New BBC soap

On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 10:40:38 +1000, Swer, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:


The last 3 years have shown the glaring incompetence
of Brexiteers to deliver their pledges.

Bet Boris does.

ONLY in your senile head, senile Rodent!

Almost none of the benefits they promised are going to materialise.

That¢s a lie too with being able to do whatever the govt
chooses to do regardless of what the EU thinks about that.

ONLY in your senile thick Australian head, senile Rodent!

Brexit adds no value,

Another lie.

ONLY in your thick Australian head, senile troll!

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

On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 08:28:32 +0100, Pamela wrote:


Just more Project Fear lies.

PROVE it, you clinically insane senile Australian asshole troll!

The slippery Aussie wriggled out of my killfile the other day. Surely he
can find a group on Facebook or wherever where his gibberish is welcome.

I doubt this asshole would be welcome ANYWHERE. Uncensored Usenet is the
ONLY place left for filthy trolls like him to hang out. ;-)

On Wed, 24 Jul 2019 16:06:21 +0100, Pamela
wrote:

On 14:12 24 Jul 2019, Indy Jess John wrote:

On 24/07/2019 11:55, Pamela wrote:

Oh my. So our general elections were being thwarted by the wicked EU and
we never really had any democracy at all?

No. Our general elections were rigged rather differently in that there
was rarely a party on the voting slip that didn't want to remain in the
EU. And even the parties which promised that any further loss of
sovereignty would be put to the public vote always lied about that.

Every politician wants to be in the EU because the EU is gradually
extending the range of people guaranteed immunity from prosecution, and
eventually that scope will include the national governments of EU member
states

It is also worth noting that David Cameron only offered a public
referendum because he was certain the result would be to remain, and he
was worried that without that referendum, too many Tory votes would be
lost to UKIP.

That is why Brexit has to happen. The public will never ever be given
another chance to leave the EU. Only after we have left will the EU
talk sensibly to us. If we stay having invoked Article 50, we will be a
pariah state for many years; we will truly regret staying in.

Regardless of whether an individual voted leave or remain in the
referendum, that is the brush the entire country is now tarred with.

Jim

A second referendum in the light of what we know 3 years later should clean
this matter up. Alternatively a general election fought mainly on Brexit
should do it.

And what would the question(s) be?

After all, democracy means being allowed to change your mind.

--
brightside S9

In message , brightside
writes:
On Wed, 24 Jul 2019 16:06:21 +0100, Pamela
wrote:
[]
A second referendum in the light of what we know 3 years later should clean
this matter up. Alternatively a general election fought mainly on Brexit
should do it.

And what would the question(s) be?

After all, democracy means being allowed to change your mind.

It should be at least a three-way, with voters' second choices taken
into account. (In other words, STV.) _Any_ just two-choice one -
whichever way it went - would still leave the country divided; if,
however, people could see that at least their second choice was the
chosen one, I think the British art of compromise would return.

So I think the question should be something like:

"Rank these in order of preference by putting 1, 2, 3 by them. (You do
not have to rank more than one if that is your view.)

[ ] Remain in the EU
[ ] Leave the EU with no deal
[ ] Leave the EU with the deal that has been agreed
[ ] Leave the EU with no deal, but leave northern Ireland in the EU"

The fourth one I suggest because NI wanted to remain in anyway, and it
seems the main objection to the negotiated deal was over the border. (I
know there are howls of "splitting up the UK", but that wouldn't
necessarily be the case: NI [and Wales, Scotland, other bits] already
has different laws and we aren't split; this would, arguably, be
_respecting_ their desires.

But the principle of an STV, rather than just binary, referendum is
what's important: as I've said, another binary one, whatever the
question and whatever the result, would still leave probably about 48%
of the electorate feeling furiously impotent.

Doesn't look like any referendum is on the cards anyway, under Boris.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

What a strange illusion it is to suppose that beauty is goodness. -Leo Tolstoy,
novelist and philosopher (1828-1910)

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

"Rank these in order of preference by putting 1, 2, 3 by them. (You do
not have to rank more than one if that is your view.)

[ ] Remain in the EU
[ ] Leave the EU with no deal
[ ] Leave the EU with the deal that has been agreed
[ ] Leave the EU with no deal, but leave northern Ireland in the EU"

As soon as you approach that level of complication, there'll be calls to
add options such as

[ ] and give up Sterling for the Euro
[ ] but block formation of any EU army
[ ] allow Scotland and/or Wales to have independence referendums
[ ] demand a border poll for a reunited Ireland within n years
[ ] give Gibraltar to Spain

On 25/07/2019 00:30, me wrote:
In , Indy Jess John
writes:
[]
It is also worth noting that David Cameron only offered a public
referendum because he was certain the result would be to remain, and he

That is often said, but I've not seen any proof. (Mind you, I haven't
looked for any, either.)

It was something Tusk said in a televised interview. Nobody since has
said that it wasn't true, but someone else in the EU (I can't remember
who) said it was considered a high risk strategy.

Jim

On 24/07/2019 11:55, Pamela wrote:

The last 3 years have shown the glaring incompetence of Brexiteers to
deliver their pledges.

