Discussion:
Quick easy free trade deal with USA - no punitive tariffs!
(too old to reply)
R. Mark Clayton
2017-09-27 09:42:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
A few weeks ago there was one of these jolly Brexit bean feasts when Trump announced: -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/09/trump-has-confirmed-britain-will-get-free-trade-deal-west-will/

ha they said the rest of the world will be queuing up to trade with us...

the trouble with Trump is he says one thing one minute and does another the next so now we have: -

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/bombardier-ruling-risks-thousands-belfast-231200569.html
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/uk-world/bombardier-job-fears-over-crippling-us-tariff-of-21963-in-boeing-row-36172924.html

so the reality [if WTO don't intervene] is 220% tariff and thousands of British aircraft workers queuing up for the dole...


What other tariffs might be imposed?
Dairy products 35.4%
Sugars and confectionery 23.6%
Beverages and tobacco 19.6%
Animal products 15.7%
Cereals and preparations 12.8%
Fish and fish products 12.0%
Fruit, vegetables and plants 10.5%
Textiles 6.5%
Coffee, tea 6.1%



Oops - sorry those would be the tariffs into Europe if we leave the customs union...
James Harris
2017-09-27 13:15:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
A few weeks ago there was one of these jolly Brexit bean feasts when Trump announced: -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/09/trump-has-confirmed-britain-will-get-free-trade-deal-west-will/
ha they said the rest of the world will be queuing up to trade with us...
the trouble with Trump is he says one thing one minute and does another the next so now we have: -
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/bombardier-ruling-risks-thousands-belfast-231200569.html
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/uk-world/bombardier-job-fears-over-crippling-us-tariff-of-21963-in-boeing-row-36172924.html
so the reality [if WTO don't intervene] is 220% tariff and thousands of British aircraft workers queuing up for the dole...
AIUI that's a punishment for a trade unfairness, and it's presence was
as a result of a decision by a quasi-judicial body, not by POTUS. If
it's fair and legal then there's no point the British side jumping up
and down complaining. The Brits would not, in that case, be the injured
party.

If it's wrong, on the other hand, then it needs to be corrected.
--
James Harris
pensive hamster
2017-09-27 15:15:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
A few weeks ago there was one of these jolly Brexit bean feasts when Trump announced: -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/09/trump-has-confirmed-britain-will-get-free-trade-deal-west-will/
ha they said the rest of the world will be queuing up to trade with us...
the trouble with Trump is he says one thing one minute and does another the next so now we have: -
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/bombardier-ruling-risks-thousands-belfast-231200569.html
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/uk-world/bombardier-job-fears-over-crippling-us-tariff-of-21963-in-boeing-row-36172924.html
so the reality [if WTO don't intervene] is 220% tariff and thousands of British aircraft workers queuing up for the dole...
AIUI that's a punishment for a trade unfairness, and it's presence was
as a result of a decision by a quasi-judicial body, not by POTUS. If
it's fair and legal then there's no point the British side jumping up
and down complaining. The Brits would not, in that case, be the injured
party.
If it's wrong, on the other hand, then it needs to be corrected.
According to:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41407994
26 September 2017

... While it is true that Bombardier has received billions from the
government of Quebec and the state's pension fund, Boeing has
received more, a lot more, from the US military, Nasa and the
State of Washington over many decades.

Boeing would argue these were commercial arrangements, others
would call them padded contracts amounting to subsidies.

It is widely acknowledged that Boeing's arch rival Airbus would not
exist were it not for huge subsidies from European governments
- but is also widely acknowledged by customers that the competition
between the two has driven competitiveness and innovation.

That is why Bombardier's claim that Boeing is trying to strangle a
new competitor at birth has received widespread sympathy in the
financial press.

The Economist - that bastion of free market principles - called
Boeing's case against Bombardier "a flight of hypocrisy".
Altroy1
2017-09-27 18:19:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[...]
Post by pensive hamster
That is why Bombardier's claim that Boeing is trying to strangle a
new competitor at birth has received widespread sympathy in the
financial press.
The Economist - that bastion of free market principles - called
Boeing's case against Bombardier "a flight of hypocrisy".
Apparently Boeing did not even bid for the specific Delta contract, it simply
objected to a rival getting help as it would see it from Government.
tim...
2017-09-27 18:21:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Altroy1
[...]
That is why Bombardier's claim that Boeing is trying to strangle a new
competitor at birth has received widespread sympathy in the financial
press.
The Economist - that bastion of free market principles - called Boeing's
case against Bombardier "a flight of hypocrisy".
Apparently Boeing did not even bid for the specific Delta contract,
It was said today that they don't even make a plane that competes in the
sector

I'm not an expert in this, but I suspect that if Bombardier do ultimately
lose this battle, then the only winner will be Embraer.

tim
R. Mark Clayton
2017-09-27 17:20:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
A few weeks ago there was one of these jolly Brexit bean feasts when Trump announced: -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/09/trump-has-confirmed-britain-will-get-free-trade-deal-west-will/
ha they said the rest of the world will be queuing up to trade with us...
the trouble with Trump is he says one thing one minute and does another the next so now we have: -
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/bombardier-ruling-risks-thousands-belfast-231200569.html
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/uk-world/bombardier-job-fears-over-crippling-us-tariff-of-21963-in-boeing-row-36172924.html
so the reality [if WTO don't intervene] is 220% tariff and thousands of British aircraft workers queuing up for the dole...
AIUI that's a punishment for a trade unfairness, and it's presence was
as a result of a decision by a quasi-judicial body, not by POTUS. If
it's fair and legal then there's no point the British side jumping up
and down complaining. The Brits would not, in that case, be the injured
party.
If it's wrong, on the other hand, then it needs to be corrected.
--
James Harris
Bombardier has been bailed out and arguably subsidised.

The point was about the *****cks Brexiteers have spouted about easy trade deals when the reality is damage like this.
tim...
2017-09-27 18:22:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
A few weeks ago there was one of these jolly Brexit bean feasts when
Trump announced: -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/09/trump-has-confirmed-britain-will-get-free-trade-deal-west-will/
ha they said the rest of the world will be queuing up to trade with us...
the trouble with Trump is he says one thing one minute and does another
the next so now we have: -
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/bombardier-ruling-risks-thousands-belfast-231200569.html
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/uk-world/bombardier-job-fears-over-crippling-us-tariff-of-21963-in-boeing-row-36172924.html
so the reality [if WTO don't intervene] is 220% tariff and thousands of
British aircraft workers queuing up for the dole...
AIUI that's a punishment for a trade unfairness, and it's presence was
as a result of a decision by a quasi-judicial body, not by POTUS. If
it's fair and legal then there's no point the British side jumping up
and down complaining. The Brits would not, in that case, be the injured
party.
If it's wrong, on the other hand, then it needs to be corrected.
--
James Harris
Bombardier has been bailed out and arguably subsidised.
The point was about the *****cks Brexiteers have spouted about easy trade
deals when the reality is damage like this.
but there really is no connection

tim
James Harris
2017-09-27 19:07:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
A few weeks ago there was one of these jolly Brexit bean feasts when
Trump announced: -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/09/trump-has-confirmed-britain-will-get-free-trade-deal-west-will/
ha they said the rest of the world will be queuing up to trade with us...
the trouble with Trump is he says one thing one minute and does another
the next so now we have: -
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/bombardier-ruling-risks-thousands-belfast-231200569.html
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/uk-world/bombardier-job-fears-over-crippling-us-tariff-of-21963-in-boeing-row-36172924.html
so the reality [if WTO don't intervene] is 220% tariff and thousands of
British aircraft workers queuing up for the dole...
AIUI that's a punishment for a trade unfairness, and it's presence was
as a result of a decision by a quasi-judicial body, not by POTUS. If
it's fair and legal then there's no point the British side jumping up
and down complaining. The Brits would not, in that case, be the injured
party.
If it's wrong, on the other hand, then it needs to be corrected.
--
James Harris
Bombardier has been bailed out and arguably subsidised.
The point was about the *****cks Brexiteers have spouted about easy trade
deals when the reality is damage like this.
but there really is no connection
Agreed. Unless Mark is talking about souring the relationship between
potential partners I can't see a connection between a trade dispute and
a new FTA. The two things are entirely separate, I would have thought.
--
James Harris
MM
2017-09-28 10:07:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
but there really is no connection
Except that everyone, especially workers possibly about to lose their
jobs, can see now how ruinous tariffs can be, irrespective of what
caused them.

MM

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Altroy1
2017-09-27 18:15:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
A few weeks ago there was one of these jolly Brexit bean feasts when Trump announced: -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/09/trump-has-confirmed-britain-will-get-free-trade-deal-west-will/
ha they said the rest of the world will be queuing up to trade with us...
the trouble with Trump is he says one thing one minute and does
another the next so now we have: -
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/bombardier-ruling-risks-thousands-belfast-231200569.html
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/uk-world/bombardier-job-fears-over-crippling-us-tariff-of-21963-in-boeing-row-36172924.html
so the reality [if WTO don't intervene] is 220% tariff and thousands
of British aircraft workers queuing up for the dole...
AIUI that's a punishment for a trade unfairness, and it's presence was
as a result of a decision by a quasi-judicial body, not by POTUS. If
it's fair and legal then there's no point the British side jumping up
and down complaining. The Brits would not, in that case, be the injured
party.
I see. If the EU proscribes a subsidy to a British business, in the Brexit
psyche that is a vicious and unwarranted interference from Brussels with "our
right to make our own laws". So what are we waiting for? Sign that petition!
Let's get out of the EU right now.

But America? Deep in the Brexit mind is the belief in the essential goodness and
truthiness of the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave. Obviously, then,
Bomardier receieved a wicked subsidy, and the Land of the Free's "independent"
Dept of Commerce regulator had no choice but to step in to deal with such badness.

When negotiating a free trade deal, would the Home of the Brave's negotiators
ever insist on any dispensing of some nasty regulation banning chlorinated
chicken or require Brexit Britain to refrain from "unfair" subsidies to it's
industries? Oh come on. Is the Pope a Catholic? Of course not!
Post by James Harris
If it's wrong, on the other hand, then it needs to be corrected.
James Harris
2017-09-27 19:11:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
A few weeks ago there was one of these jolly Brexit bean feasts when Trump announced: -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/09/trump-has-confirmed-britain-will-get-free-trade-deal-west-will/
ha they said the rest of the world will be queuing up to trade with us...
the trouble with Trump is he says one thing one minute and does
another the next so now we have: -
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/bombardier-ruling-risks-thousands-belfast-231200569.html
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/uk-world/bombardier-job-fears-over-crippling-us-tariff-of-21963-in-boeing-row-36172924.html
so the reality [if WTO don't intervene] is 220% tariff and thousands
of British aircraft workers queuing up for the dole...
AIUI that's a punishment for a trade unfairness, and it's presence was
as a result of a decision by a quasi-judicial body, not by POTUS. If
it's fair and legal then there's no point the British side jumping up
and down complaining. The Brits would not, in that case, be the injured
party.
I see. If the EU proscribes a subsidy to a British business, in the Brexit
psyche that is a vicious and unwarranted interference from Brussels with "our
right to make our own laws". So what are we waiting for? Sign that petition!
Let's get out of the EU right now.
But America? Deep in the Brexit mind is the belief in the essential goodness and
truthiness of the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave. Obviously, then,
Bomardier receieved a wicked subsidy, and the Land of the Free's "independent"
Dept of Commerce regulator had no choice but to step in to deal with such badness.
No. This is nothing to do with Brexit or a Brexit psyche. Transatlantic
trade - even under WTO terms - has to conform to agreed standards of
fair competition. If one side is acting unfairly then it needs to
correct that unfairness. Or, if it is acting fairly, then the complaint
of one side needs to be thrown out via arbitration.
Post by Altroy1
When negotiating a free trade deal, would the Home of the Brave's negotiators
ever insist on any dispensing of some nasty regulation banning chlorinated
chicken or require Brexit Britain to refrain from "unfair" subsidies to it's
industries? Oh come on. Is the Pope a Catholic? Of course not!
Those are things for the negotiators to define (not the pope bit; we'll
take that as a given).
--
James Harris
Altroy1
2017-09-28 14:19:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[....]
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
But America? Deep in the Brexit mind is the belief in the essential goodness and
truthiness of the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave. Obviously, then,
Bomardier receieved a wicked subsidy, and the Land of the Free's "independent"
Dept of Commerce regulator had no choice but to step in to deal with such badness.
No. This is nothing to do with Brexit or a Brexit psyche.
You may be right in terms of the motive of Boeing. The Brexit psyche may not
have been uppermost in their minds more likely they are supporting the America
First strategy. Bombardier and other foreign firms can sod off and get lost.

In the terms of this newsgroup and thread, though, discussion relating to the
Brexit promise of out of the EU's hateful shackles and into the arms of a
wonderful new "the world's our [219% import tariff] oyster" free trade deal with
the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave is relevant.


http://www.macleans.ca/economy/bombardier-gets-a-taste-of-america-first-what-comes-next-2/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4927656/Britain-America-brink-trade-war.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4927714/Why-Trump-let-Britain-down.html

http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/27/news/economy/us-canada-trade-war-bombardier/index.html
Post by James Harris
Transatlantic
trade - even under WTO terms - has to conform to agreed standards of
fair competition. If one side is acting unfairly then it needs to
correct that unfairness. Or, if it is acting fairly, then the complaint
of one side needs to be thrown out via arbitration.
You have perhaps inadvertently, hopefully not, just summarised how the EU
impinges on the sovereignty of the UK and it's other member states for that
matter. Trading between states needs to be conducted on a level playing field.
That is why "race to the bottom cheap food" farmers in one EU state cannot crowd
their chickens close in battery cages then chlorinate over the inevitable
problems. That they cannot do this is a restriction on their ability to quote
"make our own laws".
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
When negotiating a free trade deal, would the Home of the Brave's negotiators
ever insist on any dispensing of some nasty regulation banning chlorinated
chicken or require Brexit Britain to refrain from "unfair" subsidies to it's
industries? Oh come on. Is the Pope a Catholic? Of course not!
Those are things for the negotiators to define (not the pope bit; we'll
take that as a given).
James Harris
2017-09-28 13:47:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Altroy1
[....]
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
But America? Deep in the Brexit mind is the belief in the essential goodness and
truthiness of the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave. Obviously, then,
Bomardier receieved a wicked subsidy, and the Land of the Free's "independent"
Dept of Commerce regulator had no choice but to step in to deal with such badness.
No. This is nothing to do with Brexit or a Brexit psyche.
You may be right in terms of the motive of Boeing.
Indeed. That's all I was talking about in this thread.

...
Post by Altroy1
In the terms of this newsgroup and thread, though, discussion relating to the
Brexit promise of out of the EU's hateful shackles and into the arms of a
wonderful new "the world's our [219% import tariff] oyster" free trade deal with
the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave is relevant.
There are other threads for that but as you want to discuss it here I
don't mind.

I agree with the "coming out of the EU's shackles" part - just as I
would argue for getting out of bonds which already restricted my freedom
to move and which were steadily getting tighter. But I don't agree with
the idea of the UK going into the arms of a wonderful new world. What we
as a nation have chosen to do is achieve freedom and then shape our
place in the world. And some of that will, I hope, include influencing
the world we want to live in. It is not sitting waiting for us. We need
to make it. Brexit allows us to do that.
Post by Altroy1
http://www.macleans.ca/economy/bombardier-gets-a-taste-of-america-first-what-comes-next-2/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4927656/Britain-America-brink-trade-war.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4927714/Why-Trump-let-Britain-down.html
http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/27/news/economy/us-canada-trade-war-bombardier/index.html
Post by James Harris
Transatlantic
trade - even under WTO terms - has to conform to agreed standards of
fair competition. If one side is acting unfairly then it needs to
correct that unfairness. Or, if it is acting fairly, then the complaint
of one side needs to be thrown out via arbitration.
You have perhaps inadvertently, hopefully not, just summarised how the EU
impinges on the sovereignty of the UK and it's other member states for that
matter.
Not so. There is a big difference. The EU is not a bilateral agreement
such as exists between trading nations and which suits both sides until
changed by mutual agreement. The EU's lawmaking is not static. New EU
laws, directives and edicts are formed all the time. And they are formed
unilaterally by the EU. While we have input we must eventually accept
that we, in our subordinate role, have no choice but to accept the
choices made on our behalf.

And this is not static. Over the years and decades, the EU has involved
itself in more and more aspects of our lives. It has steadily acquired
more powers and as far as I know has NEVER given any powers back.

So the EU's rules are not at all like a bilateral treaty.
Post by Altroy1
Trading between states needs to be conducted on a level playing field.
That is why "race to the bottom cheap food" farmers in one EU state cannot crowd
their chickens close in battery cages then chlorinate over the inevitable
problems. That they cannot do this is a restriction on their ability to quote
"make our own laws".
From what I've heard the UK under the current government will make
better decisions and fairer, more humane laws than the EU does so your
fears are unfounded.
--
James Harris
R. Mark Clayton
2017-09-28 13:57:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
[....]
SNIP
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
You have perhaps inadvertently, hopefully not, just summarised how the EU
impinges on the sovereignty of the UK and it's other member states for that
matter.
Not so. There is a big difference. The EU is not a bilateral agreement
such as exists between trading nations and which suits both sides until
changed by mutual agreement. The EU's lawmaking is not static. New EU
laws, directives and edicts are formed all the time. And they are formed
unilaterally by the EU. While we have input we must eventually accept
that we, in our subordinate role, have no choice but to accept the
choices made on our behalf.
Treu, but there is another big difference - we have Members of the European Parliament, we do not have any representatives in the US Congress.
Post by James Harris
And this is not static. Over the years and decades, the EU has involved
itself in more and more aspects of our lives. It has steadily acquired
more powers and as far as I know has NEVER given any powers back.
So the EU's rules are not at all like a bilateral treaty.
Post by Altroy1
Trading between states needs to be conducted on a level playing field.
That is why "race to the bottom cheap food" farmers in one EU state cannot crowd
their chickens close in battery cages then chlorinate over the inevitable
problems. That they cannot do this is a restriction on their ability to quote
"make our own laws".
From what I've heard the UK under the current government will make
better decisions and fairer, more humane laws than the EU does so your
fears are unfounded.
dream on.
Post by James Harris
--
James Harris
Altroy1
2017-09-28 23:51:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[...]
Post by James Harris
There are other threads for that but as you want to discuss it here I
don't mind.
I agree with the "coming out of the EU's shackles" part - just as I
would argue for getting out of bonds which already restricted my freedom
to move and which were steadily getting tighter.
But you are familiar with American power? How it can throw its economic weight
around if it perceives a threat to its interests. There was, is, and never will
be any freedom for Canada or the UK to subsidise an important industry and then
expect to free trade with the USA. The 219% tariff is a salutory lesson to those
that think otherwise.
Post by James Harris
But I don't agree with
the idea of the UK going into the arms of a wonderful new world. What we
as a nation have chosen to do is achieve freedom and then shape our
place in the world.
Not we as a nation. Rather the Adam Smith elites that pushed for Brexit and
battlebus-promised a big fat £350 million weekly payout to the NHS they and
their American fellow thinkers despise as baby-killing socialised medicine most
foul.

https://thefederalist.com/2017/07/03/yanking-life-support-uk-baby-demonstrates-dangers-socialized-medicine/

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/07/the_evidence_is_in__the_uk_is_trying_to_kill_baby_charlie_gard.html
Post by James Harris
And some of that will, I hope, include influencing
the world we want to live in. It is not sitting waiting for us. We need
to make it. Brexit allows us to do that.
That was an argument put and rejected in 1975. Its an argument no doubt
considered by Ukraine, Serbia etc who instead are begging the EU to admit them.
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
http://www.macleans.ca/economy/bombardier-gets-a-taste-of-america-first-what-comes-next-2/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4927656/Britain-America-brink-trade-war.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4927714/Why-Trump-let-Britain-down.html
http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/27/news/economy/us-canada-trade-war-bombardier/index.html
Post by James Harris
Transatlantic
trade - even under WTO terms - has to conform to agreed standards of
fair competition. If one side is acting unfairly then it needs to
correct that unfairness. Or, if it is acting fairly, then the complaint
of one side needs to be thrown out via arbitration.
You have perhaps inadvertently, hopefully not, just summarised how the EU
impinges on the sovereignty of the UK and it's other member states for that
matter.
Not so. There is a big difference. The EU is not a bilateral agreement
such as exists between trading nations and which suits both sides until
changed by mutual agreement.
You are rightly advised by Mark Clayton in another reply that the UK is a part
of the EU. It has MEPs, appoints commissioners, has vetoes. The Land of the Free
and Home of the Brave will offer nothing of the sort in any so called free trade
deal. It is America first. If the UK and USA's interests diverge, it will be
always America First. End of. This has already happened in the past as this
informative article shows:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis
Post by James Harris
The EU's lawmaking is not static. New EU
laws, directives and edicts are formed all the time. And they are formed
unilaterally by the EU. While we have input we must eventually accept
that we, in our subordinate role, have no choice but to accept the
choices made on our behalf.
And would the Land of the Free's negotiators negotiate from weakness? No, the
Home of the Brave's negotiators know rightly who the stronger party will be in
any so called free trade deal. One outworking of this will be that the weaker
party WILL accept chlorinated chicken, WILL accept hormone infused beef and WILL
accept GM altered crops.
Post by James Harris
And this is not static. Over the years and decades, the EU has involved
itself in more and more aspects of our lives. It has steadily acquired
more powers and as far as I know has NEVER given any powers back.
When James O'Brien on LBC tries to get the Brexiters to spit it out what
specific EU laws they hate so much and want to dispense with, he can hardly get
a straight answer from any of them.
Post by James Harris
So the EU's rules are not at all like a bilateral treaty.
But bilateral trade is also not static. Why is the America First lobby now
agitating for changes to trade with China and other countries they blame for
many of America's ills?
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Trading between states needs to be conducted on a level playing field.
That is why "race to the bottom cheap food" farmers in one EU state cannot crowd
their chickens close in battery cages then chlorinate over the inevitable
problems. That they cannot do this is a restriction on their ability to quote
"make our own laws".
From what I've heard the UK under the current government will make
better decisions and fairer, more humane laws than the EU does so your
fears are unfounded.
No they are well founded. Consider what Moggmentum and Adam Smith ilk are planning:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-brexit-sacking-ministerial-code-event-foreign-office-a7972676.html

Boris Johnson is facing calls to be sacked and the prospect of
an official investigation over allegations he abused his
position by using government resources to host a hard Brexit
event at the Foreign Office.


The Institute for Free Trade wants to roll back EU regulations,
including on safety standards and workers' rights, and
unilaterally scrap all import tariffs, even if other countries
do not reciprocate. It also believes that foreign aid should be
slashed and supports allowing chlorine-washed chicken and
hormone-injected beef to be sold in the UK.
James Harris
2017-09-29 07:49:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Altroy1
[...]
Post by James Harris
There are other threads for that but as you want to discuss it here I
don't mind.
I agree with the "coming out of the EU's shackles" part - just as I
would argue for getting out of bonds which already restricted my freedom
to move and which were steadily getting tighter.
But you are familiar with American power? How it can throw its economic weight
around if it perceives a threat to its interests. There was, is, and never will
be any freedom for Canada or the UK to subsidise an important industry and then
expect to free trade with the USA. The 219% tariff is a salutory lesson to those
that think otherwise.
I wouldn't expect any country to unfairly subsidise its industries and
get away with it.
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
But I don't agree with
the idea of the UK going into the arms of a wonderful new world. What we
as a nation have chosen to do is achieve freedom and then shape our
place in the world.
Not we as a nation. Rather the Adam Smith elites that pushed for Brexit and
battlebus-promised a big fat £350 million weekly payout to the NHS they and
their American fellow thinkers despise as baby-killing socialised medicine most
foul.
https://thefederalist.com/2017/07/03/yanking-life-support-uk-baby-demonstrates-dangers-socialized-medicine/
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/07/the_evidence_is_in__the_uk_is_trying_to_kill_baby_charlie_gard.html
Post by James Harris
And some of that will, I hope, include influencing
the world we want to live in. It is not sitting waiting for us. We need
to make it. Brexit allows us to do that.
That was an argument put and rejected in 1975. Its an argument no doubt
considered by Ukraine, Serbia etc who instead are begging the EU to admit them.
What's your evidence of such "begging"?
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
http://www.macleans.ca/economy/bombardier-gets-a-taste-of-america-first-what-comes-next-2/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4927656/Britain-America-brink-trade-war.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4927714/Why-Trump-let-Britain-down.html
http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/27/news/economy/us-canada-trade-war-bombardier/index.html
Post by James Harris
Transatlantic
trade - even under WTO terms - has to conform to agreed standards of
fair competition. If one side is acting unfairly then it needs to
correct that unfairness. Or, if it is acting fairly, then the complaint
of one side needs to be thrown out via arbitration.
You have perhaps inadvertently, hopefully not, just summarised how the EU
impinges on the sovereignty of the UK and it's other member states for that
matter.
Not so. There is a big difference. The EU is not a bilateral agreement
such as exists between trading nations and which suits both sides until
changed by mutual agreement.
You are rightly advised by Mark Clayton in another reply that the UK is a part
of the EU. It has MEPs, appoints commissioners, has vetoes.
None of which prevents majority or QMV decisions from overriding the UK
and even working against its interests.
Post by Altroy1
The Land of the Free
and Home of the Brave will offer nothing of the sort in any so called free trade
deal. It is America first. If the UK and USA's interests diverge, it will be
always America First. End of. This has already happened in the past as this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis
No problem. I would expect the US to put the US first, and the UK to put
the UK first.
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
The EU's lawmaking is not static. New EU
laws, directives and edicts are formed all the time. And they are formed
unilaterally by the EU. While we have input we must eventually accept
that we, in our subordinate role, have no choice but to accept the
choices made on our behalf.
And would the Land of the Free's negotiators negotiate from weakness? No, the
Home of the Brave's negotiators know rightly who the stronger party will be in
any so called free trade deal. One outworking of this will be that the weaker
party WILL accept chlorinated chicken, WILL accept hormone infused beef and WILL
accept GM altered crops.
Ah, you must be a Remainer. They always know the future!
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
And this is not static. Over the years and decades, the EU has involved
itself in more and more aspects of our lives. It has steadily acquired
more powers and as far as I know has NEVER given any powers back.
When James O'Brien on LBC tries to get the Brexiters to spit it out what
specific EU laws they hate so much and want to dispense with, he can hardly get
a straight answer from any of them.
So they are all happy that the EU has overall control of our use of VAT,
are they? They all like the Common Fisheries Policy? They all agree with
the EU's proposed financial transactions tax?
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
So the EU's rules are not at all like a bilateral treaty.
But bilateral trade is also not static. Why is the America First lobby now
agitating for changes to trade with China and other countries they blame for
many of America's ills?
I think you've missed the point. Bilaterals cannot be changed without
mutual agreement. EU rules can. Once you sign up to the EU there are
things which it can change and you have to simply accept them. Henry
VIII would have loved it.
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Trading between states needs to be conducted on a level playing field.
That is why "race to the bottom cheap food" farmers in one EU state cannot crowd
their chickens close in battery cages then chlorinate over the inevitable
problems. That they cannot do this is a restriction on their ability to quote
"make our own laws".
From what I've heard the UK under the current government will make
better decisions and fairer, more humane laws than the EU does so your
fears are unfounded.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-brexit-sacking-ministerial-code-event-foreign-office-a7972676.html
Boris Johnson is facing calls to be sacked and the prospect of
an official investigation over allegations he abused his
position by using government resources to host a hard Brexit
event at the Foreign Office.
The Institute for Free Trade wants to roll back EU regulations,
including on safety standards and workers' rights, and
unilaterally scrap all import tariffs, even if other countries
do not reciprocate. It also believes that foreign aid should be
slashed and supports allowing chlorine-washed chicken and
hormone-injected beef to be sold in the UK.
What Moggmentum and co are planning is not what the government is
planning. The two are not the same thing.
--
James Harris
Altroy1
2017-09-29 12:40:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[...]
Post by James Harris
I wouldn't expect any country to unfairly subsidise its industries and
get away with it.
Excellent. Then you agree that when two or more nations free trade, they cede
their ability to make their own laws and subsidise their own industries as they
see fit. Thank you so much for admitting this.
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
But I don't agree with
the idea of the UK going into the arms of a wonderful new world. What we
as a nation have chosen to do is achieve freedom and then shape our
place in the world.
Not we as a nation. Rather the Adam Smith elites that pushed for Brexit and
battlebus-promised a big fat £350 million weekly payout to the NHS they and
their American fellow thinkers despise as baby-killing socialised medicine most
foul.
https://thefederalist.com/2017/07/03/yanking-life-support-uk-baby-demonstrates-dangers-socialized-medicine/
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/07/the_evidence_is_in__the_uk_is_trying_to_kill_baby_charlie_gard.html
Post by James Harris
And some of that will, I hope, include influencing
the world we want to live in. It is not sitting waiting for us. We need
to make it. Brexit allows us to do that.
That was an argument put and rejected in 1975. Its an argument no doubt
considered by Ukraine, Serbia etc who instead are begging the EU to admit them.
What's your evidence of such "begging"?
Let me see now, what are Ukraine's politicians coming up with lately? Ah yes.
"blackmail":

http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/451076.html



Ukraine is prepared to take symmetrical retaliatory steps
if Budapest blocks any initiatives to build closer ties
between Ukraine and the European Union, Volodymyr Ariev,
the head of the Ukrainian delegation to the Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) and a member of
the Petro Poroshenko Bloc in parliament, said on Tuesday.

"If they resort to blackmail rather than calm negotiations
this is an unreliable partnership,"

Ariev said.


Seems like the Ukraine is rather desparate for EU integration. Hungary's threat
to interfere with Ukraine's hankering for EU integration is obviously "blackmail".


"Blackmail" is the perpetual cry of the smaller negotiator
with the weaker hand. #getagrip - Nick Macpherson[1]

[1] https://twitter.com/mims/statuses/903492524999811077


[....]
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
You have perhaps inadvertently, hopefully not, just summarised how the EU
impinges on the sovereignty of the UK and it's other member states for that
matter.
Not so. There is a big difference. The EU is not a bilateral agreement
such as exists between trading nations and which suits both sides until
changed by mutual agreement.
You are rightly advised by Mark Clayton in another reply that the UK is a part
of the EU. It has MEPs, appoints commissioners, has vetoes.
None of which prevents majority or QMV decisions from overriding the UK
and even working against its interests.
But you are not being serious, are you? QMV has been augmented arising from the
EU's expansion. An expansion cheerleaded for years by the likes of BOJO and his
ilk. And despite QMV and the fancies of voteleavetakecontrol, QMV has not harmed
UK's interests too much insofar as the Brexit cheerleaders are saying look how
well we are already doing so will be even better off outside the hated EU.

And you are claiming that it is OK for the USA to harm a section of the UK
economy (N. Ireland) if the UK and Canada "unfairly" subsidise NI's largest
private sector employer. You will deny this interpretation, but it follows
logically from the point you made about one nation having the unilateral right,
as you would see it, when another nation or nations unfairly or unreasonably
subsidise an important sector of their economies.

To the Brexit mindset, when to them the greatest nation on earth defends itself
with a 219% tariff - that is wholly legitimate. But if the wicked EU does it
that would be unbridled evil.
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
The Land of the Free
and Home of the Brave will offer nothing of the sort in any so called free trade
deal. It is America first. If the UK and USA's interests diverge, it will be
always America First. End of. This has already happened in the past as this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis
No problem. I would expect the US to put the US first, and the UK to put
the UK first.
Thank you so much. Now just one more step. Tell us that sometimes the EU is
right to put its own interest first from time to time. In the Brexit mindset the
interests of the EU and UK diverge from time to time. Such a situation to them
cannot be tolerated. Far better to be in the arms of the greatest nation on
earth who would, er, cough, impose a 219% tariff on one of Northern Ireland and
Quebec's largest private sector employers.
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
The EU's lawmaking is not static. New EU
laws, directives and edicts are formed all the time. And they are formed
unilaterally by the EU. While we have input we must eventually accept
that we, in our subordinate role, have no choice but to accept the
choices made on our behalf.
And would the Land of the Free's negotiators negotiate from weakness? No, the
Home of the Brave's negotiators know rightly who the stronger party will be in
any so called free trade deal. One outworking of this will be that the weaker
party WILL accept chlorinated chicken, WILL accept hormone infused beef and WILL
accept GM altered crops.
Ah, you must be a Remainer. They always know the future!
And the true beLEAVEr? Believes that America is the greatest nation on earth,
can do no wrong. When the Land of the Free imposed that 219% tariff, it was
appropriate, safe and satisfactory.

