron got
right was to resist demands to cut the overseas aid budget. The logic is simple.
A rising tide lifts all boats. Lifting the world's economies is not charity. It
is investment. Fair play to the EU if its infrastructure investment raises both
the European economic tide along with Europe's economic boats.
If you want to make payments to support Hungarian motorways or Ethiopian
girl bands you are welcome to do so but please don't try to spend
everyone else's taxes on them. They may lift all boats but only as much
as a light shower, and I can think of much more effective ways to help
the disadvantaged.
Cameron may have been a fool at times, but in this instance he had it figured.
And it wasn't because of his sudden urge to help the world's poor. Instead he
was persuaded that problems in other countries affect all of us. Solutions in
other countries help all of us. The bit about the Ethiopian girl band may have
been about changing the culture in a conservative society. Even the most callous
economists recognise that empowering women and raising their status promotes
economic growth and stiffles excessive population and poverty.

A rising tide does indeed lift all boats.

Only in the most Scrooge bah-humbug Christmas carol Brextreme mindset is foreign
aid seen as a wicked plot to reward the world's undeserving and feckless poor.

Some of the more Brextremist be-leavers sometimes lend the impression at times
that they would be willing, as part of a lucrative trade deal, to sell to MAGA
their grannies bodies to fertilise fields growing MAGA's dodgy GM corn. Why?
Because MAGA is a decent English speaking God-fearing Christian country, that's why.

[...]
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
This comes down to whether we see free trade as a benefit for which a
country has to pay. The EU believes the single market is such a benefit
and must be paid for.
So does Norway. So Norway pays for access to the SM per capita as UK although
unlike the UK not having representation on the SM's board of management.
The Norway payments are not for SM access according to this Norwegian
ambassador.
http://www.dcbmep.org/norwegian-ambassador-reveals-norway-doesnt-pay-for-eu-single-market-access/
As above, trade benefits both sides. There's no need to pay to trade.
Believe that and if you're not careful you may end up taking a catchy slogan on
the side of a lying battlebus as gospel straight from the mouth of the Divine Logos.


https://fullfact.org/europe/norway-eu-payments/

Norway pays around EU400 million a year in grants paid to some of the
EU's poorer countries.

While not formally a single market membership fee, this money is linked
to trade relations with the EU.

Norway's EU minister said last year that "We gain from being a member of
the single market. That is correct and that is also why we are definitely
prepared to contribute".

Switzerland has a series of treaties with the EU to be in parts of the
single market, and also makes grant payments.

So the UK might be asked to pay similar grants if it wanted to be in the
single market.
James Harris
2017-11-13 06:53:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
...
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
An illustration Ophelia posted recently maybe helps. We are willing to
pay the "hotel" for facilities we will continue to benefit from - such
as joint education and research programmes
In other words: expect the Hotel EU allow one of its members to ostensibly leave
and stop abiding by the rules only to sneak in the side door to dine a la carte
whenever it wants.
No. The basic flaw with all such analogies is that the one paying is a
taker. In reality, participation benefits all who get involved. For
example, according to the following, the top-ranked university in the
EU27 is down at position 43. In stark contrast, the UK has four in the
top 10..!
https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2017/jun/07/top-200-universities-in-the-world-2018-the-table
In other words, the UK is the one holding the aces and the EU27 will
benefit from strong educational links with the UK. And we are willing to
You avoided the point about the Brexit case being about sneaking in by the Hotel
EU's side door to dine a la carte on the cheap while the other residents have to
pay in full.
I don't remember trying to avoid a point; it can be hard to know what a
certain allusion is about. But IIU this one correctly the answer is
simple: the UK would pay for facilities it used. Yet if the hotel wanted
to buy some of its supplies from us and we wanted to buy some of its
towels why should either side pay for that? Both sides benefit from such
trade. But the EU, stupidly, tries to use such trade as a bait saying
"you can't buy freely from us and we won't buy freely from you unless
you stay here and pay a block price for all the facilities /whether you
want them or not/. The whole idea is absurd. But that's the EU's
approach. Why? Because it is not about trade. It's purpose is political,
not economic. A lot of people in the UK don't realise that; they think
it's about a single market. It's not. The single market is the tempter
to bring countries under one banner, one overlord.
Post by Altroy1
But OK I'll bite. The hotel EU likes former resident UK's childrens educational
qualifications. It would like to offer a deal which means UK's children would
come back from time to time to help with other Hotel EU residents children's
education. However the Hotel EU realises that many residents might resent this
new status for former resident UK, because since UK left - the Hotel EU's bills
have had to rise for the other residents.
The Hotel EU then realises there is a solution to avoid any resentment. Hotel EU
approaches Hotel MAGA(Make America Great Again). Some of MAGA's children have
been to MAGA's top world ranked universities. MAGA agrees to send over some of
her children over to replace the shortfall caused by resident UK's departure.
Hotel MAGA spokesman, Wilbur Ross, commended the new deal as marking true his
words about how Brexit is a God-given opportunity to steal former resident UK's
business.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/27/brexit-is-a-god-given-opportunity-to-steal-trade-from-uk-wilbur-ross.html
That doesn't bother me. I would /expect/ countries to compete - and I
welcome it. IMO the UK will be able to be far more competitive thanks to
Brexit as long as the government gets its act together. When Britain was
its most open and competitive it commercially ruled the world. It only
became poor when for decades it tried to over-regulate - the very model
that is slowly suffocating the EU domain.

While I am not concerned about what Brexit will bring in the long term,
what does concern me is the uncertainty caused by the /process/ of
getting out. We just have to get through this difficult period. And rest
assured, this period is going far better than I expected. I was prepared
for worse!
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
work with them because that benefits everyone. Similar applies to lots
of areas. The UK would be more givers than takers. And the EU side knows
it.
Post by Altroy1
Aint gonna happen. That would be a slap in the face to for example to Hotel EU
resident Germany that pays a significantly greater sub and would have more
reason than anyone else to stampede to the exit door moaning and groaning about
how hard it's been done by.
Post by James Harris
- but we are not willing to
pay for things from which we will get no direct benefit - such as
motorway extensions in Hungary Bulgaria and luxurious living of EU
politicians.
Short termism, nationalism and chauvinism. One of the things even Cameron got
right was to resist demands to cut the overseas aid budget. The logic is simple.
A rising tide lifts all boats. Lifting the world's economies is not charity. It
is investment. Fair play to the EU if its infrastructure investment raises both
the European economic tide along with Europe's economic boats.
If you want to make payments to support Hungarian motorways or Ethiopian
girl bands you are welcome to do so but please don't try to spend
everyone else's taxes on them. They may lift all boats but only as much
as a light shower, and I can think of much more effective ways to help
the disadvantaged.
Cameron may have been a fool at times, but in this instance he had it figured.
And it wasn't because of his sudden urge to help the world's poor. Instead he
was persuaded that problems in other countries affect all of us. Solutions in
other countries help all of us. The bit about the Ethiopian girl band may have
been about changing the culture in a conservative society. Even the most callous
economists recognise that empowering women and raising their status promotes
economic growth and stiffles excessive population and poverty.
A rising tide does indeed lift all boats.
Only in the most Scrooge bah-humbug Christmas carol Brextreme mindset is foreign
aid seen as a wicked plot to reward the world's undeserving and feckless poor.
What do you think would be better, to tax imports from Kenya and present
them with a handout payment each month or to give then favourable trade
terms so that they can develop their own wealth? You shouldn't sneer are
Brexiteers; they may have better ways to help people than you realise!
Post by Altroy1
Some of the more Brextremist be-leavers sometimes lend the impression at times
that they would be willing, as part of a lucrative trade deal, to sell to MAGA
their grannies bodies to fertilise fields growing MAGA's dodgy GM corn. Why?
Because MAGA is a decent English speaking God-fearing Christian country, that's why.
[...]
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
This comes down to whether we see free trade as a benefit for which a
country has to pay. The EU believes the single market is such a benefit
and must be paid for.
So does Norway. So Norway pays for access to the SM per capita as UK although
unlike the UK not having representation on the SM's board of management.
The Norway payments are not for SM access according to this Norwegian
ambassador.
http://www.dcbmep.org/norwegian-ambassador-reveals-norway-doesnt-pay-for-eu-single-market-access/
As above, trade benefits both sides. There's no need to pay to trade.
Believe that and if you're not careful you may end up taking a catchy slogan on
the side of a lying battlebus as gospel straight from the mouth of the Divine Logos.
Notice how I worded it.
Post by Altroy1
https://fullfact.org/europe/norway-eu-payments/
Norway pays around EU400 million a year in grants paid to some of the
EU's poorer countries.
While not formally a single market membership fee, this money is linked
to trade relations with the EU.
Norway's EU minister said last year that "We gain from being a member of
the single market. That is correct and that is also why we are definitely
prepared to contribute".
Switzerland has a series of treaties with the EU to be in parts of the
single market, and also makes grant payments.
So the UK might be asked to pay similar grants if it wanted to be in the
single market.
Fortunately, we don't!
--
James Harris
Altroy1
2017-11-13 13:43:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
...
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
In other words, the UK is the one holding the aces and the EU27 will
benefit from strong educational links with the UK. And we are willing to
You avoided the point about the Brexit case being about sneaking in by the Hotel
EU's side door to dine a la carte on the cheap while the other residents have to
pay in full.
I don't remember trying to avoid a point; it can be hard to know what a
certain allusion is about.
Dining a la carte - wanting to pick and choose what's on the menu (something the
other residents of the Hotel EU can't do) and not wanting to pay for it.
Post by James Harris
But IIU this one correctly the answer is
simple: the UK would pay for facilities it used. Yet if the hotel wanted
to buy some of its supplies from us and we wanted to buy some of its
towels why should either side pay for that? Both sides benefit from such
trade. But the EU, stupidly, tries to use such trade as a bait saying
"you can't buy freely from us and we won't buy freely from you unless
you stay here and pay a block price for all the facilities /whether you
want them or not/. The whole idea is absurd. But that's the EU's
Both the Norwegians and the Swiss have drank what you might might see as the pay
for access to the SM Kool-Aid. Yes, they might at times want to pretend they are
not paying for SM access but the dogs in the street know the truth.

International Trade needs at least some legal machinery to make it work. Few of
even the most ardent Brextremists are arguing for abolition of the WTO. Yet the
WTO's dispute resolution legal machinery does not pay for itself by drinking
rainwater and sniffing the air. It might only be the richest members of it that
have to fork over the bulk of the dosh, but one way or another the members
collectively of the WTO are responsible for its upkeep.

The USITC and its unelected bureaucrats that imposed that 300% tariff on
Bombardier don't pay their keep by drinking seawater.

The NAFTA agreement has within it legal dispute mechanisms and arbitration.
These institutions, too, don't pay themselves by trickling raindrops down their
throats.

