Bought something on eBay, a person to person thing. From France.
Today I learn it arrived in UK on 8th December (almost a week ago) and
today, almost a week later, I get a ransom note from Parcelfarce that
there's £50 VAT to pay (plus £12 for their admin).
I hope Farage, Boris, Gove and thousands of gullible xenophobes who were >persuaded to vote "leave" are happy about this outcome, which if I could
find a bus, I'd paint on the side.
On 14/12/2024 in message <oRwRwJE3zbXnFA7U@perry.uk> Roland Perry wrote:
Bought something on eBay, a person to person thing. From France.
Today I learn it arrived in UK on 8th December (almost a week ago) and >>today, almost a week later, I get a ransom note from Parcelfarce that >>there's £50 VAT to pay (plus £12 for their admin).
I hope Farage, Boris, Gove and thousands of gullible xenophobes who
were persuaded to vote "leave" are happy about this outcome, which if
I could find a bus, I'd paint on the side.
Taxes are usually payable on imported good, why do you find it surprising?
I don't remember the Leave campaign saying "vote for us, and pay 20%
extra on everything you buy from France".
On 14/12/2024 in message <oRwRwJE3zbXnFA7U@perry.uk> Roland Perry wrote:
Bought something on eBay, a person to person thing. From France.
Today I learn it arrived in UK on 8th December (almost a week ago) and >today, almost a week later, I get a ransom note from Parcelfarce that >there's £50 VAT to pay (plus £12 for their admin).
I hope Farage, Boris, Gove and thousands of gullible xenophobes who were >persuaded to vote "leave" are happy about this outcome, which if I could >find a bus, I'd paint on the side.
Taxes are usually payable on imported good, why do you find it surprising?
On 14 Dec 2024 17:36:02 GMT, Jeff Gaines wrote...
On 14/12/2024 in message <oRwRwJE3zbXnFA7U@perry.uk> Roland Perry wrote:
Bought something on eBay, a person to person thing. From France.
Today I learn it arrived in UK on 8th December (almost a week ago) and
today, almost a week later, I get a ransom note from Parcelfarce that
there's £50 VAT to pay (plus £12 for their admin).
I hope Farage, Boris, Gove and thousands of gullible xenophobes who were >>> persuaded to vote "leave" are happy about this outcome, which if I could >>> find a bus, I'd paint on the side.
Taxes are usually payable on imported good, why do you find it surprising?
Prior to Brexit, VAT wouldn't have been payable on a person-to-person transaction where neither party was VAT registered.
Even if the sender had been VAT registered, it would have been paid in
the country of origin and included in the price charged, rather than an unknown extra charge and delay on delivery.
Bought something on eBay, a person to person thing. From France.
Today I learn it arrived in UK on 8th December (almost a week ago) and
today, almost a week later, I get a ransom note from Parcelfarce that
there's £50 VAT to pay (plus £12 for their admin).
I hope Farage, Boris, Gove and thousands of gullible xenophobes who were persuaded to vote "leave" are happy about this outcome, which if I could
find a bus, I'd paint on the side.
Bought something on eBay, a person to person thing. From France.
Today I learn it arrived in UK on 8th December (almost a week ago) and
today, almost a week later, I get a ransom note from Parcelfarce that
there's £50 VAT to pay (plus £12 for their admin).
I hope Farage, Boris, Gove and thousands of gullible xenophobes who were >persuaded to vote "leave" are happy about this outcome, which if I could
find a bus, I'd paint on the side.
In message <xn0ouk3ggecrym000@news.individual.net>, at 17:36:02 on Sat, 14 >Dec 2024, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> remarked:
On 14/12/2024 in message <oRwRwJE3zbXnFA7U@perry.uk> Roland Perry wrote:
Bought something on eBay, a person to person thing. From France.
Today I learn it arrived in UK on 8th December (almost a week ago) and >>>today, almost a week later, I get a ransom note from Parcelfarce that >>>there's £50 VAT to pay (plus £12 for their admin).