And BOJO still assures there is this wonderful new future out there free of the
shackles of the hated EU. So I guess knowing the future lies not just in the
domain of remoaner thinking.
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
And this is not static. Over the years and decades, the EU has involved
itself in more and more aspects of our lives. It has steadily acquired
more powers and as far as I know has NEVER given any powers back.
When James O'Brien on LBC tries to get the Brexiters to spit it out what
specific EU laws they hate so much and want to dispense with, he can hardly get
a straight answer from any of them.
So they are all happy that the EU has overall control of our use of VAT,
are they? They all like the Common Fisheries Policy? They all agree with
the EU's proposed financial transactions tax?
They could make that point. But since the true beLEAVEr supports the Land of the
Free's right to a unilateral imposed 219% tariff, their complaints may lack
credibility a little. Then there are the EU subsidies to farmers that may have
to be reduced post Brexit if all of that £350 million weekly goodness is to be
spent on NHS alone as that lying battlebus suggested.

And how would the fishermen and women feel if the Home of the Brave's fishing
fleet free trade agreement sailed across the Atlantic to gobble up what's left
of the cod stocks now that the hated Brussels Bureaucrat's regulations designed
to prevent extinction of the remaining cod has been done away with?
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
So the EU's rules are not at all like a bilateral treaty.
But bilateral trade is also not static. Why is the America First lobby now
agitating for changes to trade with China and other countries they blame for
many of America's ills?
I think you've missed the point. Bilaterals cannot be changed without
mutual agreement.
I doubt it. Certain Brexiters appear to be ready to accept the Home of the
Brave's authorities legitimate right to unilaterally impose a 219% import tariff
despite the Prime Ministers of two trading partner countries on the phone
pleading with the America First President not to do it. A widespread unilateral
imposition of such a tariff would kill a trading relationship more dead than any
dodo.
Post by James Harris
EU rules can. Once you sign up to the EU there are
things which it can change and you have to simply accept them. Henry
VIII would have loved it.
On leaving the EU the weaker party will use the word "blackmail" then accept any
chlorine infused trade deal the greatest nation on earth will propose on a take
it or leave it basis. Henry VIII would have loved it (NOT!!).
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Trading between states needs to be conducted on a level playing field.
That is why "race to the bottom cheap food" farmers in one EU state cannot crowd
their chickens close in battery cages then chlorinate over the inevitable
problems. That they cannot do this is a restriction on their ability to quote
"make our own laws".
From what I've heard the UK under the current government will make
better decisions and fairer, more humane laws than the EU does so your
fears are unfounded.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-brexit-sacking-ministerial-code-event-foreign-office-a7972676.html
Boris Johnson is facing calls to be sacked and the prospect of
an official investigation over allegations he abused his
position by using government resources to host a hard Brexit
event at the Foreign Office.
The Institute for Free Trade wants to roll back EU regulations,
including on safety standards and workers' rights, and
unilaterally scrap all import tariffs, even if other countries
do not reciprocate. It also believes that foreign aid should be
slashed and supports allowing chlorine-washed chicken and
hormone-injected beef to be sold in the UK.
What Moggmentum and co are planning is not what the government is
planning. The two are not the same thing.
What the bookies favoured future leader of the Conservative Party is planning
could be a matter of some concern.
James Harris
2017-09-29 14:12:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
...
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
And some of that will, I hope, include influencing
the world we want to live in. It is not sitting waiting for us. We need
to make it. Brexit allows us to do that.
That was an argument put and rejected in 1975. Its an argument no doubt
considered by Ukraine, Serbia etc who instead are begging the EU to admit them.
What's your evidence of such "begging"?
Let me see now, what are Ukraine's politicians coming up with lately? Ah yes.
http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/451076.html
Ukraine is prepared to take symmetrical retaliatory steps
if Budapest blocks any initiatives to build closer ties
between Ukraine and the European Union, Volodymyr Ariev,
the head of the Ukrainian delegation to the Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) and a member of
the Petro Poroshenko Bloc in parliament, said on Tuesday.
"If they resort to blackmail rather than calm negotiations
this is an unreliable partnership,"
Ariev said.
That is not evidence of begging. And seeking closer ties does not prove
a desire for membership.
Post by Altroy1
Seems like the Ukraine is rather desparate for EU integration. Hungary's threat
to interfere with Ukraine's hankering for EU integration is obviously "blackmail".
"Blackmail" is the perpetual cry of the smaller negotiator
with the weaker hand. #getagrip - Nick Macpherson[1]
[1] https://twitter.com/mims/statuses/903492524999811077
[....]
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
You have perhaps inadvertently, hopefully not, just summarised how the EU
impinges on the sovereignty of the UK and it's other member states for that
matter.
Not so. There is a big difference. The EU is not a bilateral agreement
such as exists between trading nations and which suits both sides until
changed by mutual agreement.
You are rightly advised by Mark Clayton in another reply that the UK is a part
of the EU. It has MEPs, appoints commissioners, has vetoes.
None of which prevents majority or QMV decisions from overriding the UK
and even working against its interests.
But you are not being serious, are you? QMV has been augmented arising from the
EU's expansion. An expansion cheerleaded for years by the likes of BOJO and his
ilk.
BoJo's views are his own. Just as Cameron's views were his own and may
not have been yours.
Post by Altroy1
And despite QMV and the fancies of voteleavetakecontrol, QMV has not harmed
UK's interests too much insofar as the Brexit cheerleaders are saying look how
well we are already doing so will be even better off outside the hated EU.
And you are claiming that it is OK for the USA to harm a section of the UK
economy (N. Ireland) if the UK and Canada "unfairly" subsidise NI's largest
private sector employer. You will deny this interpretation, but it follows
logically from the point you made about one nation having the unilateral right,
as you would see it, when another nation or nations unfairly or unreasonably
subsidise an important sector of their economies.
To the Brexit mindset, when to them the greatest nation on earth defends itself
with a 219% tariff - that is wholly legitimate. But if the wicked EU does it
that would be unbridled evil.
You are delusional.
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
The Land of the Free
and Home of the Brave will offer nothing of the sort in any so called free trade
deal. It is America first. If the UK and USA's interests diverge, it will be
always America First. End of. This has already happened in the past as this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis
No problem. I would expect the US to put the US first, and the UK to put
the UK first.
Thank you so much. Now just one more step. Tell us that sometimes the EU is
right to put its own interest first from time to time. In the Brexit mindset the
interests of the EU and UK diverge from time to time. Such a situation to them
cannot be tolerated. Far better to be in the arms of the greatest nation on
earth who would, er, cough, impose a 219% tariff on one of Northern Ireland and
Quebec's largest private sector employers.
When the EU puts its interests first it means putting the EU
superstructure first. It should, in fact, put the prosperity and safety
of its people first, as I would expect the UK and the US to do. Those
priorities are very different.

The tariff is a trade dispute and will be dealt with via existing systems.
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
The EU's lawmaking is not static. New EU
laws, directives and edicts are formed all the time. And they are formed
unilaterally by the EU. While we have input we must eventually accept
that we, in our subordinate role, have no choice but to accept the
choices made on our behalf.
And would the Land of the Free's negotiators negotiate from weakness? No, the
Home of the Brave's negotiators know rightly who the stronger party will be in
any so called free trade deal. One outworking of this will be that the weaker
party WILL accept chlorinated chicken, WILL accept hormone infused beef and WILL
accept GM altered crops.
Ah, you must be a Remainer. They always know the future!
And the true beLEAVEr? Believes that America is the greatest nation on earth,
You are, again, delusional.
Post by Altroy1
can do no wrong. When the Land of the Free imposed that 219% tariff, it was
appropriate, safe and satisfactory.
And BOJO still assures there is this wonderful new future out there free of the
shackles of the hated EU. So I guess knowing the future lies not just in the
domain of remoaner thinking.
Believing that a country will be better off with independence than being
subject to a larger entity is nothing new. That's different from you
"knowing" that the UK will accept hormone-infused beef.
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
And this is not static. Over the years and decades, the EU has involved
itself in more and more aspects of our lives. It has steadily acquired
more powers and as far as I know has NEVER given any powers back.
When James O'Brien on LBC tries to get the Brexiters to spit it out what
specific EU laws they hate so much and want to dispense with, he can hardly get
a straight answer from any of them.
So they are all happy that the EU has overall control of our use of VAT,
are they? They all like the Common Fisheries Policy? They all agree with
the EU's proposed financial transactions tax?
They could make that point. But since the true beLEAVEr supports the Land of the
Free's right to a unilateral imposed 219% tariff, their complaints may lack
credibility a little. Then there are the EU subsidies to farmers that may have
to be reduced post Brexit if all of that £350 million weekly goodness is to be
spent on NHS alone as that lying battlebus suggested.
And how would the fishermen and women feel if the Home of the Brave's fishing
fleet free trade agreement sailed across the Atlantic to gobble up what's left
of the cod stocks now that the hated Brussels Bureaucrat's regulations designed
to prevent extinction of the remaining cod has been done away with?
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
So the EU's rules are not at all like a bilateral treaty.
But bilateral trade is also not static. Why is the America First lobby now
agitating for changes to trade with China and other countries they blame for
many of America's ills?
I think you've missed the point. Bilaterals cannot be changed without
mutual agreement.
I doubt it. Certain Brexiters appear to be ready to accept the Home of the
Brave's authorities legitimate right to unilaterally impose a 219% import tariff
despite the Prime Ministers of two trading partner countries on the phone
pleading with the America First President not to do it. A widespread unilateral
imposition of such a tariff would kill a trading relationship more dead than any
dodo.
The tariff has been imposed by the US trade body, not by POTUS. IMO May
should address it through normal channels and not pick a row or ask for
special consideration from Trump. Besides, aren't the imports from
Canada rather than from the UK?
--
James Harris
Altroy1
2017-09-30 12:52:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
...
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/451076.html
Ukraine is prepared to take symmetrical retaliatory steps
if Budapest blocks any initiatives to build closer ties
between Ukraine and the European Union, Volodymyr Ariev,
the head of the Ukrainian delegation to the Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) and a member of
the Petro Poroshenko Bloc in parliament, said on Tuesday.
"If they resort to blackmail rather than calm negotiations
this is an unreliable partnership,"
Ariev said.
That is not evidence of begging. And seeking closer ties does not prove
a desire for membership.
Playing ignorant much? Rightly you figure Ukraine's hope is for full EU
membership as stated many times. As for Serbia I'll call it begging; you call it
what you wish:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/07/13/serbian-leader-vucic-presses-eu-for-accession-timetable.html

"I'm not expecting an answer any time soon on when we'll join,
but we're asking from a framework," said Vucic, who won
presidential elections in April. "Tell us clearly what is
expected and when it is expected by."


http://serbianmonitor.com/en/politics/35759/vucic-wants-eu-to-give-serbia-accession-date/

"This is the first time I have asked for something like this.
I think that Mogherini understood that very well. I wanted her
to tell me when exactly was Serbia going to become an EU
member. We don't want to wander around in the dark anymore. We
are definitely going down the right road and we want to know
when and how is this road going to end", Vucic went on to say.

http://serbianmonitor.com/en/politics/30896/vucic-eu-clear-message-western-balkan-accession/

He said he urged Merkel to assert more leadership on the issue
of EU membership for Serbia and its neighbours, with an eye to
showing the tangible benefits of future EU membership,
including jobs and Western values.

"We need huge support from the EU. All this messy stuff, it
sends the wrong message to the people," Vucic said.
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
To the Brexit mindset, when to them the greatest nation on earth defends itself
with a 219% tariff - that is wholly legitimate. But if the wicked EU does it
that would be unbridled evil.
You are delusional.
Is this intended to be a rebuttal? An insult? Whatever. A non argument if ever
there was one.

The hardened Brexit mind cannot be persuaded. Other readers might want to head
over to https://twitter.com/DanielJHannan to get an inkling into the mindset of
the true believer in Brexit, Adam Smith, the evils of socialised medicine and
the greatest nation with the greatest (privatised) health system on earth - the
Land of the Free and Home of the Brave.

The first thing to see is the montage of the UK's flag with sections of the
flags of a few more countries superimposed. Those countries appear to be: The
Land of the Free, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

They are ALL mainly white, English speaking and Christian. Absent is the
Commonwealth's by far biggest country, India. It is worth noting that the Home
of the Brave's population is well over double the other countries on that
montage combined. So you will not need an Oxbridge degree in Applied Mathematics
to figure who will have the whip hand.

Joining BOJO et al in the membership of this free trade institute is ex PM Tony
Abbott. Tony has generously set aside time from current referendum campaigning
against the evils of same sex marriage to tweet his support.

Then there is this real gem of a comment

https://twitter.com/DanielJHannan/status/912405931811622912 Sept 25, 2017

The world is moving toward smaller and more democratic countries. The EU
is going in the opposite direction.

And he quotes the following URL

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/why-are-kurdish-catalan-independence-ok-not-british-independence-1640751

I'm puzzled. Apparently legitimising separatism in other countries whilst
telling the Scots that if they take independence then get lost you won't be free
trading with the UK or using sterling? The next thing on the agenda could be Mr
Hannan offering for sale a nice used red lying battlebus. Cheap.

Overall that twitter feed tells the story of the essential difference between
remain and leave. Its not that the EU impinges on the UK's sovereignty. James
O'Brien has dealt with that many times on LBC. The leavers believe that UK's
destiny lies with its mainly white and Christian former colonies, and remain
that the UK is geographically part of Europe and therein lies its destiny.

...
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis
No problem. I would expect the US to put the US first, and the UK to put
the UK first.
Thank you so much. Now just one more step. Tell us that sometimes the EU is
right to put its own interest first from time to time. In the Brexit mindset the
interests of the EU and UK diverge from time to time. Such a situation to them
cannot be tolerated. Far better to be in the arms of the greatest nation on
earth who would, er, cough, impose a 219% tariff on one of Northern Ireland and
Quebec's largest private sector employers.
When the EU puts its interests first it means putting the EU
superstructure first.
Nice try. When America cites America First it means its jobs, economic and
political coherence comes first. End of. America first not only means jobs it
means a wall to maintain Americas ethnic coherence as well. But of course if the
EU built a wall to keep out the Syrian refugees, in the Brexit mindset that
would be the dictatorial EU at it again.
Post by James Harris
It should, in fact, put the prosperity and safety
of its people first, as I would expect the UK and the US to do. Those
priorities are very different.
Nice try in trying to draw an artificial distinction between the EU and US. The
US fought a very bloody civil war to maintain its political coherence. Welfare
of the believers in slavery in the Deep South was not always the highest
priority on Lincoln and his Generals minds. Fast forward to the present and
still the United States of America will take instructions about free trade from
no-one.

The EU will drive a hard bargain to discourage other separatism. The same kind
of message was at one time driven home to the Scots. Leave the UK on a Monday if
you wish. On Tuesday you will face tariffs, customs queues at the border, no
influence on the bank of England and forget about using our currency. We're not
going to fuel separatism in Wales or other places by trading with you as if
nothing has happened.

I think there is another recent post hereabouts concerning the EU allowing the
UK snowflake type relations and opt outs from obligations other EU members have
accepted. And these opt-outs have, unfortunately, not quelled the chorus of
malcontent from the Eurosceptics who will simply not keep quiet until a full and
final chlorinated trade deal with the Home of the Brave is firmly in force.


...
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
Ah, you must be a Remainer. They always know the future!
And the true beLEAVEr? Believes that America is the greatest nation on earth,
You are, again, delusional.
You are, again, not articulating a better point of view.
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
can do no wrong. When the Land of the Free imposed that 219% tariff, it was
appropriate, safe and satisfactory.
And BOJO still assures there is this wonderful new future out there free of the
shackles of the hated EU. So I guess knowing the future lies not just in the
domain of remoaner thinking.
Believing that a country will be better off with independence than being
subject to a larger entity is nothing new.
No it has been covered many times. The Scots Indyref was a fairly recent example
where these arguments were played out thoroughly. Similar arguments are now
playing out in Catalonia, Rojava and Kurdistan.
Post by James Harris
That's different from you
"knowing" that the UK will accept hormone-infused beef.
My belief that the UK would accept hormone infused beef is well founded when
even Brexit believers in this newsgroup took shots at Michael Gove at the time
Mr Gove indicated that UK would not accept chlorinated chickens. The EU have
been trying to negotiate on this issue, the USA will not budge. The true Brexit
people know that without accepting the chlorine washed chickens, the chances of
the much hankered for free trade deal with the Home of the Brave reduces greatly.

....
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
I doubt it. Certain Brexiters appear to be ready to accept the Home of the
Brave's authorities legitimate right to unilaterally impose a 219% import tariff
despite the Prime Ministers of two trading partner countries on the phone
pleading with the America First President not to do it. A widespread unilateral
imposition of such a tariff would kill a trading relationship more dead than any
dodo.
The tariff has been imposed by the US trade body, not by POTUS.
And who do you think influences or even appoints the members of this alleged
trade body? Father Christmas? The ECJ, so hated by the true Brexleavers, has a
better claim to independence by a mile.
Post by James Harris
IMO May
should address it through normal channels and not pick a row or ask for
special consideration from Trump.
In other words, Theresa May should assure Trump "We will be with you, whatever"
then kneel down and offer obeisance.

Thank you so very much for yet again illustrating so loud and so proud that in
UK/US free trade deal negotiations one and ony one side will have the whip hand.
Post by James Harris
Besides, aren't the imports from
Canada rather than from the UK?
No, you know its not that simple. Consider not pretending otherwise. Mrs May has
not just the right but the duty to protect the jobs of her citizens and well you
know it.
James Harris
2017-09-30 15:30:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Altroy1
...
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/451076.html
Ukraine is prepared to take symmetrical retaliatory steps
if Budapest blocks any initiatives to build closer ties
between Ukraine and the European Union, Volodymyr Ariev,
the head of the Ukrainian delegation to the Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) and a member of
the Petro Poroshenko Bloc in parliament, said on Tuesday.
"If they resort to blackmail rather than calm negotiations
this is an unreliable partnership,"
Ariev said.
That is not evidence of begging. And seeking closer ties does not prove
a desire for membership.
Playing ignorant much? Rightly you figure Ukraine's hope is for full EU
membership as stated many times. As for Serbia I'll call it begging; you call it
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/07/13/serbian-leader-vucic-presses-eu-for-accession-timetable.html
"I'm not expecting an answer any time soon on when we'll join,
but we're asking from a framework," said Vucic, who won
presidential elections in April. "Tell us clearly what is
expected and when it is expected by."
http://serbianmonitor.com/en/politics/35759/vucic-wants-eu-to-give-serbia-accession-date/
"This is the first time I have asked for something like this.
I think that Mogherini understood that very well. I wanted her
to tell me when exactly was Serbia going to become an EU
member. We don't want to wander around in the dark anymore. We
are definitely going down the right road and we want to know
when and how is this road going to end", Vucic went on to say.
http://serbianmonitor.com/en/politics/30896/vucic-eu-clear-message-western-balkan-accession/
He said he urged Merkel to assert more leadership on the issue
of EU membership for Serbia and its neighbours, with an eye to
showing the tangible benefits of future EU membership,
including jobs and Western values.
"We need huge support from the EU. All this messy stuff, it
sends the wrong message to the people," Vucic said.
Given the above I would call it applying and then getting exasperated at
the EU's slow response. They'd better get used to it!
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
To the Brexit mindset, when to them the greatest nation on earth defends itself
with a 219% tariff - that is wholly legitimate. But if the wicked EU does it
that would be unbridled evil.
You are delusional.
Is this intended to be a rebuttal? An insult? Whatever. A non argument if ever
there was one.
Sorry, I wouldn't normally make an accusation without explaining why.
Looks like I missed something.

... checks back ...

Oh, yes. Point was that you are claiming to know the Brexit mindset -
which your comments show is an invalid claim - and you appear to assert
that a Brexiteer would apply different standards to the US and the EU.
Hence, your comments show you are under a delusion. Your next comments
confirm it! (Brexiteers have different opinions and no one of them
speaks for all the others.)
Post by Altroy1
The hardened Brexit mind cannot be persuaded. Other readers might want to head
over to https://twitter.com/DanielJHannan to get an inkling into the mindset of
the true believer in Brexit, Adam Smith, the evils of socialised medicine and
the greatest nation with the greatest (privatised) health system on earth - the
Land of the Free and Home of the Brave.
The first thing to see is the montage of the UK's flag with sections of the
flags of a few more countries superimposed. Those countries appear to be: The
Land of the Free, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
They are ALL mainly white, English speaking and Christian. Absent is the
Commonwealth's by far biggest country, India. It is worth noting that the Home
of the Brave's population is well over double the other countries on that
montage combined. So you will not need an Oxbridge degree in Applied Mathematics
to figure who will have the whip hand.
Joining BOJO et al in the membership of this free trade institute is ex PM Tony
Abbott. Tony has generously set aside time from current referendum campaigning
against the evils of same sex marriage to tweet his support.
Then there is this real gem of a comment
https://twitter.com/DanielJHannan/status/912405931811622912 Sept 25, 2017
The world is moving toward smaller and more democratic countries. The EU
is going in the opposite direction.
And he quotes the following URL
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/why-are-kurdish-catalan-independence-ok-not-british-independence-1640751
I'm puzzled. Apparently legitimising separatism in other countries whilst
telling the Scots that if they take independence then get lost you won't be free
trading with the UK or using sterling? The next thing on the agenda could be Mr
Hannan offering for sale a nice used red lying battlebus. Cheap.
Overall that twitter feed tells the story of the essential difference between
remain and leave. Its not that the EU impinges on the UK's sovereignty. James
O'Brien has dealt with that many times on LBC. The leavers believe that UK's
destiny lies with its mainly white and Christian former colonies, and remain
that the UK is geographically part of Europe and therein lies its destiny.
...
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis
No problem. I would expect the US to put the US first, and the UK to put
the UK first.
Thank you so much. Now just one more step. Tell us that sometimes the EU is
right to put its own interest first from time to time. In the Brexit mindset the
interests of the EU and UK diverge from time to time. Such a situation to them
cannot be tolerated. Far better to be in the arms of the greatest nation on
earth who would, er, cough, impose a 219% tariff on one of Northern Ireland and
Quebec's largest private sector employers.
When the EU puts its interests first it means putting the EU
superstructure first.
Nice try. When America cites America First it means its jobs, economic and
political coherence comes first. End of. America first not only means jobs it
means a wall to maintain Americas ethnic coherence as well. But of course if the
EU built a wall to keep out the Syrian refugees, in the Brexit mindset that
would be the dictatorial EU at it again.
I don't recognise your description of the Brexit mindset. I suggest you
have developed a prejudice which blinds you to variation in view.
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
It should, in fact, put the prosperity and safety
of its people first, as I would expect the UK and the US to do. Those
priorities are very different.
Nice try in trying to draw an artificial distinction between the EU and US. The
US fought a very bloody civil war to maintain its political coherence. Welfare
of the believers in slavery in the Deep South was not always the highest
priority on Lincoln and his Generals minds. Fast forward to the present and
still the United States of America will take instructions about free trade from
no-one.
The EU will drive a hard bargain to discourage other separatism.
On that we agree. Note the big contrast with the UK aiding and
supporting the devolved administrations to help them be a success. In
complete contrast, the EU fears that seceding states will succeed and
will do what it thinks is necessary to ensure that they are worse off.
Post by Altroy1
The same kind
of message was at one time driven home to the Scots. Leave the UK on a Monday if
you wish. On Tuesday you will face tariffs, customs queues at the border, no
influence on the bank of England and forget about using our currency. We're not
going to fuel separatism in Wales or other places by trading with you as if
nothing has happened.
I think there is another recent post hereabouts concerning the EU allowing the
UK snowflake type relations and opt outs from obligations other EU members have
accepted. And these opt-outs have, unfortunately, not quelled the chorus of
malcontent from the Eurosceptics who will simply not keep quiet until a full and
final chlorinated trade deal with the Home of the Brave is firmly in force.
...
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
Ah, you must be a Remainer. They always know the future!
And the true beLEAVEr? Believes that America is the greatest nation on earth,
You are, again, delusional.
You are, again, not articulating a better point of view.
Your claim that Leavers put America above all others is a delusion.
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
can do no wrong. When the Land of the Free imposed that 219% tariff, it was
appropriate, safe and satisfactory.
And BOJO still assures there is this wonderful new future out there free of the
shackles of the hated EU. So I guess knowing the future lies not just in the
domain of remoaner thinking.
Believing that a country will be better off with independence than being
subject to a larger entity is nothing new.
No it has been covered many times. The Scots Indyref was a fairly recent example
where these arguments were played out thoroughly. Similar arguments are now
playing out in Catalonia, Rojava and Kurdistan.
Post by James Harris
That's different from you
"knowing" that the UK will accept hormone-infused beef.
My belief that the UK would accept hormone infused beef is well founded when
even Brexit believers in this newsgroup took shots at Michael Gove at the time
Mr Gove indicated that UK would not accept chlorinated chickens. The EU have
been trying to negotiate on this issue, the USA will not budge. The true Brexit
people know that without accepting the chlorine washed chickens, the chances of
the much hankered for free trade deal with the Home of the Brave reduces greatly.
Well, you think you know. I don't know yet what choice the British
government will make.
Post by Altroy1
....
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
I doubt it. Certain Brexiters appear to be ready to accept the Home of the
Brave's authorities legitimate right to unilaterally impose a 219% import tariff
despite the Prime Ministers of two trading partner countries on the phone
pleading with the America First President not to do it. A widespread unilateral
imposition of such a tariff would kill a trading relationship more dead than any
dodo.
The tariff has been imposed by the US trade body, not by POTUS.
And who do you think influences or even appoints the members of this alleged
trade body? Father Christmas? The ECJ, so hated by the true Brexleavers, has a
better claim to independence by a mile.
Post by James Harris
IMO May
should address it through normal channels and not pick a row or ask for
special consideration from Trump.
In other words, Theresa May should assure Trump "We will be with you, whatever"
then kneel down and offer obeisance.
No.

You know, it would help to discuss things with you if you responded to
what people say rather than what you assume they think.
Post by Altroy1
Thank you so very much for yet again illustrating so loud and so proud that in
UK/US free trade deal negotiations one and ony one side will have the whip hand.
Post by James Harris
Besides, aren't the imports from
Canada rather than from the UK?
No, you know its not that simple. Consider not pretending otherwise. Mrs May has
not just the right but the duty to protect the jobs of her citizens and well you
know it.
You think you can tell what I know and what I don't know. You are wrong.
You have no idea what my thoughts are other than what I've written -
which you seem keen to ignore so that you can give preference to your
own assumptions rather than reality.
--
James Harris
Altroy1
2017-10-01 13:20:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[....]
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
"We need huge support from the EU. All this messy stuff, it
sends the wrong message to the people," Vucic said.
Given the above I would call it applying and then getting exasperated at
the EU's slow response. They'd better get used to it!
I'd call it begging to be let in rather than join the Brexit dream
of trade with the rest of the world (which just happens to be the
5 eyes countries and little else). Ukraine will have the greatest
problem getting in. It overthrew a democratically elected
president in a dubious coup and elements of its government are so
right-wing they make the Alternativ fuer Deutchland party look
like a bunch of namby-pamby liberal leftie refugee-loving tree
huggers.
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
To the Brexit mindset, when to them the greatest nation on earth defends itself
with a 219% tariff - that is wholly legitimate. But if the wicked EU does it
that would be unbridled evil.
You are delusional.
Is this intended to be a rebuttal? An insult? Whatever. A non argument if ever
there was one.
Sorry, I wouldn't normally make an accusation without explaining why.
Looks like I missed something.
... checks back ...
Oh, yes. Point was that you are claiming to know the Brexit mindset -
which your comments show is an invalid claim - and you appear to assert
that a Brexiteer would apply different standards to the US and the EU.
I should qualify that I should not claim to have either
represented nor misrepresented the vast majority of the Brexit
vote. Some voted for the NHS to get more money. Some blamed the
CFP and CAP for ills on their community. Some were libertarians
that blamed the EU for interefering in peoples lives & so on.

Certain views count for little, though. Such as those on talk
shows lamenting this proposed transition period and cant
understand why when they voted to get out of the EU on a
Thursday, the UK hadn't left by Friday morning. Such are not
compos mentis enough to run a referendum campaign never mind run a
country.

The views that do count are the elites, on both sides, who are
skilled enough both to run a country and run a political campaign.
If they are clever enough to be in a position to run a country
their views count. Even if their views are dangerous. Nicky Morgan
knew arch Americanophile Hannan quite well from University days.
She was also a government cabinet minister and saw how these
people worked close at hand at the higest level of power. Here is
some of her view:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/tory-party-conference-boris-johnson-brexiteers-florence-speech-nicky-morgan-undermining-a7975806.html

The UK Government should be focusing on getting the UK out of
the EU in the least damaging way, not debating arbitrary red
lines set down to try to curry favour with those who want a
utopian ultra free trade, low tax, minimal regulation state.
Those who are pushing this agenda have no place in a responsible
government - it is a dereliction of their duty to act in the
national interest. And it has to stop.
Post by James Harris
Hence, your comments show you are under a delusion. Your next comments
confirm it! (Brexiteers have different opinions and no one of them
speaks for all the others.)
No. Permit me to point out it's the opinions of the powerful elite
who despise the NHS with a passion but went around with that lying
battlebus are the ones that count.

Among the most important are the views of this Free Trade
Institute and its leading lights: BOJO, Liam Fox, Moggmentum,
Daniel Hannan.

Let's look at Daniel Hannan's views about his greatest nation on
earth. A few years back he gave a speech in the US to CPAC and in
it articulated his deep deep love for America and its privatised
health system:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2846097/posts

HANNAN: Let me end with a heartfelt imprecation from a British
conservative who loves his country, to American conservatives who
still believe in theirs. Honor the vision of your founders, cleave
to the most sublime Constitution devised by human intelligence.
Don't be the generation that cuts itself off from the wisdom of
your fathers and disinherits your children.

And he wasn't done. There's more:

Never be afraid to speak to and for the soul of this nation, of
which by good fortune and God's grace you are privileged to be a
part. God bless you, my friends, God bless America, and God
bless the alliance of the free English speaking nations. Thank
you.

Oh, my. This from him and is ilk that scuppered House of
Lords reform to preserve the world's second largest unelected
parliamentary chamber ever. I wonder what part of that "most
sublime Constitution devised by human intelligence" gave the
scupperers of HoL reform the inspiration.

And yes the Brexit case is significantly about the rejection of
the non native English speaking immigrant and the intereference of
the non member of the 5-eyes English speaking countries bureaucrat
in the lives of the free Alliance of English Speaking peoples. The
problem is that such an alliance with the 5-eyes nations means the
UK rejects frictionless borders with it's closest neighbours in
favour of this 5-Eyes surveillance alliance where the nearest
borders (if you could even call them borders) thousands of miles
away so that such matters as border checks can be glossed over and
dispensed with more succinctly.

[....]
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Nice try. When America cites America First it means its jobs, economic and
political coherence comes first. End of. America first not only means jobs it
means a wall to maintain Americas ethnic coherence as well. But of course if the
EU built a wall to keep out the Syrian refugees, in the Brexit mindset that
would be the dictatorial EU at it again.
I don't recognise your description of the Brexit mindset. I suggest you
have developed a prejudice which blinds you to variation in view.
Prejudice!? Like going around on a £350 million more to the NHS
per week lying battlebus whilst simultaneously rejecting the NHS
as the obvious construction of Karl Marx, Engels, Lenin, Jeremy
Corbyn and Satan himself?

I guess that's not what you're thinking. Never mind. Here is the
mindset anyway:

http://www.delawarepolitics.net/brilliant-mep-daniel-hannan-explains-socialisms-failure/

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/brad-wilmouth/2009/08/10/fnc-interviews-brit-who-warns-america-against-national-health-care

http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/04/08/daniel-hannan-on-the-disaster-known-as-socialized-health-care/

Some of the believers in the American Revolution want Hannan as
their president certainly rather than that foreign born, dark
skinned interloper, Obama:

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2009/03/30/mep-daniel-hannan-on-morning-joe-1.php

Hannan should get a Certificate of Live Birth from Hawaii so he
could run for President here!

8. Posted by P. Bunyan | March 31, 2009 2:45 PM

...

True P. Bunyan, just like Obama should get a certificate of live
birth from Afghanistan or wherever He was born and resign
immediately.