Brexiteers are arguing that they shouldnt have to pay to trade in the SM. Rich
countries such as Germany, Norway, Switzerland, France and Belgium beg to
differ. Everyone out of step exept our Johnny.
Post by James Harris
approach. Why? Because it is not about trade. It's purpose is political,
not economic. A lot of people in the UK don't realise that; they think
it's about a single market. It's not. The single market is the tempter
to bring countries under one banner, one overlord.
The matter of its political aspects were known back in 1975. Barbara Castle and
others put the case back then that the EEC was more than just a free trading
association.

Anything you post about the EU can also be said about the UK. The type of
argument you cite was used to quell Scottish independence. Scotland was told in
clear and forthright terms that independence would put at risk its access to the
UK's Single Market. Since the Act of Union between Scotland and England, the
UK's Single Market has at its heart a political dimension. To a lesser extent so
has NAFTA, MERCOSUR & ASEAN. Try and get a free trade deal with PITA country
India and prepare to listen to India's demands about movement of its workers
whilst it rigorously protects its small farmers.

A political dimension cannot be neatly unravelled from international trade. The
Greek economy suffered from a culture of tax avoidance for many years and ended
up begging for a bailout. A political dimension has as one of its functions the
development of rules in order to address such issues.

The EU does need to democratise more. That does not render the concept of the SM
and its political and legal framework by definition being intrinsically evil.
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
But OK I'll bite. The hotel EU likes former resident UK's childrens educational
qualifications. It would like to offer a deal which means UK's children would
come back from time to time to help with other Hotel EU residents children's
education. However the Hotel EU realises that many residents might resent this
new status for former resident UK, because since UK left - the Hotel EU's bills
have had to rise for the other residents.
The Hotel EU then realises there is a solution to avoid any
resentment. Hotel EU
approaches Hotel MAGA(Make America Great Again). Some of MAGA's children have
been to MAGA's top world ranked universities. MAGA agrees to send over some of
her children over to replace the shortfall caused by resident UK's departure.
Hotel MAGA spokesman, Wilbur Ross, commended the new deal as marking true his
words about how Brexit is a God-given opportunity to steal former resident UK's
business.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/27/brexit-is-a-god-given-opportunity-to-steal-trade-from-uk-wilbur-ross.html
That doesn't bother me. I would /expect/ countries to compete - and I
welcome it.
Then you will dismiss the notion put apparently about by some Brexiteers that
America simply loves them and God bless the aliance of free English speaking
nations as Daniel J Hannan once spluttered.

Make America Great Again wil negotiate HARD in its own interests. MAGA will
require the UK to sign up to a NAFTA type legal enforcement framework. If the UK
does not play by the rules e.g. "unfairly" subsidising an important industry,
MAGA's unelected trade bureaucrats will be close at hand with a massive tariff
to teach the UK's government that disobedience does not pay.
Post by James Harris
IMO the UK will be able to be far more competitive thanks to
Brexit as long as the government gets its act together. When Britain was
Yes at the expense of workers as Adrian Beecroft so clearly set out. The nice
flexible labour market where if you are uber wealthy there's a nice expensive
lear jet waiting for you tax free on an Isle of Man tarmac. If you are a worker
on a zero hours contract and aren't happy with your lot then piss off and go
suck a lemon.
Post by James Harris
its most open and competitive it commercially ruled the world. It only
became poor when for decades it tried to over-regulate - the very model
that is slowly suffocating the EU domain.
You write like some of Mr James O'B's callers.

The rules on nicotineoid pesticides, the social chapter, animal welfare. The
hallmarks of a civilised society against the brutality of the all knowing all
wise market that used to send child chimney sweeps to their deaths.

When James asked callers to say exactly what are the EU's rules of which they
want to do away with, the callers skwawk and thrash about trying to think of an
answer.

Venture capital fund manager Jacob Rees Mogg did come up with one EU rule he
wanted done away with : the rule on bee killing pesticides. Says it all.
Post by James Harris
While I am not concerned about what Brexit will bring in the long term,
what does concern me is the uncertainty caused by the /process/ of
getting out. We just have to get through this difficult period. And rest
Adressed by https://twitter.com/mrjamesob many times. He how would you feel if
you were sold an ice cream, he asked, only to find a year later you had bought a
grilled squirrel. Would you try and claim that you really wanted the grilled
squirrel all along? He said that the case for Brexit was sold as a quick cash
fix for the NHS on the side of a lying battlebus and a year later the cash to
the NHS bonanza is turning into a no deal fiasco.
Post by James Harris
assured, this period is going far better than I expected. I was prepared
for worse!
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
work with them because that benefits everyone. Similar applies to lots
of areas. The UK would be more givers than takers. And the EU side knows
it.
The EU knows that to give an overly generous deal to the UK will damage its
internal coherence by fueling continental Eurosceptics such as Geert Wilders and
Marine Le Pen. Therefore the economic arguments will not be the only
considerations on Mr Barnier's mind.


[...]
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Only in the most Scrooge bah-humbug Christmas carol Brextreme mindset is foreign
aid seen as a wicked plot to reward the world's undeserving and feckless poor.
What do you think would be better, to tax imports from Kenya and present
them with a handout payment each month or to give then favourable trade
terms so that they can develop their own wealth? You shouldn't sneer are
Brexiteers; they may have better ways to help people than you realise!
I'm not sneering at all Brexiteers. Some Brexiters see the case for
international aid. I'm sneering, if at all, to the idea that aid to foreign
countries is some sort of conspiracy to rob taxpayers to pay the worlds feckless
poor. As Cameron said "we're not going to balance the budget on the backs of the
world's poorest people". Given the deficit followed a bailout of banks run by
rich parasites such as Fred the Shred that gambled and lost with other people's
money, Cameron has a point

The ultimate aim is to float the worlds boats higer, indeed it is already
happening. An example of this is the country of Rwanda which has been
benefitting the last 20 years from improved international trade and tourism.
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Some of the more Brextremist be-leavers sometimes lend the impression at times
that they would be willing, as part of a lucrative trade deal, to sell to MAGA
their grannies bodies to fertilise fields growing MAGA's dodgy GM corn. Why?
Because MAGA is a decent English speaking God-fearing Christian country, that's why.
[...]
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
This comes down to whether we see free trade as a benefit for which a
country has to pay. The EU believes the single market is such a benefit
and must be paid for.
So does Norway. So Norway pays for access to the SM per capita as UK although
unlike the UK not having representation on the SM's board of management.
The Norway payments are not for SM access according to this Norwegian
ambassador.
http://www.dcbmep.org/norwegian-ambassador-reveals-norway-doesnt-pay-for-eu-single-market-access/
As above, trade benefits both sides. There's no need to pay to trade.
Believe that and if you're not careful you may end up taking a catchy slogan on
the side of a lying battlebus as gospel straight from the mouth of the Divine Logos.
Notice how I worded it.
Evasively you wrote there's no need to pay for trade whilst elsewhere justifying
leaving the EU in part because it allegedly unfairly asks its richest countries
to pay a small percentage of their annual GDP for unfettered access to the
world's largest single market.
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
https://fullfact.org/europe/norway-eu-payments/
Norway pays around EU400 million a year in grants paid to some of the
EU's poorer countries.
While not formally a single market membership fee, this money is linked
to trade relations with the EU.
Norway's EU minister said last year that "We gain from being a member of
the single market. That is correct and that is also why we are definitely
prepared to contribute".
Switzerland has a series of treaties with the EU to be in parts of the
single market, and also makes grant payments.
So the UK might be asked to pay similar grants if it wanted to be in the
single market.
Fortunately, we don't!
James Harris
2017-11-14 09:28:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Altroy1
...
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
In other words, the UK is the one holding the aces and the EU27 will
benefit from strong educational links with the UK. And we are willing to
You avoided the point about the Brexit case being about sneaking in by the Hotel
EU's side door to dine a la carte on the cheap while the other residents have to
pay in full.
I don't remember trying to avoid a point; it can be hard to know what a
certain allusion is about.
Dining a la carte - wanting to pick and choose what's on the menu (something the
other residents of the Hotel EU can't do) and not wanting to pay for it.
You know, that is not a good recommendation for the EU, though it is
accurate. Perhaps the EU is more akin to a workhouse than a hotel. All
guests are expected to do as the hotel tells them, including what food
to eat. Any outliers might be tolerated for a while but they are
expected to conform and should do so asap. And once they have conformed
on any point then they are not allowed to go back to their old
individualism.
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
But IIU this one correctly the answer is
simple: the UK would pay for facilities it used. Yet if the hotel wanted
to buy some of its supplies from us and we wanted to buy some of its
towels why should either side pay for that? Both sides benefit from such
trade. But the EU, stupidly, tries to use such trade as a bait saying
"you can't buy freely from us and we won't buy freely from you unless
you stay here and pay a block price for all the facilities /whether you
want them or not/. The whole idea is absurd. But that's the EU's
Both the Norwegians and the Swiss have drank what you might might see as the pay
for access to the SM Kool-Aid. Yes, they might at times want to pretend they are
not paying for SM access but the dogs in the street know the truth.
International Trade needs at least some legal machinery to make it work. Few of
even the most ardent Brextremists are arguing for abolition of the WTO. Yet the
WTO's dispute resolution legal machinery does not pay for itself by drinking
rainwater and sniffing the air. It might only be the richest members of it that
have to fork over the bulk of the dosh, but one way or another the members
collectively of the WTO are responsible for its upkeep.
The USITC and its unelected bureaucrats that imposed that 300% tariff on
Bombardier don't pay their keep by drinking seawater.
The NAFTA agreement has within it legal dispute mechanisms and arbitration.
These institutions, too, don't pay themselves by trickling raindrops down their
throats.
Brexiteers are arguing that they shouldnt have to pay to trade in the SM. Rich
countries such as Germany, Norway, Switzerland, France and Belgium beg to
differ. Everyone out of step exept our Johnny.
The EU makes more out of trade with the UK than the UK does out of trade
with the EU. Of course /we/ shouldn't pay for that. If anything, they
should make compensatory payments to us. Trump is having the same sort
of discussions with China right now.

I would suggest that the EU (and maybe you) have the wrong idea of
trade. It should not be a political weapon but a means of benefiting the
people on all sides. Unfortunately, to the EU it is exactly that: a
political weapon which it wields in order to acquire and maintain
political control.
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
approach. Why? Because it is not about trade. It's purpose is political,
not economic. A lot of people in the UK don't realise that; they think
it's about a single market. It's not. The single market is the tempter
to bring countries under one banner, one overlord.
The matter of its political aspects were known back in 1975. Barbara Castle and
others put the case back then that the EEC was more than just a free trading
association.
Anything you post about the EU can also be said about the UK.
Essentially, yes, except that the UK is a net contributor to the EU's
funds. And, what's more, the UK is a massive contributor to the EU's
position on the world stage. Similar could be said of Catalonia in Spain.