I hope Farage, Boris, Gove and thousands of gullible xenophobes who were >>>persuaded to vote "leave" are happy about this outcome, which if I could >>>find a bus, I'd paint on the side.
Taxes are usually payable on imported good, why do you find it surprising?
(a) Because when we were in the EU we didn't on goods from France
(b) And buying something off a person should not incur VAT. Import duty,
maybe, but this is VAT.
I don't remember the Leave campaign saying "vote for us, and pay 20% extra
on everything you buy from France".
On 14/12/2024 in message <91rUJbIZicXnFArb@perry.uk> Roland Perry wrote:
In message <xn0ouk3ggecrym000@news.individual.net>, at 17:36:02 on
Sat, 14 Dec 2024, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> remarked:
On 14/12/2024 in message <oRwRwJE3zbXnFA7U@perry.uk> Roland Perry wrote:(a) Because when we were in the EU we didn't on goods from France
Bought something on eBay, a person to person thing. From France.
Today I learn it arrived in UK on 8th December (almost a week ago)
and today, almost a week later, I get a ransom note from Parcelfarce >>>>that there's £50 VAT to pay (plus £12 for their admin).
I hope Farage, Boris, Gove and thousands of gullible xenophobes who >>>>were persuaded to vote "leave" are happy about this outcome, which
if I could find a bus, I'd paint on the side.
Taxes are usually payable on imported good, why do you find it surprising? >>
(b) And buying something off a person should not incur VAT. Import duty,
maybe, but this is VAT.
I don't remember the Leave campaign saying "vote for us, and pay 20%
extra on everything you buy from France".
It's interesting that after the, usually offensive, rhetoric about
Brexit the only specific complaints people raise are when it hits them >personally. Not the country,
not the economy,
not the boat people
but "I can't visit France like I used to",
I can't go to my second home"
, this item now costs ME more".
Bought something on eBay, a person to person thing. From France.
Today I learn it arrived in UK on 8th December (almost a week ago) and
today, almost a week later, I get a ransom note from Parcelfarce that
there's £50 VAT to pay (plus £12 for their admin).
I hope Farage, Boris, Gove and thousands of gullible xenophobes who were persuaded to vote "leave" are happy about this outcome, which if I could
find a bus, I'd paint on the side.
Bought something on eBay, a person to person thing. From France.
Today I learn it arrived in UK on 8th December (almost a week ago) and
today, almost a week later, I get a ransom note from Parcelfarce that
there's £50 VAT to pay (plus £12 for their admin).
I hope Farage, Boris, Gove and thousands of gullible xenophobes who were persuaded to vote "leave" are happy about this outcome, which if I could
find a bus, I'd paint on the side.
On 14 Dec 2024 at 18:21:23 GMT, "Tim Jackson" <news@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
Prior to Brexit, VAT wouldn't have been payable on a person-to-person transaction where neither party was VAT registered.
Even if the sender had been VAT registered, it would have been paid in
the country of origin and included in the price charged, rather than an unknown extra charge and delay on delivery.
But the latter is still true if the seller is a business, which is a fair assumption if they are VAT registered. Though the delay and possible customs charge still applies.
On 14 Dec 2024 18:58:31 GMT, Roger Hayter wrote...
On 14 Dec 2024 at 18:21:23 GMT, "Tim Jackson" <news@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
Prior to Brexit, VAT wouldn't have been payable on a person-to-person
transaction where neither party was VAT registered.
Even if the sender had been VAT registered, it would have been paid in
the country of origin and included in the price charged, rather than an
unknown extra charge and delay on delivery.
But the latter is still true if the seller is a business, which is a fair
assumption if they are VAT registered. Though the delay and possible customs >> charge still applies.
Er, yes. I think we're in fierce agreement?