10. Posted by 419 | March 31, 2009 5:08 PM
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
It should, in fact, put the prosperity and safety
of its people first, as I would expect the UK and the US to do. Those
priorities are very different.
Nice try in trying to draw an artificial distinction between the EU and US. The
US fought a very bloody civil war to maintain its political coherence. Welfare
of the believers in slavery in the Deep South was not always the highest
priority on Lincoln and his Generals minds. Fast forward to the present and
still the United States of America will take instructions about free trade from
no-one.
The EU will drive a hard bargain to discourage other separatism.
On that we agree.
The Brexit mindset cried "blackmail" as the EU refused to discuss
future trading relationships until the exit bill, the Irish
border and the role, if any, of the ECJ is sorted out. Blackmail
the cry of the weaker party.
Post by James Harris
Note the big contrast with the UK aiding and
supporting the devolved administrations to help them be a success. In
complete contrast, the EU fears that seceding states will succeed and
will do what it thinks is necessary to ensure that they are worse off.
Irrelevant badmouthing of the EU. What is more relevant was the
attitude of the UK to the Scots if they went down the path of
separatism:-

* No say in the running of the Bank of England.
* No automatic entry of Scotland into the EU.
* Customs checks aplenty. Ultra high tariffs.
* Piss off Jocks, forget about using our Sterling.


Michel Barnier is no fool. Michel Barnier is delivering
the same message to the UK as Moggmentum and the rest of
them once delivered to the Scots.

Catalonia is being dealt with in a similar manner. Iraq is
imposing a no fly zone into and out of Kurdistan. Sterner
measures to follow. The UK is not going to be allowed to
walk out of the EU on a Monday to a cosy free trade deal
on a Tuesday. Failure to get a grip with that is a delusion.

[....]
Post by James Harris
No.
You know, it would help to discuss things with you if you responded to
what people say rather than what you assume they think.
Not always. Sometimes absence of evidence is evidence of
absence.

The absence of strong criticism of the Land of the Free's 219%
tariff by the usual Brexiters here is telling. Particularly
telling is by contrasting the same posters spew about the EU day
and daily. The Brexit mindset holds the EU's defence of its
structural and economic integrity as the traitorous inclinations
of the Brussels bureaucrat. The Brexit mindset holds, at worst,
the Land of Hope and Glory's 219% tariff as a possible mistake
that may well be corrected at some future point. The Brexit
mindset holds that at worst, the Land of the Free's naughty,
tariff-imposing wrist may need to be lightly slapped by a tiny
sliver of wet lettuce.

And the Brexit posters here are rather more articulate and gifted
with words than most of the general population. If they wanted to
they could aim a diatribe or two against the tariff-loving Land of
the Free even with its most sublime Constitution ever devised by
human intelligence.
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Thank you so very much for yet again illustrating so loud and so proud that in
UK/US free trade deal negotiations one and ony one side will have the whip hand.
Post by James Harris
Besides, aren't the imports from
Canada rather than from the UK?
No, you know its not that simple. Consider not pretending otherwise. Mrs May has
not just the right but the duty to protect the jobs of her citizens and well you
know it.
You think you can tell what I know and what I don't know. You are wrong.
You have no idea what my thoughts are other than what I've written -
which you seem keen to ignore so that you can give preference to your
own assumptions rather than reality.
No I don't but then I also less posted allegations of a personal
nature.

As to the Brexit mindset, that is the mindset of those that
count, it is wishy washy delusional thinking. Delusional thinking
about the joys of Brexit. Delusional thinking about the beauty of
the Land of the Free's "wonderful" privatised health service, one
of the most expensive health systems in the world with its flaws
so brutally demonstrated in Michael Moores film "sicko".

Nicky Morgan has actually worked with these people and their 5
eyes utopian dream of the English Speaking alliance of Adam Smith
wealth-of-nations capitalism and their rejection of the satanic
NHS and all its works. I don't doubt her judgement for a minute.
Post by James Harris
--
James Harris
James Harris
2017-10-01 13:28:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Altroy1
[....]
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
"We need huge support from the EU. All this messy stuff, it
sends the wrong message to the people," Vucic said.
Given the above I would call it applying and then getting exasperated at
the EU's slow response. They'd better get used to it!
I'd call it begging to be let in rather than join the Brexit dream
of trade with the rest of the world
Asking is not begging. When you go and ask a girl if you can buy her a
drink do you beg?

The EU is in danger of letting in too many taker nations. It needs more
givers. Or it will run out of funds to send to the takers.
Post by Altroy1
(which just happens to be the
5 eyes countries and little else).
If you mean trade, the five-eyes countries would be a _very_ good start.
Of the five, the EU has failed to get an FTA with three of them.

Besides, you are missing some of the key global growth markets where
trade is opening up and they are looking for suppliers. Having said
that, don't feel too bad. The EU has been missing them for years: :-)
Post by Altroy1
Ukraine will have the greatest
problem getting in. It overthrew a democratically elected
president in a dubious coup and elements of its government are so
right-wing they make the Alternativ fuer Deutchland party look
like a bunch of namby-pamby liberal leftie refugee-loving tree
huggers.
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
To the Brexit mindset, when to them the greatest nation on earth
defends itself
with a 219% tariff - that is wholly legitimate. But if the wicked EU does it
that would be unbridled evil.
You are delusional.
Is this intended to be a rebuttal? An insult? Whatever. A non argument if ever
there was one.
Sorry, I wouldn't normally make an accusation without explaining why.
Looks like I missed something.
... checks back ...
Oh, yes. Point was that you are claiming to know the Brexit mindset -
which your comments show is an invalid claim - and you appear to assert
that a Brexiteer would apply different standards to the US and the EU.
I should qualify that I should not claim to have either
represented nor misrepresented the vast majority of the Brexit
vote. Some voted for the NHS to get more money. Some blamed the
CFP and CAP for ills on their community. Some were libertarians
that blamed the EU for interefering in peoples lives & so on.
Agreed.

I would add that some of us voted to leave the EU in order for the UK to
become more prosperous - a motivation that surprises some Remainers
largely because of how poorly the Remain and Leave campaigns were run.
Post by Altroy1
Certain views count for little, though. Such as those on talk
shows lamenting this proposed transition period and cant
understand why when they voted to get out of the EU on a
Thursday, the UK hadn't left by Friday morning. Such are not
compos mentis enough to run a referendum campaign never mind run a
country.
True, though there are those on the Remain side who are clueless about
what the referendum was about.
Post by Altroy1
The views that do count are the elites, on both sides, who are
skilled enough both to run a country and run a political campaign.
No, absolutely not. In the referendum, every person had one vote, and
only one. The elites, rightly, had decided to hand the decision to the
people. And the people made their choice. The job of the elites you
mention is now to obey.
Post by Altroy1
If they are clever enough to be in a position to run a country
their views count. Even if their views are dangerous. Nicky Morgan
knew arch Americanophile Hannan quite well from University days.
She was also a government cabinet minister and saw how these
people worked close at hand at the higest level of power. Here is
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/tory-party-conference-boris-johnson-brexiteers-florence-speech-nicky-morgan-undermining-a7975806.html
The UK Government should be focusing on getting the UK out of
the EU in the least damaging way, not debating arbitrary red
lines set down to try to curry favour with those who want a
utopian ultra free trade, low tax, minimal regulation state.
Those who are pushing this agenda have no place in a responsible
government - it is a dereliction of their duty to act in the
national interest. And it has to stop.
Am happy to debate the /issues/ they bring up but none of these people
has any concrete insight into what the future holds. In fact, when we
look back at a lot of the people - the elites, if you like - who
espoused Remain we find that they also said the UK should join the euro.
They were wrong then. Completely wrong. They would have plunged the UK
into dire conditions.
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
Hence, your comments show you are under a delusion. Your next comments
confirm it! (Brexiteers have different opinions and no one of them
speaks for all the others.)
No. Permit me to point out it's the opinions of the powerful elite
who despise the NHS with a passion but went around with that lying
battlebus are the ones that count.
We'll have to disagree about whether their views count or not. As
mentioned above, such people do not have the power of prognostication,
whether they campaigned for Leave or Remain.
Post by Altroy1
Among the most important are the views of this Free Trade
Institute and its leading lights: BOJO, Liam Fox, Moggmentum,
Daniel Hannan.
Let's look at Daniel Hannan's views about his greatest nation on
earth. A few years back he gave a speech in the US to CPAC and in
it articulated his deep deep love for America and its privatised
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2846097/posts
HANNAN: Let me end with a heartfelt imprecation from a British
conservative who loves his country, to American conservatives who
still believe in theirs. Honor the vision of your founders, cleave
to the most sublime Constitution devised by human intelligence.
Don't be the generation that cuts itself off from the wisdom of
your fathers and disinherits your children.
Never be afraid to speak to and for the soul of this nation, of
which by good fortune and God's grace you are privileged to be a
part. God bless you, my friends, God bless America, and God
bless the alliance of the free English speaking nations. Thank
you.
Oh, my. This from him and is ilk that scuppered House of
Lords reform to preserve the world's second largest unelected
parliamentary chamber ever. I wonder what part of that "most
sublime Constitution devised by human intelligence" gave the
scupperers of HoL reform the inspiration.
I listened to what Dan Hannan said, just as I listend to what Nick Clegg
said. But I made up my own mind, as we all should do. Hannan and Clegg
and their friends were only there to advise. Brexit was our decision,
not theirs.
Post by Altroy1
And yes the Brexit case is significantly about the rejection of
the non native English speaking immigrant and the intereference of
the non member of the 5-eyes English speaking countries bureaucrat
in the lives of the free Alliance of English Speaking peoples. The
problem is that such an alliance with the 5-eyes nations means the
UK rejects frictionless borders with it's closest neighbours in
favour of this 5-Eyes surveillance alliance where the nearest
borders (if you could even call them borders) thousands of miles
away so that such matters as border checks can be glossed over and
dispensed with more succinctly.
I would say No. For example, Brexit was not about stopping immigration.
People will still come and go post Brexit. But it was about who sets UK
immigration policy. Should it be set in the UK by people who are
accountable to the public? Or should part of it be set in Europe by
people who are unaccountable and who are not in fear of the ballot box?
Post by Altroy1
[....]
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Nice try. When America cites America First it means its jobs, economic and
political coherence comes first. End of. America first not only means jobs it
means a wall to maintain Americas ethnic coherence as well. But of course if the
EU built a wall to keep out the Syrian refugees, in the Brexit mindset that
would be the dictatorial EU at it again.
I don't recognise your description of the Brexit mindset. I suggest you
have developed a prejudice which blinds you to variation in view.
Prejudice!? Like going around on a £350 million more to the NHS
per week lying battlebus whilst simultaneously rejecting the NHS
as the obvious construction of Karl Marx, Engels, Lenin, Jeremy
Corbyn and Satan himself?
Coo! I'd heard of Godwin's Law but you're taking it to another level. ;-)
Post by Altroy1
I guess that's not what you're thinking. Never mind. Here is the
http://www.delawarepolitics.net/brilliant-mep-daniel-hannan-explains-socialisms-failure/
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/brad-wilmouth/2009/08/10/fnc-interviews-brit-who-warns-america-against-national-health-care
http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/04/08/daniel-hannan-on-the-disaster-known-as-socialized-health-care/
Some of the believers in the American Revolution want Hannan as
their president certainly rather than that foreign born, dark
http://wizbangblog.com/content/2009/03/30/mep-daniel-hannan-on-morning-joe-1.php
Hannan should get a Certificate of Live Birth from Hawaii so he
could run for President here!
8. Posted by P. Bunyan | March 31, 2009 2:45 PM
...
True P. Bunyan, just like Obama should get a certificate of live
birth from Afghanistan or wherever He was born and resign
immediately.
10. Posted by 419 | March 31, 2009 5:08 PM
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
It should, in fact, put the prosperity and safety
of its people first, as I would expect the UK and the US to do. Those
priorities are very different.
Nice try in trying to draw an artificial distinction between the EU and US. The
US fought a very bloody civil war to maintain its political coherence. Welfare
of the believers in slavery in the Deep South was not always the highest
priority on Lincoln and his Generals minds. Fast forward to the present and
still the United States of America will take instructions about free trade from
no-one.
The EU will drive a hard bargain to discourage other separatism.
On that we agree.
The Brexit mindset cried "blackmail" as the EU refused to discuss
future trading relationships until the exit bill, the Irish
border and the role, if any, of the ECJ is sorted out. Blackmail
the cry of the weaker party.
I don't remember cries of blackmail but I would point out that the UK is
trying to get a good outcome for everyone while the EU wants/needs
things to be worse. That makes the UK's position very difficult. It
doesn't matter to the EU how the 27 members suffer as long as the 1
which is leaving suffers. Nice organisation, isn't it!
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
Note the big contrast with the UK aiding and
supporting the devolved administrations to help them be a success. In
complete contrast, the EU fears that seceding states will succeed and
will do what it thinks is necessary to ensure that they are worse off.
Irrelevant badmouthing of the EU.
Not at all. They have said so themselves!
--
James Harris
pamela
2017-10-01 13:49:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
{BIG SNIP]
For example, Brexit was not about stopping immigration.
I think millions of pro-Brexit voters most probably thought Brexit
was exactly about stopping immigration.

This expectation, however unrealistic, was heavily promoted by Nigel
Farage and others in the referendum campaign.
James Harris
2017-10-01 14:00:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
{BIG SNIP]
For example, Brexit was not about stopping immigration.
I think millions of pro-Brexit voters most probably thought Brexit
was exactly about stopping immigration.
This expectation, however unrealistic, was heavily promoted by Nigel
Farage and others in the referendum campaign.
Well, I accept that one motivation was because people had long been fed
up with the numbers of people who had come in to their communities in a
short space of time. But I think most people understand the difference
between stopping something and regaining control of it.

There are xenophobes in all societies - and they make good copy - but
IMO the /average/ Brit is very welcoming as long as it is to a few at a
time and as long as the new people integrate. But when you get rapid
changes which threaten to continue _with_no_end_in_sight_ then it's
surely only natural that people want to have a brake applied before it's
too late, no? How can that possibly be seen as unreasonable?
--
James Harris
pamela
2017-10-01 20:21:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
{BIG SNIP]
For example, Brexit was not about stopping immigration.
I think millions of pro-Brexit voters most probably thought
Brexit was exactly about stopping immigration.
This expectation, however unrealistic, was heavily promoted by
Nigel Farage and others in the referendum campaign.
Well, I accept that one motivation was because people had long
been fed up with the numbers of people who had come in to their
communities in a short space of time. But I think most people
understand the difference between stopping something and
regaining control of it.
There are xenophobes in all societies - and they make good copy
- but IMO the /average/ Brit is very welcoming as long as it is
to a few at a time and as long as the new people integrate. But
when you get rapid changes which threaten to continue
_with_no_end_in_sight_ then it's surely only natural that people
want to have a brake applied before it's too late, no? How can
that possibly be seen as unreasonable?
I suspect you reasoned observation about the realities of the
situation is not the same as what millions of Leave voters were
expecting when they voted.

The voters had been fed misleading information on an industrial scale
and many were voting purely on intuition. Some Leavers were voting
out of spite (shades of the pro-Trump vote here) as a sort of protest
at the larger political, economic and industrial forces that had
shaped their lives into something less than they had hoped for.
Yellow
2017-10-01 22:22:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@81.171.118.178>, ***@nospam.com
says...
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
{BIG SNIP]
For example, Brexit was not about stopping immigration.
I think millions of pro-Brexit voters most probably thought
Brexit was exactly about stopping immigration.
This expectation, however unrealistic, was heavily promoted by
Nigel Farage and others in the referendum campaign.
Well, I accept that one motivation was because people had long
been fed up with the numbers of people who had come in to their
communities in a short space of time. But I think most people
understand the difference between stopping something and
regaining control of it.
There are xenophobes in all societies - and they make good copy
- but IMO the /average/ Brit is very welcoming as long as it is
to a few at a time and as long as the new people integrate. But
when you get rapid changes which threaten to continue
_with_no_end_in_sight_ then it's surely only natural that people
want to have a brake applied before it's too late, no? How can
that possibly be seen as unreasonable?
I suspect you reasoned observation about the realities of the
situation is not the same as what millions of Leave voters were
expecting when they voted.
If that is your view, do you also believe the same of Remain voters? How
many of those do you think are all clued up on the direction of
direction travel of the EU? How many knew what the Single Market was?
How many understood the Customs Union?
Post by pamela
The voters had been fed misleading information on an industrial scale
and many were voting purely on intuition.
Again, just the Leave voters? Or do you think Remain voters to be
equally as mislead and as equally ignorant, given they were fed exactly
the same information.
Post by pamela
Some Leavers were voting
out of spite (shades of the pro-Trump vote here) as a sort of protest
at the larger political, economic and industrial forces that had
shaped their lives into something less than they had hoped for.
What about the people who took the easy route and voted Remain out of
complete and utter laziness, to save the bother of finding out anything
about the issues? That is of course one of the reasons why the status
quo generally wins this sort of vote.
James Harris
2017-10-02 07:00:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
{BIG SNIP]
For example, Brexit was not about stopping immigration.
I think millions of pro-Brexit voters most probably thought
Brexit was exactly about stopping immigration.
This expectation, however unrealistic, was heavily promoted by
Nigel Farage and others in the referendum campaign.
Well, I accept that one motivation was because people had long
been fed up with the numbers of people who had come in to their
communities in a short space of time. But I think most people
understand the difference between stopping something and
regaining control of it.
There are xenophobes in all societies - and they make good copy
- but IMO the /average/ Brit is very welcoming as long as it is
to a few at a time and as long as the new people integrate. But
when you get rapid changes which threaten to continue
_with_no_end_in_sight_ then it's surely only natural that people
want to have a brake applied before it's too late, no? How can
that possibly be seen as unreasonable?
I suspect you reasoned observation about the realities of the
situation is not the same as what millions of Leave voters were
expecting when they voted.
If that is your view, do you also believe the same of Remain voters? How
many of those do you think are all clued up on the direction of
direction travel of the EU? How many knew what the Single Market was?
How many understood the Customs Union?
Post by pamela
The voters had been fed misleading information on an industrial scale
and many were voting purely on intuition.
Again, just the Leave voters? Or do you think Remain voters to be
equally as mislead and as equally ignorant, given they were fed exactly
the same information.
Post by pamela
Some Leavers were voting
out of spite (shades of the pro-Trump vote here) as a sort of protest
at the larger political, economic and industrial forces that had
shaped their lives into something less than they had hoped for.
What about the people who took the easy route and voted Remain out of
complete and utter laziness, to save the bother of finding out anything
about the issues? That is of course one of the reasons why the status
quo generally wins this sort of vote.
All very good questions.
--
James Harris
tim...
2017-10-02 07:53:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
What about the people who took the easy route and voted Remain out of
complete and utter laziness, to save the bother of finding out anything
about the issues?
or because their boss told them that their job was at risk if they didn't

most corporates told their employers that they MUST vote remain to ensure
the future success of the company

when all that was really at risk was the bonus/salary of the chief
exec/other directors.

tim
James Harris
2017-10-02 06:59:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
{BIG SNIP]
For example, Brexit was not about stopping immigration.
I think millions of pro-Brexit voters most probably thought
Brexit was exactly about stopping immigration.
This expectation, however unrealistic, was heavily promoted by
Nigel Farage and others in the referendum campaign.
Well, I accept that one motivation was because people had long
been fed up with the numbers of people who had come in to their
communities in a short space of time. But I think most people
understand the difference between stopping something and
regaining control of it.
There are xenophobes in all societies - and they make good copy
- but IMO the /average/ Brit is very welcoming as long as it is
to a few at a time and as long as the new people integrate. But
when you get rapid changes which threaten to continue
_with_no_end_in_sight_ then it's surely only natural that people
want to have a brake applied before it's too late, no? How can
that possibly be seen as unreasonable?
I suspect you reasoned observation about the realities of the
situation is not the same as what millions of Leave voters were
expecting when they voted.
I would think that all of us who post to this newsgroup are more engaged
in politics than the average voter. So surely the converse of your point
is also true: you are more aware of what the EU is and does than many
who voted Remain.
Post by pamela
The voters had been fed misleading information on an industrial scale
and many were voting purely on intuition.
You mean on both sides or just pro Brexit?
Post by pamela
Some Leavers were voting
out of spite (shades of the pro-Trump vote here) as a sort of protest
at the larger political, economic and industrial forces that had
shaped their lives into something less than they had hoped for.
Agreed, though I would put it differently. AISI the country had long
been dividing into the haves and have nots. For whatever reason
(capitalism, globalisation, EU protectionism, British policy etc) some
of the population were doing well out of the system while others felt
left behind. And I agree that those left behind predominantly wanted
change. But that is too simplistic a way to dismiss the Brexit vote.
Evidentially, rather than anecdotally, a lot of people knew enough to
know they didn't like the EU and what it had done to Britain. A lot
didn't like the direction the EU was heading in (and let's not pretend
that the EU is static; it is heading for ever-closer integration).

And I would say it's likely that that those who didn't know much about
the issues predominantly voted Remain, because the status quo - as they
might have seen it - would always seem safer than a big change.

Therefore, I would say that those who voted for Brexit were, on average,
more informed than those who voted remain.

So, again, to dismiss the Brexit vote as a protest is, I think, missing
a large part of what motivated the majority.
--
James Harris
Ian Jackson
2017-10-02 16:07:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
And I would say it's likely that that those who didn't know much about
the issues predominantly voted Remain, because the status quo - as they
might have seen it - would always seem safer than a big change.
On the other hand, most Remainers were probably not unaware that the EU
is far from perfect - but having weighed up the pros and cons, decided
that being 'in' was the lesser of the two evils.

Unlike some of the Brexiteers' "We want out at any cost", I don't know
of any Remainers who are desperate to "stay in at any cost".
--
Ian
Yellow
2017-10-02 16:22:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by James Harris
And I would say it's likely that that those who didn't know much about
the issues predominantly voted Remain, because the status quo - as they
might have seen it - would always seem safer than a big change.
On the other hand, most Remainers were probably not unaware that the EU
is far from perfect - but having weighed up the pros and cons, decided
that being 'in' was the lesser of the two evils.
You have no idea whatsoever, what proportion of people vote Remain for
what reason.

Some will have wished to stay at any cost because they agree with its
political ideas, some because they get some person benefit, some will
simply have been happy with the status-quo, some will have weighed the
odds even though they are not that keen on the EU - but how many of
each, you have no idea and I am sure there are other reasons too.
Post by Ian Jackson
Unlike some of the Brexiteers' "We want out at any cost", I don't know
of any Remainers who are desperate to "stay in at any cost".
You once posted here that you wished to stay in the EU at any cost and I
suspect there are a couple of other posters here who would agree with
the sentiment.
pamela
2017-10-02 18:33:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by James Harris
And I would say it's likely that that those who didn't know
much about the issues predominantly voted Remain, because the
status quo - as they might have seen it - would always seem
safer than a big change.
On the other hand, most Remainers were probably not unaware
that the EU is far from perfect - but having weighed up the
pros and cons, decided that being 'in' was the lesser of the
two evils.
You have no idea whatsoever, what proportion of people vote
Remain for what reason.
Why don't you read what Ian wrote? He didn't say anything like
what you are alleging. Ian was careful to properly caveat his
points. What is the matter with you that makes you unable to
understand this?
Post by Yellow
Some will have wished to stay at any cost because they agree
with its political ideas, some because they get some person
benefit, some will simply have been happy with the status-quo,
some will have weighed the odds even though they are not that
keen on the EU - but how many of each, you have no idea and I am
sure there are other reasons too.
I think he has covered all those aspects. Exactly what is your
problem?
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
Unlike some of the Brexiteers' "We want out at any cost", I
don't know of any Remainers who are desperate to "stay in at
any cost".
You once posted here that you wished to stay in the EU at any
cost and I suspect there are a couple of other posters here who
would agree with the sentiment.
Can you provide a reference to where Ian said that please.
Yellow
2017-10-02 18:41:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@81.171.92.183>, ***@nospam.com
says...
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by James Harris
And I would say it's likely that that those who didn't know
much about the issues predominantly voted Remain, because the
status quo - as they might have seen it - would always seem
safer than a big change.
On the other hand, most Remainers were probably not unaware
that the EU is far from perfect - but having weighed up the
pros and cons, decided that being 'in' was the lesser of the
two evils.
You have no idea whatsoever, what proportion of people vote
Remain for what reason.
Why don't you read what Ian wrote?
Are you his mother (or is that father)?
pamela
2017-10-02 18:44:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by James Harris
And I would say it's likely that that those who didn't know
much about the issues predominantly voted Remain, because
the status quo - as they might have seen it - would always
seem safer than a big change.
On the other hand, most Remainers were probably not unaware
that the EU is far from perfect - but having weighed up the
pros and cons, decided that being 'in' was the lesser of the
two evils.
You have no idea whatsoever, what proportion of people vote
Remain for what reason.
Why don't you read what Ian wrote?
Are you his mother (or is that father)?
You are a child.
Ophelia
2017-10-03 09:58:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Yellow" wrote in message news:***@News.Individual.NET...

In article <***@81.171.92.183>, ***@nospam.com
says...
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by James Harris
And I would say it's likely that that those who didn't know
much about the issues predominantly voted Remain, because the
status quo - as they might have seen it - would always seem
safer than a big change.
On the other hand, most Remainers were probably not unaware
that the EU is far from perfect - but having weighed up the
pros and cons, decided that being 'in' was the lesser of the
two evils.
You have no idea whatsoever, what proportion of people vote
Remain for what reason.
Why don't you read what Ian wrote?
Are you his mother (or is that father)?

==

The Remainers are very fond of telling us all why people voted the way they
did. Do they have access to the millions who voted? I wonder how long it
took them to evaluate each reason?

Perhaps they are just psychic? Or is it perhaps just arrogance and the
belief that they 'Know It All' ?

Have you seen any Brexiters doing that? I haven't, or perhaps I have just
missed them. I must admit it makes me laugh when I read the reasons they
tout.
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
Ian Jackson
2017-10-03 12:33:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ophelia
The Remainers are very fond of telling us all why people voted the way
they did. Do they have access to the millions who voted? I wonder how
long it took them to evaluate each reason?
All I can go on is what I've heard listening to the various phone-ins
etc - especially on LBC.

The presenters who do their two or three hour stints vary from
arch-Leavers (like Nigel Farage) to convinced Remainers (like James
o'Brian). While there is occasionally a certain preference for those
phoners whose views coincide with those of the presenters, in general
all shades of opinion usually get a fair airing. [James o'B takes a
particular delight in letting Leavers present what they think is a
strong case for leaving - and then lets them destroy their own
argument.]

While listening to phone-ins doesn't entitle anyone to claim that they
know exactly why millions voted in the way they did, they've probably
got a somewhat better idea than those who get their information
elsewhere - or possibly nowhere at all, other than the Daily Mail.
--
Ian
Yellow
2017-10-03 16:18:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Ophelia
The Remainers are very fond of telling us all why people voted the way
they did. Do they have access to the millions who voted? I wonder how
long it took them to evaluate each reason?
All I can go on is what I've heard listening to the various phone-ins
etc - especially on LBC.
So through a small window and represents has the same risk that assuming
people that go on Jeremy Kyle represent all of humanity.

That does not mean it is uninteresting, just unrepresentative.
Post by Ian Jackson
The presenters who do their two or three hour stints vary from
arch-Leavers (like Nigel Farage) to convinced Remainers (like James
o'Brian). While there is occasionally a certain preference for those
phoners whose views coincide with those of the presenters, in general
all shades of opinion usually get a fair airing. [James o'B takes a
particular delight in letting Leavers present what they think is a
strong case for leaving - and then lets them destroy their own
argument.]
Sounds addictive listening. :-)
Post by Ian Jackson
While listening to phone-ins doesn't entitle anyone to claim that they
know exactly why millions voted in the way they did, they've probably
got a somewhat better idea than those who get their information
elsewhere - or possibly nowhere at all, other than the Daily Mail.
I don't see how you can conclude that but then I have never listened to
LBC. But perhaps I should start as it actually sounds quite
entertaining.
Ian Jackson
2017-10-03 19:04:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Ophelia
The Remainers are very fond of telling us all why people voted the way
they did. Do they have access to the millions who voted? I wonder how
long it took them to evaluate each reason?
All I can go on is what I've heard listening to the various phone-ins
etc - especially on LBC.
So through a small window and represents has the same risk that assuming
people that go on Jeremy Kyle represent all of humanity.
That does not mean it is uninteresting, just unrepresentative.
Rubbish.

This 'small window' on Brexit has been wide open since the referendum
(indeed, for some time before it). Apart from about three hours per day,
it's nearly all phone-ins, brief news bulletins and political
discussions. A lot of discussion has passed through the window in that
time, during which it's not unreasonable to assume that I've heard most
shades of opinion.
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
The presenters who do their two or three hour stints vary from
arch-Leavers (like Nigel Farage) to convinced Remainers (like James
o'Brian). While there is occasionally a certain preference for those
phoners whose views coincide with those of the presenters, in general
all shades of opinion usually get a fair airing. [James o'B takes a
particular delight in letting Leavers present what they think is a
strong case for leaving - and then lets them destroy their own
argument.]
Sounds addictive listening. :-)
You really should try it. Mind you, I'm just as interested to hear what
Nigel Farage and his callers have to say (even though most of his six
hours per week is largely a party political broadcast obo Brexit).
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
While listening to phone-ins doesn't entitle anyone to claim that they
know exactly why millions voted in the way they did, they've probably
got a somewhat better idea than those who get their information
elsewhere - or possibly nowhere at all, other than the Daily Mail.
I don't see how you can conclude that but then I have never listened to
LBC.
It's a lot more informative than the BBC programme "I've Never Seen Star
Wars".
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27ve_Never_Seen_Star_Wars_(TV_series)>
Post by Yellow
But perhaps I should start as it actually sounds quite
entertaining.
You really should. Although it's not the be-all and and-all, you might
eventually get a better understanding of how people see things. There's
some queer folks out there - but most of them are voters!
--
Ian
pamela
2017-10-03 19:21:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
............ CUT
You really should. Although it's not the be-all and and-all, you
might eventually get a better understanding of how people see
things. There's some queer folks out there - but most of them
are voters!
LBC did a good job when Nick Ferrari interviewed Dianne Abbott over
the cost of extra policemen. What a smasher that one was. :)
Yellow
2017-10-03 20:30:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
All I can go on is what I've heard listening to the various phone-ins
etc - especially on LBC.
So through a small window and represents has the same risk that assuming
people that go on Jeremy Kyle represent all of humanity.
That does not mean it is uninteresting, just unrepresentative.
Rubbish.
You can't think a cross section of society phones radio shows. Surely?
Post by Ian Jackson
This 'small window' on Brexit has been wide open since the referendum
(indeed, for some time before it). Apart from about three hours per day,
it's nearly all phone-ins, brief news bulletins and political
discussions. A lot of discussion has passed through the window in that
time, during which it's not unreasonable to assume that I've heard most
shades of opinion.
We are discussing radio phone ins and those who phone in are a small,
self selecting group.

By definition that means they are unrepresentative.
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
The presenters who do their two or three hour stints vary from
arch-Leavers (like Nigel Farage) to convinced Remainers (like James
o'Brian). While there is occasionally a certain preference for those
phoners whose views coincide with those of the presenters, in general
all shades of opinion usually get a fair airing. [James o'B takes a
particular delight in letting Leavers present what they think is a
strong case for leaving - and then lets them destroy their own
argument.]
Sounds addictive listening. :-)
You really should try it. Mind you, I'm just as interested to hear what
Nigel Farage and his callers have to say (even though most of his six
hours per week is largely a party political broadcast obo Brexit).
I will. I like to hear differing sides of political arguments.
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
While listening to phone-ins doesn't entitle anyone to claim that they
know exactly why millions voted in the way they did, they've probably
got a somewhat better idea than those who get their information
elsewhere - or possibly nowhere at all, other than the Daily Mail.
I don't see how you can conclude that but then I have never listened to
LBC.
It's a lot more informative than the BBC programme "I've Never Seen Star
Wars".
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27ve_Never_Seen_Star_Wars_(TV_series)>
Post by Yellow
But perhaps I should start as it actually sounds quite
entertaining.
You really should. Although it's not the be-all and and-all, you might
eventually get a better understanding of how people see things. There's
some queer folks out there - but most of them are voters!
But I still argue they are a self selecting group, as is the audience on
Question Time for example.

As we are too.
MM
2017-10-04 07:58:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
All I can go on is what I've heard listening to the various phone-ins
etc - especially on LBC.
So through a small window and represents has the same risk that assuming
people that go on Jeremy Kyle represent all of humanity.
That does not mean it is uninteresting, just unrepresentative.
Rubbish.
You can't think a cross section of society phones radio shows. Surely?
Post by Ian Jackson
This 'small window' on Brexit has been wide open since the referendum
(indeed, for some time before it). Apart from about three hours per day,
it's nearly all phone-ins, brief news bulletins and political
discussions. A lot of discussion has passed through the window in that
time, during which it's not unreasonable to assume that I've heard most
shades of opinion.
We are discussing radio phone ins and those who phone in are a small,
self selecting group.
By definition that means they are unrepresentative.
Of course it doesn't mean that. If Brexiters are calling the show to
show their support for Brexit and argue the toss about that, then they
are representative of 17 million people who voted to leave the EU.