By contrast, nations like Scotland are at present net beneficiaries.
Post by Altroy1
The type of
argument you cite was used to quell Scottish independence. Scotland was told in
clear and forthright terms that independence would put at risk its access to the
UK's Single Market. Since the Act of Union between Scotland and England, the
UK's Single Market has at its heart a political dimension. To a lesser extent so
has NAFTA, MERCOSUR & ASEAN. Try and get a free trade deal with PITA country
India and prepare to listen to India's demands about movement of its workers
whilst it rigorously protects its small farmers.
A political dimension cannot be neatly unravelled from international trade. The
Greek economy suffered from a culture of tax avoidance for many years and ended
up begging for a bailout. A political dimension has as one of its functions the
development of rules in order to address such issues.
The EU does need to democratise more. That does not render the concept of the SM
and its political and legal framework by definition being intrinsically evil.
I don't accuse it of evil. But it is inept politically. I don't know why
but I think it may have something to do with European history and their
desire to put togetherness (for some definition of the term) before
pragmatic economics. At any rate, it's not a good place for the UK to be.
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
But OK I'll bite. The hotel EU likes former resident UK's childrens educational
qualifications. It would like to offer a deal which means UK's children would
come back from time to time to help with other Hotel EU residents children's
education. However the Hotel EU realises that many residents might resent this
new status for former resident UK, because since UK left - the Hotel EU's bills
have had to rise for the other residents.
The Hotel EU then realises there is a solution to avoid any
resentment. Hotel EU
approaches Hotel MAGA(Make America Great Again). Some of MAGA's children have
been to MAGA's top world ranked universities. MAGA agrees to send over some of
her children over to replace the shortfall caused by resident UK's departure.
Hotel MAGA spokesman, Wilbur Ross, commended the new deal as marking true his
words about how Brexit is a God-given opportunity to steal former resident UK's
business.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/27/brexit-is-a-god-given-opportunity-to-steal-trade-from-uk-wilbur-ross.html
That doesn't bother me. I would /expect/ countries to compete - and I
welcome it.
Then you will dismiss the notion put apparently about by some Brexiteers that
America simply loves them and God bless the aliance of free English speaking
nations as Daniel J Hannan once spluttered.
Make America Great Again wil negotiate HARD in its own interests. MAGA will
require the UK to sign up to a NAFTA type legal enforcement framework. If the UK
does not play by the rules e.g. "unfairly" subsidising an important industry,
MAGA's unelected trade bureaucrats will be close at hand with a massive tariff
to teach the UK's government that disobedience does not pay.
There you go - knowing the future, again!

...
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
While I am not concerned about what Brexit will bring in the long term,
what does concern me is the uncertainty caused by the /process/ of
getting out. We just have to get through this difficult period. And rest
Adressed by https://twitter.com/mrjamesob many times. He how would you feel if
you were sold an ice cream, he asked, only to find a year later you had bought a
grilled squirrel. Would you try and claim that you really wanted the grilled
squirrel all along?
No. But isn't that exactly what has happened to the Common Market which
became the EU? In 1975 we were happy with the ice cream. We never wanted
the squirrel. And when we the people were finally asked, we said so.
Post by Altroy1
He said that the case for Brexit was sold as a quick cash
fix for the NHS on the side of a lying battlebus and a year later the cash to
the NHS bonanza is turning into a no deal fiasco.
Obviously, there are not just Remainers who are ignorant of the EU but
also Remainers who fail to understand their fellow citizens.
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
assured, this period is going far better than I expected. I was prepared
for worse!
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
work with them because that benefits everyone. Similar applies to lots
of areas. The UK would be more givers than takers. And the EU side knows
it.
The EU knows that to give an overly generous deal to the UK will damage its
internal coherence by fueling continental Eurosceptics such as Geert Wilders and
Marine Le Pen. Therefore the economic arguments will not be the only
considerations on Mr Barnier's mind.
The EU faces a much bigger danger. If the UK does better outside the EU
than it did inside, what do you think will happen?

...
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
The Norway payments are not for SM access according to this Norwegian
ambassador.
http://www.dcbmep.org/norwegian-ambassador-reveals-norway-doesnt-pay-for-eu-single-market-access/
As above, trade benefits both sides. There's no need to pay to trade.
Believe that and if you're not careful you may end up taking a catchy slogan on
the side of a lying battlebus as gospel straight from the mouth of the Divine Logos.
Notice how I worded it.
Evasively you wrote there's no need to pay for trade whilst elsewhere justifying
leaving the EU in part because it allegedly unfairly asks its richest countries
to pay a small percentage of their annual GDP for unfettered access to the
world's largest single market.
Accuracy is not evasion, though it does require and expect readers to
read what was written.
--
James Harris
Altroy1
2017-11-15 00:20:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
...
Dining a la carte - wanting to pick and choose what's on the menu (something the
other residents of the Hotel EU can't do) and not wanting to pay for it.
You know, that is not a good recommendation for the EU, though it is
accurate. Perhaps the EU is more akin to a workhouse than a hotel. All
So, according to you the EU27 have drunk the Kool-Aid of payments to the hated
EU for membership of the SM. In fact more than the EU27 - Iceland, Norway and
Switzerland (one of the world's richest countries) are drunk on the same
Kool-Aid. ALL of them out of step with divine Brexit revelation. If only they
would come out of the EU Babylon the Great and into the divine light of Brexit
and MAGA. Just imagine how wonderful life for them could be.

Ah yes the Brexit mindset - exampled by Tate & Lyle sugar:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tate_&_Lyle

Disposal of sugar refining business[edit]

In July 2010 the company announced the sale of its sugar refining
business, including rights to use the Tate & Lyle brand name and
Lyle's Golden Syrup, to American Sugar Refining for £211 million.[15]
The sale included the Plaistow Wharf and Silvertown plants.[15]

As private-eye.co.uk points out the wicked EU discriminates against Florida and
Carribbean grown cane sugar in favour of EU sugar beet (including British sugar
beet). That simply will not do according to Tate & Lyle AKA American Sugar
Refining, Inc. Get us out now!!
Post by James Harris
guests are expected to do as the hotel tells them, including what food
to eat. Any outliers might be tolerated for a while but they are
expected to conform and should do so asap. And once they have conformed
on any point then they are not allowed to go back to their old
individualism.
Make a FTA with Hotel India, - and Hotel India will be making it clear that
residents will be expected to employ Hotel India's handpicked staff and no - the
residents will not be allowed to sell food to other residents. All food will be
grown by Hotel India's children in vegetable plots out back. Residents that do
not like what's on offer can go suck a lemon.

Meanwhile, that nasty Ol' Hotel EU's been at it again. Telling residents it
can't stuff chickens in cages so tight the campylobacter and salmonella can only
be killed off by a thorough soaking in strong chlorine. A couple of resident
UK's children are furious. If the Hotel EU refuses to reduce chicken welfare
standards and allow bee killing glyphosate pesticides to be sprayed with merry
abandon, resident UK's going to leave in a huff, and take up residence with that
lovely Donald J Trump, manager of Hotel MAGA, just over the other side of the
pond. The Hotel EU's managers throw their hands up in despair. Despite dozens of
opt-outs from the rules and a rent-rebate, still Resident UK's not happy. Not
only threatening to leave but to induce others to leave with it.

Of course at the slightest sign of disobedience, Hotel MAGA will deal with
uppity residents such as Canada and UK by hitting them with a 300% tariff and
locking them in their rooms. Nothing wrong with that says the Brexit mindset. A
stern bit of strict discipline never hurt anyone.

The true Brexit mindset surely knows how to strain out a EU gnat whilst
swallowing a MAGA camel.
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
But IIU this one correctly the answer is
simple: the UK would pay for facilities it used. Yet if the hotel wanted
to buy some of its supplies from us and we wanted to buy some of its
towels why should either side pay for that? Both sides benefit from such
trade. But the EU, stupidly, tries to use such trade as a bait saying
"you can't buy freely from us and we won't buy freely from you unless
you stay here and pay a block price for all the facilities /whether you
want them or not/. The whole idea is absurd. But that's the EU's
Both the Norwegians and the Swiss have drank what you might might see as the pay
for access to the SM Kool-Aid. Yes, they might at times want to pretend they are
not paying for SM access but the dogs in the street know the truth.
International Trade needs at least some legal machinery to make it work. Few of
even the most ardent Brextremists are arguing for abolition of the WTO. Yet the
WTO's dispute resolution legal machinery does not pay for itself by drinking
rainwater and sniffing the air. It might only be the richest members of it that
have to fork over the bulk of the dosh, but one way or another the members
collectively of the WTO are responsible for its upkeep.
The USITC and its unelected bureaucrats that imposed that 300% tariff on
Bombardier don't pay their keep by drinking seawater.
The NAFTA agreement has within it legal dispute mechanisms and arbitration.
These institutions, too, don't pay themselves by trickling raindrops down their
throats.
Brexiteers are arguing that they shouldnt have to pay to trade in the SM. Rich
countries such as Germany, Norway, Switzerland, France and Belgium beg to
differ. Everyone out of step exept our Johnny.
The EU makes more out of trade with the UK than the UK does out of trade
with the EU. Of course /we/ shouldn't pay for that. If anything, they
Try taking that message to the City of London's financial hub. See how far you
get. Theresa may wouldn't be baulking at the prospect of the cliff edge if the
EU were the burden the Brexit mindset portrays.
Post by James Harris
should make compensatory payments to us. Trump is having the same sort
of discussions with China right now.
You have the figures to hand? The relative deficit that MAGA has with the
Chinese in manufactures and services. How does that compare with the UK and do
you have any idea the amount of EU's finance is being put through the City of
London. And why was it May was over to Merkel begging her to use her influence
to promote a EU/UK deal.

The idea that prosperous countries pay a bit more into the club to provide the
investment needed to raise all boats is simple enough for a four year old to
understand and agree. The Brexit mindset holds to the contrary that "the world
owes us a favour".
Post by James Harris
I would suggest that the EU (and maybe you) have the wrong idea of
trade. It should not be a political weapon but a means of benefiting the
people on all sides. Unfortunately, to the EU it is exactly that: a
political weapon which it wields in order to acquire and maintain
political control.
Now you're dreaming of some utopia where trade will never be used as a weapon?

Meanwhile as Monbiot wrote so eloquently, the Atlanticist mindet so in love
with the hedge funds, tobacco and sugar they would sell their country and
anything else they could lay their hands on with gusto.
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
approach. Why? Because it is not about trade. It's purpose is political,
not economic. A lot of people in the UK don't realise that; they think
it's about a single market. It's not. The single market is the tempter
to bring countries under one banner, one overlord.
The matter of its political aspects were known back in 1975. Barbara Castle and
others put the case back then that the EEC was more than just a free trading
association.
Anything you post about the EU can also be said about the UK.
Essentially, yes, except that the UK is a net contributor to the EU's
funds. And, what's more, the UK is a massive contributor to the EU's
position on the world stage. Similar could be said of Catalonia in Spain.
You have the figures? The UK's a bigger contributor than Germany? In the 1970s
the UK approached the IMF, begging for a loan and decades later the Brexit
mindset says that after all these years of EEC and EU membership the UK's so
prosperous the EU owes them a God given favour.