I don't think so. What we had was a Remainer as Prime Minister trying
to get through a "Brexit in name only" deal and failing to do so, then
refusing to look at any other possibilities. Meanwhile the other
political parties who promised to honour the result of the referendum,
didn't do so.

It is only now that there is a Brexiteer Prime Minister looking at the
issue.

Watch this space.

Jim

On 25/07/2019 09:43, Tim Streater wrote:
In , Pamela
wrote:

What tangible additional value (not "sovereignty" please) has been
calculated to come from Brexit?

Democracy. Being able to sack those in charge.

And the ability to trade with the rest of the world without the
currently mandatory EU Customs Union surcharges and (in some cases)
limits on amounts.

Jim

"Pamela" wrote in message
...
On 01:40 25 Jul 2019, "Swer" wrote:



"Pamela" wrote in message
...
On 11:25 24 Jul 2019, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 23/07/2019 21:19, Tim Lamb wrote:



Spaced Tim was an uncertain on polling day:-)

One could point to the lack of measurable benefits for leaving other
than recovering some ephemeral sovereignty, a financial contribution
not already rebated and the expectation of recovering already sold
fishing rights. Really comes down to TNPs fear of being told what to
do by someone whose grandfather might have worn jackboots.

I am sorry to hear you say that Tim, since taht is not the case and I
suspect you know it.

It is for me all part of a larget striuglle agqainst kneejerl
politics, the dumbing down of pthe public into dicidel aheep and teh
raoe of the citizens by a criminal elite.

It all starte for me by asking 'why windmills?' when windmills after a
few weeks of analyis, were not a solution to a problem I wasnt sure
even existed.

Since there was no green reason for them I followed the money trail.
It led not just to te EU but to an international caretl of political
slitists in cahoots with global coroprations to maximise their profits
at the expense of the individual who was subjected to a barrage of
propaganda mainly using faau moral arguments like 'social justice' to
justify the rape.

Read that again! You sound like some student commie revolutionist.
Paranoid too.

The only way to oppose this for the good of the citizen was to take
arms against the EU.

"Take arms against the EU" to fight "global corporations"? Yes, sure.
That's a good idea. You want to wreck our economy for your personal
political objectives of bringing down global corporations.


It wasnt so much taht this would in and of itself change things for
the better - in fact in the short term it would probably be slightly
worse - but it would allow of other changes to happen. E.g. scrapping
the climate change act and halving electricity bills thereby.

The only democratic act we were ever wllowed, was te referendum, all
else was verboten, and the EU told us what to do.

Oh my. So our general elections were being thwarted by the wicked EU
and we never really had any democracy at all?

By and large the semi-educated professional middle classes were doing
all right, and they supported the EU, but the the rest of the
population was not.

Remaining is equally vague in terms of future benefits but 40 years
of stability and a GNP hugely larger than most countries our size
must count for something.

None of which has anything to do with the EU. You will be claiming
that the sun shines because we are in the EU, and when it goes behind
a cloud, its climate change. Really Tim, I expectd better from you.

In the end it is all about trust, who you trust and why you trust
them. In so many ways I have een teh EU, and they must by their
actions, know that they are lying, in so many ways. If they are lying,
why? What is so bad they must conceal it?

Ypou presumably think they are trustworthy.

After all that has happened in the last three years?

The last 3 years have shown the glaring incompetence of Brexiteers to
deliver their pledges.

Bet Boris does.

Blundering Boris has the most incompetent track record of all. He's an
entertainer like those comedians who got elected in Italy and Ukraine.

But he cost have to do anything to see a no deal brexit.

Almost none of the benefits they promised are going to materialise.

That’s a lie too with being able to do whatever the govt chooses to do
regardless of what the EU thinks about that.

Brexit adds no value,

Another lie.

What tangible additional value (not "sovereignty" please) has been
calculated to come from Brexit?

Being able to decide which EUians will be allowed to move to the UK.

In message , Andy Burns
writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

"Rank these in order of preference by putting 1, 2, 3 by them. (You
do not have to rank more than one if that is your view.)
[ ] Remain in the EU
[ ] Leave the EU with no deal
[ ] Leave the EU with the deal that has been agreed
[ ] Leave the EU with no deal, but leave northern Ireland in the EU"

As soon as you approach that level of complication, there'll be calls
to add options such as

[ ] and give up Sterling for the Euro
[ ] but block formation of any EU army
[ ] allow Scotland and/or Wales to have independence referendums
[ ] demand a border poll for a reunited Ireland within n years
[ ] give Gibraltar to Spain

I think, on a national level, any more than four options would not be
manageable. Arguably, only three - I just thought the "treat NI
differently" was one that hadn't had sufficient consideration (mainly
because the incumbent C&U party were afraid that the [unrepresentative,
I think] DUP wouldn't like it, and they need them to prop them up).

Your five would all be good candidates for a referendum, or at least
polling, but I think probably not tied to the Brexit one.
--


Three- (or four-) way referendum, if we _have_ to have another one.

(Where has the "treat northern Ireland differently" option gone?)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If you help someone when they're in trouble, they will remember you when
they're in trouble again.