And Brexiters are quick to claim that that number is "a majority of
the British people" even!

MM
Yellow
2017-10-03 13:32:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@gmail.com
says...
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by James Harris
And I would say it's likely that that those who didn't know
much about the issues predominantly voted Remain, because the
status quo - as they might have seen it - would always seem
safer than a big change.
On the other hand, most Remainers were probably not unaware
that the EU is far from perfect - but having weighed up the
pros and cons, decided that being 'in' was the lesser of the
two evils.
You have no idea whatsoever, what proportion of people vote
Remain for what reason.
Why don't you read what Ian wrote?
Are you his mother (or is that father)?
==
The Remainers are very fond of telling us all why people voted the way they
did. Do they have access to the millions who voted? I wonder how long it
took them to evaluate each reason?
Perhaps they are just psychic? Or is it perhaps just arrogance and the
belief that they 'Know It All' ?
Have you seen any Brexiters doing that? I haven't, or perhaps I have just
missed them. I must admit it makes me laugh when I read the reasons they
tout.
What I do think is odd though is that I, as a leaver, accept there are
arguments for staying and can well understand why people might have made
that choice - but this seems to be a one way street for all too many
remainers.

They may not want to control immigration for example but surely they
should be able to see that some people do. Or trade deals are another
good one where they may be happy with the current arrangement but the
other side of the argument is as plain as day.

Pick a side, sure, but I find it quite perplexing when people cannot see
both.
Ophelia
2017-10-03 20:17:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Yellow" wrote in message news:***@News.Individual.NET...

In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@gmail.com
says...
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by James Harris
And I would say it's likely that that those who didn't know
much about the issues predominantly voted Remain, because the
status quo - as they might have seen it - would always seem
safer than a big change.
On the other hand, most Remainers were probably not unaware
that the EU is far from perfect - but having weighed up the
pros and cons, decided that being 'in' was the lesser of the
two evils.
You have no idea whatsoever, what proportion of people vote
Remain for what reason.
Why don't you read what Ian wrote?
Are you his mother (or is that father)?
==
The Remainers are very fond of telling us all why people voted the way they
did. Do they have access to the millions who voted? I wonder how long it
took them to evaluate each reason?
Perhaps they are just psychic? Or is it perhaps just arrogance and the
belief that they 'Know It All' ?
Have you seen any Brexiters doing that? I haven't, or perhaps I have just
missed them. I must admit it makes me laugh when I read the reasons they
tout.
What I do think is odd though is that I, as a leaver, accept there are
arguments for staying and can well understand why people might have made
that choice - but this seems to be a one way street for all too many
remainers.

They may not want to control immigration for example but surely they
should be able to see that some people do. Or trade deals are another
good one where they may be happy with the current arrangement but the
other side of the argument is as plain as day.

Pick a side, sure, but I find it quite perplexing when people cannot see
both.

==

I agree! I would never try to put forward my view on the way millions of
others think, no matter how many papers I read, or radio shows I have
listened to.

I think that takes a very particular shade of arrogance.
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
R. Mark Clayton
2017-10-03 14:55:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by James Harris
And I would say it's likely that that those who didn't know
much about the issues predominantly voted Remain, because the
status quo - as they might have seen it - would always seem
safer than a big change.
On the other hand, most Remainers were probably not unaware
that the EU is far from perfect - but having weighed up the
pros and cons, decided that being 'in' was the lesser of the
two evils.
You have no idea whatsoever, what proportion of people vote
Remain for what reason.
Why don't you read what Ian wrote?
Are you his mother (or is that father)?
==
The Remainers are very fond of telling us all why people voted the way they
did. Do they have access to the millions who voted? I wonder how long it
took them to evaluate each reason?
Perhaps they are just psychic? Or is it perhaps just arrogance and the
belief that they 'Know It All' ?
Have you seen any Brexiters doing that? I haven't, or perhaps I have just
missed them. I must admit it makes me laugh when I read the reasons they
tout.
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
No-one knows how or why individual leavers voted, but to the fury of Leavers of course we DO know that there was an immensely strong correlation between areas that voted leave and areas with low educational attainment in England and Wales.

You don't have to be psychic to work this out, an hour on the web sites of The Office of National Statistics (2011 Census) and Electoral Commission (2016 vote) showed me this the following day (and you could repeat the work yourself now). Only an intersection of between 25 and 30 million people, but still quite a large sample statistically...
Ian Jackson
2017-10-02 18:46:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by James Harris
And I would say
it's likely that that those who didn't know much about
the issues predominantly voted Remain, because the status quo - as they
might have seen it - would always seem safer than a big change.
On the other hand, most Remainers were probably not unaware that the EU
is far from perfect - but having weighed up the pros and cons, decided
that being 'in' was the lesser of the two evils.
You have no idea whatsoever, what proportion of people vote Remain for
what reason.
I'm probably a lot closer to the truth than believing "it's likely that
that those who didn't know much about the issues predominantly voted
Remain". There seemed to be quite a lot of those who voted to leave who
had absolutely no idea about what leaving would entail, and what the
consequences might be.
Post by Yellow
Some will have wished to stay at any cost because they agree with its
political ideas, some because they get some person benefit, some will
simply have been happy with the status-quo, some will have weighed the
odds even though they are not that keen on the EU - but how many of
each, you have no idea and I am sure there are other reasons too.
Sorry for knowing nothing.
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
Unlike some of the Brexiteers' "We want out at any cost", I don't know
of any Remainers who are desperate to "stay in at any cost".
You once posted here that you wished to stay in the EU at any cost and I
suspect there are a couple of other posters here who would agree with
the sentiment.
Total rubbish!
--
Ian
pamela
2017-10-02 18:52:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by James Harris
And I would say
it's likely that that those who didn't know much about
the issues predominantly voted Remain, because the status quo
- as they might have seen it - would always seem safer than a
big change.
On the other hand, most Remainers were probably not unaware
that the EU is far from perfect - but having weighed up the
pros and cons, decided that being 'in' was the lesser of the
two evils.
You have no idea whatsoever, what proportion of people vote
Remain for what reason.
I'm probably a lot closer to the truth than believing "it's
likely that that those who didn't know much about the issues
predominantly voted Remain". There seemed to be quite a lot of
those who voted to leave who had absolutely no idea about what
leaving would entail, and what the consequences might be.
Post by Yellow
Some will have wished to stay at any cost because they agree
with its political ideas, some because they get some person
benefit, some will simply have been happy with the status-quo,
some will have weighed the odds even though they are not that
keen on the EU - but how many of each, you have no idea and I am
sure there are other reasons too.
Sorry for knowing nothing.
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
Unlike some of the Brexiteers' "We want out at any cost", I
don't know of any Remainers who are desperate to "stay in at
any cost".
You once posted here that you wished to stay in the EU at any
cost and I suspect there are a couple of other posters here who
would agree with the sentiment.
Total rubbish!
Ian, after reading some of Yellow's bizarre assertions today I
have asked her a couple of times if she is intoxicated because her
facts and her behaviour are not, well, exactly normal. She can't
stick to the topic, no matter how simple, or she exaggerates and
hugely magnifies some irrelevant detail into a matter of great
distress to herself.

Maybe she will feel better tomorrow.
Yellow
2017-10-03 10:02:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@81.171.118.178>, ***@nospam.com
says...
Post by pamela
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by James Harris
And I would say
it's likely that that those who didn't know much about
the issues predominantly voted Remain, because the status quo
- as they might have seen it - would always seem safer than a
big change.
On the other hand, most Remainers were probably not unaware
that the EU is far from perfect - but having weighed up the
pros and cons, decided that being 'in' was the lesser of the
two evils.
You have no idea whatsoever, what proportion of people vote
Remain for what reason.
I'm probably a lot closer to the truth than believing "it's
likely that that those who didn't know much about the issues
predominantly voted Remain". There seemed to be quite a lot of
those who voted to leave who had absolutely no idea about what
leaving would entail, and what the consequences might be.
Post by Yellow
Some will have wished to stay at any cost because they agree
with its political ideas, some because they get some person
benefit, some will simply have been happy with the status-quo,
some will have weighed the odds even though they are not that
keen on the EU - but how many of each, you have no idea and I am
sure there are other reasons too.
Sorry for knowing nothing.
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
Unlike some of the Brexiteers' "We want out at any cost", I
don't know of any Remainers who are desperate to "stay in at
any cost".
You once posted here that you wished to stay in the EU at any
cost and I suspect there are a couple of other posters here who
would agree with the sentiment.
Total rubbish!
Ian, after reading some of Yellow's bizarre assertions today I
have asked her a couple of times if she is intoxicated because her
facts and her behaviour are not, well, exactly normal. She can't
stick to the topic, no matter how simple, or she exaggerates and
hugely magnifies some irrelevant detail into a matter of great
distress to herself.
Maybe she will feel better tomorrow.
I have yanked your chain. :-)
pamela
2017-10-03 11:32:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by James Harris
And I would say
it's likely that that those who didn't know much about
the issues predominantly voted Remain, because the status
quo - as they might have seen it - would always seem safer
than a big change.
On the other hand, most Remainers were probably not unaware
that the EU is far from perfect - but having weighed up the
pros and cons, decided that being 'in' was the lesser of
the two evils.
You have no idea whatsoever, what proportion of people vote
Remain for what reason.
I'm probably a lot closer to the truth than believing "it's
likely that that those who didn't know much about the issues
predominantly voted Remain". There seemed to be quite a lot
of those who voted to leave who had absolutely no idea about
what leaving would entail, and what the consequences might
be.
Post by Yellow
Some will have wished to stay at any cost because they agree
with its political ideas, some because they get some person
benefit, some will simply have been happy with the
status-quo, some will have weighed the odds even though they
are not that keen on the EU - but how many of each, you have
no idea and I am sure there are other reasons too.
Sorry for knowing nothing.
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
Unlike some of the Brexiteers' "We want out at any cost", I
don't know of any Remainers who are desperate to "stay in
at any cost".
You once posted here that you wished to stay in the EU at any
cost and I suspect there are a couple of other posters here
who would agree with the sentiment.
Total rubbish!
Ian, after reading some of Yellow's bizarre assertions today I
have asked her a couple of times if she is intoxicated because
her facts and her behaviour are not, well, exactly normal. She
can't stick to the topic, no matter how simple, or she
exaggerates and hugely magnifies some irrelevant detail into a
matter of great distress to herself.
Maybe she will feel better tomorrow.
I have yanked your chain. :-)
Were you drunk?
Ophelia
2017-10-03 20:21:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Yellow" wrote in message news:***@News.Individual.NET...

In article <***@81.171.118.178>, ***@nospam.com
says...
Post by pamela
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by James Harris
And I would say
it's likely that that those who didn't know much about
the issues predominantly voted Remain, because the status quo
- as they might have seen it - would always seem safer than a
big change.
On the other hand, most Remainers were probably not unaware
that the EU is far from perfect - but having weighed up the
pros and cons, decided that being 'in' was the lesser of the
two evils.
You have no idea whatsoever, what proportion of people vote
Remain for what reason.
I'm probably a lot closer to the truth than believing "it's
likely that that those who didn't know much about the issues
predominantly voted Remain". There seemed to be quite a lot of
those who voted to leave who had absolutely no idea about what
leaving would entail, and what the consequences might be.
Post by Yellow
Some will have wished to stay at any cost because they agree
with its political ideas, some because they get some person
benefit, some will simply have been happy with the status-quo,
some will have weighed the odds even though they are not that
keen on the EU - but how many of each, you have no idea and I am
sure there are other reasons too.
Sorry for knowing nothing.
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
Unlike some of the Brexiteers' "We want out at any cost", I
don't know of any Remainers who are desperate to "stay in at
any cost".
You once posted here that you wished to stay in the EU at any
cost and I suspect there are a couple of other posters here who
would agree with the sentiment.
Total rubbish!
Ian, after reading some of Yellow's bizarre assertions today I
have asked her a couple of times if she is intoxicated because her
facts and her behaviour are not, well, exactly normal. She can't
stick to the topic, no matter how simple, or she exaggerates and
hugely magnifies some irrelevant detail into a matter of great
distress to herself.
Maybe she will feel better tomorrow.
I have yanked your chain. :-)

==

<g>
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
James Harris
2017-10-02 20:13:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by James Harris
And I would say
it's likely that that those who didn't know much about
the issues predominantly voted Remain, because the status quo - as they
might have seen it - would always seem safer than a big change.
On the other hand, most Remainers were probably not unaware that the EU
is far from perfect - but having weighed up the pros and cons, decided
that being 'in' was the lesser of the two evils.
You have no idea whatsoever, what proportion of people vote Remain for
what reason.
I'm probably a lot closer to the truth than believing "it's likely that
that those who didn't know much about the issues predominantly voted
Remain".
I remember a report that Google had said the most popular question
British people had typed into its search engine just before the vote was
"what is the EU". LOL! If so many people were unsure, Remain would
always have looked the safer option.
Post by Ian Jackson
There seemed to be quite a lot of those who voted to leave who
had absolutely no idea about what leaving would entail, and what the
consequences might be.
Of course! If the EU had been a friend it /could/ have worked with the
UK government to come up with suitable Brexit terms, and then that could
have been put to the vote. But they EU is not like that. Not at all.
Hence, we the public had no choice but to vote blind.

Given the terms under which we had to vote and the weight of the
establishment behind Project Fear, I am amazed and somewhat in awe of
the courage of the British people that they chose the harder course. I
thought before then that the British spirit was likely dead. The British
people proved me wrong. I couldn't have been prouder of the country. It
was a remarkable piece of self determination, of the people choosing to
take power back from the elites.
--
James Harris
Yellow
2017-10-02 22:37:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <oqu6l6$8bj$***@dont-email.me>, ***@gmail.com
says...
Post by James Harris
Given the terms under which we had to vote and the weight of the
establishment behind Project Fear, I am amazed and somewhat in awe of
the courage of the British people that they chose the harder course. I
thought before then that the British spirit was likely dead. The British
people proved me wrong. I couldn't have been prouder of the country. It
was a remarkable piece of self determination, of the people choosing to
take power back from the elites.
I felt the same. Astonished, pleased and impressed, that despite being
told by our government which way to vote, despite having the power of
government behind that side of the argument, despite EU membership being
the safe, status-quo - we vote to leave. :-)

Yet the elite still think that they can keep us in the EU, or at the
very least leave in name only, and that no one will mind.
The Todal
2017-10-02 22:43:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by James Harris
Given the terms under which we had to vote and the weight of the
establishment behind Project Fear, I am amazed and somewhat in awe of
the courage of the British people that they chose the harder course. I
thought before then that the British spirit was likely dead. The British
people proved me wrong. I couldn't have been prouder of the country. It
was a remarkable piece of self determination, of the people choosing to
take power back from the elites.
I felt the same. Astonished, pleased and impressed, that despite being
told by our government which way to vote, despite having the power of
government behind that side of the argument, despite EU membership being
the safe, status-quo - we vote to leave. :-)
Yet the elite still think that they can keep us in the EU, or at the
very least leave in name only, and that no one will mind.
And I'm sure that if there was a referendum on whether to nuke North
Korea, a slim majority of the British public would have the courage and
the faith in our armed forces to vote in favour. It would make me so
proud. The simple common sense of the ordinary British public would be
more than a match for the nay-sayers and those who predicted disaster.
Yellow
2017-10-02 22:56:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@icloud.com
says...
Post by The Todal
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by James Harris
Given the terms under which we had to vote and the weight of the
establishment behind Project Fear, I am amazed and somewhat in awe of
the courage of the British people that they chose the harder course. I
thought before then that the British spirit was likely dead. The British
people proved me wrong. I couldn't have been prouder of the country. It
was a remarkable piece of self determination, of the people choosing to
take power back from the elites.
I felt the same. Astonished, pleased and impressed, that despite being
told by our government which way to vote, despite having the power of
government behind that side of the argument, despite EU membership being
the safe, status-quo - we vote to leave. :-)
Yet the elite still think that they can keep us in the EU, or at the
very least leave in name only, and that no one will mind.
And I'm sure that if there was a referendum on whether to nuke North
Korea, a slim majority of the British public would have the courage and
the faith in our armed forces to vote in favour. It would make me so
proud. The simple common sense of the ordinary British public would be
more than a match for the nay-sayers and those who predicted disaster.
Been on holiday?
pamela
2017-10-03 09:19:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
Post by Yellow
Post by James Harris
Given the terms under which we had to vote and the weight of
the establishment behind Project Fear, I am amazed and
somewhat in awe of the courage of the British people that they
chose the harder course. I thought before then that the
British spirit was likely dead. The British people proved me
wrong. I couldn't have been prouder of the country. It was a
remarkable piece of self determination, of the people choosing
to take power back from the elites.
I felt the same. Astonished, pleased and impressed, that
despite being told by our government which way to vote, despite
having the power of government behind that side of the
argument, despite EU membership being the safe, status-quo - we
vote to leave. :-)
Yet the elite still think that they can keep us in the EU, or
at the very least leave in name only, and that no one will
mind.
And I'm sure that if there was a referendum on whether to nuke
North Korea, a slim majority of the British public would have
the courage and the faith in our armed forces to vote in favour.
It would make me so proud. The simple common sense of the
ordinary British public would be more than a match for the
nay-sayers and those who predicted disaster.
Very apposite. I wonder what reply you will get.
Christie
2017-10-03 09:46:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by The Todal
Post by Yellow
Post by James Harris
Given the terms under which we had to vote and the weight of
the establishment behind Project Fear, I am amazed and
somewhat in awe of the courage of the British people that they
chose the harder course. I thought before then that the
British spirit was likely dead. The British people proved me
wrong. I couldn't have been prouder of the country. It was a
remarkable piece of self determination, of the people choosing
to take power back from the elites.
I felt the same. Astonished, pleased and impressed, that
despite being told by our government which way to vote, despite
having the power of government behind that side of the
argument, despite EU membership being the safe, status-quo - we
vote to leave. :-)
Yet the elite still think that they can keep us in the EU, or
at the very least leave in name only, and that no one will
mind.
And I'm sure that if there was a referendum on whether to nuke
North Korea, a slim majority of the British public would have
the courage and the faith in our armed forces to vote in favour.
It would make me so proud. The simple common sense of the
ordinary British public would be more than a match for the
nay-sayers and those who predicted disaster.
Very apposite.
Is it, though? How can anyone be sure that if there was a referendum
on whether to nuke North Korea, a slim majority of the British public
would vote in favour?
Yellow
2017-10-03 10:46:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christie
Post by pamela
Post by The Todal
Post by Yellow
Post by James Harris
Given the terms under which we had to vote and the weight of
the establishment behind Project Fear, I am amazed and
somewhat in awe of the courage of the British people that they
chose the harder course. I thought before then that the
British spirit was likely dead. The British people proved me
wrong. I couldn't have been prouder of the country. It was a
remarkable piece of self determination, of the people choosing
to take power back from the elites.
I felt the same. Astonished, pleased and impressed, that
despite being told by our government which way to vote, despite
having the power of government behind that side of the
argument, despite EU membership being the safe, status-quo - we
vote to leave. :-)
Yet the elite still think that they can keep us in the EU, or
at the very least leave in name only, and that no one will
mind.
And I'm sure that if there was a referendum on whether to nuke
North Korea, a slim majority of the British public would have
the courage and the faith in our armed forces to vote in favour.
It would make me so proud. The simple common sense of the
ordinary British public would be more than a match for the
nay-sayers and those who predicted disaster.
Very apposite.
Is it, though? How can anyone be sure that if there was a referendum
on whether to nuke North Korea, a slim majority of the British public
would vote in favour?
Agreed. I can see no circumstance where the British people would vote to
fire a nuclear weapon.

They might vote to not stop one being fired of course but that is a
different premise.
pamela
2017-10-03 11:42:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by Christie
Post by pamela
Post by The Todal
Post by Yellow
Post by James Harris
Given the terms under which we had to vote and the weight
of the establishment behind Project Fear, I am amazed and
somewhat in awe of the courage of the British people that
they chose the harder course. I thought before then that
the British spirit was likely dead. The British people
proved me wrong. I couldn't have been prouder of the
country. It was a remarkable piece of self determination,
of the people choosing to take power back from the elites.
I felt the same. Astonished, pleased and impressed, that
despite being told by our government which way to vote,
despite having the power of government behind that side of
the argument, despite EU membership being the safe,
status-quo - we vote to leave. :-)
Yet the elite still think that they can keep us in the EU,
or at the very least leave in name only, and that no one
will mind.
And I'm sure that if there was a referendum on whether to
nuke North Korea, a slim majority of the British public
would have the courage and the faith in our armed forces to
vote in favour. It would make me so proud. The simple common
sense of the ordinary British public would be more than a
match for the nay-sayers and those who predicted disaster.
Very apposite.
Is it, though? How can anyone be sure that if there was a
referendum on whether to nuke North Korea, a slim majority of
the British public would vote in favour?
Agreed. I can see no circumstance where the British people would
vote to fire a nuclear weapon.
They might vote to not stop one being fired of course but that
is a different premise.
The actual point being made was about relying on "common sense" for
major decisions.

I wonder if you have some cognitive problem which makes you go off at
a tangent rather than following up on the main point under
discussion? I have seen you misunderstand the topic this many times.

Perhaps you see your replies as a form of incisive dissection-like
response. If that is so, I suggest you revisit this method.
Yellow
2017-10-03 14:59:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@81.171.118.178>, ***@nospam.com
says...
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by Christie
Post by pamela
Post by The Todal
And I'm sure that if there was a referendum on whether to
nuke North Korea, a slim majority of the British public
would have the courage and the faith in our armed forces to
vote in favour. It would make me so proud. The simple common
sense of the ordinary British public would be more than a
match for the nay-sayers and those who predicted disaster.
Very apposite.
Is it, though? How can anyone be sure that if there was a
referendum on whether to nuke North Korea, a slim majority of
the British public would vote in favour?
Agreed. I can see no circumstance where the British people would
vote to fire a nuclear weapon.
They might vote to not stop one being fired of course but that
is a different premise.
The actual point being made was about relying on "common sense" for
major decisions.
Really? Oh but to be as bright as someone who has met Einstein but us
normal people just have to work with what we have.

Meanwhile, is it OK with you if I discuss what Christie posted with
Christie?
pamela
2017-10-03 19:07:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by Christie
Post by pamela
Post by The Todal
And I'm sure that if there was a referendum on whether to
nuke North Korea, a slim majority of the British public
would have the courage and the faith in our armed forces
to vote in favour. It would make me so proud. The simple
common sense of the ordinary British public would be more
than a match for the nay-sayers and those who predicted
disaster.
Very apposite.
Is it, though? How can anyone be sure that if there was a
referendum on whether to nuke North Korea, a slim majority
of the British public would vote in favour?
Agreed. I can see no circumstance where the British people
would vote to fire a nuclear weapon.
They might vote to not stop one being fired of course but
that is a different premise.
The actual point being made was about relying on "common sense"
for major decisions.
Really? Oh but to be as bright as someone who has met Einstein
but us normal people just have to work with what we have.
Are you saying you have met Einstein? I doubt it. However I did ask
you if you understood the difference in the strength of argument
between his special theory and general theory. I am hoping you will
answer that or get someone to help you out.

Meanwhile it was a great big "whoosh!" when the notion went clean
over your head that Todal posted. It was a parody about over
reliance on the common sense of the British public for important
matters but you couldn't see that even after it had been explained.
Blame your painkillers?
Yellow
2017-10-03 20:31:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@81.171.118.178>, ***@nospam.com
says...
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by Christie
Post by pamela
Post by The Todal
And I'm sure that if there was a referendum on whether to
nuke North Korea, a slim majority of the British public
would have the courage and the faith in our armed forces
to vote in favour. It would make me so proud. The simple
common sense of the ordinary British public would be more
than a match for the nay-sayers and those who predicted
disaster.
Very apposite.
Is it, though? How can anyone be sure that if there was a
referendum on whether to nuke North Korea, a slim majority
of the British public would vote in favour?
Agreed. I can see no circumstance where the British people
would vote to fire a nuclear weapon.
They might vote to not stop one being fired of course but
that is a different premise.
The actual point being made was about relying on "common sense"
for major decisions.
Really? Oh but to be as bright as someone who has met Einstein
but us normal people just have to work with what we have.
Are you saying you have met Einstein? I doubt it.
What a disappointment that must have been for you.
pamela
2017-10-03 21:52:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by Christie
Post by pamela
Post by The Todal
And I'm sure that if there was a referendum on whether
to nuke North Korea, a slim majority of the British
public would have the courage and the faith in our
armed forces to vote in favour. It would make me so
proud. The simple common sense of the ordinary British
public would be more than a match for the nay-sayers
and those who predicted disaster.
Very apposite.
Is it, though? How can anyone be sure that if there was a
referendum on whether to nuke North Korea, a slim
majority of the British public would vote in favour?
Agreed. I can see no circumstance where the British people
would vote to fire a nuclear weapon.
They might vote to not stop one being fired of course but
that is a different premise.
The actual point being made was about relying on "common
sense" for major decisions.
Really? Oh but to be as bright as someone who has met
Einstein but us normal people just have to work with what we
have.
Are you saying you have met Einstein? I doubt it.
What a disappointment that must have been for you.
Are you saying you have met Einstein? I doubt it. However I
did ask you if you understood the difference in the strength of
argument between his special theory and general theory. I am
hoping you will answer that or get someone to help you out.
Meanwhile it was a great big "whoosh!" when the notion went
clean over your head that Todal posted. It was a parody about
over reliance on the common sense of the British public for
important matters but you couldn't see that even after it had
been explained. Blame your painkillers?
Please answer my other questions. Thank you.
Yellow
2017-10-03 22:37:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@81.171.118.178>, ***@nospam.com
says...
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Really? Oh but to be as bright as someone who has met
Einstein but us normal people just have to work with what we
have.
Are you saying you have met Einstein? I doubt it.
What a disappointment that must have been for you.
Are you saying you have met Einstein? I doubt it. However I
did ask you if you understood the difference in the strength of
argument between his special theory and general theory. I am
hoping you will answer that or get someone to help you out.
Meanwhile it was a great big "whoosh!" when the notion went
clean over your head that Todal posted. It was a parody about
over reliance on the common sense of the British public for
important matters but you couldn't see that even after it had
been explained. Blame your painkillers?
I didn't post that... Weird, eh?

So I think your quoting and attributing has gone for a shit.
MM
2017-10-04 08:00:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Really? Oh but to be as bright as someone who has met Einstein but us
normal people just have to work with what we have.
And sadly the outcome of that was Brexit. You've just made the case
for low educational attainment as a general rule guiding the Brexit
voters.

MM
MM
2017-10-03 14:15:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Agreed. I can see no circumstance where the British people would vote to
fire a nuclear weapon.
And that is exactly the reply Cameron would have given if asked
whether the British people would vote to leave the world's largest
single market.

He went to bed on June 23 muttering "no circumstance", only to be
rudely awakened at 2 a.m. with the awful news. Probably by 3 a.m. he
was already telling Samantha he'd resign the same day. And he did.

MM
Christie
2017-10-04 08:36:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by Christie
Post by pamela
Post by The Todal
Post by Yellow
Post by James Harris
Given the terms under which we had to vote and the weight of
the establishment behind Project Fear, I am amazed and
somewhat in awe of the courage of the British people that they
chose the harder course. I thought before then that the
British spirit was likely dead. The British people proved me
wrong. I couldn't have been prouder of the country. It was a
remarkable piece of self determination, of the people choosing
to take power back from the elites.
I felt the same. Astonished, pleased and impressed, that
despite being told by our government which way to vote, despite
having the power of government behind that side of the
argument, despite EU membership being the safe, status-quo - we
vote to leave. :-)
Yet the elite still think that they can keep us in the EU, or
at the very least leave in name only, and that no one will
mind.
And I'm sure that if there was a referendum on whether to nuke
North Korea, a slim majority of the British public would have
the courage and the faith in our armed forces to vote in favour.
It would make me so proud. The simple common sense of the
ordinary British public would be more than a match for the
nay-sayers and those who predicted disaster.
Very apposite.
Is it, though? How can anyone be sure that if there was a referendum
on whether to nuke North Korea, a slim majority of the British public
would vote in favour?
Agreed. I can see no circumstance where the British people would vote to
fire a nuclear weapon.
They might vote to not stop one being fired of course but that is a
different premise.
My opinion on this issue, then, is the same as yours.

Also, it seems to me that the way the referendum given to the British
public on the EU has been compared with another, not actually given
nor ever to be given, on a completely different subject (as posted
above) is absurd. So much so that I wouldn't call it a parody, I would
call it a total red herring.


ps. I hope your poor toe has a speedy recovery.
The Todal
2017-10-03 11:08:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christie
Post by pamela
Post by The Todal
Post by Yellow
Post by James Harris
Given the terms under which we had to vote and the weight of
the establishment behind Project Fear, I am amazed and
somewhat in awe of the courage of the British people that they
chose the harder course. I thought before then that the
British spirit was likely dead. The British people proved me
wrong. I couldn't have been prouder of the country. It was a
remarkable piece of self determination, of the people choosing
to take power back from the elites.
I felt the same. Astonished, pleased and impressed, that
despite being told by our government which way to vote, despite
having the power of government behind that side of the
argument, despite EU membership being the safe, status-quo - we
vote to leave. :-)
Yet the elite still think that they can keep us in the EU, or
at the very least leave in name only, and that no one will
mind.
And I'm sure that if there was a referendum on whether to nuke
North Korea, a slim majority of the British public would have
the courage and the faith in our armed forces to vote in favour.
It would make me so proud. The simple common sense of the
ordinary British public would be more than a match for the
nay-sayers and those who predicted disaster.
Very apposite.
Is it, though? How can anyone be sure that if there was a referendum
on whether to nuke North Korea, a slim majority of the British public
would vote in favour?
Er, I think you're missing the point. It's a question of whether a
referendum is a sound way of making a decision. Your belief that the
public will always choose the best option is a worrying belief.
Christie
2017-10-03 13:44:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
Post by Christie
Post by pamela
Post by The Todal
Post by Yellow
Post by James Harris
Given the terms under which we had to vote and the weight of
the establishment behind Project Fear, I am amazed and
somewhat in awe of the courage of the British people that they
chose the harder course. I thought before then that the
British spirit was likely dead. The British people proved me
wrong. I couldn't have been prouder of the country. It was a
remarkable piece of self determination, of the people choosing
to take power back from the elites.
I felt the same. Astonished, pleased and impressed, that
despite being told by our government which way to vote, despite
having the power of government behind that side of the
argument, despite EU membership being the safe, status-quo - we
vote to leave. :-)
Yet the elite still think that they can keep us in the EU, or
at the very least leave in name only, and that no one will
mind.
And I'm sure that if there was a referendum on whether to nuke
North Korea, a slim majority of the British public would have
the courage and the faith in our armed forces to vote in favour.
It would make me so proud. The simple common sense of the
ordinary British public would be more than a match for the
nay-sayers and those who predicted disaster.
Very apposite.
Is it, though? How can anyone be sure that if there was a referendum
on whether to nuke North Korea, a slim majority of the British public
would vote in favour?
Er, I think you're missing the point. It's a question of whether a
referendum is a sound way of making a decision. Your belief that the
public will always choose the best option is a worrying belief.
I think you are being unfair. In my post I merely asked a couple of
questions. I never said that it's my belief the public will always
choose the best option?

It's my belief that sometimes a referendum will give you the best way
to go and that sometimes it won't - obviously.