Whistle for those favours, sunshine. The EU will take a hit. It has to. Farage,
Bojo and Hannan aren't the only Eurosceptics around:

http://www.debatingeurope.eu/2017/04/03/france-hold-referendum-eu-membership/

Is France heading for a revolution? If she wins the upcoming French
presidential elections, Marine Le Pen, leader of the far-right Front
National, has pledged to hold a referendum on membership of the
European Union. Hot on the heels of Brexit, some commentators are
warning that 'Frexit' is no longer inconceivable? and that it could
spell the end of the EU.

Nigel Farage:

"When I came here 17 years ago and said I wanted to lead a campaign to
get Britain to leave the European Union, you all laughed at me," Farage
said in a speech that was carried live by TV channels in Britain and
across Europe.

"Well, you're not laughing now, are you?" Farage said. He continued to
predict that the U.K. would not be the last nation to leave the European
Union.
Post by James Harris
By contrast, nations like Scotland are at present net beneficiaries.
Questionable. Anyway the Brexit mindset would adamantly oppose Scottish
independence whatever its net contribution status was. Impoverished Kosovo was
hardly the biggest net contributor to Serbia's budget, yet Serbia was prepared
to take a very big hit indeed in terms of finance and lost tourism just to keep
a hold of it including by means of military force.

[...]
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
The EU does need to democratise more. That does not render the concept of the SM
and its political and legal framework by definition being
intrinsically evil.
I don't accuse it of evil. But it is inept politically. I don't know why
but I think it may have something to do with European history and their
desire to put togetherness (for some definition of the term) before
pragmatic economics. At any rate, it's not a good place for the UK to be.
The Ancient rivalry between France and Germany. In the 1050s Winston Churchill
proposed a post-war united states of Europe. A few years later the European Coal
and Steel Community was born.
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Make America Great Again wil negotiate HARD in its own interests. MAGA will
require the UK to sign up to a NAFTA type legal enforcement framework. If the UK
does not play by the rules e.g. "unfairly" subsidising an important industry,
MAGA's unelected trade bureaucrats will be close at hand with a massive tariff
to teach the UK's government that disobedience does not pay.
There you go - knowing the future, again!
I know the present a little better. The present included a 300% Tariff to teach
MAGA's northern neighbour a lesson. A lesson delivered easier in that both
nations share a common language, similar legal system and a nice long border.

Of course MAGA's been a loggerheads with other nations, too. In fact practically
every nation that MAGA trades with has felt the lash of MAGA's tongue. From now
on, says MAGA, it will be our workers and our business that will come first.
Post by James Harris
...
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
While I am not concerned about what Brexit will bring in the long term,
what does concern me is the uncertainty caused by the /process/ of
getting out. We just have to get through this difficult period. And rest
Adressed by https://twitter.com/mrjamesob many times. He how would you feel if
you were sold an ice cream, he asked, only to find a year later you had bought a
grilled squirrel. Would you try and claim that you really wanted the grilled
squirrel all along?
No. But isn't that exactly what has happened to the Common Market which
became the EU? In 1975 we were happy with the ice cream. We never wanted
the squirrel. And when we the people were finally asked, we said so.
No. The 1975 leave campaign pointed out the wording in the Treaty of Rome "ever
closer union" and warned that the Hotel EEC would soon be offering more than ice
cream on the menu. The stay campaign pointed out that the Hotel EEC may take
over some more properties but that would benefit all residents with more choice.

Fast forward to 2017. In February Owen Paterson said that the EU's "easily"
going to be persuaded to give the UK a FTA. In October a certain Owen Paterson
said it was always on the cards that leaving meant no deal.

James O'Brien asked which Owen Paterson do you believe? The Owen paterson of
February 2017 or the one in October?
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
He said that the case for Brexit was sold as a quick cash
fix for the NHS on the side of a lying battlebus and a year later the cash to
the NHS bonanza is turning into a no deal fiasco.
Obviously, there are not just Remainers who are ignorant of the EU but
also Remainers who fail to understand their fellow citizens.
?!
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
assured, this period is going far better than I expected. I was prepared
for worse!
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
work with them because that benefits everyone. Similar applies to lots
of areas. The UK would be more givers than takers. And the EU side knows
it.
The EU knows that to give an overly generous deal to the UK will damage its
internal coherence by fueling continental Eurosceptics such as Geert Wilders and
Marine Le Pen. Therefore the economic arguments will not be the only
considerations on Mr Barnier's mind.
The EU faces a much bigger danger. If the UK does better outside the EU
than it did inside, what do you think will happen?
The UK may be a little better off, particularly if a subservient deal with MAGA,
is negotiated but MAGA will see to it that the UK will play by the rules. Unlike
the EU that mollycodled the UK with opt-outs and rebates, MAGA will see to it
the UK becomes a team player and adheres strictly to the rules. Any threat, for
example, to MAGAs aerospace or vital engineering industries by "unfair"
competition will result in the application of USITC administered swift discipline.
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
As above, trade benefits both sides. There's no need to pay to trade.
Believe that and if you're not careful you may end up taking a catchy slogan on
the side of a lying battlebus as gospel straight from the mouth of the Divine Logos.
Notice how I worded it.
Evasively you wrote there's no need to pay for trade whilst elsewhere justifying
leaving the EU in part because it allegedly unfairly asks its richest countries
to pay a small percentage of their annual GDP for unfettered access to the
world's largest single market.
Accuracy is not evasion, though it does require and expect readers to
A general soundbite, it was. Looks vague and evasive to me.
Post by James Harris
read what was written.
James Harris
2017-11-15 08:13:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
...
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
The EU makes more out of trade with the UK than the UK does out of trade
with the EU. Of course /we/ shouldn't pay for that. If anything, they
Try taking that message to the City of London's financial hub. See how far you
get.
Why don't you? For example, you might find comments like this:

JOB LOSS CLAIMS RUBBISHED

The chief executive of Germany's biggest bank has rubbished European
attempts to steal an essential part of London's prized currency trading
business, saying as few as 74 UK jobs would be lost.

Deutsche Bank boss John Cryan poured scorn on anti-Brexit campaigners'
claims that up to 100,000 roles could disappear from the City if
so-called euro 'clearing' has to move. The business underpins the trade
of trillions of euros every year and helps London maintain its supremacy
over EU rivals.

Countries on the Continent have cast jealous eyes on the operation,
hoping it will help them attract huge investment banks.

But Mr Cryan dismissed this as wishful thinking.

'I don't understand why the Europeans want clearing. There's confusion
about what it is. The idea of 74,000 jobs being at risk is ridiculous,
it's more like 74.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5081299/May-faces-Tory-Remoaner-revolt-Brexit-Bill.html#ixzz4yU62YC8S
Post by Altroy1
Theresa may wouldn't be baulking at the prospect of the cliff edge if the
EU were the burden the Brexit mindset portrays.
What's your evidence that Mrs May is "baulking" at such a prospect?
What's your evidence that there will be a "cliff edge"?
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
should make compensatory payments to us. Trump is having the same sort
of discussions with China right now.
You have the figures to hand?
I'm sure you can google the balances of trade.
Post by Altroy1
The relative deficit that MAGA has with the
Chinese in manufactures and services. How does that compare with the UK and do
you have any idea the amount of EU's finance is being put through the City of
London. And why was it May was over to Merkel begging her to use her influence
to promote a EU/UK deal.
The idea that prosperous countries pay a bit more into the club to provide the
investment needed to raise all boats is simple enough for a four year old to
understand and agree. The Brexit mindset holds to the contrary that "the world
owes us a favour".
Post by James Harris
I would suggest that the EU (and maybe you) have the wrong idea of
trade. It should not be a political weapon but a means of benefiting the
people on all sides. Unfortunately, to the EU it is exactly that: a
political weapon which it wields in order to acquire and maintain
political control.
Now you're dreaming of some utopia where trade will never be used as a weapon?
Businesses and countries make deals all the time with the goal to
improve prosperity. Each side looks out for its own interests and tries
to get what it wants from the negotiations. But the end result helps
everyone involved. The EU is possibly the ONLY bloc on the planet which
uses trade as a weapon to subjugate nations rather than what it should
be - a way of boosting the prosperity of its people. You seem to have
caught the EU's mindset.

...
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
By contrast, nations like Scotland are at present net beneficiaries.
Questionable.
Last time I looked, Scotland's 9.4% deficit was not "questionable":
http://pensites.com/politics/article-1099/Why-do-SNP-warn-against-Brexit
Post by Altroy1
Anyway the Brexit mindset would adamantly oppose Scottish
independence whatever its net contribution status was. Impoverished Kosovo was
hardly the biggest net contributor to Serbia's budget, yet Serbia was prepared
to take a very big hit indeed in terms of finance and lost tourism just to keep
a hold of it including by means of military force.
[...]
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
The EU does need to democratise more. That does not render the concept of the SM
and its political and legal framework by definition being
intrinsically evil.
I don't accuse it of evil. But it is inept politically. I don't know why
but I think it may have something to do with European history and their
desire to put togetherness (for some definition of the term) before
pragmatic economics. At any rate, it's not a good place for the UK to be.
The Ancient rivalry between France and Germany. In the 1050s Winston Churchill
proposed a post-war united states of Europe. A few years later the European Coal
and Steel Community was born.
So?

...
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
While I am not concerned about what Brexit will bring in the long term,
what does concern me is the uncertainty caused by the /process/ of
getting out. We just have to get through this difficult period. And rest
Adressed by https://twitter.com/mrjamesob many times. He how would you feel if
you were sold an ice cream, he asked, only to find a year later you had bought a
grilled squirrel. Would you try and claim that you really wanted the grilled
squirrel all along?
No. But isn't that exactly what has happened to the Common Market which
became the EU? In 1975 we were happy with the ice cream. We never wanted
the squirrel. And when we the people were finally asked, we said so.
No. The 1975 leave campaign pointed out the wording in the Treaty of Rome "ever
closer union" and warned that the Hotel EEC would soon be offering more than ice
cream on the menu. The stay campaign pointed out that the Hotel EEC may take
over some more properties but that would benefit all residents with more choice.
Fast forward to 2017. In February Owen Paterson said that the EU's "easily"
going to be persuaded to give the UK a FTA. In October a certain Owen Paterson
said it was always on the cards that leaving meant no deal.
I don't know what Owen Paterson said on that, or whether your claims of
what he said can be substantiated. I've already seen the lying Open
Britain campaign (Remain pressure group) deliberately distort Paterson's
words about the single market by careful editing.

But the point that Remainers often seem to overlook is that many of us
didn't judge Brexit by what other people said. We made our own minds up.
Someone else's opinion - whether it's on the TV or on a bus - is
interesting but it is largely irrelevant to me and my conclusion that
Brexit would be the best option for the UK.
Post by Altroy1
James O'Brien asked which Owen Paterson do you believe? The Owen paterson of
February 2017 or the one in October?
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
He said that the case for Brexit was sold as a quick cash
fix for the NHS on the side of a lying battlebus and a year later the cash to
the NHS bonanza is turning into a no deal fiasco.
Obviously, there are not just Remainers who are ignorant of the EU but
also Remainers who fail to understand their fellow citizens.
?!
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
assured, this period is going far better than I expected. I was prepared
for worse!
Post by James Harris
work with them because that benefits everyone. Similar applies to lots
of areas. The UK would be more givers than takers. And the EU side knows
it.
The EU knows that to give an overly generous deal to the UK will damage its
internal coherence by fueling continental Eurosceptics such as Geert Wilders and
Marine Le Pen. Therefore the economic arguments will not be the only
considerations on Mr Barnier's mind.
The EU faces a much bigger danger. If the UK does better outside the EU
than it did inside, what do you think will happen?
The UK may be a little better off,
IMO we'll be relatively worse off in the short term but if the
government gets it right we should be significantly better off as a
country in the longer term, with our growth rate being greater than that
of the EU which will continue to be moribund and enmeshed in its
political goals at the expense of prosperity.
--
James Harris
Altroy1
2017-11-15 12:08:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
...
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
The EU makes more out of trade with the UK than the UK does out of trade
with the EU. Of course /we/ shouldn't pay for that. If anything, they
Try taking that message to the City of London's financial hub. See how far you
get.
JOB LOSS CLAIMS RUBBISHED
The chief executive of Germany's biggest bank has rubbished European
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-23/ecb-bids-for-power-over-euro-clearing-as-brexit-debate-heats-up

The European Central Bank made a play for power over London's
lucrative clearing industry, cranking up the pressure on an issue
that has become a flash point in the Brexit talks that began this
week.

The Frankfurt-based ECB is pushing for a change to the European
Union law that provides the legal basis for its monetary policy. It
seeks "clear legal competence in the area of central clearing" of
euro-denominated financial contracts, giving it more control over
non-EU clearinghouses -- including those in the U.K. after Brexit --
that are deemed systemically important to the bloc's financial
markets.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/10/30/goldman-sachs-boss-lloyd-blankfein-has-another-dig-brexit-twitter/

http://news.sky.com/story/goldman-boss-signals-brexit-shift-to-frankfurt-in-tweet-11088162

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/27/brexit-is-a-god-given-opportunity-to-steal-trade-from-uk-wilbur-ross.html

http://news.sky.com/story/report-says-brexit-will-create-some-80000-jobs-in-frankfurt-11004308
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Theresa may wouldn't be baulking at the prospect of the cliff edge if the
EU were the burden the Brexit mindset portrays.
What's your evidence that Mrs May is "baulking" at such a prospect?
What's your evidence that there will be a "cliff edge"?
Leaked statements. Suggestions that the agreed exit bill is already rather a lot
more than 20 £billion.
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
should make compensatory payments to us. Trump is having the same sort
of discussions with China right now.
You have the figures to hand?
I'm sure you can google the balances of trade.
I could but you made the assertion. Verdict: not proven.
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Now you're dreaming of some utopia where trade will never be used as a weapon?
Businesses and countries make deals all the time with the goal to
improve prosperity. Each side looks out for its own interests and tries
to get what it wants from the negotiations. But the end result helps
everyone involved.
Just after you claimed that

The EU makes more out of trade with the UK than the UK does out of
trade with the EU. Of course /we/ shouldn't pay for that. If
anything, they should make compensatory payments to us. Trump is
having the same sort of discussions with China right now.

China's present trade situation is not helping, so MAGA is having discussions to
try and bring China into line. MAGA cant bully China so easily as Canada so warm
words instead of a 300% tariff about the huge trade deficit being the fault of
previous occupants of the White House.

Meanwhile, no sign of that utopia where quote "the end result helps
everyone involved".
Post by James Harris
The EU is possibly the ONLY bloc on the planet which
uses trade as a weapon to subjugate nations rather than what it should
Unless you call the UK a bloc and its threat to punish Scottish independence by
withdrawing access to the UK's national currency and Single Market. Unless you
call Spain a bloc (what with its nations including Galicia, Basque/Euskudia and
Navarre) punishing Catalonia by withdrawing banks and other measures to teach
Catalonia that independence does not pay. Then there are all these wars to stop
independence: Biafra in 1970, the brutal breakup of the Yugoslav republic, the
brutal American Civil war etc. Yeah right that the wicked EU is the only example
of a wicked economic bloc in the book of world history. Believe in the tooth
fairy first.

Far from subjugating the UK, the EU has a history of appeasing UK Euroscepticsm
by pandering to their climate change denying, NO2AV, workers rights hating, love
of MAGA mindset with repeated opt-outs from the Social Chapter and other rules.
It didnt work. The demands of the Eurosceptics were fired up by the repeated
appeasement and became more and more shrill. The EU have finally woken up from
this and will stall the current negotiations to the nth degree and will pay
little heed to the Eurosceptics that are claiming they are the real victims of
all this and that because "they need us more than we need them" it is the EU
that should pay the Eurosceptics for access to their market.
Post by James Harris
be - a way of boosting the prosperity of its people. You seem to have
caught the EU's mindset.
...
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
By contrast, nations like Scotland are at present net beneficiaries.
Questionable.
http://pensites.com/politics/article-1099/Why-do-SNP-warn-against-Brexit
But you wrote "net beneficiaries" now you divert to some (also questionable)
calculation of a deficit.Yes Scotland's 2014 position "We want to leave. By the
way we still want to use your currency and have unfettered access to your Single
Market as if nothing has happened" Better off together, 2014: "Leave if you want
but forget about using our currency and access to the our Single Market"

The Eurosecptic's 2016 referendum position: "We want to leave. By the way we
still want the City of London to have all the passporting rights and otherwise
trade as if nothing has happened." The EU: If you want to continue passporting
rights to European Financial bodies, forget about trying to get away from the
rules. If you want to have unfettered access to our Single Market, then say
goodbye to your dreams of a MAGA FTA warm embrace.

[...]
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Fast forward to 2017. In February Owen Paterson said that the EU's "easily"
going to be persuaded to give the UK a FTA. In October a certain Owen Paterson
said it was always on the cards that leaving meant no deal.
I don't know what Owen Paterson said on that, or whether your claims of
what he said can be substantiated. I've already seen the lying Open
Britain campaign (Remain pressure group) deliberately distort Paterson's
words about the single market by careful editing.
Here. Let me help:

http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/james-obriens-proof-brexiteers-have-completely-cha/

James played exerts of interviews given by Chris Grayling, Owen
Paterson and Nigel Lawson to show how the three Tories had now
u-turned on statements they'd previously made.

The revelation left James simply dumbfounded as he questioned
how Brexiteers could cheer both polar opposite pronouncements by
the same trio.

In October 2016, Mr Grayling said "of course" there will be a
free trade agreement secured in a "relatively short period of
time".

However, last week, the Transport Secretary asked "did anybody
honestly think we were going to walk into a room with the
European Union, shake hands and do a deal in half hour?"

In January, Mr Paterson described the idea of leaving without a
deal as "like saying what's the economy going to do if we have
no electricity" adding "it's not going to happen".

But just yesterday the former Secretary of State for the
Environment said in an interview that a no deal was now
"inevitable".

And finally, Nigel Lawson in February 2016 said: "We will
continue to trade with the EU as the rest of the world does
today almost certainly assisted by a bi-lateral free trade
agreement."

However, this month, the former chancellor said a no deal had
always been the "most likely outcome".
Post by James Harris
But the point that Remainers often seem to overlook is that many of us
didn't judge Brexit by what other people said. We made our own minds up.
Someone else's opinion - whether it's on the TV or on a bus - is
interesting but it is largely irrelevant to me and my conclusion that
Brexit would be the best option for the UK.
What was on that battlebus was a means to an end. Its not whether or not that
claim on the side met any objective definition of truth or falsity. What counted
was whether it would meet the requirement of the leave campaign.

Why the leave campaign is so powerful in the UK is no historical mystery. The
French vetoed the UK's entry to the EEC back in the 1960s giving the same
reasons back then which explain why the leave side is still so powerful in 2017:
A powerful section of the UK establishment's attachment to the USA, the
Commonwealth and perhaps most important the Adam Smith love affair with the all
wise and knowing child chimney sweeps to their death market. Owen Paterson is
one of many examples of this climate change denying, Adrian Beecroft report and
fossil-fuel loving, Tate and Lyle AKA American Sugar Refining - get us out now
mentality:

https://www.owenpaterson.org/campaigns/why-brexit-great-uk-and-usa

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/16/owen-paterson-fracking-would-be-boon-for-poorest-parts-of-the-uk

https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/owen-patersons-brilliant-brexit-patter

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/brexit-latest-news-owen-paterson-eu-single-market-access-pay-tariff-barriers-trade-goods-services-a7845776.html
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
James O'Brien asked which Owen Paterson do you believe? The Owen paterson of
February 2017 or the one in October?
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
He said that the case for Brexit was sold as a quick cash
fix for the NHS on the side of a lying battlebus and a year later the cash to
the NHS bonanza is turning into a no deal fiasco.
Obviously, there are not just Remainers who are ignorant of the EU but
also Remainers who fail to understand their fellow citizens.
?!
[...]
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
The EU faces a much bigger danger. If the UK does better outside the EU
than it did inside, what do you think will happen?
The UK may be a little better off,
IMO we'll be relatively worse off in the short term but if the
So no immediate flow of £350 million more each week to the NHS.
Post by James Harris
government gets it right we should be significantly better off as a
country in the longer term, with our growth rate being greater than that
of the EU which will continue to be moribund and enmeshed in its
political goals at the expense of prosperity.
The above paragraph in one word: faith.

The world's fastest growing economies are, er, um Djbouti, Ethiopia, Ghana,
India... possibly growing so fast because they are miles behind the EU.

No change from the Barbara Castle get us out now slogan back in 1975 "Out and
into the world".