But why do you say that you are sure a slim majority of the British
public would vote in favour of nuking North Korea?
kat
2017-10-03 14:22:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
Post by Christie
Post by pamela
Post by The Todal
Post by Yellow
Post by James Harris
Given the terms under which we had to vote and the weight of
the establishment behind Project Fear, I am amazed and
somewhat in awe of the courage of the British people that they
chose the harder course. I thought before then that the
British spirit was likely dead. The British people proved me
wrong. I couldn't have been prouder of the country. It was a
remarkable piece of self determination, of the people choosing
to take power back from the elites.
I felt the same. Astonished, pleased and impressed, that
despite being told by our government which way to vote, despite
having the power of government behind that side of the
argument, despite EU membership being the safe, status-quo - we
vote to leave. :-)
Yet the elite still think that they can keep us in the EU, or
at the very least leave in name only, and that no one will
mind.
And I'm sure that if there was a referendum on whether to nuke
North Korea, a slim majority of the British public would have
the courage and the faith in our armed forces to vote in favour.
It would make me so proud. The simple common sense of the
ordinary British public would be more than a match for the
nay-sayers and those who predicted disaster.
Very apposite.
Is it, though? How can anyone be sure that if there was a referendum
on whether to nuke North Korea, a slim majority of the British public
would vote in favour?
Er, I think you're missing the point. It's a question of whether a
referendum is a sound way of making a decision. Your belief that the
public will always choose the best option is a worrying belief.
Whereas you seem to feel we should never been given the chance!
--
kat
Post by The Todal
^..^<
The Todal
2017-10-03 18:43:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kat
Post by The Todal
Post by Christie
Post by pamela
Post by The Todal
Post by Yellow
Post by James Harris
Given the terms under which we had to vote and the weight of
the establishment behind Project Fear, I am amazed and
somewhat in awe of the courage of the British people that they
chose the harder course. I thought before then that the
British spirit was likely dead. The British people proved me
wrong. I couldn't have been prouder of the country. It was a
remarkable piece of self determination, of the people choosing
to take power back from the elites.
I felt the same. Astonished, pleased and impressed, that
despite being told by our government which way to vote, despite
having the power of government behind that side of the
argument, despite EU membership being the safe, status-quo - we
vote to leave. :-)
Yet the elite still think that they can keep us in the EU, or
at the very least leave in name only, and that no one will
mind.
And I'm sure that if there was a referendum on whether to nuke
North Korea, a slim majority of the British public would have
the courage and the faith in our armed forces to vote in favour.
It would make me so proud. The simple common sense of the
ordinary British public would be more than a match for the
nay-sayers and those who predicted disaster.
Very apposite.
Is it, though? How can anyone be sure that if there was a referendum
on whether to nuke North Korea, a slim majority of the British public
would vote in favour?
Er, I think you're missing the point. It's a question of whether a
referendum is a sound way of making a decision. Your belief that the
public will always choose the best option is a worrying belief.
Whereas you seem to feel we should never been given the chance!
Correct.

I think a decision to leave the EU is as important as a decision to use
nuclear weapons on another nation.

The decision doesn't require immense intelligence. It requires a
detailed analysis of the options and the consequences. The ordinary
population are only able to regurgitate the contents of the leaflets
that are delivered to them. They aren't able to offer a useful analysis
from their own skills and experience. Asking them to vote is the
equivalent of tossing a coin, or tossing a few million coins. That isn't
a good basis for a decision to bomb North Korea, or for leaving the EU.
pamela
2017-10-03 19:12:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
Post by kat
Post by The Todal
Post by Christie
Post by pamela
Post by The Todal
Post by Yellow
Post by James Harris
Given the terms under which we had to vote and the weight
of the establishment behind Project Fear, I am amazed and
somewhat in awe of the courage of the British people that
they chose the harder course. I thought before then that
the British spirit was likely dead. The British people
proved me wrong. I couldn't have been prouder of the
country. It was a remarkable piece of self determination,
of the people choosing to take power back from the
elites.
I felt the same. Astonished, pleased and impressed, that
despite being told by our government which way to vote,
despite having the power of government behind that side of
the argument, despite EU membership being the safe,
status-quo - we vote to leave. :-)
Yet the elite still think that they can keep us in the EU,
or at the very least leave in name only, and that no one
will mind.
And I'm sure that if there was a referendum on whether to
nuke North Korea, a slim majority of the British public
would have the courage and the faith in our armed forces to
vote in favour. It would make me so proud. The simple
common sense of the ordinary British public would be more
than a match for the nay-sayers and those who predicted
disaster.
Very apposite.
Is it, though? How can anyone be sure that if there was a
referendum on whether to nuke North Korea, a slim majority of
the British public would vote in favour?
Er, I think you're missing the point. It's a question of
whether a referendum is a sound way of making a decision. Your
belief that the public will always choose the best option is a
worrying belief.
Whereas you seem to feel we should never been given the chance!
Correct.
I think a decision to leave the EU is as important as a decision
to use nuclear weapons on another nation.
The decision doesn't require immense intelligence. It requires a
detailed analysis of the options and the consequences. The
ordinary population are only able to regurgitate the contents of
the leaflets that are delivered to them. They aren't able to
offer a useful analysis from their own skills and experience.
Asking them to vote is the equivalent of tossing a coin, or
tossing a few million coins. That isn't a good basis for a
decision to bomb North Korea, or for leaving the EU.
In a democracy the public may well be the ultimate authority but
that doesn't mean they are smart enough to always take the right
decision.

Plato thought in his Crito the public were smart and he let
Socrates accept their misunderstanding and the execution they had
ordered.

I wonder if that's because the ancient Greeks didn't let the
lowest tiers of society have the vote and he could rely on the
vote a bit more. :)
MM
2017-10-04 08:12:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
I wonder if that's because the ancient Greeks didn't let the
lowest tiers of society have the vote and he could rely on the
vote a bit more. :)
I wouldn't want a nurse to do my heart bypass, I'd want an experienced
surgeon instead. But this is what the country was asked, and Brexiters
are now crowing that they are the new surgeons now.

MM
Norman Wells
2017-10-04 08:24:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by pamela
I wonder if that's because the ancient Greeks didn't let the
lowest tiers of society have the vote and he could rely on the
vote a bit more. :)
I wouldn't want a nurse to do my heart bypass, I'd want an experienced
surgeon instead. But this is what the country was asked, and Brexiters
are now crowing that they are the new surgeons now.
No. In that analogy, they are the patient, and they've decided after
due consideration just to have the operation.
Norman Wells
2017-10-03 20:41:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
Post by kat
Post by The Todal
Post by Christie
Post by pamela
Post by The Todal
Post by Yellow
Post by James Harris
Given the terms under which we had to vote and the weight of
the establishment behind Project Fear, I am amazed and
somewhat in awe of the courage of the British people that they
chose the harder course. I thought before then that the
British spirit was likely dead. The British people proved me
wrong. I couldn't have been prouder of the country. It was a
remarkable piece of self determination, of the people choosing
to take power back from the elites.
I felt the same. Astonished, pleased and impressed, that
despite being told by our government which way to vote, despite
having the power of government behind that side of the
argument, despite EU membership being the safe, status-quo - we
vote to leave. :-)
Yet the elite still think that they can keep us in the EU, or
at the very least leave in name only, and that no one will
mind.
And I'm sure that if there was a referendum on whether to nuke
North Korea, a slim majority of the British public would have
the courage and the faith in our armed forces to vote in favour.
It would make me so proud. The simple common sense of the
ordinary British public would be more than a match for the
nay-sayers and those who predicted disaster.
Very apposite.
Is it, though? How can anyone be sure that if there was a referendum
on whether to nuke North Korea, a slim majority of the British public
would vote in favour?
Er, I think you're missing the point. It's a question of whether a
referendum is a sound way of making a decision. Your belief that the
public will always choose the best option is a worrying belief.
Whereas you seem to feel we should never been given the chance!
Correct.
I think a decision to leave the EU is as important as a decision to use
nuclear weapons on another nation.
The decision doesn't require immense intelligence. It requires a
detailed analysis of the options and the consequences. The ordinary
population are only able to regurgitate the contents of the leaflets
that are delivered to them. They aren't able to offer a useful analysis
from their own skills and experience. Asking them to vote is the
equivalent of tossing a coin, or tossing a few million coins. That isn't
a good basis for a decision to bomb North Korea, or for leaving the EU.
It probably is actually. It's called 'hive mind':

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hive-mind-new-approach-could-improve-on-crowd-wisdom/
kat
2017-10-03 20:46:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
Post by kat
Whereas you seem to feel we should never been given the chance!
Correct.
I think a decision to leave the EU is as important as a decision to use
nuclear weapons on another nation.
The decision doesn't require immense intelligence. It requires a
detailed analysis of the options and the consequences. The ordinary
population are only able to regurgitate the contents of the leaflets
that are delivered to them. They aren't able to offer a useful analysis
from their own skills and experience. Asking them to vote is the
equivalent of tossing a coin, or tossing a few million coins. That isn't
a good basis for a decision to bomb North Korea, or for leaving the EU.
Only leaflet I saw was the pro- EU one from the Government. If that
happened all over why didn't Remain win?
--
kat
Post by The Todal
^..^<
MM
2017-10-04 08:11:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
Correct.
I think a decision to leave the EU is as important as a decision to use
nuclear weapons on another nation.
The decision doesn't require immense intelligence. It requires a
detailed analysis of the options and the consequences. The ordinary
population are only able to regurgitate the contents of the leaflets
that are delivered to them. They aren't able to offer a useful analysis
from their own skills and experience. Asking them to vote is the
equivalent of tossing a coin, or tossing a few million coins. That isn't
a good basis for a decision to bomb North Korea, or for leaving the EU.
Excellent comment.

MM
Norman Wells
2017-10-04 08:36:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by The Todal
Correct.
I think a decision to leave the EU is as important as a decision to use
nuclear weapons on another nation.
The decision doesn't require immense intelligence. It requires a
detailed analysis of the options and the consequences. The ordinary
population are only able to regurgitate the contents of the leaflets
that are delivered to them. They aren't able to offer a useful analysis
from their own skills and experience. Asking them to vote is the
equivalent of tossing a coin, or tossing a few million coins. That isn't
a good basis for a decision to bomb North Korea, or for leaving the EU.
Excellent comment.
Except that the 'ordinary population' here in this group didn't even
seem to be able to read the leaflets that were delivered to them. You
know, the ones that said 'this is a once in a generation decision' and
'the government will implement what you decide'.

If I recall, both of you were in that group.

How then were you able to offer a useful analysis when you didn't even
understand the ground rules? Why should you have been allowed to vote?
MM
2017-10-04 08:09:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kat
Whereas you seem to feel we should never been given the chance!
Which is what I feel, too. Referendums are, in the opinion of Margaret
Thatcher, echoing Clement Attlee, "a device of dictators and
demagogues".

The result now is, in the UK, a country that is split from top to
bottom, with a cabinet that's split from top to bottom, with no one
having a really clear idea of what we want, and we will limp ahead
into the future whle some form of Frankenstein's Monster is cobbled
together from the remnants of 44 years of beneficial membership of the
EU.

Meanhwile the arch villain of the piece, one David Cameron,
immediately fucks off and then earns himself millions giving
after-dinner speeches.

MM
Norman Wells
2017-10-04 08:29:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by kat
Whereas you seem to feel we should never been given the chance!
Which is what I feel, too. Referendums are, in the opinion of Margaret
Thatcher, echoing Clement Attlee, "a device of dictators and
demagogues".
But who are they to have a definitive view?

They wouldn't like them, would they? If you ask the people and give
them a say, they might say something you don't want to hear.
Post by MM
The result now is, in the UK, a country that is split from top to
bottom, with a cabinet that's split from top to bottom, with no one
having a really clear idea of what we want, and we will limp ahead
into the future whle some form of Frankenstein's Monster is cobbled
together from the remnants of 44 years of beneficial membership of the
EU.
Meanhwile the arch villain of the piece, one David Cameron,
immediately fucks off and then earns himself millions giving
after-dinner speeches.
I thought that's what you wanted.
pamela
2017-10-03 11:37:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christie
Post by pamela
Post by The Todal
Post by Yellow
Post by James Harris
Given the terms under which we had to vote and the weight of
the establishment behind Project Fear, I am amazed and
somewhat in awe of the courage of the British people that
they chose the harder course. I thought before then that the
British spirit was likely dead. The British people proved me
wrong. I couldn't have been prouder of the country. It was a
remarkable piece of self determination, of the people
choosing to take power back from the elites.
I felt the same. Astonished, pleased and impressed, that
despite being told by our government which way to vote,
despite having the power of government behind that side of
the argument, despite EU membership being the safe,
status-quo - we vote to leave. :-)
Yet the elite still think that they can keep us in the EU, or
at the very least leave in name only, and that no one will
mind.
And I'm sure that if there was a referendum on whether to nuke
North Korea, a slim majority of the British public would have
the courage and the faith in our armed forces to vote in
favour. It would make me so proud. The simple common sense of
the ordinary British public would be more than a match for the
nay-sayers and those who predicted disaster.
Very apposite.
Is it, though? How can anyone be sure that if there was a
referendum on whether to nuke North Korea, a slim majority of
the British public would vote in favour?
You appear to have missed the point of Todal's parody.

Perhaps you will now digress into irrelevant observations of
Britain's capacity to reliably strike North Korea with a submarine
launched ballistic missile.
Christie
2017-10-04 08:43:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Christie
Post by pamela
Post by The Todal
Post by Yellow
Post by James Harris
Given the terms under which we had to vote and the weight of
the establishment behind Project Fear, I am amazed and
somewhat in awe of the courage of the British people that
they chose the harder course. I thought before then that the
British spirit was likely dead. The British people proved me
wrong. I couldn't have been prouder of the country. It was a
remarkable piece of self determination, of the people
choosing to take power back from the elites.
I felt the same. Astonished, pleased and impressed, that
despite being told by our government which way to vote,
despite having the power of government behind that side of
the argument, despite EU membership being the safe,
status-quo - we vote to leave. :-)
Yet the elite still think that they can keep us in the EU, or
at the very least leave in name only, and that no one will
mind.
And I'm sure that if there was a referendum on whether to nuke
North Korea, a slim majority of the British public would have
the courage and the faith in our armed forces to vote in
favour. It would make me so proud. The simple common sense of
the ordinary British public would be more than a match for the
nay-sayers and those who predicted disaster.
Very apposite.
Is it, though? How can anyone be sure that if there was a
referendum on whether to nuke North Korea, a slim majority of
the British public would vote in favour?
You appear to have missed the point of Todal's parody.
I thought it more of a red herring, but I'm happy to compromise and
just call it ludicrous.
Post by pamela
Perhaps you will now digress into irrelevant observations of
Britain's capacity to reliably strike North Korea with a submarine
launched ballistic missile.
I think maybe we have already digressed into enough irrelevant
observations. You know what they say about enjoying fantasy but not
confusing it with reality.
MM
2017-10-03 14:11:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christie
Post by pamela
Post by The Todal
Post by Yellow
Post by James Harris
Given the terms under which we had to vote and the weight of
the establishment behind Project Fear, I am amazed and
somewhat in awe of the courage of the British people that they
chose the harder course. I thought before then that the
British spirit was likely dead. The British people proved me
wrong. I couldn't have been prouder of the country. It was a
remarkable piece of self determination, of the people choosing
to take power back from the elites.
I felt the same. Astonished, pleased and impressed, that
despite being told by our government which way to vote, despite
having the power of government behind that side of the
argument, despite EU membership being the safe, status-quo - we
vote to leave. :-)
Yet the elite still think that they can keep us in the EU, or
at the very least leave in name only, and that no one will
mind.
And I'm sure that if there was a referendum on whether to nuke
North Korea, a slim majority of the British public would have
the courage and the faith in our armed forces to vote in favour.
It would make me so proud. The simple common sense of the
ordinary British public would be more than a match for the
nay-sayers and those who predicted disaster.
Very apposite.
Is it, though? How can anyone be sure that if there was a referendum
on whether to nuke North Korea, a slim majority of the British public
would vote in favour?
I think it's a pretty safe bet now that we know how many uninformed
nutters there are in the British population -- 17 million of 'em, in
fact.

MM
pamela
2017-10-03 14:46:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 03 Oct 2017 09:46:13 GMT,
Post by Christie
Post by pamela
Post by The Todal
Post by Yellow
Post by James Harris
Given the terms under which we had to vote and the weight
of the establishment behind Project Fear, I am amazed and
somewhat in awe of the courage of the British people that
they chose the harder course. I thought before then that
the British spirit was likely dead. The British people
proved me wrong. I couldn't have been prouder of the
country. It was a remarkable piece of self determination,
of the people choosing to take power back from the elites.
I felt the same. Astonished, pleased and impressed, that
despite being told by our government which way to vote,
despite having the power of government behind that side of
the argument, despite EU membership being the safe,
status-quo - we vote to leave. :-)
Yet the elite still think that they can keep us in the EU,
or at the very least leave in name only, and that no one
will mind.
And I'm sure that if there was a referendum on whether to
nuke North Korea, a slim majority of the British public would
have the courage and the faith in our armed forces to vote in
favour. It would make me so proud. The simple common sense of
the ordinary British public would be more than a match for
the nay-sayers and those who predicted disaster.
Very apposite.
Is it, though? How can anyone be sure that if there was a
referendum on whether to nuke North Korea, a slim majority of
the British public would vote in favour?
I think it's a pretty safe bet now that we know how many
uninformed nutters there are in the British population -- 17
million of 'em, in fact.
It's like asking the great British public if they want to see the
death penalty re-introduced. Until only a very few years ago,
public opinion was in favour of it whereas the majority of elected
representatives were against it.

I sometime half wonder if voters should be tested for their
ability to understand the question, assess both pros and cons of
proposed solutions, be able to consider alternatives and to
communicate their wishes.

That might avoid stupid decisions.
Christie
2017-10-04 08:46:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by Christie
Post by pamela
Post by The Todal
Post by Yellow
Post by James Harris
Given the terms under which we had to vote and the weight of
the establishment behind Project Fear, I am amazed and
somewhat in awe of the courage of the British people that they
chose the harder course. I thought before then that the
British spirit was likely dead. The British people proved me
wrong. I couldn't have been prouder of the country. It was a
remarkable piece of self determination, of the people choosing
to take power back from the elites.
I felt the same. Astonished, pleased and impressed, that
despite being told by our government which way to vote, despite
having the power of government behind that side of the
argument, despite EU membership being the safe, status-quo - we
vote to leave. :-)
Yet the elite still think that they can keep us in the EU, or
at the very least leave in name only, and that no one will
mind.
And I'm sure that if there was a referendum on whether to nuke
North Korea, a slim majority of the British public would have
the courage and the faith in our armed forces to vote in favour.
It would make me so proud. The simple common sense of the
ordinary British public would be more than a match for the
nay-sayers and those who predicted disaster.
Very apposite.
Is it, though? How can anyone be sure that if there was a referendum
on whether to nuke North Korea, a slim majority of the British public
would vote in favour?
I think it's a pretty safe bet now that we know how many uninformed
nutters there are in the British population -- 17 million of 'em, in
fact.
MM
:) Ha! Very funny.

Whilst being being grossly unfair, of course, that observation is not
without humour.

Ophelia
2017-10-03 10:08:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Yellow" wrote in message news:***@News.Individual.NET...

In article <oqu6l6$8bj$***@dont-email.me>, ***@gmail.com
says...
Post by James Harris
Given the terms under which we had to vote and the weight of the
establishment behind Project Fear, I am amazed and somewhat in awe of
the courage of the British people that they chose the harder course. I
thought before then that the British spirit was likely dead. The British
people proved me wrong. I couldn't have been prouder of the country. It
was a remarkable piece of self determination, of the people choosing to
take power back from the elites.
I felt the same. Astonished, pleased and impressed, that despite being
told by our government which way to vote, despite having the power of
government behind that side of the argument, despite EU membership being
the safe, status-quo - we vote to leave. :-)

Yet the elite still think that they can keep us in the EU, or at the
very least leave in name only, and that no one will mind.

===

They don't learn ...
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
Ophelia
2017-10-03 10:08:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by James Harris
And I would say
it's likely that that those who didn't know much about
the issues predominantly voted Remain, because the status quo - as they
might have seen it - would always seem safer than a big change.
On the other hand, most Remainers were probably not unaware that the EU
is far from perfect - but having weighed up the pros and cons, decided
that being 'in' was the lesser of the two evils.
You have no idea whatsoever, what proportion of people vote Remain for
what reason.
I'm probably a lot closer to the truth than believing "it's likely that
that those who didn't know much about the issues predominantly voted
Remain".
I remember a report that Google had said the most popular question
British people had typed into its search engine just before the vote was
"what is the EU". LOL! If so many people were unsure, Remain would
always have looked the safer option.
Post by Ian Jackson
There seemed to be quite a lot of those who voted to leave who
had absolutely no idea about what leaving would entail, and what the
consequences might be.
Of course! If the EU had been a friend it /could/ have worked with the
UK government to come up with suitable Brexit terms, and then that could
have been put to the vote. But they EU is not like that. Not at all.
Hence, we the public had no choice but to vote blind.

Given the terms under which we had to vote and the weight of the
establishment behind Project Fear, I am amazed and somewhat in awe of
the courage of the British people that they chose the harder course. I
thought before then that the British spirit was likely dead. The British
people proved me wrong. I couldn't have been prouder of the country. It
was a remarkable piece of self determination, of the people choosing to
take power back from the elites.

James Harris

====

Absolutely:) It goes to show we can't be repressed forever :)
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
Yellow
2017-10-03 10:01:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by James Harris
And I would say
it's likely that that those who didn't know much about
the issues predominantly voted Remain, because the status quo - as they
might have seen it - would always seem safer than a big change.
On the other hand, most Remainers were probably not unaware that the EU
is far from perfect - but having weighed up the pros and cons, decided
that being 'in' was the lesser of the two evils.
You have no idea whatsoever, what proportion of people vote Remain for
what reason.
I'm probably a lot closer to the truth than believing "it's likely that
that those who didn't know much about the issues predominantly voted
Remain". There seemed to be quite a lot of those who voted to leave who
had absolutely no idea about what leaving would entail, and what the
consequences might be.
We have no way of knowing the truth of the matter this time but, from
previous referendums, people tend to stick with what they know if they
are unsure.
win.
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Yellow
Some will have wished to stay at any cost because they agree with its
political ideas, some because they get some person benefit, some will
simply have been happy with the status-quo, some will have weighed the
odds even though they are not that keen on the EU - but how many of
each, you have no idea and I am sure there are other reasons too.
Sorry for knowing nothing.
Don't be sorry, just stop making out you know it all.
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
Unlike some of the Brexiteers' "We want out at any cost", I don't know
of any Remainers who are desperate to "stay in at any cost".
You once posted here that you wished to stay in the EU at any cost and I
suspect there are a couple of other posters here who would agree with
the sentiment.
Total rubbish!
No it isn't. We had a long discussion and I asked you if that meant you
wanted to stay in the EU at any cost and you said yes.
James Harris
2017-10-02 18:38:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by James Harris
And I would say it's likely that that those who didn't know much about
the issues predominantly voted Remain, because the status quo - as they
might have seen it - would always seem safer than a big change.
On the other hand, most Remainers were probably not unaware that the EU
is far from perfect - but having weighed up the pros and cons, decided
that being 'in' was the lesser of the two evils.
In reality, most of us can only guess at why people voted as they did.
The (apparently) best data I've seen was an Ashcroft survey. He found
that the main reason people voted Remain was that the risks of leaving
seemed too great. Maybe that matches your assessment?
Post by Ian Jackson
Unlike some of the Brexiteers' "We want out at any cost", I don't know
of any Remainers who are desperate to "stay in at any cost".
I guess you mean that as a pejorative. But perhaps it speaks to the
passion of those on the Brexit side. Strong emotions were involved in
the desire to Leave.
--
James Harris
Ian Jackson
2017-10-02 19:17:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by James Harris
And I would say it's likely that that those who didn't know much about
the issues predominantly voted Remain, because the status quo - as they
might have seen it - would always seem safer than a big change.
On the other hand, most Remainers were probably not unaware that the EU
is far from perfect - but having weighed up the pros and cons, decided
that being 'in' was the lesser of the two evils.
In reality, most of us can only guess at why people voted as they did.
The (apparently) best data I've seen was an Ashcroft survey. He found
that the main reason people voted Remain was that the risks of leaving
seemed too great. Maybe that matches your assessment?
Indeed. I'm sure there were Remainers who wanted to leave, but didn't
like the risks. I guess that counts as a partial 'con'.
Post by James Harris
Post by Ian Jackson
Unlike some of the Brexiteers' "We want out at any cost", I don't know
of any Remainers who are desperate to "stay in at any cost".
I guess you mean that as a pejorative.
Against Brexiteers? Not really - but it's a strange attitude for lots of
people to have - except maybe by someone who knows that they really have
been personally severely adversely affected by being in the EU - or
knows someone who has.

For example, I can understand it in someone who has definitely lost
their job or been unable to obtain employment. What I certainly don't
understand is some people declaring that they don't care if leaving
means they will LOSE their job. From some of the phone-ins I've heard,
this seems to be an attempt prove how loyal they are to Queen and
Country - but I suppose it could simply be bravado.
Post by James Harris
But perhaps it speaks to the passion of those on the Brexit side.
Strong emotions were involved in the desire to Leave.
Yes, I'm sure that the Brexiteers (many of whom seem to be driven by
emotions, and are still cock-a-hoop that their team won) are more
passionate than the Remainers (many of whom are still stunned by an
inexplicable result!). But as I said, you don't really get Remainers who
say that they want to stay in "at any cost".
--
\\\\isn
James Harris
2017-10-02 19:30:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by James Harris
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by James Harris
And I would say it's likely that that those who didn't know much about
the issues predominantly voted Remain, because the status quo - as they
might have seen it - would always seem safer than a big change.
On the other hand, most Remainers were probably not unaware that the EU
is far from perfect - but having weighed up the pros and cons, decided
that being 'in' was the lesser of the two evils.
In reality, most of us can only guess at why people voted as they did.
The (apparently) best data I've seen was an Ashcroft survey. He found
that the main reason people voted Remain was that the risks of leaving
seemed too great. Maybe that matches your assessment?
Indeed. I'm sure there were Remainers who wanted to leave, but didn't
like the risks. I guess that counts as a partial 'con'.
Post by James Harris
Post by Ian Jackson
Unlike some of the Brexiteers' "We want out at any cost", I don't know
of any Remainers who are desperate to "stay in at any cost".
I guess you mean that as a pejorative.
Against Brexiteers? Not really - but it's a strange attitude for lots of
people to have - except maybe by someone who knows that they really have
been personally severely adversely affected by being in the EU - or
knows someone who has.
For example, I can understand it in someone who has definitely lost
their job or been unable to obtain employment. What I certainly don't
understand is some people declaring that they don't care if leaving
means they will LOSE their job. From some of the phone-ins I've heard,
this seems to be an attempt prove how loyal they are to Queen and
Country - but I suppose it could simply be bravado.
I expect it is in many cases.
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by James Harris
But perhaps it speaks to the passion of those on the Brexit side.
Strong emotions were involved in the desire to Leave.
Yes, I'm sure that the Brexiteers (many of whom seem to be driven by
emotions, and are still cock-a-hoop that their team won) are more
passionate than the Remainers (many of whom are still stunned by an
inexplicable result!). But as I said, you don't really get Remainers who
say that they want to stay in "at any cost".
What do you make of those on pro-EU marches? Aren't they extremely keen
to stay in?
--
James Harris
Ian Jackson
2017-10-02 19:39:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
What do you make of those on pro-EU marches? Aren't they extremely keen
to stay in?
Of course - but is it "at any cost"?
--
Ian
kat
2017-10-02 20:04:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by James Harris
What do you make of those on pro-EU marches? Aren't they extremely
keen to stay in?
Of course - but is it "at any cost"?
Why is is less likely for them to wish to stay in "at any cost" than for
leavers to want to leave "at any cost"?
--
kat
Post by Ian Jackson
^..^<
Ian Jackson
2017-10-02 20:10:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kat
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by James Harris
What do you make of those on pro-EU marches? Aren't they extremely
keen to stay in?
Of course - but is it "at any cost"?
Why is is less likely for them to wish to stay in "at any cost" than
for leavers to want to leave "at any cost"?
All I said was that I've never heard any Remainers say that they wanted
to stay at any cost. On the other hand, I HAVE heard phone-in Brexiteers
saying that they want to leave at any cost.

Any other problems?
--
Ian
pamela
2017-10-02 21:50:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by kat
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by James Harris
What do you make of those on pro-EU marches? Aren't they
extremely
keen to stay in?
Of course - but is it "at any cost"?
Why is is less likely for them to wish to stay in "at any cost"
than for leavers to want to leave "at any cost"?
All I said was that I've never heard any Remainers say that they
wanted to stay at any cost. On the other hand, I HAVE heard
phone-in Brexiteers saying that they want to leave at any cost.
Any other problems?
"At any cost" leaves open the possibility of massive cost.

Someone said they wanted to leave "at any cost". I hope that was
just loose talk and what they really meant was they wanted to leave
even if there was a "bit of a cost".
Ian Jackson
2017-10-03 07:29:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by kat
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by James Harris
What do you make of those on pro-EU marches? Aren't they
extremely
keen to stay in?
Of course - but is it "at any cost"?
Why is is less likely for them to wish to stay in "at any cost"
than for leavers to want to leave "at any cost"?
All I said was that I've never heard any Remainers say that they
wanted to stay at any cost. On the other hand, I HAVE heard
phone-in Brexiteers saying that they want to leave at any cost.
Any other problems?
"At any cost" leaves open the possibility of massive cost.
Someone said they wanted to leave "at any cost". I hope that was
just loose talk and what they really meant was they wanted to leave
even if there was a "bit of a cost".
I'd reckon that "at any cost" is obviously an exaggeration. However,
when pressed, several phone-in phoners-in (including several well-spoken
- and I guess well-heeled, batty old ladies) have also said that they
wanted to leave regardless of the consequences. For many of them, it was
a particularly question of "getting our sovereignty back", regardless of
what leaving might do to the state of the UK economy and the welfare of
its citizens. I'm sure they were not among those Brexiteers who did try
and weigh up the pros and cons before voting.
--
Ian
Yellow
2017-10-03 10:42:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by pamela
"At any cost" leaves open the possibility of massive cost.
Someone said they wanted to leave "at any cost". I hope that was
just loose talk and what they really meant was they wanted to leave
even if there was a "bit of a cost".
I'd reckon that "at any cost" is obviously an exaggeration. However,
when pressed, several phone-in phoners-in (including several well-spoken
- and I guess well-heeled, batty old ladies) have also said that they
wanted to leave regardless of the consequences.
Is that not just the same as saying "at any cost"?

I want to leave regardless of the consequences, at any cost, because I
am of the view that the consequences of staying in the EU will always
'cost' us more -> ever closer union.

You may choose to take exception to leavers using the phrase "at any
cost" but as I have already tried to explain, it is in fact no different
to how some people feel about staying in the EU because they are of the
opinion that whatever they can foresee happening, they will always be
better off in the EU.

And by "better off" I do not mean financially.

In fact that is your position. Yes?
Post by Ian Jackson
For many of them, it was
a particularly question of "getting our sovereignty back", regardless of
what leaving might do to the state of the UK economy and the welfare of
its citizens. I'm sure they were not among those Brexiteers who did try
and weigh up the pros and cons before voting.
For many leavers it is not about the money, but then that is true for
some remainers too.
pamela
2017-10-03 11:59:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by pamela
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by kat
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by James Harris
What do you make of those on pro-EU marches? Aren't they
extremely
keen to stay in?
Of course - but is it "at any cost"?
Why is is less likely for them to wish to stay in "at any
cost" than for leavers to want to leave "at any cost"?
All I said was that I've never heard any Remainers say that
they wanted to stay at any cost. On the other hand, I HAVE
heard phone-in Brexiteers saying that they want to leave at
any cost.
Any other problems?
"At any cost" leaves open the possibility of massive cost.
Someone said they wanted to leave "at any cost". I hope that
was just loose talk and what they really meant was they wanted
to leave even if there was a "bit of a cost".
I'd reckon that "at any cost" is obviously an exaggeration.
However, when pressed, several phone-in phoners-in (including
several well-spoken - and I guess well-heeled, batty old ladies)
have also said that they wanted to leave regardless of the
consequences. For many of them, it was a particularly question
of "getting our sovereignty back", regardless of what leaving
might do to the state of the UK economy and the welfare of its
citizens. I'm sure they were not among those Brexiteers who did
try and weigh up the pros and cons before voting.
I don't know if using the phrase "at any cost" represents a poor
vocabulary, a tendency to exaggerate about everything or poor
education.

It is obviously incorrect. If someone uses such an expression then
you know they are very likely off their trolley and not given to
using factually accurate statements.

Maybe "at any cost" is a suitable phrase to use when putting the
world to rights at the pub or when in shouting match on the pavement
outside the bookies but it has little place in reasoned discourse
other than to signal the speaker doesn't deal in hard facts.
Yellow
2017-10-03 15:03:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@81.171.92.183>, ***@nospam.com
says...
Post by pamela
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by pamela
Someone said they wanted to leave "at any cost". I hope that
was just loose talk and what they really meant was they wanted
to leave even if there was a "bit of a cost".
I'd reckon that "at any cost" is obviously an exaggeration.
However, when pressed, several phone-in phoners-in (including
several well-spoken - and I guess well-heeled, batty old ladies)
have also said that they wanted to leave regardless of the
consequences. For many of them, it was a particularly question
of "getting our sovereignty back", regardless of what leaving
might do to the state of the UK economy and the welfare of its
citizens. I'm sure they were not among those Brexiteers who did
try and weigh up the pros and cons before voting.
I don't know if using the phrase "at any cost" represents a poor
vocabulary, a tendency to exaggerate about everything or poor
education.
But is it not in fact Ian who is using this phrase as a short cut to
describe what he has heard being discussed on the radio? Hence we all
tend to put it in quotes.