James O'Brien (half humming/singing George Michael) "Gotta have faith, the faith
the faith...."
James Harris
2017-11-15 16:45:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
The EU makes more out of trade with the UK than the UK does out of trade
with the EU. Of course /we/ shouldn't pay for that. If anything, they
Try taking that message to the City of London's financial hub. See how far you
get.
JOB LOSS CLAIMS RUBBISHED
The chief executive of Germany's biggest bank has rubbished European
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-23/ecb-bids-for-power-over-euro-clearing-as-brexit-debate-heats-up
The European Central Bank made a play for power over London's
lucrative clearing industry, cranking up the pressure on an issue
that has become a flash point in the Brexit talks that began this
week.
The Frankfurt-based ECB is pushing for a change to the European
Union law that provides the legal basis for its monetary policy. It
seeks "clear legal competence in the area of central clearing" of
euro-denominated financial contracts, giving it more control over
non-EU clearinghouses -- including those in the U.K. after Brexit --
that are deemed systemically important to the bloc's financial
markets.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/10/30/goldman-sachs-boss-lloyd-blankfein-has-another-dig-brexit-twitter/
http://news.sky.com/story/goldman-boss-signals-brexit-shift-to-frankfurt-in-tweet-11088162
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/27/brexit-is-a-god-given-opportunity-to-steal-trade-from-uk-wilbur-ross.html
http://news.sky.com/story/report-says-brexit-will-create-some-80000-jobs-in-frankfurt-11004308
Of those, the only valid one is the comment by Wilbur Ross. The rest
sound more like lobbying.
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Theresa may wouldn't be baulking at the prospect of the cliff edge if the
EU were the burden the Brexit mindset portrays.
What's your evidence that Mrs May is "baulking" at such a prospect?
What's your evidence that there will be a "cliff edge"?
Leaked statements. Suggestions that the agreed exit bill is already rather a lot
more than 20 £billion.
Alleged leaks are not evidence. Not even close!
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
should make compensatory payments to us. Trump is having the same sort
of discussions with China right now.
You have the figures to hand?
I'm sure you can google the balances of trade.
I could but you made the assertion. Verdict: not proven.
If you wanted me to prove it (rather than to find the figures) you
should have said so. I am surprised you want proof. The two matters have
been all over the news.
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Now you're dreaming of some utopia where trade will never be used as a weapon?
Businesses and countries make deals all the time with the goal to
improve prosperity. Each side looks out for its own interests and tries
to get what it wants from the negotiations. But the end result helps
everyone involved.
Just after you claimed that
The EU makes more out of trade with the UK than the UK does out of
trade with the EU. Of course /we/ shouldn't pay for that. If
anything, they should make compensatory payments to us. Trump is
having the same sort of discussions with China right now.
China's present trade situation is not helping, so MAGA is having discussions to
try and bring China into line. MAGA cant bully China so easily as Canada so warm
words instead of a 300% tariff about the huge trade deficit being the fault of
previous occupants of the White House.
Meanwhile, no sign of that utopia where quote "the end result helps
everyone involved".
Post by James Harris
The EU is possibly the ONLY bloc on the planet which
uses trade as a weapon to subjugate nations rather than what it should
Unless you call the UK a bloc and its threat to punish Scottish independence by
withdrawing access to the UK's national currency and Single Market. Unless you
call Spain a bloc (what with its nations including Galicia, Basque/Euskudia and
Navarre) punishing Catalonia by withdrawing banks and other measures to teach
Catalonia that independence does not pay. Then there are all these wars to stop
independence: Biafra in 1970, the brutal breakup of the Yugoslav republic, the
brutal American Civil war etc. Yeah right that the wicked EU is the only example
of a wicked economic bloc in the book of world history. Believe in the tooth
fairy first.
Far from subjugating the UK, the EU has a history of appeasing UK Euroscepticsm
by pandering to their climate change denying, NO2AV, workers rights hating, love
of MAGA mindset with repeated opt-outs from the Social Chapter and other rules.
It didnt work. The demands of the Eurosceptics were fired up by the repeated
appeasement and became more and more shrill. The EU have finally woken up from
this and will stall the current negotiations to the nth degree and will pay
little heed to the Eurosceptics that are claiming they are the real victims of
all this and that because "they need us more than we need them" it is the EU
that should pay the Eurosceptics for access to their market.
Post by James Harris
be - a way of boosting the prosperity of its people. You seem to have
caught the EU's mindset.
...
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
By contrast, nations like Scotland are at present net beneficiaries.
Questionable.
http://pensites.com/politics/article-1099/Why-do-SNP-warn-against-Brexit
But you wrote "net beneficiaries"
Of course! That 9.4% is not made up by borrowing - at least not by
Scotland. And it doesn't come from the tooth fairy!
Post by Altroy1
now you divert to some (also questionable)
calculation of a deficit.
That would be the OECD's "questionable" calculation, would it? You'll
have to take your criticisms up with the source.

Isn't the really "questionable" thing about the calculation that you
don't want to believe it...?
Post by Altroy1
Yes Scotland's 2014 position "We want to leave. By the
way we still want to use your currency and have unfettered access to your Single
Market as if nothing has happened" Better off together, 2014: "Leave if you want
but forget about using our currency and access to the our Single Market"
The Eurosecptic's 2016 referendum position: "We want to leave. By the way we
still want the City of London to have all the passporting rights and otherwise
trade as if nothing has happened." The EU: If you want to continue passporting
rights to European Financial bodies, forget about trying to get away from the
rules. If you want to have unfettered access to our Single Market, then say
goodbye to your dreams of a MAGA FTA warm embrace.
No, I want City firms to set up offices on the continent, and NOT to
hold out for passporting rights.
Post by Altroy1
[...]
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Fast forward to 2017. In February Owen Paterson said that the EU's "easily"
going to be persuaded to give the UK a FTA. In October a certain Owen Paterson
said it was always on the cards that leaving meant no deal.
I don't know what Owen Paterson said on that, or whether your claims of
what he said can be substantiated. I've already seen the lying Open
Britain campaign (Remain pressure group) deliberately distort Paterson's
words about the single market by careful editing.
http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/james-obriens-proof-brexiteers-have-completely-cha/
James played exerts of interviews given by Chris Grayling, Owen
Paterson and Nigel Lawson to show how the three Tories had now
u-turned on statements they'd previously made.
I'll ignore Grayling as I think he is a waste of space and I find Lawson
interesting but not always credible. But before listening to all of it I
will comment on Paterson.
Post by Altroy1
The revelation left James simply dumbfounded as he questioned
how Brexiteers could cheer both polar opposite pronouncements by
the same trio.
In October 2016, Mr Grayling said "of course" there will be a
free trade agreement secured in a "relatively short period of
time".
However, last week, the Transport Secretary asked "did anybody
honestly think we were going to walk into a room with the
European Union, shake hands and do a deal in half hour?"
In January, Mr Paterson described the idea of leaving without a
deal as "like saying what's the economy going to do if we have
no electricity" adding "it's not going to happen".
Fine.
Post by Altroy1
But just yesterday the former Secretary of State for the
Environment said in an interview that a no deal was now
"inevitable".
No, you've taken him out of context, haven't you! When I listened to it
he said it was "inevitable deal AT THE MOMENT". That is not the same at
all, in two respects:

1. Paterson originally said there would be a deal. We don't know yet
what will happen but that is very, very likely to be correct. Even if
there is not a comprehensive trade deal the idea of there being no deal
whatsoever is risible. IMO a complete no-deal would only happen if there
were to be an acrimonious rupture in the talks. Possible but Davis is
doing a brilliant job, IMO, in maintaining a friendly attitude in the
face of intransigence and stupidity from the other side.

2. Something which is not happening "at the moment" is not necessarily
never going to happen. Notably, your friend O'Brien misrepresented what
Paterson said. O'Brien claimed he had said there would be "no chance
whatsoever". That's a lie. In the clips he played Paterson did not say
that. Then O'Brien says "on a moral level how can he do that?" He is
accusing Paterson of questionable morals while misrepresenting what he,
Paterson, said.

That just confirms my previous impression that O'Brien is a bit of a
thug who is out to deceive. The man is a liar. And as far as I can see
from the clip, he did not have the people he accuses on to give them a
right to reply. He is essentially a slanderer. You are being taken in by
him.
--
James Harris
James Harris
2017-11-16 17:27:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 15/11/2017 16:45, James Harris wrote:

...
Post by James Harris
That just confirms my previous impression that O'Brien is a bit of a
thug who is out to deceive. The man is a liar. And as far as I can see
from the clip, he did not have the people he accuses on to give them a
right to reply. He is essentially a slanderer. You are being taken in by
him.
Sorry if that last post appeared angry. I was genuinely angry with
O'Brien (albeit quietly so) but not at all with Altroy1 or anyone here.
What made me angry was O'Brien using falsehoods to trash someone's
reputation when that person wasn't, apparently, present to be able to
put the record straight.

Re. my post, I decided to check the word I'd used and I found this:

Slander: oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an
untruth about another which untruth will harm the reputation of the
person defamed. https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/slander

It's a strong word but I would stick by it. O'Brien was misrepresenting
what Paterson said, and was clearly putting forward a false impression
of Paterson, of Brexit and of Paterson's morals. That's a pretty odious
thing to do!
--
James Harris
Altroy1
2017-11-17 10:42:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
...
Post by James Harris
That just confirms my previous impression that O'Brien is a bit of a
thug who is out to deceive. The man is a liar. And as far as I can see
from the clip, he did not have the people he accuses on to give them a
right to reply. He is essentially a slanderer. You are being taken in by
him.
Sorry if that last post appeared angry. I was genuinely angry with
O'Brien (albeit quietly so) but not at all with Altroy1 or anyone here.
For my part there is no apology expected. Nothing in your previous post I
thought contained any personal animus.
James Harris
2017-11-17 10:27:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
...
Post by James Harris
That just confirms my previous impression that O'Brien is a bit of a
thug who is out to deceive. The man is a liar. And as far as I can see
from the clip, he did not have the people he accuses on to give them a
right to reply. He is essentially a slanderer. You are being taken in by
him.
Sorry if that last post appeared angry. I was genuinely angry with
O'Brien (albeit quietly so) but not at all with Altroy1 or anyone here.
For my part there is no apology expected. Nothing in your previous post I
thought contained any personal animus.
Cool. :-)
--
James Harris
MM
2017-11-17 10:34:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 17:27:04 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
It's a strong word but I would stick by it. O'Brien was misrepresenting
what Paterson said, and was clearly putting forward a false impression
of Paterson, of Brexit and of Paterson's morals. That's a pretty odious
thing to do!
I doubt whether O'Brien did any such thing. Whenever I've heard him,
he only ever talks about facts.

It is far more likely for someone like Owen Paterson to dissemble. He
is a rabid Brexiter and is getting increasingly irate as remainers
keep pointing out to him the false assumptions he continues to make.

It would be interesting to hear his opinion on Grimsby's attempt to
become a free port after Brexit in order to avoid import duties. The
Grimsby area voted overwhelmingly for Brexit.

MM

Altroy1
2017-11-17 10:40:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
James Harris wrote:
[...]
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/27/brexit-is-a-god-given-opportunity-to-steal-trade-from-uk-wilbur-ross.html
http://news.sky.com/story/report-says-brexit-will-create-some-80000-jobs-in-frankfurt-11004308
Of those, the only valid one is the comment by Wilbur Ross. The rest
sound more like lobbying.
Lobbying. Hmm. Yes. More in a minute about that.