We all know roughly what it means, even though the detail might mean
different things to different people - which is a point worthy of
discussion.
Post by pamela
It is obviously incorrect. If someone uses such an expression then
you know they are very likely off their trolley and not given to
using factually accurate statements.
Maybe "at any cost" is a suitable phrase to use when putting the
world to rights at the pub or when in shouting match on the pavement
outside the bookies but it has little place in reasoned discourse
other than to signal the speaker doesn't deal in hard facts.
LOL! Do you never listen to radio phone ins?
pamela
2017-10-03 19:14:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by pamela
Someone said they wanted to leave "at any cost". I hope that
was just loose talk and what they really meant was they
wanted to leave even if there was a "bit of a cost".
I'd reckon that "at any cost" is obviously an exaggeration.
However, when pressed, several phone-in phoners-in (including
several well-spoken - and I guess well-heeled, batty old
ladies) have also said that they wanted to leave regardless
of the consequences. For many of them, it was a particularly
question of "getting our sovereignty back", regardless of
what leaving might do to the state of the UK economy and the
welfare of its citizens. I'm sure they were not among those
Brexiteers who did try and weigh up the pros and cons before
voting.
I don't know if using the phrase "at any cost" represents a
poor vocabulary, a tendency to exaggerate about everything or
poor education.
But is it not in fact Ian who is using this phrase as a short
cut to describe what he has heard being discussed on the radio?
Hence we all tend to put it in quotes.
We all know roughly what it means, even though the detail might
mean different things to different people - which is a point
worthy of discussion.
Stop digging when you're in a hole. "At any cost" has one and
only one meaning and it is perfectly clear. All other meanings of
that are different shades of exaggeration.

You went on to discuss the meaning of "at any cost" as if it was
noot used as throw away expression.

Perhaps you should have said "ALMOST at any cost" but you don't
seem to be a particularly clear thinker and asking for such
clarity might be too much.
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
It is obviously incorrect. If someone uses such an expression
then you know they are very likely off their trolley and not
given to using factually accurate statements.
Maybe "at any cost" is a suitable phrase to use when putting
the world to rights at the pub or when in shouting match on the
pavement outside the bookies but it has little place in
reasoned discourse other than to signal the speaker doesn't
deal in hard facts.
LOL! Do you never listen to radio phone ins?
I listen to radio phone ins, including LBC, which is more than you
do judging by your comment to another thread that you had never
listened to it.
Yellow
2017-10-02 23:01:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by kat
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by James Harris
What do you make of those on pro-EU marches? Aren't they extremely
keen to stay in?
Of course - but is it "at any cost"?
Why is is less likely for them to wish to stay in "at any cost" than
for leavers to want to leave "at any cost"?
All I said was that I've never heard any Remainers say that they wanted
to stay at any cost. On the other hand, I HAVE heard phone-in Brexiteers
saying that they want to leave at any cost.
Under what circumstances, during a radio phone-in, would you envisage a
Remainer being asked if they want to stay in the EU at any cost?
Post by Ian Jackson
Any other problems?
Yes, I have broken my toe. :-(
James Harris
2017-10-03 05:31:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by kat
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by James Harris
What do you make of those on pro-EU marches? Aren't they extremely
keen to stay in?
Of course - but is it "at any cost"?
Why is is less likely for them to wish to stay in "at any cost" than
for leavers to want to leave "at any cost"?
All I said was that I've never heard any Remainers say that they wanted
to stay at any cost. On the other hand, I HAVE heard phone-in Brexiteers
saying that they want to leave at any cost.
Under what circumstances, during a radio phone-in, would you envisage a
Remainer being asked if they want to stay in the EU at any cost?
That would be a good question. The Remain campaign got through the
entire referendum run-up without being exposed for the costs of
membership. And I am not talking about the fee.
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
Any other problems?
Yes, I have broken my toe. :-(
Sorry to hear that! What happened?
--
James Harris
Yellow
2017-10-03 10:27:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <oqv7ch$r9q$***@dont-email.me>, ***@gmail.com
says...
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by kat
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by James Harris
What do you make of those on pro-EU marches? Aren't they extremely
keen to stay in?
Of course - but is it "at any cost"?
Why is is less likely for them to wish to stay in "at any cost" than
for leavers to want to leave "at any cost"?
All I said was that I've never heard any Remainers say that they wanted
to stay at any cost. On the other hand, I HAVE heard phone-in Brexiteers
saying that they want to leave at any cost.
Under what circumstances, during a radio phone-in, would you envisage a
Remainer being asked if they want to stay in the EU at any cost?
That would be a good question. The Remain campaign got through the
entire referendum run-up without being exposed for the costs of
membership. And I am not talking about the fee.
One of the interesting things about the two campaigns is that they
rarely fought on the same ground.
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
Any other problems?
Yes, I have broken my toe. :-(
Sorry to hear that!
Thank you. :-)
Post by James Harris
What happened?
A completely self inflicted and mundane domestic incident involving an
iron board that was in just the wrong place, left there by me of course,
so I had a smaller than usual path through to the living room door. So I
then headed out of the room and carelessness managed to smack my foot
right on the leg of the frame of the futon that I am currently using
instead of a settee. I was moving at full pelt and the futon is a heavy
bugger so did not move at all, so my toe came off worse.

It looks like a chipolata. :-)

I am told it usually takes 6 weeks to heal but a week in it is already a
bit better. But thankfully I do not work any more, so I am using it as
an excuse to sit and catch up on some telly - so not all bad.

I have nearly 1,000 films that I have recorded off the telly and
transferred to an external drive, and yesterday I watched 4 of them.
The Todal
2017-10-03 11:04:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by kat
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by James Harris
What do you make of those on pro-EU marches? Aren't they extremely
keen to stay in?
Of course - but is it "at any cost"?
Why is is less likely for them to wish to stay in "at any cost" than
for leavers to want to leave "at any cost"?
All I said was that I've never heard any Remainers say that they wanted
to stay at any cost. On the other hand, I HAVE heard phone-in Brexiteers
saying that they want to leave at any cost.
Under what circumstances, during a radio phone-in, would you envisage a
Remainer being asked if they want to stay in the EU at any cost?
That would be a good question. The Remain campaign got through the
entire referendum run-up without being exposed for the costs of
membership. And I am not talking about the fee.
One of the interesting things about the two campaigns is that they
rarely fought on the same ground.
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
Any other problems?
Yes, I have broken my toe. :-(
Sorry to hear that!
Thank you. :-)
Post by James Harris
What happened?
A completely self inflicted and mundane domestic incident involving an
iron board that was in just the wrong place, left there by me of course,
so I had a smaller than usual path through to the living room door. So I
then headed out of the room and carelessness managed to smack my foot
right on the leg of the frame of the futon that I am currently using
instead of a settee. I was moving at full pelt and the futon is a heavy
bugger so did not move at all, so my toe came off worse.
It looks like a chipolata. :-)
I am told it usually takes 6 weeks to heal but a week in it is already a
bit better. But thankfully I do not work any more, so I am using it as
an excuse to sit and catch up on some telly - so not all bad.
I have nearly 1,000 films that I have recorded off the telly and
transferred to an external drive, and yesterday I watched 4 of them.
Sorry the toe's broken - I don't think they give any splints or any
particular treatment usually. I too have about 1000 films that are
waiting for me to watch. I must have thought that each one was worth
recording but now I'm not so sure.

"Lion" was really good. So was "Manchester By The Sea". The other day I
persuaded my family to watch "High Noon" and "Treasure of the Sierra
Madre", black and white films with a strong moral message, and everyone
enjoyed them.

Damn Leonard Maltin for discontinuing his Movie Guide. A lot of movies
have been made since his 2015 edition. I don't like pretentious stuff,
or whodunnits where you're told to suspect each character in turn.
Yellow
2017-10-03 14:54:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@icloud.com
says...
Post by The Todal
Post by Yellow
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
Any other problems?
Yes, I have broken my toe. :-(
Sorry to hear that!
Thank you. :-)
Post by James Harris
What happened?
A completely self inflicted and mundane domestic incident involving an
iron board that was in just the wrong place, left there by me of course,
so I had a smaller than usual path through to the living room door. So I
then headed out of the room and carelessness managed to smack my foot
right on the leg of the frame of the futon that I am currently using
instead of a settee. I was moving at full pelt and the futon is a heavy
bugger so did not move at all, so my toe came off worse.
It looks like a chipolata. :-)
I am told it usually takes 6 weeks to heal but a week in it is already a
bit better. But thankfully I do not work any more, so I am using it as
an excuse to sit and catch up on some telly - so not all bad.
I have nearly 1,000 films that I have recorded off the telly and
transferred to an external drive, and yesterday I watched 4 of them.
Sorry the toe's broken - I don't think they give any splints or any
particular treatment usually. I too have about 1000 films that are
waiting for me to watch. I must have thought that each one was worth
recording but now I'm not so sure.
I never expect to watch all the films I have but like having the choice
when I do want to watch one.

I watched Spilt on BluRay last weekend for example (and loved it) and it
made me want to rewatch an older film by the same director and I just
happened to have it, recorded from ITV2 a few years ago.

The adverts always confuse me though because I forget how old the
recording is sometimes.

I am an optimist by nature so am using the opportunity that has been
presented to me the best I can which means I can spend all day sitting
and watching TV without feeling guilty. :-)
Post by The Todal
"Lion" was really good. So was "Manchester By The Sea".
Not seen either of those as I was not sure enough about them to hire but
they both appeared on Amazon Prime in the last month or two and they are
already on my list. Must watch then before they disappear.
Post by The Todal
The other day I
persuaded my family to watch "High Noon" and "Treasure of the Sierra
Madre", black and white films with a strong moral message, and everyone
enjoyed them.
Do you ever watch channel 7 on Freeview? Assuming it is the same
countrywide. Films as old as the 30s and some real crackers.
Post by The Todal
Damn Leonard Maltin for discontinuing his Movie Guide. A lot of movies
have been made since his 2015 edition. I don't like pretentious stuff,
or whodunnits where you're told to suspect each character in turn.
I sometimes find that I enjoy the most unexpected film, so try to keep
an open mind - not always easy as I do not like cop or detective stuff
as a rule.

I watched a movie the other day called Aftermath which I had very low
hopes for - starred Arnie as a man who lost his family in a plane crash
and it compared and contrasted him with the traffic controller who
fucked up. It was not an action movie, a drama I guess you would say,
and I really enjoyed it.

Hidden figures is also a recent film I have had - now that was good.
About the black women computers as they were called who worked at NASA
doing the maths, by hand, for the space programme during segregation.
kat
2017-10-03 14:11:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by kat
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by James Harris
What do you make of those on pro-EU marches? Aren't they extremely
keen to stay in?
Of course - but is it "at any cost"?
Why is is less likely for them to wish to stay in "at any cost" than
for leavers to want to leave "at any cost"?
All I said was that I've never heard any Remainers say that they wanted
to stay at any cost. On the other hand, I HAVE heard phone-in Brexiteers
saying that they want to leave at any cost.
Under what circumstances, during a radio phone-in, would you envisage a
Remainer being asked if they want to stay in the EU at any cost?
That would be a good question. The Remain campaign got through the
entire referendum run-up without being exposed for the costs of
membership. And I am not talking about the fee.
One of the interesting things about the two campaigns is that they
rarely fought on the same ground.
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
Any other problems?
Yes, I have broken my toe. :-(
Sorry to hear that!
Thank you. :-)
Post by James Harris
What happened?
A completely self inflicted and mundane domestic incident involving an
iron board that was in just the wrong place, left there by me of course,
so I had a smaller than usual path through to the living room door. So I
then headed out of the room and carelessness managed to smack my foot
right on the leg of the frame of the futon that I am currently using
instead of a settee. I was moving at full pelt and the futon is a heavy
bugger so did not move at all, so my toe came off worse.
It looks like a chipolata. :-)
I am told it usually takes 6 weeks to heal but a week in it is already a
bit better. But thankfully I do not work any more, so I am using it as
an excuse to sit and catch up on some telly - so not all bad.
I have nearly 1,000 films that I have recorded off the telly and
transferred to an external drive, and yesterday I watched 4 of them.
I love a "good" excuse to that.:-)
But your description of what happened made me wince. Hope it gets
better soon.
--
kat
Post by Yellow
^..^<
Yellow
2017-10-03 18:15:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@hotmail.com
says...
Post by kat
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by kat
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by James Harris
What do you make of those on pro-EU marches? Aren't they extremely
keen to stay in?
Of course - but is it "at any cost"?
Why is is less likely for them to wish to stay in "at any cost" than
for leavers to want to leave "at any cost"?
All I said was that I've never heard any Remainers say that they wanted
to stay at any cost. On the other hand, I HAVE heard phone-in Brexiteers
saying that they want to leave at any cost.
Under what circumstances, during a radio phone-in, would you envisage a
Remainer being asked if they want to stay in the EU at any cost?
That would be a good question. The Remain campaign got through the
entire referendum run-up without being exposed for the costs of
membership. And I am not talking about the fee.
One of the interesting things about the two campaigns is that they
rarely fought on the same ground.
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
Any other problems?
Yes, I have broken my toe. :-(
Sorry to hear that!
Thank you. :-)
Post by James Harris
What happened?
A completely self inflicted and mundane domestic incident involving an
iron board that was in just the wrong place, left there by me of course,
so I had a smaller than usual path through to the living room door. So I
then headed out of the room and carelessness managed to smack my foot
right on the leg of the frame of the futon that I am currently using
instead of a settee. I was moving at full pelt and the futon is a heavy
bugger so did not move at all, so my toe came off worse.
It looks like a chipolata. :-)
I am told it usually takes 6 weeks to heal but a week in it is already a
bit better. But thankfully I do not work any more, so I am using it as
an excuse to sit and catch up on some telly - so not all bad.
I have nearly 1,000 films that I have recorded off the telly and
transferred to an external drive, and yesterday I watched 4 of them.
I love a "good" excuse to that.:-)
But your description of what happened made me wince. Hope it gets
better soon.
Thanks. :-)
James Harris
2017-10-03 19:28:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
says...
...
Post by Yellow
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
Any other problems?
Yes, I have broken my toe. :-(
Sorry to hear that!
Thank you. :-)
Post by James Harris
What happened?
A completely self inflicted and mundane domestic incident involving an
iron board that was in just the wrong place, left there by me of course,
so I had a smaller than usual path through to the living room door. So I
then headed out of the room and carelessness managed to smack my foot
right on the leg of the frame of the futon that I am currently using
instead of a settee. I was moving at full pelt
...

Sounds very painful. I know with toes it's amazing how we can do pretty
much the same thing day after day but then one day, out of the blue,
catch something solid. I've done that a few times but never bad enough
to cause a break, I'm glad to say.

Hope you are better soon. At least you've got that stash of films and,
of course, your Usenet keyboard. :-)
--
James Harris
Yellow
2017-10-03 20:41:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <or0odl$hda$***@dont-email.me>, ***@gmail.com
says...
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
says...
...
Post by Yellow
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
Any other problems?
Yes, I have broken my toe. :-(
Sorry to hear that!
Thank you. :-)
Post by James Harris
What happened?
A completely self inflicted and mundane domestic incident involving an
iron board that was in just the wrong place, left there by me of course,
so I had a smaller than usual path through to the living room door. So I
then headed out of the room and carelessness managed to smack my foot
right on the leg of the frame of the futon that I am currently using
instead of a settee. I was moving at full pelt
...
Sounds very painful. I know with toes it's amazing how we can do pretty
much the same thing day after day but then one day, out of the blue,
catch something solid. I've done that a few times but never bad enough
to cause a break, I'm glad to say.
Hope you are better soon. At least you've got that stash of films and,
of course, your Usenet keyboard. :-)
There often a bright side. ;-)
Ophelia
2017-10-03 20:24:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Yellow" wrote in message news:***@News.Individual.NET...

In article <oqv7ch$r9q$***@dont-email.me>, ***@gmail.com
says...
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by kat
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by James Harris
What do you make of those on pro-EU marches? Aren't they extremely
keen to stay in?
Of course - but is it "at any cost"?
Why is is less likely for them to wish to stay in "at any cost" than
for leavers to want to leave "at any cost"?
All I said was that I've never heard any Remainers say that they wanted
to stay at any cost. On the other hand, I HAVE heard phone-in Brexiteers
saying that they want to leave at any cost.
Under what circumstances, during a radio phone-in, would you envisage a
Remainer being asked if they want to stay in the EU at any cost?
That would be a good question. The Remain campaign got through the
entire referendum run-up without being exposed for the costs of
membership. And I am not talking about the fee.
One of the interesting things about the two campaigns is that they
rarely fought on the same ground.
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
Any other problems?
Yes, I have broken my toe. :-(
Sorry to hear that!
Thank you. :-)
Post by James Harris
What happened?
A completely self inflicted and mundane domestic incident involving an
iron board that was in just the wrong place, left there by me of course,
so I had a smaller than usual path through to the living room door. So I
then headed out of the room and carelessness managed to smack my foot
right on the leg of the frame of the futon that I am currently using
instead of a settee. I was moving at full pelt and the futon is a heavy
bugger so did not move at all, so my toe came off worse.

It looks like a chipolata. :-)

I am told it usually takes 6 weeks to heal but a week in it is already a
bit better. But thankfully I do not work any more, so I am using it as
an excuse to sit and catch up on some telly - so not all bad.

I have nearly 1,000 films that I have recorded off the telly and
transferred to an external drive, and yesterday I watched 4 of them.

==

Ahh, you have a long way to go:) At least you have an excuse to lay back
and enjoy:))
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
Ophelia
2017-10-03 10:02:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by kat
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by James Harris
What do you make of those on pro-EU marches? Aren't they extremely
keen to stay in?
Of course - but is it "at any cost"?
Why is is less likely for them to wish to stay in "at any cost" than
for leavers to want to leave "at any cost"?
All I said was that I've never heard any Remainers say that they wanted
to stay at any cost. On the other hand, I HAVE heard phone-in Brexiteers
saying that they want to leave at any cost.
Under what circumstances, during a radio phone-in, would you envisage a
Remainer being asked if they want to stay in the EU at any cost?
Post by Ian Jackson
Any other problems?
Yes, I have broken my toe. :-(

==

Oh dear. how did you do that?? It must be very painful:(

My husband is limping with a very painful toe. I wonder if he has broken it
too:((
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
Yellow
2017-10-03 13:38:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@gmail.com
says...
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by kat
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by James Harris
What do you make of those on pro-EU marches? Aren't they extremely
keen to stay in?
Of course - but is it "at any cost"?
Why is is less likely for them to wish to stay in "at any cost" than
for leavers to want to leave "at any cost"?
All I said was that I've never heard any Remainers say that they wanted
to stay at any cost. On the other hand, I HAVE heard phone-in Brexiteers
saying that they want to leave at any cost.
Under what circumstances, during a radio phone-in, would you envisage a
Remainer being asked if they want to stay in the EU at any cost?
Post by Ian Jackson
Any other problems?
Yes, I have broken my toe. :-(
==
Oh dear. how did you do that??
See my other long winded post. :-)
Post by Yellow
It must be very painful:(
Made me scream the house down when I did it but it is now manageable.
Just annoying that I cannot walk very far and you only really notice it
when you can't.
Post by Yellow
My husband is limping with a very painful toe. I wonder if he has broken it
too:((
There is nothing 'they' can do except wish you well and tell you to take
normal pain killers. I am finding that taking paracetamol and then
ibuprofen two hours later is working best for me.

Unless it goes grey apparently, then you need to seek medical help.

Mine is going through the yellow bruise stage.
Ophelia
2017-10-03 20:20:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Yellow" wrote in message news:***@News.Individual.NET...

In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@gmail.com
says...
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by kat
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by James Harris
What do you make of those on pro-EU marches? Aren't they extremely
keen to stay in?
Of course - but is it "at any cost"?
Why is is less likely for them to wish to stay in "at any cost" than
for leavers to want to leave "at any cost"?
All I said was that I've never heard any Remainers say that they wanted
to stay at any cost. On the other hand, I HAVE heard phone-in Brexiteers
saying that they want to leave at any cost.
Under what circumstances, during a radio phone-in, would you envisage a
Remainer being asked if they want to stay in the EU at any cost?
Post by Ian Jackson
Any other problems?
Yes, I have broken my toe. :-(
==
Oh dear. how did you do that??
See my other long winded post. :-)
Post by Yellow
It must be very painful:(
Made me scream the house down when I did it but it is now manageable.
Just annoying that I cannot walk very far and you only really notice it
when you can't.
Post by Yellow
My husband is limping with a very painful toe. I wonder if he has broken it
too:((
There is nothing 'they' can do except wish you well and tell you to take
normal pain killers. I am finding that taking paracetamol and then
ibuprofen two hours later is working best for me.

Unless it goes grey apparently, then you need to seek medical help.

Mine is going through the yellow bruise stage.

==

I do hope it recovers soon! Horrible when you can't walk because of pain:(
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
kat
2017-10-03 08:07:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by kat
Post by James Harris
What do you make of those on pro-EU marches? Aren't they extremely
keen to stay in?
 Of course - but is it "at any cost"?
Why is is less likely for them to wish to stay in "at any cost" than
for leavers to want to leave "at any cost"?
All I said was that I've never heard any Remainers say that they wanted
to stay at any cost. On the other hand, I HAVE heard phone-in Brexiteers
saying that they want to leave at any cost.
Could that be because these remainers have been the ones who did well
out of membership,that's why they want to stay, so, for them, there is
no cost to stay?
--
kat
Post by Ian Jackson
^..^<
Ian Jackson
2017-10-03 09:39:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kat
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by kat
Post by James Harris
What do you make of those on pro-EU marches? Aren't they extremely
keen to stay in?
 Of course - but is it "at any cost"?
Why is is less likely for them to wish to stay in "at any cost" than
for leavers to want to leave "at any cost"?
All I said was that I've never heard any Remainers say that they
wanted to stay at any cost. On the other hand, I HAVE heard phone-in
Brexiteers saying that they want to leave at any cost.
Could that be because these remainers have been the ones who did well
out of membership,that's why they want to stay, so, for them, there is
no cost to stay?
I doubt it. It's difficult to say who has "done well out of" the EU.
Many (especially Remainers) will say that, overall, we have ALL
benefited - although it's obvious that some may claim that (with some
justification) they have been adversely affected because of rather too
much EU immigration. On the other hand, you could say that some
(especially traders and transporters) are definitely among those who
have specifically benefited. The problem is that there ARE situations
where people are now worse off these days, and although this might have
little to do with the EU, it's tempting to blame our membership for it.
--
Ian
James Harris
2017-10-03 11:31:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by kat
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by kat
Post by James Harris
What do you make of those on pro-EU marches? Aren't they extremely
keen to stay in?
 Of course - but is it "at any cost"?
Why is is less likely for them to wish to stay in "at any cost" than
for leavers to want to leave "at any cost"?
All I said was that I've never heard any Remainers say that they
wanted to stay at any cost. On the other hand, I HAVE heard phone-in
Brexiteers saying that they want to leave at any cost.
Could that be because these remainers have been the ones who did well
out of membership,that's why they want to stay, so, for them, there is
no cost to stay?
I doubt it. It's difficult to say who has "done well out of" the EU.
One could estimate by looking at those who helped fund the Remain camp
such as the megabanks, i.e. Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs.
Then there were CEOs who wrote to their staff "to set out their
position". And we mustn't forget the billionaire who lives on his own
island but thought that the rest of the country should accept
uncontrolled immigration.

;-)
--
James Harris
kat
2017-10-03 14:09:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by kat
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by kat
Post by James Harris
What do you make of those on pro-EU marches? Aren't they extremely
keen to stay in?
  Of course - but is it "at any cost"?
Why is is less likely for them to wish to stay in "at any cost" than
for leavers to want to leave "at any cost"?
All I said was that I've never heard any Remainers say that they
wanted  to stay at any cost. On the other hand, I HAVE heard phone-in
Brexiteers  saying that they want to leave at any cost.
Could that be because these remainers have been the ones who did well
out of membership,that's why they want to stay, so, for them, there is
no cost to stay?
I doubt it. It's difficult to say who has "done well out of" the EU.
One could estimate by looking at those who helped fund the Remain camp
such as the megabanks, i.e. Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs.
Then there were CEOs who wrote to their staff "to set out their
position". And we mustn't forget the billionaire who lives on his own
island but thought that the rest of the country should accept
uncontrolled immigration.
;-)
Nicely put James!
--
kat
Post by James Harris
^..^<
James Harris
2017-10-02 20:18:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by James Harris
What do you make of those on pro-EU marches? Aren't they extremely keen
to stay in?
Of course - but is it "at any cost"?
I don't know. The phrase means different things to different people. And
it's not taken literally. No one would be prepared to sacrifice their
firstborn, for example!

So I am not sure you can say that Brexiteers are any more rational or
irrational than Remainers. Maybe you can. Maybe not. Hard to be sure,
isn't it!

One thing I have noticed about the pro-EU marches: they are getting
smaller. :-)
--
James Harris
Ophelia
2017-10-03 10:01:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by James Harris
What do you make of those on pro-EU marches? Aren't they extremely keen
to stay in?
Of course - but is it "at any cost"?
I don't know. The phrase means different things to different people. And
it's not taken literally. No one would be prepared to sacrifice their
firstborn, for example!

So I am not sure you can say that Brexiteers are any more rational or
irrational than Remainers. Maybe you can. Maybe not. Hard to be sure,
isn't it!

One thing I have noticed about the pro-EU marches: they are getting
smaller. :-)


James Harris

==

:)
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
Yellow
2017-10-02 19:19:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <oqu12t$qcj$***@dont-email.me>, ***@gmail.com
says...
Post by James Harris
Post by Ian Jackson
Unlike some of the Brexiteers' "We want out at any cost", I don't know
of any Remainers who are desperate to "stay in at any cost".
I guess you mean that as a pejorative. But perhaps it speaks to the
passion of those on the Brexit side. Strong emotions were involved in
the desire to Leave.
Having discussed this before, I think Ian is actually misrepresenting
leavers, perhaps like me, when he says they say "we want out at any
cost".

A reason I, and the others who might share this particular view, want
out is because we do not want to share in the EU's direction of travel -
ever closer union. We therefore want to leave "at any cost".

But the thing is we have differing ideas about what is meant by the word
"cost".

I see the non-financial cost of staying in to be far higher than any
financial cost of leaving, if there is indeed a financial cost, so that
is simply a price that has to be paid. If we do not get out now, there
will be no getting out, ever.

Meanwhile Ian, and he is not alone, I think sees the cost of staying in
the EU or leaving it, only in term of GDP, for which the "ever closer
union" is the non-financial cost he is prepared to pay.

Leave or remain, it is equal and it is opposite.

Not trying to put words in anyone's mouth by the way, just trying to
figure it all out.
pamela
2017-10-02 19:37:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by James Harris
Post by Ian Jackson
Unlike some of the Brexiteers' "We want out at any cost", I
don't know of any Remainers who are desperate to "stay in at
any cost".
I guess you mean that as a pejorative. But perhaps it speaks to
the passion of those on the Brexit side. Strong emotions were
involved in the desire to Leave.
Having discussed this before, I think Ian is actually
misrepresenting leavers, perhaps like me, when he says they say
"we want out at any cost".
A reason I, and the others who might share this particular view,
want out is because we do not want to share in the EU's
direction of travel - ever closer union. We therefore want to
leave "at any cost".
But the thing is we have differing ideas about what is meant by
the word "cost".
I see the non-financial cost of staying in to be far higher than
any financial cost of leaving, if there is indeed a financial
cost, so that is simply a price that has to be paid. If we do
not get out now, there will be no getting out, ever.
Meanwhile Ian, and he is not alone, I think sees the cost of
staying in the EU or leaving it, only in term of GDP, for which
the "ever closer union" is the non-financial cost he is prepared
to pay.
Leave or remain, it is equal and it is opposite.
Not trying to put words in anyone's mouth by the way, just
trying to figure it all out.
"If we do not get out now, there will be no getting out, ever."
Ever? Have you actually thought that statement through?
Yellow
2017-10-03 09:55:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@81.171.92.183>, ***@nospam.com
says...
Post by pamela
"If we do not get out now, there will be no getting out, ever."
Ever? Have you actually thought that statement through?
Good point. The EU will probably collapse at some point and that would
take everyone out.
pamela
2017-10-03 12:09:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
"If we do not get out now, there will be no getting out, ever."
Ever? Have you actually thought that statement through?
Good point. The EU will probably collapse at some point and that
would take everyone out.
That claim was wild hyerbole the first time you wrote it and it
remains wild hyperbole. You often seem to rely on such exaggerations.
Yellow
2017-10-03 16:12:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@81.171.92.183>, ***@nospam.com
says...
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
"If we do not get out now, there will be no getting out, ever."
Ever? Have you actually thought that statement through?
Good point. The EU will probably collapse at some point and that
would take everyone out.
That claim was wild hyerbole the first time you wrote it and it
remains wild hyperbole. You often seem to rely on such exaggerations.
We will see......
pamela
2017-10-03 19:12:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
"If we do not get out now, there will be no getting out,
ever."
Ever? Have you actually thought that statement through?
Good point. The EU will probably collapse at some point and
that would take everyone out.
That claim was wild hyerbole the first time you wrote it and it
remains wild hyperbole. You often seem to rely on such
exaggerations.
We will see......
So you are saying that your original use of "at any cost" actually
means "even at the most utterly unaffordable cost"?

Your original phrase was ....

"Some will have wished to stay at any cost"
Yellow
2017-10-03 20:39:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@81.171.118.178>, ***@nospam.com
says...
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
"If we do not get out now, there will be no getting out,
ever."
Ever? Have you actually thought that statement through?
Good point. The EU will probably collapse at some point and
that would take everyone out.
That claim was wild hyerbole the first time you wrote it and it
remains wild hyperbole. You often seem to rely on such
exaggerations.
We will see......
So you are saying that your original use of "at any cost" actually
means "even at the most utterly unaffordable cost"?
Your original phrase was ....
"Some will have wished to stay at any cost"
I would not split my wrists and allow my blood to drip in the alter of
satan, but I am unlikely to be called upon to pay that particular price
and I am using that same judgement to conclude that the price of staying
in the EU will always be higher than the price to leave.

Ever closer union - the clear outcome of the UK staying in the EU, and
that price is simply too high and will always be greater than the cost
of leaving the EU, if there even is one.
pamela
2017-10-03 21:55:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
"If we do not get out now, there will be no getting out, ever."
Ever? Have you actually thought that statement through?
Good point. The EU will probably collapse at some point
and that would take everyone out.
That claim was wild hyerbole the first time you wrote it and
it remains wild hyperbole. You often seem to rely on such
exaggerations.
We will see......
So you are saying that your original use of "at any cost"
actually means "even at the most utterly unaffordable cost"?
Your original phrase was ....
"Some will have wished to stay at any cost"
I would not split my wrists and allow my blood to drip in the
alter of satan,
Then why did you say "at any price" if ou did not mean it?
Post by Yellow
but I am unlikely to be called upon to pay that
particular price and I am using that same judgement to conclude
that the price of staying in the EU will always be higher than
the price to leave.
That is an entirely different statement to the one you made when
you said "at any price".
Post by Yellow
Ever closer union - the clear outcome of the UK staying in the
EU, and that price is simply too high and will always be greater
than the cost of leaving the EU, if there even is one.
"Too high" is different again to saying the "price of staying in
the EU will always be higher than the price to leave".

"Too high" is also different to saying "at any price".