[...]
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
I don't know what Owen Paterson said on that, or whether your claims of
what he said can be substantiated. I've already seen the lying Open
Britain campaign (Remain pressure group) deliberately distort Paterson's
words about the single market by careful editing.
http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/james-obriens-proof-brexiteers-have-completely-cha/
James played exerts of interviews given by Chris Grayling, Owen
Paterson and Nigel Lawson to show how the three Tories had now
u-turned on statements they'd previously made.
I'll ignore Grayling as I think he is a waste of space and I find Lawson
interesting but not always credible. But before listening to all of it I
will comment on Paterson.
Post by Altroy1
The revelation left James simply dumbfounded as he questioned
how Brexiteers could cheer both polar opposite pronouncements by
the same trio.
In October 2016, Mr Grayling said "of course" there will be a
free trade agreement secured in a "relatively short period of
time".
However, last week, the Transport Secretary asked "did anybody
honestly think we were going to walk into a room with the
European Union, shake hands and do a deal in half hour?"
In January, Mr Paterson described the idea of leaving without a
deal as "like saying what's the economy going to do if we have
no electricity" adding "it's not going to happen".
Fine.
Post by Altroy1
But just yesterday the former Secretary of State for the
Environment said in an interview that a no deal was now
"inevitable".
No, you've taken him out of context, haven't you! When I listened to it
he said it was "inevitable deal AT THE MOMENT". That is not the same at
OK I have just listened to Paterson being interviewed. Original assertion: We
are going to have a deal. Talk of no deal is like running without electricity.
"massive trade surphlus with us - will want to continue trading". Blah, blah etc
etc.

But now, Patersons latest wheeze is no deal looking "inevitable":

"At the moment it is, because they're [the EU] flatly refusing to talk about it"

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/owen-paterson-uk-should-not-be-terrified-inevitable-no-deal-brexit-1643750

He said: "[At the moment] it is inevitable, with ineluctable
certainty, that we're going to end up with WTO at the end of
this anyway. So what we're saying is it would be much better
to state that now, give business and all our administrative
organisations certainty so they can begin to prepare."

He added: "We have to face the fact that this summit is not
going to discuss any future trade deal. We are ineluctably
moving down the road to a WTO arrangement so we had better
start preparing for it."

In October 2016, Paterson described how the UK will arrive for
negotiations with the EU "from a position of strength" despite
being "bombarded by Project Fear".

Writing on his website, he added: "Britain continues to hire,
spend and grow. We are the same outward looking,
globally-minded country that we were before the summer and
before the referendum.

"We voted to 'Leave' but we remain open for business and I
remain optimistic for the months ahead."

The use of the caveat "at the moment" is not a complete get out of gaol free
card. Paterson has shifted from the previous position of "they need us more than
we need them" to "at present it doesnt look like a deal". That is a change of
emphasis and James is not wrong though the excerpt on the LBC website should
have better included the "at the moment" (partial) caveat.

And there is really one matter that James O'B might have addressed his mind to
and that is whether there is some lobbying going on. The Brexit camp could be
kiteflyng or signal-sending NB trying to "threaten" the EU with walking away.
The Eurosceptics problem is that the EU will not be negotiating on the pure
economics alone (and therefore will take a hit) and the EU does not(along with
anyone sensible) believe it needs the UK more than the UK needs it. That notion
was always a Eurosceptic fantasy.

Imagine walking into Tescos: "I want a discount. Give me 20% reduction on all
prices. You sell to me more than I sell to you. Give me what I want or I'll shop
elsewhere!!"
Post by James Harris
1. Paterson originally said there would be a deal. We don't know yet
what will happen but that is very, very likely to be correct. Even if
there is not a comprehensive trade deal the idea of there being no deal
whatsoever is risible. IMO a complete no-deal would only happen if there
were to be an acrimonious rupture in the talks. Possible but Davis is
doing a brilliant job, IMO, in maintaining a friendly attitude in the
face of intransigence and stupidity from the other side.
Yes there is likely to be a deal, but its a deal which the EU will deem not
encouragement of separatism in other parts of the EU. Therefore the Paterson
previous wheeze about a zero tariff comprehensive free-trade deal is not looking
so likely.
Post by James Harris
2. Something which is not happening "at the moment" is not necessarily
never going to happen. Notably, your friend O'Brien misrepresented what
Paterson said. O'Brien claimed he had said there would be "no chance
whatsoever". That's a lie. In the clips he played Paterson did not say
that. Then O'Brien says "on a moral level how can he do that?" He is
accusing Paterson of questionable morals while misrepresenting what he,
Paterson, said.
James is capable of hyperbole, of course he is. He cites the case of Belgium to
imply that the EU's rules do not prevent Britain controling its borders. If he
had used the words "having more control" (by adopting the Belgian rules) he
would have been more accurate.

The matter remains, though, that the Leave camp had been talking up the
prospects of a business as usual trade deal. There is a clear more recent change
of tune from Brexit's leading lights. Clown BOJO once suggested the EU "can go
whistle" for a large exit payment. Apparently BOJO more recently dislikes the
sound of Barnier's whistle a little less and is listening rather than speaking out.

The fact that the Remain Camp, or James O'Brien have engaged in hyperbole is no
excuse for a brazen lie on a battlebus, the boastful assertions that they need
us and are going to give us a wonderful deal, the assertions about a brave
bright world out there brimming with lovely deals such as one with MAGA.
Post by James Harris
That just confirms my previous impression that O'Brien is a bit of a
thug who is out to deceive. The man is a liar. And as far as I can see
from the clip, he did not have the people he accuses on to give them a
right to reply. He is essentially a slanderer. You are being taken in by
him.
Last time I checked, James was having trouble persuading Eurosceptics to what he
says "grow a pair" and call in to his show. If people refuse to come on to
debate with him, he can use excerpts from other people's interviews. I would
love to hear him go head to head with Lawson, Paterson or Grayling.

Yes I accept that James should tone down the sneering (some of the more racist
callers or idiots do deserve it - like one caller that demanded a previous
caller, a Muslim, apologise for the attack outside Parliament). But not all of
them do. So if James tones it down there could be some quite good debates on his
show.
pamela
2017-11-16 02:04:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
...
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
The EU makes more out of trade with the UK than the UK does
out of trade with the EU. Of course /we/ shouldn't pay for
that. If anything, they
Try taking that message to the City of London's financial hub.
See how far you get.
JOB LOSS CLAIMS RUBBISHED
The chief executive of Germany's biggest bank has rubbished
European
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-23/ecb-
bids-for-power-over-euro-clearing-as-brexit-debate-heats-up
The European Central Bank made a play for power over
London's lucrative clearing industry, cranking up the
pressure on an issue that has become a flash point in the
Brexit talks that began this week.
The Frankfurt-based ECB is pushing for a change to the
European Union law that provides the legal basis for its
monetary policy. It seeks "clear legal competence in the
area of central clearing" of euro-denominated financial
contracts, giving it more control over non-EU clearinghouses
-- including those in the U.K. after Brexit -- that are
deemed systemically important to the bloc's financial
markets.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/10/30/goldman-
sachs-boss-lloyd-blankfein-has-another-dig-brexit-twitter/
http://news.sky.com/story/goldman-boss-signals-brexit-shift-
to-frankfurt-in-tweet-11088162
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/27/brexit-is-a-god-given-
opportunity-to-steal-trade-from-uk-wilbur-ross.html
http://news.sky.com/story/report-says-brexit-will-create-
some-80000-jobs-in-frankfurt-11004308
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Theresa may wouldn't be baulking at the prospect of the cliff
edge if the EU were the burden the Brexit mindset portrays.
What's your evidence that Mrs May is "baulking" at such a
prospect? What's your evidence that there will be a "cliff
edge"?
Leaked statements. Suggestions that the agreed exit bill is
already rather a lot more than 20 £billion.
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
should make compensatory payments to us. Trump is having the
same sort of discussions with China right now.
You have the figures to hand?
I'm sure you can google the balances of trade.
I could but you made the assertion. Verdict: not proven.
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Now you're dreaming of some utopia where trade will never be
used as a weapon?
Businesses and countries make deals all the time with the goal
to improve prosperity. Each side looks out for its own
interests and tries to get what it wants from the negotiations.
But the end result helps everyone involved.
Just after you claimed that
The EU makes more out of trade with the UK than the UK does
out of trade with the EU. Of course /we/ shouldn't pay for
that. If anything, they should make compensatory payments to
us. Trump is having the same sort of discussions with China
right now.
China's present trade situation is not helping, so MAGA is
having discussions to try and bring China into line. MAGA cant
bully China so easily as Canada so warm words instead of a 300%
tariff about the huge trade deficit being the fault of previous
occupants of the White House.
Meanwhile, no sign of that utopia where quote "the end result
helps everyone involved".
Post by James Harris
The EU is possibly the ONLY bloc on the planet which uses trade
as a weapon to subjugate nations rather than what it should
Unless you call the UK a bloc and its threat to punish Scottish
independence by withdrawing access to the UK's national currency
and Single Market. Unless you call Spain a bloc (what with its
nations including Galicia, Basque/Euskudia and Navarre)
punishing Catalonia by withdrawing banks and other measures to
teach Catalonia that independence does not pay. Then there are
all these wars to stop independence: Biafra in 1970, the brutal
breakup of the Yugoslav republic, the brutal American Civil war
etc. Yeah right that the wicked EU is the only example of a
wicked economic bloc in the book of world history. Believe in
the tooth fairy first.
Far from subjugating the UK, the EU has a history of appeasing
UK Euroscepticsm by pandering to their climate change denying,
NO2AV, workers rights hating, love of MAGA mindset with repeated
opt-outs from the Social Chapter and other rules. It didnt work.
The demands of the Eurosceptics were fired up by the repeated
appeasement and became more and more shrill. The EU have finally
woken up from this and will stall the current negotiations to
the nth degree and will pay little heed to the Eurosceptics that
are claiming they are the real victims of all this and that
because "they need us more than we need them" it is the EU that
should pay the Eurosceptics for access to their market.
Post by James Harris
be - a way of boosting the prosperity of its people. You seem
to have caught the EU's mindset.
...
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
By contrast, nations like Scotland are at present net
beneficiaries.
Questionable.
Last time I looked, Scotland's 9.4% deficit was not
http://pensites.com/politics/article-1099/Why-do-SNP-warn-
against-Brexit
But you wrote "net beneficiaries" now you divert to some (also
questionable) calculation of a deficit.Yes Scotland's 2014
position "We want to leave. By the way we still want to use your
currency and have unfettered access to your Single Market as if
nothing has happened" Better off together, 2014: "Leave if you
want but forget about using our currency and access to the our
Single Market"
The Eurosecptic's 2016 referendum position: "We want to leave.
By the way we still want the City of London to have all the
passporting rights and otherwise trade as if nothing has
happened." The EU: If you want to continue passporting rights to
European Financial bodies, forget about trying to get away from
the rules. If you want to have unfettered access to our Single
Market, then say goodbye to your dreams of a MAGA FTA warm
embrace.
[...]
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Fast forward to 2017. In February Owen Paterson said that the
EU's "easily" going to be persuaded to give the UK a FTA. In
October a certain Owen Paterson said it was always on the
cards that leaving meant no deal.
I don't know what Owen Paterson said on that, or whether your
claims of what he said can be substantiated. I've already seen
the lying Open Britain campaign (Remain pressure group)
deliberately distort Paterson's words about the single market
by careful editing.
http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/james-
obriens-proof-brexiteers-have-completely-cha/
James played exerts of interviews given by Chris Grayling,
Owen Paterson and Nigel Lawson to show how the three Tories
had now u-turned on statements they'd previously made.
The revelation left James simply dumbfounded as he questioned
how Brexiteers could cheer both polar opposite pronouncements
by the same trio.
In October 2016, Mr Grayling said "of course" there will be a
free trade agreement secured in a "relatively short period of
time".
However, last week, the Transport Secretary asked "did
anybody honestly think we were going to walk into a room with
the European Union, shake hands and do a deal in half hour?"
In January, Mr Paterson described the idea of leaving without
a deal as "like saying what's the economy going to do if we
have no electricity" adding "it's not going to happen".
But just yesterday the former Secretary of State for the
Environment said in an interview that a no deal was now
"inevitable".
And finally, Nigel Lawson in February 2016 said: "We will
continue to trade with the EU as the rest of the world does
today almost certainly assisted by a bi-lateral free trade
agreement."
However, this month, the former chancellor said a no deal had
always been the "most likely outcome".
Post by James Harris
But the point that Remainers often seem to overlook is that
many of us didn't judge Brexit by what other people said. We
made our own minds up. Someone else's opinion - whether it's on
the TV or on a bus - is interesting but it is largely
irrelevant to me and my conclusion that Brexit would be the
best option for the UK.
What was on that battlebus was a means to an end. Its not
whether or not that claim on the side met any objective
definition of truth or falsity. What counted was whether it
would meet the requirement of the leave campaign.
Why the leave campaign is so powerful in the UK is no historical
mystery. The French vetoed the UK's entry to the EEC back in the
1960s giving the same reasons back then which explain why the
leave side is still so powerful in 2017: A powerful section of
the UK establishment's attachment to the USA, the Commonwealth
and perhaps most important the Adam Smith love affair with the
all wise and knowing child chimney sweeps to their death market.
Owen Paterson is one of many examples of this climate change
denying, Adrian Beecroft report and fossil-fuel loving, Tate and
https://www.owenpaterson.org/campaigns/why-brexit-great-
uk-and-usa
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/16/owen-
paterson-fracking-would-be-boon-for-poorest-parts-of-the-uk
https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/owen-patersons-brilliant-
brexit-patter
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-
and-features/brexit-latest-news-owen-paterson-eu-single-
market-access-pay-tariff-barriers-trade-goods-services-
a7845776.html
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
James O'Brien asked which Owen Paterson do you believe? The
Owen paterson of February 2017 or the one in October?
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
He said that the case for Brexit was sold as a quick cash
fix for the NHS on the side of a lying battlebus and a year
later the cash to the NHS bonanza is turning into a no deal
fiasco.
Obviously, there are not just Remainers who are ignorant of
the EU but also Remainers who fail to understand their fellow
citizens.
?!
[...]
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
The EU faces a much bigger danger. If the UK does better
outside the EU than it did inside, what do you think will
happen?
The UK may be a little better off,
IMO we'll be relatively worse off in the short term but if the
So no immediate flow of £350 million more each week to the NHS.
Post by James Harris
government gets it right we should be significantly better off
as a country in the longer term, with our growth rate being
greater than that of the EU which will continue to be moribund
and enmeshed in its political goals at the expense of
prosperity.
The above paragraph in one word: faith.
The world's fastest growing economies are, er, um Djbouti,
Ethiopia, Ghana, India... possibly growing so fast because they
are miles behind the EU.
No change from the Barbara Castle get us out now slogan back in
1975 "Out and into the world".
James O'Brien (half humming/singing George Michael) "Gotta have
faith, the faith the faith...."
That's far too long for me to read but I can tell you this....
when you catch James out using dodgy data he will, like Trump, dig
in and claim he is right and product yet more dodgy data to back
up the original dodgy data. And more. And more.