You are starting to mix together different statements.
Yellow
2017-10-03 22:41:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@81.171.118.178>, ***@nospam.com
says...
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
"If we do not get out now, there will be no getting out, ever."
Ever? Have you actually thought that statement through?
Good point. The EU will probably collapse at some point
and that would take everyone out.
That claim was wild hyerbole the first time you wrote it and
it remains wild hyperbole. You often seem to rely on such
exaggerations.
We will see......
So you are saying that your original use of "at any cost"
actually means "even at the most utterly unaffordable cost"?
Your original phrase was ....
"Some will have wished to stay at any cost"
I would not split my wrists and allow my blood to drip in the
alter of satan,
Then why did you say "at any price" if ou did not mean it?
I believe I said "at any cost".
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
but I am unlikely to be called upon to pay that
particular price and I am using that same judgement to conclude
that the price of staying in the EU will always be higher than
the price to leave.
That is an entirely different statement to the one you made when
you said "at any price".
I believe I said "at any cost".
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Ever closer union - the clear outcome of the UK staying in the
EU, and that price is simply too high and will always be greater
than the cost of leaving the EU, if there even is one.
"Too high" is different again to saying the "price of staying in
the EU will always be higher than the price to leave".
Again, I said c-o-s-t.
Post by pamela
"Too high" is also different to saying "at any price".
But I did not say that.
Post by pamela
You are starting to mix together different statements.
How do you draw one of those "raises eyebrow" emojis with text
characters?
Ian Jackson
2017-10-02 19:48:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by James Harris
Post by Ian Jackson
Unlike some of the Brexiteers' "We want out at any cost", I don't know
of any Remainers who are desperate to "stay in at any cost".
I guess you mean that as a pejorative. But perhaps it speaks to the
passion of those on the Brexit side. Strong emotions were involved in
the desire to Leave.
Having discussed this before, I think Ian is actually misrepresenting
leavers, perhaps like me, when he says they say "we want out at any
cost".
Nonsense. Some leavers - like reminders - have weighed up the pros and
cons, and decided that leaving is better. It's possibly only the lunatic
fringe who want to "leave at any cost".
Post by Yellow
A reason I, and the others who might share this particular view, want
out is because we do not want to share in the EU's direction of travel -
ever closer union. We therefore want to leave "at any cost".
I really don't believe you (and most of your ilk).
Post by Yellow
But the thing is we have differing ideas about what is meant by the word
"cost".
I think most people have a fair idea what "at any cost" means.
Post by Yellow
I see the non-financial cost of staying in to be far higher than any
financial cost of leaving, if there is indeed a financial cost, so that
is simply a price that has to be paid. If we do not get out now, there
will be no getting out, ever.
Meanwhile Ian, and he is not alone, I think sees the cost of staying in
the EU or leaving it, only in term of GDP, for which the "ever closer
union" is the non-financial cost he is prepared to pay.
Leave or remain, it is equal and it is opposite.
Not trying to put words in anyone's mouth by the way
Thank heaven for that!
Post by Yellow
, just trying to
figure it all out.
Practice makes perfect.
--
Ian
Yellow
2017-10-03 09:54:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by James Harris
Post by Ian Jackson
Unlike some of the Brexiteers' "We want out at any cost", I don't know
of any Remainers who are desperate to "stay in at any cost".
I guess you mean that as a pejorative. But perhaps it speaks to the
passion of those on the Brexit side. Strong emotions were involved in
the desire to Leave.
Having discussed this before, I think Ian is actually misrepresenting
leavers, perhaps like me, when he says they say "we want out at any
cost".
Nonsense. Some leavers - like reminders - have weighed up the pros and
cons, and decided that leaving is better. It's possibly only the lunatic
fringe who want to "leave at any cost".
That was just an introduction and you needed to read the rest of my post
as I go on to discuss what "at any cost" means. :-)
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Yellow
A reason I, and the others who might share this particular view, want
out is because we do not want to share in the EU's direction of travel -
ever closer union. We therefore want to leave "at any cost".
I really don't believe you (and most of your ilk).
Why not? I cannot defend my position if you do not explain why you think
I am telling lies when in fact I go on to do my very best to explain my
point of view - if you read on.
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Yellow
But the thing is we have differing ideas about what is meant by the word
"cost".
I think most people have a fair idea what "at any cost" means.
No they don't, and this is exactly the point of my post. It means
different things to different people, and there is also the context to
consider. As I go in to explain.
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Yellow
I see the non-financial cost of staying in to be far higher than any
financial cost of leaving, if there is indeed a financial cost, so that
is simply a price that has to be paid. If we do not get out now, there
will be no getting out, ever.
Meanwhile Ian, and he is not alone, I think sees the cost of staying in
the EU or leaving it, only in term of GDP, for which the "ever closer
union" is the non-financial cost he is prepared to pay.
Leave or remain, it is equal and it is opposite.
And after all your comments to my preamble, we get to my explanation and
you simply ignore it. LOL!
Yellow
2017-10-01 14:16:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@81.171.92.183>, ***@nospam.com
says...
Post by pamela
{BIG SNIP]
For example, Brexit was not about stopping immigration.
I think millions of pro-Brexit voters most probably thought Brexit
was exactly about stopping immigration.
Then you are wrong. It is clearly about controlling immigration.
Post by pamela
This expectation, however unrealistic, was heavily promoted by Nigel
Farage and others in the referendum campaign.
No it wasn't.
pamela
2017-10-01 13:51:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[[[SNIP]]]
I don't remember cries of blackmail but I would point out that
the UK is trying to get a good outcome for everyone while the EU
wants/needs things to be worse. That makes the UK's position
very difficult. It doesn't matter to the EU how the 27 members
suffer as long as the 1 which is leaving suffers. Nice
organisation, isn't it!
If I was an EU negotiator I would do exactly the same. I would do
all I could to ensure Britain gets such a pasting that no nation
would forget for decades how Britain was made to suffer.

Why, you should ask, would an EU negotiator do anything to help the
UK?
Yellow
2017-10-01 14:19:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@81.171.92.183>, ***@nospam.com
says...
Post by pamela
[[[SNIP]]]
I don't remember cries of blackmail but I would point out that
the UK is trying to get a good outcome for everyone while the EU
wants/needs things to be worse. That makes the UK's position
very difficult. It doesn't matter to the EU how the 27 members
suffer as long as the 1 which is leaving suffers. Nice
organisation, isn't it!
If I was an EU negotiator I would do exactly the same. I would do
all I could to ensure Britain gets such a pasting that no nation
would forget for decades how Britain was made to suffer.
Which is why it is such a shit organisation that so many of us no longer
want to be a part of.
Post by pamela
Why, you should ask, would an EU negotiator do anything to help the
UK?
With my view on the EU, I had no other expectation as fairness is not
high on its list of working practices, if on there at all.
pamela
2017-10-01 20:17:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
[[[SNIP]]]
I don't remember cries of blackmail but I would point out
that the UK is trying to get a good outcome for everyone
while the EU wants/needs things to be worse. That makes the
UK's position very difficult. It doesn't matter to the EU how
the 27 members suffer as long as the 1 which is leaving
suffers. Nice organisation, isn't it!
If I was an EU negotiator I would do exactly the same. I would
do all I could to ensure Britain gets such a pasting that no
nation would forget for decades how Britain was made to suffer.
Which is why it is such a shit organisation that so many of us
no longer want to be a part of.
Post by pamela
Why, you should ask, would an EU negotiator do anything to help
the UK?
With my view on the EU, I had no other expectation as fairness
is not high on its list of working practices, if on there at
all.
The EU may not have been particularly fair (depending on how you
define it) but we are better off inside the EU than outside. We are
about to find out how big the difference actually is.
Yellow
2017-10-01 22:13:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@81.171.118.178>, ***@nospam.com
says...
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
If I was an EU negotiator I would do exactly the same. I would
do all I could to ensure Britain gets such a pasting that no
nation would forget for decades how Britain was made to suffer.
Which is why it is such a shit organisation that so many of us
no longer want to be a part of.
Post by pamela
Why, you should ask, would an EU negotiator do anything to help
the UK?
With my view on the EU, I had no other expectation as fairness
is not high on its list of working practices, if on there at
all.
The EU may not have been particularly fair (depending on how you
define it) but we are better off inside the EU than outside.
First you need to define "we" and then you need to define "better off".
Post by pamela
We are
about to find out how big the difference actually is.
Until you have defined it, how can you measure it?
pamela
2017-10-02 13:01:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
If I was an EU negotiator I would do exactly the same. I
would do all I could to ensure Britain gets such a pasting
that no nation would forget for decades how Britain was made
to suffer.
Which is why it is such a shit organisation that so many of
us no longer want to be a part of.
Post by pamela
Why, you should ask, would an EU negotiator do anything to
help the UK?
With my view on the EU, I had no other expectation as
fairness is not high on its list of working practices, if on
there at all.
The EU may not have been particularly fair (depending on how
you define it) but we are better off inside the EU than
outside.
First you need to define "we" and then you need to define
"better off".
We = UK citizens.

Better off = more money.
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
We are
about to find out how big the difference actually is.
Until you have defined it, how can you measure it?
Yellow
2017-10-02 14:10:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@81.171.118.178>, ***@nospam.com
says...
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
The EU may not have been particularly fair (depending on how
you define it) but we are better off inside the EU than
outside.
First you need to define "we" and then you need to define
"better off".
We = UK citizens.
Better off = more money.
So on what basis are you declaring that *every* UK citizen is better off
because we are members of the EU?

Hmmmm?
pamela
2017-10-02 15:08:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
The EU may not have been particularly fair (depending on how
you define it) but we are better off inside the EU than
outside.
First you need to define "we" and then you need to define
"better off".
We = UK citizens.
Better off = more money.
So on what basis are you declaring that *every* UK citizen is
better off because we are members of the EU?
Hmmmm?
I wrote "we are better off inside the EU than outside". Your wild
extrapolations to prop up your losing argument do you no credit.

I am beginning to wonder about how well you grasp reality because you
have developed a technique of twisting words around into a pretzel of
their former self and then wildly extrapolating from there until you
make accusatory comments based on your new interpretation.

Perhaps you have some personality disorder which would help explain
such a method of interaction?
Yellow
2017-10-02 16:06:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@81.171.92.183>, ***@nospam.com
says...
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
The EU may not have been particularly fair (depending on how
you define it) but we are better off inside the EU than
outside.
First you need to define "we" and then you need to define
"better off".
We = UK citizens.
Better off = more money.
So on what basis are you declaring that *every* UK citizen is
better off because we are members of the EU?
Hmmmm?
I wrote "we are better off inside the EU than outside".
You did - and the answer to my question is?
Post by pamela
Your wild
extrapolations to prop up your losing argument do you no credit.
I am beginning to wonder about how well you grasp reality because you
have developed a technique of twisting words around into a pretzel of
their former self and then wildly extrapolating from there until you
make accusatory comments based on your new interpretation.
Perhaps you have some personality disorder which would help explain
such a method of interaction?
But my question... you do not seem to have answered it.
pamela
2017-10-02 18:36:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
The EU may not have been particularly fair (depending on
how you define it) but we are better off inside the EU
than outside.
First you need to define "we" and then you need to define "better off".
We = UK citizens.
Better off = more money.
So on what basis are you declaring that *every* UK citizen is
better off because we are members of the EU?
Hmmmm?
I wrote "we are better off inside the EU than outside".
You did - and the answer to my question is?
Your question is irrelevant to what I wrote. You made a stupid
jibe in the form of a question. If you don't understand something
then why not try Google before making yourself look foolish here.
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Your wild extrapolations to prop up your losing argument do you
no credit.
I am beginning to wonder about how well you grasp reality
because you have developed a technique of twisting words around
into a pretzel of their former self and then wildly
extrapolating from there until you make accusatory comments
based on your new interpretation.
Perhaps you have some personality disorder which would help
explain such a method of interaction?
But my question... you do not seem to have answered it.
You have not answered my prvious question about specific and
general relativity. What is your answer?
kat
2017-10-02 20:01:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
The EU may not have been particularly fair (depending on
how you define it) but we are better off inside the EU
than outside.
First you need to define "we" and then you need to define
"better off".
We = UK citizens.
Better off = more money.
So on what basis are you declaring that *every* UK citizen is
better off because we are members of the EU?
Hmmmm?
I wrote "we are better off inside the EU than outside".
You did - and the answer to my question is?
Your question is irrelevant to what I wrote. You made a stupid
jibe in the form of a question. If you don't understand something
then why not try Google before making yourself look foolish here.
Why is it irrelevant? Why would I be better off in than out?
--
kat
Post by pamela
^..^<
pamela
2017-10-02 21:58:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
The EU may not have been particularly fair (depending on
how you define it) but we are better off inside the EU
than outside.
First you need to define "we" and then you need to define "better off".
We = UK citizens.
Better off = more money.
So on what basis are you declaring that *every* UK citizen
is better off because we are members of the EU?
Hmmmm?
I wrote "we are better off inside the EU than outside".
You did - and the answer to my question is?
Your question is irrelevant to what I wrote. You made a stupid
jibe in the form of a question. If you don't understand
something then why not try Google before making yourself look
foolish here.
Why is it irrelevant? Why would I be better off in than out?
I posted a list off hte top of my head of things I liked about the
EU to James a couple of weeks ago including.... conformity of
goods, the ability to travel without permits or visas, the
consumer protection which large British companies would have
prevented, the cheaper goods, the modern outlook which
stick-in-mud Britain would never have developed, exchange studies,
trans-national environmental protection, the effect on quality of
food, the mobile phone roaming charges, sustained peace in Europe,
general world influence, ease of inporting/exporting, grey pricing
from goods cheaper elsewhere, better designed consumer products,
foreign tv stations, more competition to make our manufacturers up
their game, and so on.
Yellow
2017-10-02 22:32:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@81.171.92.183>, ***@nospam.com
says...
Post by pamela
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
I wrote "we are better off inside the EU than outside".
You did - and the answer to my question is?
Your question is irrelevant to what I wrote. You made a stupid
jibe in the form of a question. If you don't understand
something then why not try Google before making yourself look
foolish here.
Why is it irrelevant? Why would I be better off in than out?
I posted a list off hte top of my head of things I liked about the
EU to James a couple of weeks ago including.... conformity of
goods, the ability to travel without permits or visas, the
consumer protection which large British companies would have
prevented, the cheaper goods, the modern outlook which
stick-in-mud Britain would never have developed, exchange studies,
trans-national environmental protection, the effect on quality of
food, the mobile phone roaming charges, sustained peace in Europe,
general world influence, ease of inporting/exporting, grey pricing
from goods cheaper elsewhere, better designed consumer products,
foreign tv stations, more competition to make our manufacturers up
their game, and so on.
The same silly list? Some is untrue, some is opinion, some only affects
the elite, but in any case you have no proof any of it would be any
different if we had never joined the EU.
Ophelia
2017-10-03 10:10:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Yellow" wrote in message news:***@News.Individual.NET...

In article <***@81.171.92.183>, ***@nospam.com
says...
Post by pamela
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
I wrote "we are better off inside the EU than outside".
You did - and the answer to my question is?
Your question is irrelevant to what I wrote. You made a stupid
jibe in the form of a question. If you don't understand
something then why not try Google before making yourself look
foolish here.
Why is it irrelevant? Why would I be better off in than out?
I posted a list off hte top of my head of things I liked about the
EU to James a couple of weeks ago including.... conformity of
goods, the ability to travel without permits or visas, the
consumer protection which large British companies would have
prevented, the cheaper goods, the modern outlook which
stick-in-mud Britain would never have developed, exchange studies,
trans-national environmental protection, the effect on quality of
food, the mobile phone roaming charges, sustained peace in Europe,
general world influence, ease of inporting/exporting, grey pricing
from goods cheaper elsewhere, better designed consumer products,
foreign tv stations, more competition to make our manufacturers up
their game, and so on.
The same silly list? Some is untrue, some is opinion, some only affects
the elite, but in any case you have no proof any of it would be any
different if we had never joined the EU.

==

:)
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
kat
2017-10-03 08:14:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
The EU may not have been particularly fair (depending on
how you define it) but we are better off inside the EU
than outside.
First you need to define "we" and then you need to define "better off".
We = UK citizens.
Better off = more money.
So on what basis are you declaring that *every* UK citizen
is better off because we are members of the EU?
Hmmmm?
I wrote "we are better off inside the EU than outside".
You did - and the answer to my question is?
Your question is irrelevant to what I wrote. You made a stupid
jibe in the form of a question. If you don't understand
something then why not try Google before making yourself look
foolish here.
Why is it irrelevant? Why would I be better off in than out?
I posted a list off hte top of my head of things I liked about the
EU to James a couple of weeks ago including.... conformity of
goods, the ability to travel without permits or visas, the
consumer protection which large British companies would have
prevented, the cheaper goods, the modern outlook which
stick-in-mud Britain would never have developed, exchange studies,
trans-national environmental protection, the effect on quality of
food, the mobile phone roaming charges, sustained peace in Europe,
general world influence, ease of inporting/exporting, grey pricing
from goods cheaper elsewhere, better designed consumer products,
foreign tv stations, more competition to make our manufacturers up
their game, and so on.
Things /you/ like are not necessarily things that make /me/ better off
though, are they. Especially as some of them are an assumption on your
part ( stick in the mud Britain, really?, peace? did you not notice the
rumpus in Catalonia?) and others could easily continue ( before the Eu
came into existence there were no mobile phones, so no roaming charges,
took a long time to get rid of them even with the EU. ) I can buy stuff
cheaper in the USA. I have a thing that lets me skip the immigration
queues there. I don't want to study abroad.

Should I go on?
--
kat
Post by pamela
^..^<
pamela
2017-10-03 09:23:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
The EU may not have been particularly fair (depending
on how you define it) but we are better off inside the
EU than outside.
First you need to define "we" and then you need to
define "better off".
We = UK citizens.
Better off = more money.
So on what basis are you declaring that *every* UK citizen
is better off because we are members of the EU?
Hmmmm?
I wrote "we are better off inside the EU than outside".
You did - and the answer to my question is?
Your question is irrelevant to what I wrote. You made a
stupid jibe in the form of a question. If you don't
understand something then why not try Google before making
yourself look foolish here.
Why is it irrelevant? Why would I be better off in than out?
I posted a list off hte top of my head of things I liked about
the EU to James a couple of weeks ago including.... conformity
of goods, the ability to travel without permits or visas, the
consumer protection which large British companies would have
prevented, the cheaper goods, the modern outlook which
stick-in-mud Britain would never have developed, exchange
studies, trans-national environmental protection, the effect on
quality of food, the mobile phone roaming charges, sustained
peace in Europe, general world influence, ease of
inporting/exporting, grey pricing from goods cheaper elsewhere,
better designed consumer products, foreign tv stations, more
competition to make our manufacturers up their game, and so on.
Things /you/ like are not necessarily things that make /me/
better off though, are they. Especially as some of them are an
assumption on your part ( stick in the mud Britain, really?,
peace? did you not notice the rumpus in Catalonia?) and others
could easily continue ( before the Eu came into existence there
were no mobile phones, so no roaming charges, took a long time
to get rid of them even with the EU. ) I can buy stuff cheaper
in the USA. I have a thing that lets me skip the immigration
queues there. I don't want to study abroad.
Should I go on?
Why would I be better off out than in? Please advise.
Yellow
2017-10-03 09:46:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@81.171.92.183>, ***@nospam.com
says...
Post by pamela
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
The EU may not have been particularly fair (depending
on how you define it) but we are better off inside the
EU than outside.
First you need to define "we" and then you need to
define "better off".
We = UK citizens.
Better off = more money.
So on what basis are you declaring that *every* UK citizen
is better off because we are members of the EU?
Hmmmm?
I wrote "we are better off inside the EU than outside".
You did - and the answer to my question is?
Your question is irrelevant to what I wrote. You made a
stupid jibe in the form of a question. If you don't
understand something then why not try Google before making
yourself look foolish here.
Why is it irrelevant? Why would I be better off in than out?
I posted a list off hte top of my head of things I liked about
the EU to James a couple of weeks ago including.... conformity
of goods, the ability to travel without permits or visas, the
consumer protection which large British companies would have
prevented, the cheaper goods, the modern outlook which
stick-in-mud Britain would never have developed, exchange
studies, trans-national environmental protection, the effect on
quality of food, the mobile phone roaming charges, sustained
peace in Europe, general world influence, ease of
inporting/exporting, grey pricing from goods cheaper elsewhere,
better designed consumer products, foreign tv stations, more
competition to make our manufacturers up their game, and so on.
Things /you/ like are not necessarily things that make /me/
better off though, are they. Especially as some of them are an
assumption on your part ( stick in the mud Britain, really?,
peace? did you not notice the rumpus in Catalonia?) and others
could easily continue ( before the Eu came into existence there
were no mobile phones, so no roaming charges, took a long time
to get rid of them even with the EU. ) I can buy stuff cheaper
in the USA. I have a thing that lets me skip the immigration
queues there. I don't want to study abroad.
Should I go on?
Why would I be better off out than in? Please advise.
Define "better off".
pamela
2017-10-03 12:02:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
The EU may not have been particularly fair
(depending on how you define it) but we are better
off inside the EU than outside.
First you need to define "we" and then you need to
define "better off".
We = UK citizens.
Better off = more money.
So on what basis are you declaring that *every* UK
citizen is better off because we are members of the EU?
Hmmmm?
I wrote "we are better off inside the EU than outside".
You did - and the answer to my question is?
Your question is irrelevant to what I wrote. You made a
stupid jibe in the form of a question. If you don't
understand something then why not try Google before making
yourself look foolish here.
Why is it irrelevant? Why would I be better off in than
out?
I posted a list off hte top of my head of things I liked
about the EU to James a couple of weeks ago including....
conformity of goods, the ability to travel without permits
or visas, the consumer protection which large British
companies would have prevented, the cheaper goods, the
modern outlook which stick-in-mud Britain would never have
developed, exchange studies, trans-national environmental
protection, the effect on quality of food, the mobile phone
roaming charges, sustained peace in Europe, general world
influence, ease of inporting/exporting, grey pricing from
goods cheaper elsewhere, better designed consumer products,
foreign tv stations, more competition to make our
manufacturers up their game, and so on.
Things /you/ like are not necessarily things that make /me/
better off though, are they. Especially as some of them are
an assumption on your part ( stick in the mud Britain,
really?, peace? did you not notice the rumpus in Catalonia?)
and others could easily continue ( before the Eu came into
existence there were no mobile phones, so no roaming charges,
took a long time to get rid of them even with the EU. ) I can
buy stuff cheaper in the USA. I have a thing that lets me
skip the immigration queues there. I don't want to study
abroad.
Should I go on?
Why would I be better off out than in? Please advise.
Define "better off".
You can use the same definition as Kat used when they brought it up
here in MID: <***@mid.individual.net> and which was used in
the reply.
kat
2017-10-03 14:17:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
The EU may not have been particularly fair
(depending on how you define it) but we are better
off inside the EU than outside.
First you need to define "we" and then you need to
define "better off".
We = UK citizens.
Better off = more money.
So on what basis are you declaring that *every* UK
citizen is better off because we are members of the EU?
Hmmmm?
I wrote "we are better off inside the EU than outside".
You did - and the answer to my question is?
Your question is irrelevant to what I wrote. You made a
stupid jibe in the form of a question. If you don't
understand something then why not try Google before making
yourself look foolish here.
Why is it irrelevant? Why would I be better off in than
out?
I posted a list off hte top of my head of things I liked
about the EU to James a couple of weeks ago including....
conformity of goods, the ability to travel without permits
or visas, the consumer protection which large British
companies would have prevented, the cheaper goods, the
modern outlook which stick-in-mud Britain would never have
developed, exchange studies, trans-national environmental
protection, the effect on quality of food, the mobile phone
roaming charges, sustained peace in Europe, general world
influence, ease of inporting/exporting, grey pricing from
goods cheaper elsewhere, better designed consumer products,
foreign tv stations, more competition to make our
manufacturers up their game, and so on.
Things /you/ like are not necessarily things that make /me/
better off though, are they. Especially as some of them are
an assumption on your part ( stick in the mud Britain,
really?, peace? did you not notice the rumpus in Catalonia?)
and others could easily continue ( before the Eu came into
existence there were no mobile phones, so no roaming charges,
took a long time to get rid of them even with the EU. ) I can
buy stuff cheaper in the USA. I have a thing that lets me
skip the immigration queues there. I don't want to study
abroad.
Should I go on?
Why would I be better off out than in? Please advise.
Define "better off".
You can use the same definition as Kat used when they brought it up
the reply.
Most of which is financial, aside from "peace in our time" ( which we
don't really have) and and that vague thing "world influence".

Shall we try to define it as what makes us happier instead?
--
kat
Post by pamela
^..^<
pamela
2017-10-03 14:50:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
The EU may not have been particularly fair
(depending on how you define it) but we are better
off inside the EU than outside.
First you need to define "we" and then you need to
define "better off".
We = UK citizens.
Better off = more money.
So on what basis are you declaring that *every* UK
citizen is better off because we are members of the
EU?
Hmmmm?
I wrote "we are better off inside the EU than outside".
You did - and the answer to my question is?
Your question is irrelevant to what I wrote. You made a
stupid jibe in the form of a question. If you don't
understand something then why not try Google before
making yourself look foolish here.
Why is it irrelevant? Why would I be better off in than
out?
I posted a list off hte top of my head of things I liked
about the EU to James a couple of weeks ago including....
conformity of goods, the ability to travel without permits
or visas, the consumer protection which large British
companies would have prevented, the cheaper goods, the
modern outlook which stick-in-mud Britain would never have
developed, exchange studies, trans-national environmental
protection, the effect on quality of food, the mobile phone
roaming charges, sustained peace in Europe, general world
influence, ease of inporting/exporting, grey pricing from
goods cheaper elsewhere, better designed consumer products,
foreign tv stations, more competition to make our
manufacturers up their game, and so on.
Things /you/ like are not necessarily things that make /me/
better off though, are they. Especially as some of them are
an assumption on your part ( stick in the mud Britain,
really?, peace? did you not notice the rumpus in Catalonia?)
and others could easily continue ( before the Eu came into
existence there were no mobile phones, so no roaming
charges, took a long time to get rid of them even with the
EU. ) I can buy stuff cheaper in the USA. I have a thing
that lets me skip the immigration queues there. I don't want
to study abroad.
Should I go on?
Why would I be better off out than in? Please advise.
Define "better off".
You can use the same definition as Kat used when they brought
was used in the reply.
Most of which is financial, aside from "peace in our time" (
which we don't really have) and and that vague thing "world
influence".
Shall we try to define it as what makes us happier instead?
That's a bit vague. A drug addict might tell you crack cocaine or
heroin makes them happier. A new age hippy might like to hug
trees. A bibliphile might like nothing better than spending their
days in the library.

On the other hand, greater material wealth gives us choices,
affords healthcare, better housing, and so on and on. It is
measurable and also permits us to pursue intangible avenues for
happiness.

I directly answered your question, "Why would I be better off out
than in?" I have asked you the same question. Perhaps you could
answer it.
kat
2017-10-03 15:34:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
The EU may not have been particularly fair
(depending on how you define it) but we are better
off inside the EU than outside.
First you need to define "we" and then you need to
define "better off".
We = UK citizens.
Better off = more money.
So on what basis are you declaring that *every* UK
citizen is better off because we are members of the
EU?
Hmmmm?
I wrote "we are better off inside the EU than outside".
You did - and the answer to my question is?
Your question is irrelevant to what I wrote. You made a
stupid jibe in the form of a question. If you don't
understand something then why not try Google before
making yourself look foolish here.
Why is it irrelevant? Why would I be better off in than out?
I posted a list off hte top of my head of things I liked
about the EU to James a couple of weeks ago including....
conformity of goods, the ability to travel without permits
or visas, the consumer protection which large British
companies would have prevented, the cheaper goods, the
modern outlook which stick-in-mud Britain would never have
developed, exchange studies, trans-national environmental
protection, the effect on quality of food, the mobile phone
roaming charges, sustained peace in Europe, general world
influence, ease of inporting/exporting, grey pricing from
goods cheaper elsewhere, better designed consumer products,
foreign tv stations, more competition to make our
manufacturers up their game, and so on.
Things /you/ like are not necessarily things that make /me/
better off though, are they. Especially as some of them are
an assumption on your part ( stick in the mud Britain,
really?, peace? did you not notice the rumpus in Catalonia?)
and others could easily continue ( before the Eu came into
existence there were no mobile phones, so no roaming
charges, took a long time to get rid of them even with the
EU. ) I can buy stuff cheaper in the USA. I have a thing
that lets me skip the immigration queues there. I don't want
to study abroad.
Should I go on?
Why would I be better off out than in? Please advise.
Define "better off".
You can use the same definition as Kat used when they brought
was used in the reply.
Most of which is financial, aside from "peace in our time" (
which we don't really have) and and that vague thing "world
influence".
Shall we try to define it as what makes us happier instead?
That's a bit vague. A drug addict might tell you crack cocaine or
heroin makes them happier. A new age hippy might like to hug
trees. A bibliphile might like nothing better than spending their
days in the library.
On the other hand, greater material wealth gives us choices,
affords healthcare, better housing, and so on and on. It is
measurable and also permits us to pursue intangible avenues for
happiness.
Too many people, due to free movement, means longer waiting times for
the "better" health care, and more expensive housing as demand
increases. Do lower wages make people richer? Do you believe there are
people in this country who can't see a doctor so easily, can't afford
houses for which demand has sent prices up, have wages held down by
cheap labour from incomers? or do you think all that is
irrelevant,because you have low phone charges when you roam?

How much wealth makes you personally happy and how much is too much?
Does happiness depend on cash?
Post by pamela
I directly answered your question, "Why would I be better off out
than in?" I have asked you the same question. Perhaps you could
answer it.
You didn't answer it pamela. You told me what would make you better
off, and I refuted much of it, for my circumstances.
--
kat
Post by pamela
^..^<
Yellow
2017-10-03 20:23:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@hotmail.com
says...
Post by kat
Too many people, due to free movement, means longer waiting times for
the "better" health care, and more expensive housing as demand
increases. Do lower wages make people richer? Do you believe there are
people in this country who can't see a doctor so easily, can't afford
houses for which demand has sent prices up, have wages held down by
cheap labour from incomers? or do you think all that is
irrelevant,because you have low phone charges when you roam?
How much wealth makes you personally happy and how much is too much?
Does happiness depend on cash?
Absolutely not! You need enough to pay the bills be sure but I am a
million times happier living 'carefully' on what according to the
"poverty calculators" that can be found on various charity websites, a
poverty amount, than I was working and talking home three times as much.

I have what is far more important - time!
Post by kat
Post by pamela
I directly answered your question, "Why would I be better off out
than in?" I have asked you the same question. Perhaps you could
answer it.
You didn't answer it pamela. You told me what would make you better
off, and I refuted much of it, for my circumstances.
kat
2017-10-03 20:54:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by kat
Too many people, due to free movement, means longer waiting times for
the "better" health care, and more expensive housing as demand
increases. Do lower wages make people richer? Do you believe there are
people in this country who can't see a doctor so easily, can't afford
houses for which demand has sent prices up, have wages held down by
cheap labour from incomers? or do you think all that is
irrelevant,because you have low phone charges when you roam?
How much wealth makes you personally happy and how much is too much?
Does happiness depend on cash?
Absolutely not! You need enough to pay the bills be sure but I am a
million times happier living 'carefully' on what according to the
"poverty calculators" that can be found on various charity websites, a
poverty amount, than I was working and talking home three times as much.
I have what is far more important - time!
Exactly. Time rich - that's good. :-)

There are many ways of being better off, or worse off, some are
financial, lots aren't. I would be better off if I didn't have a bad
back, a dodgy hip, and if I could hear. Don't think the EU can fix any
of that.
--
kat
Post by Yellow
^..^<
Yellow
2017-10-03 22:01:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@hotmail.com
says...
Post by kat
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by kat
Too many people, due to free movement, means longer waiting times for
the "better" health care, and more expensive housing as demand
increases. Do lower wages make people richer? Do you believe there are
people in this country who can't see a doctor so easily, can't afford
houses for which demand has sent prices up, have wages held down by
cheap labour from incomers? or do you think all that is
irrelevant,because you have low phone charges when you roam?
How much wealth makes you personally happy and how much is too much?
Does happiness depend on cash?
Absolutely not! You need enough to pay the bills be sure but I am a
million times happier living 'carefully' on what according to the
"poverty calculators" that can be found on various charity websites, a
poverty amount, than I was working and talking home three times as much.
I have what is far more important - time!
Exactly. Time rich - that's good. :-)
There are many ways of being better off, or worse off, some are
financial, lots aren't. I would be better off if I didn't have a bad
back, a dodgy hip, and if I could hear. Don't think the EU can fix any
of that.
Have you lost all your hearing?
kat
2017-10-03 22:16:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by kat
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by kat
Too many people, due to free movement, means longer waiting times for
the "better" health care, and more expensive housing as demand
increases. Do lower wages make people richer? Do you believe there are
people in this country who can't see a doctor so easily, can't afford
houses for which demand has sent prices up, have wages held down by
cheap labour from incomers? or do you think all that is
irrelevant,because you have low phone charges when you roam?
How much wealth makes you personally happy and how much is too much?
Does happiness depend on cash?
Absolutely not! You need enough to pay the bills be sure but I am a
million times happier living 'carefully' on what according to the
"poverty calculators" that can be found on various charity websites, a
poverty amount, than I was working and talking home three times as much.
I have what is far more important - time!
Exactly. Time rich - that's good. :-)
There are many ways of being better off, or worse off, some are
financial, lots aren't. I would be better off if I didn't have a bad
back, a dodgy hip, and if I could hear. Don't think the EU can fix any
of that.
Have you lost all your hearing?
Without hearing aids, just about.
--
kat
Post by Yellow
^..^<
Yellow
2017-10-03 22:57:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@hotmail.com
says...
Post by kat
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by kat
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by kat
Too many people, due to free movement, means longer waiting times for
the "better" health care, and more expensive housing as demand
increases. Do lower wages make people richer? Do you believe there are
people in this country who can't see a doctor so easily, can't afford
houses for which demand has sent prices up, have wages held down by
cheap labour from incomers? or do you think all that is
irrelevant,because you have low phone charges when you roam?
How much wealth makes you personally happy and how much is too much?
Does happiness depend on cash?
Absolutely not! You need enough to pay the bills be sure but I am a
million times happier living 'carefully' on what according to the
"poverty calculators" that can be found on various charity websites, a
poverty amount, than I was working and talking home three times as much.
I have what is far more important - time!
Exactly. Time rich - that's good. :-)
There are many ways of being better off, or worse off, some are
financial, lots aren't. I would be better off if I didn't have a bad
back, a dodgy hip, and if I could hear. Don't think the EU can fix any
of that.
Have you lost all your hearing?
Without hearing aids, just about.
Gosh. I cannot imagine what that must be like.
pamela
2017-10-03 21:57:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
The EU may not have been particularly fair
(depending on how you define it) but we are
better off inside the EU than outside.
First you need to define "we" and then you need to
define "better off".
We = UK citizens.
Better off = more money.
So on what basis are you declaring that *every* UK
citizen is better off because we are members of the EU?
Hmmmm?
I wrote "we are better off inside the EU than
outside".
You did - and the answer to my question is?
Your question is irrelevant to what I wrote. You made
a stupid jibe in the form of a question. If you don't
understand something then why not try Google before
making yourself look foolish here.
Why is it irrelevant? Why would I be better off in than out?
I posted a list off hte top of my head of things I liked
about the EU to James a couple of weeks ago including....
conformity of goods, the ability to travel without
permits or visas, the consumer protection which large
British companies would have prevented, the cheaper
goods, the modern outlook which stick-in-mud Britain
would never have developed, exchange studies,
trans-national environmental protection, the effect on
quality of food, the mobile phone roaming charges,
sustained peace in Europe, general world influence, ease
of inporting/exporting, grey pricing from goods cheaper
elsewhere, better designed consumer products, foreign tv
stations, more competition to make our manufacturers up
their game, and so on.
Things /you/ like are not necessarily things that make
/me/ better off though, are they. Especially as some of
them are an assumption on your part ( stick in the mud
Britain, really?, peace? did you not notice the rumpus in
Catalonia?) and others could easily continue ( before the
Eu came into existence there were no mobile phones, so no
roaming charges, took a long time to get rid of them even
with the EU. ) I can buy stuff cheaper in the USA. I have
a thing that lets me skip the immigration queues there. I
don't want to study abroad.
Should I go on?
Why would I be better off out than in? Please advise.
Define "better off".
You can use the same definition as Kat used when they brought
which was used in the reply.
Most of which is financial, aside from "peace in our time" (
which we don't really have) and and that vague thing "world
influence".
Shall we try to define it as what makes us happier instead?
That's a bit vague. A drug addict might tell you crack cocaine
or heroin makes them happier. A new age hippy might like to
hug trees. A bibliphile might like nothing better than
spending their days in the library.
On the other hand, greater material wealth gives us choices,
affords healthcare, better housing, and so on and on. It is
measurable and also permits us to pursue intangible avenues for
happiness.
Too many people, due to free movement, means longer waiting
times for the "better" health care, and more expensive housing
as demand increases. Do lower wages make people richer? Do you
believe there are people in this country who can't see a doctor
so easily, can't afford houses for which demand has sent prices
up, have wages held down by cheap labour from incomers? or do
you think all that is irrelevant,because you have low phone
charges when you roam?
How much wealth makes you personally happy and how much is too
much? Does happiness depend on cash?
Post by pamela
I directly answered your question, "Why would I be better off
out than in?" I have asked you the same question. Perhaps you
could answer it.
You didn't answer it pamela. You told me what would make you
better off, and I refuted much of it, for my circumstances.
I will ask you the same question you aksed me from a different
Brexit point of view.

That is.... Why would I be better off out than in?

I answered your question. Please answer mine.
kat
2017-10-03 22:23:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
The EU may not have been particularly fair
(depending on how you define it) but we are
better off inside the EU than outside.
First you need to define "we" and then you need to
define "better off".
We = UK citizens.
Better off = more money.
So on what basis are you declaring that *every* UK
citizen is better off because we are members of the EU?
Hmmmm?
I wrote "we are better off inside the EU than
outside".
You did - and the answer to my question is?
Your question is irrelevant to what I wrote. You made
a stupid jibe in the form of a question. If you don't
understand something then why not try Google before
making yourself look foolish here.
Why is it irrelevant? Why would I be better off in than out?
I posted a list off hte top of my head of things I liked
about the EU to James a couple of weeks ago including....
conformity of goods, the ability to travel without
permits or visas, the consumer protection which large
British companies would have prevented, the cheaper
goods, the modern outlook which stick-in-mud Britain
would never have developed, exchange studies,
trans-national environmental protection, the effect on
quality of food, the mobile phone roaming charges,
sustained peace in Europe, general world influence, ease
of inporting/exporting, grey pricing from goods cheaper
elsewhere, better designed consumer products, foreign tv
stations, more competition to make our manufacturers up
their game, and so on.
Things /you/ like are not necessarily things that make
/me/ better off though, are they. Especially as some of
them are an assumption on your part ( stick in the mud
Britain, really?, peace? did you not notice the rumpus in
Catalonia?) and others could easily continue ( before the
Eu came into existence there were no mobile phones, so no
roaming charges, took a long time to get rid of them even
with the EU. ) I can buy stuff cheaper in the USA. I have
a thing that lets me skip the immigration queues there. I
don't want to study abroad.
Should I go on?
Why would I be better off out than in? Please advise.
Define "better off".
You can use the same definition as Kat used when they brought
which was used in the reply.
Most of which is financial, aside from "peace in our time" (
which we don't really have) and and that vague thing "world
influence".
Shall we try to define it as what makes us happier instead?
That's a bit vague. A drug addict might tell you crack cocaine
or heroin makes them happier. A new age hippy might like to
hug trees. A bibliphile might like nothing better than
spending their days in the library.
On the other hand, greater material wealth gives us choices,
affords healthcare, better housing, and so on and on. It is
measurable and also permits us to pursue intangible avenues for
happiness.
Too many people, due to free movement, means longer waiting
times for the "better" health care, and more expensive housing
as demand increases. Do lower wages make people richer? Do you
believe there are people in this country who can't see a doctor
so easily, can't afford houses for which demand has sent prices
up, have wages held down by cheap labour from incomers? or do
you think all that is irrelevant,because you have low phone
charges when you roam?
How much wealth makes you personally happy and how much is too
much? Does happiness depend on cash?
Post by pamela
I directly answered your question, "Why would I be better off
out than in?" I have asked you the same question. Perhaps you
could answer it.
You didn't answer it pamela. You told me what would make you
better off, and I refuted much of it, for my circumstances.
I will ask you the same question you aksed me from a different
Brexit point of view.
That is.... Why would I be better off out than in?
I answered your question. Please answer mine.
You are the one that asserted "we" would be better off in. I have never
suggested that "we" would be better off out. Some people will lose out
- the ones that did well out of being in.

Anyway, you didn't answer my question, you merely gave a list of things
you like, which don't make me better off, so...
--
kat
Post by pamela
^..^<
Yellow
2017-10-03 16:11:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@81.171.92.183>, ***@nospam.com
says...
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
The EU may not have been particularly fair
(depending on how you define it) but we are better
off inside the EU than outside.
First you need to define "we" and then you need to
define "better off".
We = UK citizens.
Better off = more money.
So on what basis are you declaring that *every* UK
citizen is better off because we are members of the EU?
Hmmmm?
I wrote "we are better off inside the EU than outside".
You did - and the answer to my question is?
Your question is irrelevant to what I wrote. You made a
stupid jibe in the form of a question. If you don't
understand something then why not try Google before making
yourself look foolish here.
Why is it irrelevant? Why would I be better off in than out?
I posted a list off hte top of my head of things I liked
about the EU to James a couple of weeks ago including....
conformity of goods, the ability to travel without permits
or visas, the consumer protection which large British
companies would have prevented, the cheaper goods, the
modern outlook which stick-in-mud Britain would never have
developed, exchange studies, trans-national environmental
protection, the effect on quality of food, the mobile phone
roaming charges, sustained peace in Europe, general world
influence, ease of inporting/exporting, grey pricing from
goods cheaper elsewhere, better designed consumer products,
foreign tv stations, more competition to make our
manufacturers up their game, and so on.
Things /you/ like are not necessarily things that make /me/
better off though, are they. Especially as some of them are
an assumption on your part ( stick in the mud Britain,
really?, peace? did you not notice the rumpus in Catalonia?)
and others could easily continue ( before the Eu came into
existence there were no mobile phones, so no roaming charges,
took a long time to get rid of them even with the EU. ) I can
buy stuff cheaper in the USA. I have a thing that lets me
skip the immigration queues there. I don't want to study
abroad.
Should I go on?
Why would I be better off out than in? Please advise.
Define "better off".
You can use the same definition as Kat used when they brought it up
the reply.
That just points me to a thread. Which post specifically?
pamela
2017-10-03 21:58:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
The EU may not have been particularly fair
(depending on how you define it) but we are
better off inside the EU than outside.
First you need to define "we" and then you need to
define "better off".
We = UK citizens.
Better off = more money.
So on what basis are you declaring that *every* UK
citizen is better off because we are members of the EU?
Hmmmm?
I wrote "we are better off inside the EU than
outside".
You did - and the answer to my question is?
Your question is irrelevant to what I wrote. You made
a stupid jibe in the form of a question. If you don't
understand something then why not try Google before
making yourself look foolish here.
Why is it irrelevant? Why would I be better off in than out?
I posted a list off hte top of my head of things I liked
about the EU to James a couple of weeks ago including....
conformity of goods, the ability to travel without
permits or visas, the consumer protection which large
British companies would have prevented, the cheaper
goods, the modern outlook which stick-in-mud Britain
would never have developed, exchange studies,
trans-national environmental protection, the effect on
quality of food, the mobile phone roaming charges,
sustained peace in Europe, general world influence, ease
of inporting/exporting, grey pricing from goods cheaper
elsewhere, better designed consumer products, foreign tv
stations, more competition to make our manufacturers up
their game, and so on.
Things /you/ like are not necessarily things that make
/me/ better off though, are they. Especially as some of
them are an assumption on your part ( stick in the mud
Britain, really?, peace? did you not notice the rumpus in
Catalonia?) and others could easily continue ( before the
Eu came into existence there were no mobile phones, so no
roaming charges, took a long time to get rid of them even
with the EU. ) I can buy stuff cheaper in the USA. I have
a thing that lets me skip the immigration queues there. I
don't want to study abroad.
Should I go on?
Why would I be better off out than in? Please advise.
Define "better off".
You can use the same definition as Kat used when they brought
was used in the reply.
That just points me to a thread. Which post specifically?
It points you to a specific post with that specific message ID.
Yellow
2017-10-03 22:48:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@81.171.118.178>, ***@nospam.com
says...
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
The EU may not have been particularly fair
(depending on how you define it) but we are
better off inside the EU than outside.
First you need to define "we" and then you need to
define "better off".
We = UK citizens.
Better off = more money.
So on what basis are you declaring that *every* UK
citizen is better off because we are members of the EU?
Hmmmm?
I wrote "we are better off inside the EU than
outside".
You did - and the answer to my question is?
Your question is irrelevant to what I wrote. You made
a stupid jibe in the form of a question. If you don't
understand something then why not try Google before
making yourself look foolish here.
Why is it irrelevant? Why would I be better off in than out?
I posted a list off hte top of my head of things I liked
about the EU to James a couple of weeks ago including....
conformity of goods, the ability to travel without
permits or visas, the consumer protection which large
British companies would have prevented, the cheaper
goods, the modern outlook which stick-in-mud Britain
would never have developed, exchange studies,
trans-national environmental protection, the effect on
quality of food, the mobile phone roaming charges,
sustained peace in Europe, general world influence, ease
of inporting/exporting, grey pricing from goods cheaper
elsewhere, better designed consumer products, foreign tv
stations, more competition to make our manufacturers up
their game, and so on.
Things /you/ like are not necessarily things that make
/me/ better off though, are they. Especially as some of
them are an assumption on your part ( stick in the mud
Britain, really?, peace? did you not notice the rumpus in
Catalonia?) and others could easily continue ( before the
Eu came into existence there were no mobile phones, so no
roaming charges, took a long time to get rid of them even
with the EU. ) I can buy stuff cheaper in the USA. I have
a thing that lets me skip the immigration queues there. I
don't want to study abroad.
Should I go on?
Why would I be better off out than in? Please advise.
Define "better off".
You can use the same definition as Kat used when they brought
was used in the reply.
That just points me to a thread. Which post specifically?
It points you to a specific post with that specific message ID.
I put it into google groups and just got the thread but am happy for you
to provide me with a direct link. Cheers. :-)
kat
2017-10-03 14:15:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
The EU may not have been particularly fair (depending
on how you define it) but we are better off inside the
EU than outside.
First you need to define "we" and then you need to
define "better off".
We = UK citizens.
Better off = more money.
So on what basis are you declaring that *every* UK citizen
is better off because we are members of the EU?
Hmmmm?
I wrote "we are better off inside the EU than outside".
You did - and the answer to my question is?
Your question is irrelevant to what I wrote. You made a
stupid jibe in the form of a question. If you don't
understand something then why not try Google before making
yourself look foolish here.
Why is it irrelevant? Why would I be better off in than out?
I posted a list off hte top of my head of things I liked about
the EU to James a couple of weeks ago including.... conformity
of goods, the ability to travel without permits or visas, the
consumer protection which large British companies would have
prevented, the cheaper goods, the modern outlook which
stick-in-mud Britain would never have developed, exchange
studies, trans-national environmental protection, the effect on
quality of food, the mobile phone roaming charges, sustained
peace in Europe, general world influence, ease of
inporting/exporting, grey pricing from goods cheaper elsewhere,
better designed consumer products, foreign tv stations, more
competition to make our manufacturers up their game, and so on.
Things /you/ like are not necessarily things that make /me/
better off though, are they. Especially as some of them are an
assumption on your part ( stick in the mud Britain, really?,
peace? did you not notice the rumpus in Catalonia?) and others
could easily continue ( before the Eu came into existence there
were no mobile phones, so no roaming charges, took a long time
to get rid of them even with the EU. ) I can buy stuff cheaper
in the USA. I have a thing that lets me skip the immigration
queues there. I don't want to study abroad.
Should I go on?
Why would I be better off out than in? Please advise.
Unlike you I wouldn't dream of suggesting that what /I/ like and thinks
/my/ life is improved by necessarily applies to you. Nor in fact do I
think of in and out being better or worse - just different in ways which
some people like and others don't.
--
kat
Post by pamela
^..^<
James Harris
2017-10-02 07:10:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
...
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
With my view on the EU, I had no other expectation as fairness
is not high on its list of working practices, if on there at
all.
The EU may not have been particularly fair (depending on how you
define it) but we are better off inside the EU than outside.
In the short term, yes.

But definitely not in the long term. IMO many people are unaware of how
much poorer we are /now/ because we are in the EU. It is a matter of
record that the global economy has grown while the EU has fallen behind.
And its clear that the EU has failed badly in opening up new trade with
the crucial growth areas.
Post by pamela
We are
about to find out how big the difference actually is.
I'm ongoingly amazed at how Remainers maintain confidence in their fear
without evidence to substantiate it. :-(
--
James Harris
tim...
2017-10-01 14:41:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
[[[SNIP]]]
I don't remember cries of blackmail but I would point out that
the UK is trying to get a good outcome for everyone while the EU
wants/needs things to be worse. That makes the UK's position
very difficult. It doesn't matter to the EU how the 27 members
suffer as long as the 1 which is leaving suffers. Nice
organisation, isn't it!
If I was an EU negotiator I would do exactly the same. I would do
all I could to ensure Britain gets such a pasting that no nation
would forget for decades how Britain was made to suffer.
at the expense of stuffing your own trade with that country

what a great strategy that is!

tim
Yellow
2017-10-01 13:58:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <oqqqhg$7bp$***@dont-email.me>, ***@gmail.com
says...
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
I should qualify that I should not claim to have either
represented nor misrepresented the vast majority of the Brexit
vote. Some voted for the NHS to get more money. Some blamed the
CFP and CAP for ills on their community. Some were libertarians
that blamed the EU for interefering in peoples lives & so on.
Agreed.
I would add that some of us voted to leave the EU in order for the UK to
become more prosperous - a motivation that surprises some Remainers
largely because of how poorly the Remain and Leave campaigns were run.
Both these paragraphs miss out a big group of people who voted to leave
and that is those who simple do not want what the EU wants - political
and financial union, as well as the physical union of trade and freedom
of movement that we already have.

I did not vote for UK as a whole to become richer or for it to become
poorer, I instead voted for it to be different - and there is no
guarantee where leaving the EU is going to take us.
tim...
2017-09-29 17:02:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Altroy1
[...]
Post by James Harris
I wouldn't expect any country to unfairly subsidise its industries and
get away with it.
Excellent. Then you agree that when two or more nations free trade, they
cede their ability to make their own laws and subsidise their own
industries as they see fit. Thank you so much for admitting this.
yep, that's inherent in membership of the WTO

having an FTA agreement on top of that changes nothing

It's the latter part that people are wrongly claiming makes a difference -
it doesn't

tim
Altroy1
2017-09-30 12:54:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by Altroy1
[...]
Post by James Harris
I wouldn't expect any country to unfairly subsidise its industries
and get away with it.
Excellent. Then you agree that when two or more nations free trade,
they cede their ability to make their own laws and subsidise their own
industries as they see fit. Thank you so much for admitting this.
yep, that's inherent in membership of the WTO
having an FTA agreement on top of that changes nothing
It's the latter part that people are wrongly claiming makes a difference
- it doesn't
I see. Its not voteleavetakecontrol. Its voteleaveandWTOtakecontrol.
Post by tim...
tim
tim...
2017-09-29 08:59:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Altroy1
[...]
Post by James Harris
There are other threads for that but as you want to discuss it here I
don't mind.
I agree with the "coming out of the EU's shackles" part - just as I would
argue for getting out of bonds which already restricted my freedom to
move and which were steadily getting tighter.
But you are familiar with American power? How it can throw its economic
weight around if it perceives a threat to its interests. There was, is,
and never will be any freedom for Canada or the UK to subsidise an
important industry and then expect to free trade with the USA. The 219%
tariff is a salutory lesson to those that think otherwise.
I'm sorry, there really is no connection

If a country abuses its position in a market there are WTO procedures in
place whereby that abuse can be "punished"

All the US is doing is initiating that process wrt one particular product,
as it is perfectly entitled to do. (I believe that it has overstated it
case, but that's another matter. A matter which will be resolved further
down the process)

It has absolutely no bearing on any other part of your trading with that
country.

None at all

The connection is completely spurious

tim
Altroy1
2017-09-29 12:44:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by Altroy1
[...]
Post by James Harris
There are other threads for that but as you want to discuss it here I
don't mind.
I agree with the "coming out of the EU's shackles" part - just as I
would argue for getting out of bonds which already restricted my
freedom to move and which were steadily getting tighter.
But you are familiar with American power? How it can throw its
economic weight around if it perceives a threat to its interests.
There was, is, and never will be any freedom for Canada or the UK to
subsidise an important industry and then expect to free trade with the
USA. The 219% tariff is a salutory lesson to those that think otherwise.
I'm sorry, there really is no connection
If a country abuses its position in a market there are WTO procedures in
place whereby that abuse can be "punished"
All the US is doing is initiating that process wrt one particular
product, as it is perfectly entitled to do. (I believe that it has
overstated it case, but that's another matter. A matter which will be
resolved further down the process)
It has absolutely no bearing on any other part of your trading with that
country.
None at all
The connection is completely spurious
The unilateral effective alteration of a trading agreement by a powerful though
private sector engineering employer in the USA (who did not even bid for the
alleged subsidised contract) is the issue. And the Brexit belief that America
First will grant a rosy free trade agreement no strings attached. Pigs can fly
high and mighty.
Post by tim...
tim
tim...
2017-09-29 17:10:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Altroy1
The unilateral effective alteration of a trading agreement by a powerful
though private sector engineering employer in the USA (who did not even
bid for the alleged subsidised contract) is the issue.
As they are entitled to do, provided that their case is sound. It is yet to
be determined that it is.
Post by Altroy1
And the Brexit belief that America First will grant a rosy free trade
agreement no strings attached.
But it's nothing to do with "America first". It's because Trump has a
stated policy of avoiding multilateral agreements and seeking bilateral
agreements, thus putting us above the EU in the negotiating queue.

(Though quite why Obama got unchallenged with his "back of the queue" line,
I have no idea. If I was in the room at the time my response would have
been "this is the America that the largest trading country in the world and
its only superpower?" (wait for "Yes" response) "and you can't do two things
at once!?")

tim
Fredxxx
2017-09-29 18:08:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Altroy1
The unilateral effective alteration of a trading agreement by a
powerful though private sector engineering employer in the USA (who
did not even bid for the alleged subsidised contract) is the issue.
As they are entitled to do, provided that their case is sound.  It is
yet to be determined that it is.
Post by Altroy1
And the Brexit belief that America First will grant a rosy free trade
agreement no strings attached.
But it's nothing to do with "America first".   It's because Trump has a
stated policy of avoiding multilateral agreements and seeking bilateral
agreements, thus putting us above the EU in the negotiating queue.
(Though quite why Obama got unchallenged with his "back of the queue"
line, I have no idea.
I don't know why he said it, I guess from pressure from Camoron and
other EU interests. My experience from what politicians say, is that it
was in the USA's interest of the UK staying in the EU.
If I was in the room at the time my response
would have been "this is the America that the largest trading country in
the world and its only superpower?" (wait for "Yes" response) "and you
can't do two things at once!?")
There is a bigger picture to why Obama made this claim. Perhaps he
thought T-TIP was still a goer if he supported the Remoaners.
tim...
2017-09-30 09:59:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by Altroy1
The unilateral effective alteration of a trading agreement by a powerful
though private sector engineering employer in the USA (who did not even
bid for the alleged subsidised contract) is the issue.
As they are entitled to do, provided that their case is sound. It is yet
to be determined that it is.
Post by Altroy1
And the Brexit belief that America First will grant a rosy free trade
agreement no strings attached.
But it's nothing to do with "America first". It's because Trump has a
stated policy of avoiding multilateral agreements and seeking bilateral
agreements, thus putting us above the EU in the negotiating queue.
(Though quite why Obama got unchallenged with his "back of the queue"
line, I have no idea.
I don't know why he said it, I guess from pressure from Camoron and other
EU interests. My experience from what politicians say, is that it was in
the USA's interest of the UK staying in the EU.
as they thought it was

but they were very badly advised if they thought that butting into an
argument that really had nothing to do with them, was going to be helpful in
a good way

tim
Altroy1
2017-09-30 13:03:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
But it's nothing to do with "America first". It's because Trump has a
stated policy of avoiding multilateral agreements and seeking bilateral
agreements, thus putting us above the EU in the negotiating queue.
Thanks. America First's bilateral agreements will put America firmly in the font
at all times. Its chlorinated chickens. First. Growth hormone beef. First. GM
altered corn and other crops. First. America's wall to maintain ethnic and
political coherence. First.

Countries that agree to all of it without quibbling welcome to an America First
FTA. Other nations can go suck a lemon.
Post by tim...
(Though quite why Obama got unchallenged with his "back of the queue"
line, I have no idea. If I was in the room at the time my response
would have been "this is the America that the largest trading country in
the world and its only superpower?" (wait for "Yes" response) "and you
can't do two things at once!?")
tim
tim...
2017-09-30 12:57:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Altroy1
Post by tim...
But it's nothing to do with "America first". It's because Trump has a
stated policy of avoiding multilateral agreements and seeking bilateral
agreements, thus putting us above the EU in the negotiating queue.
Thanks. America First's bilateral agreements will put America firmly in
the font at all times. Its chlorinated chickens. First. Growth hormone
beef. First. GM altered corn and other crops. First. America's wall to
maintain ethnic and political coherence. First.
No

don't be silly

It just means that they only have to make a deal that satisfies only one
country, not one that satisfies every one of a dozen

With a bilateral deal, for every "thing" that the US wants out of the deal
it will have to offer something in return

but with a multilateral deal, for every one "thing that it wants it might
have to offer a dozen different things in return

But that doesn't extrapolate to "The US wants all of this and in return we
give you nothing"
Post by Altroy1
Countries that agree to all of it without quibbling welcome to an America
First FTA.
Nonsense
Post by Altroy1
Other nations can go suck a lemon.
Other countries already trade with the US on WTO terms

In order to increase trade with those countries by the use of an FTA you
have to make an equitable agreement - otherwise the other party walks

tim
Ian Jackson
2017-09-28 15:43:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Altroy1
In the terms of this newsgroup and thread, though, discussion relating
to the Brexit promise of out of the EU's hateful shackles and into the
arms of a wonderful new "the world's our [219% import tariff] oyster"
free trade deal with the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave is
relevant.
We've been had. I believe the 'Strines might refer to the situation as
"someone has been coming the raw prawn".
--
Ian
tim...
2017-09-27 18:18:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
A few weeks ago there was one of these jolly Brexit bean feasts when Trump announced: -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/09/trump-has-confirmed-britain-will-get-free-trade-deal-west-will/
ha they said the rest of the world will be queuing up to trade with us...
the trouble with Trump is he says one thing one minute and does another
the next so now we have: -
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/bombardier-ruling-risks-thousands-belfast-231200569.html
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/uk-world/bombardier-job-fears-over-crippling-us-tariff-of-21963-in-boeing-row-36172924.html
so the reality [if WTO don't intervene] is 220% tariff and thousands of
British aircraft workers queuing up for the dole...
Anti dumpling rules apply trade deal or not

the issue here is whether the US can substantiate its claim of dumping at a
disinterested tribunal

getting a tribunal formed of members of the interested country to agree, is
not a surprise

That the US is strong on anti-dumping does not mean that it is a bad country
to make a deal with.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
What other tariffs might be imposed?
the same a set of external tariffs that the US already "imposes" on us

we have to pay them as member of the EU, we will have to pay exactly the
same ones once outside the EU.

they cannot discriminate, they cannot make them higher for us outside of the
EU than they are now

Of course, if we negotiate a trade deal we can negotiate them down, in
return for whatever the US wants from us.

(just as the EU could negotiate them down in their trade deal, but that
seems to have floundered)
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Dairy products 35.4%
Sugars and confectionery 23.6%
Beverages and tobacco 19.6%
Animal products 15.7%
Cereals and preparations 12.8%
Fish and fish products 12.0%
Fruit, vegetables and plants 10.5%
Textiles 6.5%
Coffee, tea 6.1%
Oops - sorry those would be the tariffs into Europe if we leave the customs union...
why should we be worried about that list

we are not self sufficient in food.

Our agricultural exports are a minimal amount of our GDP (the largest single
item of agriculture exports is Scotch whiskey at 30% of the total!)

Our textile industry was decimated by the far east 2 decades ago

last time I looked we didn't actually grow tea or coffee in the UK

tim
pensive hamster
2017-09-27 19:05:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, 27 September 2017 19:19:21 UTC+1, tim... wrote:
[...]
Post by tim...
last time I looked we didn't actually grow tea or coffee in the UK
At the risk of wandering slightly off-topic:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/17/storm-in-a-teacup-as-gardeners-realise-uk-climate-is-perfect-for/
17 May 2016

Tea lovers are no longer relying on China for supplies and are
increasingly opting to grow plants in their own back gardens as
they realise the British climate is perfect for it, experts have said.

With the "grow your own" movement still in full swing, sales of
Camellia sinensis - the common tea plant - are rocketing as
gardeners realise it thrives in the UK's climate.

Contrary to popular belief, tea plants don't require heat and
humidity to grow, rather preferring temperate regions with
plenty of moisture.

The UK already boasts two tea plantations - one in Cornwall,
which is experiencing its biggest ever yield due to a warm winter,
and the other in the Scottish Highlands - with a third planned for
Northern Ireland.
------------------------------------------

https://tregothnan.co.uk/

Buy British Tea - our silken pyramid bags contain our luxury
loose tea for the most perfectly brewed cup of English tea.

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

British Tea for British Workers, I say!
James Harris
2017-09-27 19:19:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by tim...
last time I looked we didn't actually grow tea or coffee in the UK
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/17/storm-in-a-teacup-as-gardeners-realise-uk-climate-is-perfect-for/
17 May 2016
Tea lovers are no longer relying on China
I don't know about the reputed sources of China and India but according
to a TV programme I saw recently much of our tea comes from African
countries such as Kenya.
Post by pensive hamster
for supplies and are
increasingly opting to grow plants in their own back gardens as
they realise the British climate is perfect for it, experts have said.
With the "grow your own" movement still in full swing, sales of
Camellia sinensis - the common tea plant - are rocketing as
gardeners realise it thrives in the UK's climate.
Well, that _is_ a surprise!
Post by pensive hamster
Contrary to popular belief, tea plants don't require heat and
humidity to grow, rather preferring temperate regions with
plenty of moisture.
The UK already boasts two tea plantations - one in Cornwall,
which is experiencing its biggest ever yield due to a warm winter,
and the other in the Scottish Highlands - with a third planned for
Northern Ireland.
------------------------------------------
https://tregothnan.co.uk/
Buy British Tea - our silken pyramid bags contain our luxury
loose tea for the most perfectly brewed cup of English tea.
------------------------------------------
British Tea for British Workers, I say!
Indeed - we could grow it here all along...!
--
James Harris
Yellow
2017-09-27 20:15:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by tim...
last time I looked we didn't actually grow tea or coffee in the UK
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/17/storm-in-a-teacup-as-gardeners-realise-uk-climate-is-perfect-for/
17 May 2016
Tea lovers are no longer relying on China for supplies and are
increasingly opting to grow plants in their own back gardens as
they realise the British climate is perfect for it, experts have said.
With the "grow your own" movement still in full swing, sales of
Camellia sinensis - the common tea plant - are rocketing as
gardeners realise it thrives in the UK's climate.
Contrary to popular belief, tea plants don't require heat and
humidity to grow, rather preferring temperate regions with
plenty of moisture.
The UK already boasts two tea plantations - one in Cornwall,
which is experiencing its biggest ever yield due to a warm winter,
and the other in the Scottish Highlands - with a third planned for
Northern Ireland.
------------------------------------------
https://tregothnan.co.uk/
Buy British Tea - our silken pyramid bags contain our luxury
loose tea for the most perfectly brewed cup of English tea.
------------------------------------------
British Tea for British Workers, I say!
Well that is something I have learned. Who'd have thought it?
James Harris
2017-09-27 19:13:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
...
Post by tim...
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Coffee, tea 6.1%
...
Post by tim...
last time I looked we didn't actually grow tea or coffee in the UK
There! And some Remoaners were looking forward to the decimation of our
tea plantations.
--
James Harris
R. Mark Clayton
2017-09-28 10:25:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
...
Post by tim...
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Coffee, tea 6.1%
...
Post by tim...
last time I looked we didn't actually grow tea or coffee in the UK
There! And some Remoaners were looking forward to the decimation of our
tea plantations.
--
James Harris
I think there is one in Cornwall - <0.5% of UK consumption - decimation would mean a loss of <0.05% of consumption, almost literally a drop in the bucket.
Fredxxx
2017-09-30 12:50:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
A few weeks ago there was one of these jolly Brexit bean feasts when Trump announced: -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/09/trump-has-confirmed-britain-will-get-free-trade-deal-west-will/
ha they said the rest of the world will be queuing up to trade with us...
the trouble with Trump is he says one thing one minute and does another the next so now we have: -
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/bombardier-ruling-risks-thousands-belfast-231200569.html
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/uk-world/bombardier-job-fears-over-crippling-us-tariff-of-21963-in-boeing-row-36172924.html
so the reality [if WTO don't intervene] is 220% tariff and thousands of British aircraft workers queuing up for the dole...
I thought this was a dispute between a Canadian company and Boeing. One
reason Boeing succeeded was that Bombardier wasn't co-operative in the
court's eyes.

Furthermore Boeing support a lot more jobs in the UK than Bombardier
aircraft division.

The fact that Brazil have also referred this to a WTO tribunal says
there might be an awful lot of truth in the original complaint, and
certainly more than meets your eye if you think this is a dispute
between the UK and USA.
Loading...