I kill filed him after he tried to milk his misleading claim that
the Tories had given a clearly written "pledge" not to hold
another referendum within a generation.

That was after he had insisted on the superiority of the data from
a pre-referendum survey from March 2016 as the very best current
estimate of what lies ahead for Brexit.

That was after his interpretation that all surveys carried
inherent and significant bias no matter which organisation
produced it such thast they could be dismissed.

I gave up.

James may be polite but he's mastered the art of faking sincerity.
James Harris
2017-11-16 08:51:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
...
Post by pamela
Post by Altroy1
James O'Brien (half humming/singing George Michael) "Gotta have
faith, the faith the faith...."
That's far too long for me to read but I can tell you this....
The following is genuinely bizarre, and I will explain why I think so. I
suspect Pamela reacted as she did because she found she could not
counter logical pro-Brexit argument. The facts and figures contradicted
her claims.
Post by pamela
when you catch James out using dodgy data he will, like Trump, dig
in and claim he is right and product yet more dodgy data to back
up the original dodgy data. And more. And more.
I posted data from sources such as the Office for National Statistics
and the World Bank. Yet Pam calls them "dodgy data"? You can read your
own conclusions into that!
Post by pamela
I kill filed him after he tried to milk his misleading claim that
the Tories had given a clearly written "pledge" not to hold
another referendum within a generation.
I don't remember calling it a pledge but as to whether the Tories said
it was a once-in-a-generation vote, judge for yourselves:

http://pensites.com/politics/article-1163/Brexit-vote-once-in-a-generation.

Notably, from that link, the LibDems (who are now calling for another
vote) said the same.
Post by pamela
That was after he had insisted on the superiority of the data from
a pre-referendum survey from March 2016 as the very best current
estimate of what lies ahead for Brexit.
No, I did not make that claim. I said that the pre-referendum negativity
about Brexit was underpinned by pre-referendum claims, including
forecasts which have now been proven to be too negative. The points
being threefold.

1. Such predictions falsely poisoned the minds of many to Brexit,
including Pam's, it would seem, and such people now stubbornly retain
the view that "Brexit will be a disaster".

2. Certain forecasts considered only a reduction in EU trade without
allowing for the UK to make new trade deals around the world. They were,
therefore, bound to be too negative in the long term.

3. Even with the above assumptions, such forecasts predicted good growth
for the UK in the long-term!

E.g. http://pensites.com/politics/article-1169/Brexit-forecast-by-PwC

Some, who want to cling to a mindset which is negative about Brexit,
find such reasoning makes them uncomfortable because they cannot argue
against it.
Post by pamela
That was after his interpretation that all surveys carried
inherent and significant bias no matter which organisation
produced it such thast they could be dismissed.
That's almost right; it's certainly closer to the truth than Pam's other
claims. All forecasts _do_ include elements of the bias of the
forecasters, but I don't say they can simply be dismissed. Their
projections are useful, but they need to be kept in context, and their
limitations need to be borne in mind.

One projection which is very particularly useful is that of those who
are set against Brexit. If /they/ say it will be OK then I cannot think
of a better reassurance. An example of that is the anti-Brexit Treasury
saying we'll get richer after Brexit:

http://pensites.com/politics/article-1130/Treasury-economic-forecast-for-Brexit
Post by pamela
I gave up.
James may be polite but he's mastered the art of faking sincerity.
No, I've been completely straight throughout. I think Pam found she was
running out of argument and got to a point where she no longer wanted to
face the truth.
--
James Harris
Ophelia
2017-11-15 11:36:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"James Harris" wrote in message news:ougsvu$3d2$***@dont-email.me...


IMO we'll be relatively worse off in the short term but if the
government gets it right we should be significantly better off as a
country in the longer term, with our growth rate being greater than that
of the EU which will continue to be moribund and enmeshed in its
political goals at the expense of prosperity.

James Harris

====

I agree with all you say, but as for the EU, I don't see it lasting for
many
years. The countries, especially Germany who pay in, are not going to be
too
happy to make up the £billions they will lose from the UK. The smaller
countries
will not get their freebies either. That money has to be made up from
somewhere
and who is the richest country there ...?

Merkel isn't the most popular girl in the school any more and that can only
get worse.
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
Ophelia
2017-11-11 15:10:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Altroy1
[....]
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Every week we send £350m to Brussels.
I'd rather that we control how to spend that money, and if I had
that control I would spend it on the NHS.
I wasn't impressed with Vote Leave but I have to say that Gisela Stuart
seems to be honest, there: (1) saying she doesn't have control of the
money, (2) saying that she would spend it on the NHS but only if it were
her choice. There's no claim there that the money would go to the NHS.
Post by Altroy1
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/2016/may/23/does-the-eu-really-cost-the-uk-350m-a-week
Verdict
The leave camp might just about have been able to get away with
saying that the UK sends £248m a week to Brussels (which at
least takes account of the rebate). It can argue all it likes
that £350m is a "gross figure". But it cannot, in all
conscience, get away with the use of the word "send".
Wollaston, the IFS, the UK Statistics Authority, Nicola
Sturgeon, Amber Rudd and Angela Eagle are right: Vote Leave's
claim that Britain sends £350m a week to Brussels is a lie.
So when it comes down to it, the 350 is not what upsets people; the only
real objection is the word "send"! Consider the following.
The keyword of deception was the word "send". The cost of EU membership
according to GiesLIAR Stuart was £350 million per week. Post referendum when
challenged by Peston on Sunday she amended her lie to the £350 million that we
don't have control of. This was on the basis of EU funding of UK projects. This
too was disingenuous. It is almost certain that any competent UK government that
gained control of that EU funding would still have to support the poorer regions
and strategic investments. Every penny that such a competent government would so
spend would be according to the lying battlebus logic, be taken from the NHS.
Moreover some of these Brexiteers downright hate the NHS. I'm writing of such as
Daniel J Hannan but if you recall my previous posts you will be across that
story quite well.
In fact if I recall righly arch Be LEAVE er Owen Paterson was on radio assuring
continued agriculture subsidy spending post-Brexit. Looks like the NHS will have
to wait quite some time for that £350 million weekly bonanza.
So you say we don't literally send £350 million but when we leave you
literally want £350 million to go to the NHS...?
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
* The UK "sends" 350m per week to the EU.
* Your employer "pays" you £x,000 per year.
If both talk about the gross amount, why do you object to one but accept
the other...?
Bad analogy. Get a grip. Your Employer agrees to pay you £1000 per week.
With you so far.
Post by Altroy1
However
you employer provides you with a nice house, a car, a mobile phone all expenses
paid
He does...?
Post by Altroy1
and you agree that is worth £500 per week. So each week your employer puts
£500 into your bank acount. To suggest that your employer "sends" you a notional
£1000 per week is the sort of nonsense that was put upon the side of that lying
battlebus.
No, but we might say that we get paid £12,000 a year when our employer
deducts from that our tax and NI.
Post by Altroy1
Whilst the Brexit mindset may moan about how unfair the EU is in valuing the
house or setting the rent, even arch Brexiteer Hannan is dead keen on a swiss
style FTA and has in the past waxed lyrical about the SM. So the idea that the
EU doesnt offer anything or shouldnt get a sub is so much old hot air.
James Harris
==

Methinks someone is flying around in la la land ;-)
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
Loading...