On 15 Dec 2024 at 02:49:02 GMT, "Tim Jackson" <news@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
On 14 Dec 2024 18:58:31 GMT, Roger Hayter wrote...
On 14 Dec 2024 at 18:21:23 GMT, "Tim Jackson" <news@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
Prior to Brexit, VAT wouldn't have been payable on a person-to-person
transaction where neither party was VAT registered.
Even if the sender had been VAT registered, it would have been paid in >>> the country of origin and included in the price charged, rather than an >>> unknown extra charge and delay on delivery.
But the latter is still true if the seller is a business, which is a fair >> assumption if they are VAT registered. Though the delay and possible customs
charge still applies.
Er, yes. I think we're in fierce agreement?
Maybe. But the VAT is *still* paid in the country of origin, though sent to the UK. And that is exactly the way vat is treated for sales by a business between EU countries. And I think at the moment if the parcel has a customs label and the VAT is applied the UK hasn't really got around to delaying it in
customs.
So it seems for business sales from the EU we haven't got round to making them
more difficult yet, just sales by individuals.
On 14/12/2024 in message <91rUJbIZicXnFArb@perry.uk> Roland Perry wrote:
In message <xn0ouk3ggecrym000@news.individual.net>, at 17:36:02 on
Sat, 14 Dec 2024, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> remarked:
On 14/12/2024 in message <oRwRwJE3zbXnFA7U@perry.uk> Roland Perry wrote: >>>
Bought something on eBay, a person to person thing. From France.
Today I learn it arrived in UK on 8th December (almost a week ago)
and today, almost a week later, I get a ransom note from Parcelfarce
that there's £50 VAT to pay (plus £12 for their admin).
I hope Farage, Boris, Gove and thousands of gullible xenophobes who
were persuaded to vote "leave" are happy about this outcome, which
if I could find a bus, I'd paint on the side.
Taxes are usually payable on imported good, why do you find it
surprising?
(a) Because when we were in the EU we didn't on goods from France
(b) And buying something off a person should not incur VAT. Import duty,
  maybe, but this is VAT.
I don't remember the Leave campaign saying "vote for us, and pay 20%
extra on everything you buy from France".
It's interesting that after the, usually offensive, rhetoric about
Brexit the only specific complaints people raise are when it hits them personally. Not the country, not the economy, not the boat people but "I can't visit France like I used to", I can't go to my second home", this
item now costs ME more".
In message <xn0oukal7nyleq001@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines ><jgnewsid@outlook.com> writes
On 14/12/2024 in message <91rUJbIZicXnFArb@perry.uk> Roland Perry wrote:
In message <xn0ouk3ggecrym000@news.individual.net>, at 17:36:02 on Sat, 14 >>>Dec 2024, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> remarked:
On 14/12/2024 in message <oRwRwJE3zbXnFA7U@perry.uk> Roland Perry wrote: >>>>
Bought something on eBay, a person to person thing. From France.
Today I learn it arrived in UK on 8th December (almost a week ago) and >>>>>today, almost a week later, I get a ransom note from Parcelfarce that >>>>>there's £50 VAT to pay (plus £12 for their admin).
I hope Farage, Boris, Gove and thousands of gullible xenophobes who were >>>>>persuaded to vote "leave" are happy about this outcome, which if I could >>>>>find a bus, I'd paint on the side.
Taxes are usually payable on imported good, why do you find it >>>>surprising?
(a) Because when we were in the EU we didn't on goods from France
(b) And buying something off a person should not incur VAT. Import duty,
maybe, but this is VAT.
I don't remember the Leave campaign saying "vote for us, and pay 20% extra >>>on everything you buy from France".
It's interesting that after the, usually offensive, rhetoric about Brexit >>the only specific complaints people raise are when it hits them
personally. Not the country,
But we, the people, ARE the country.
On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 17:14:31 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
Bought something on eBay, a person to person thing. From France.
Today I learn it arrived in UK on 8th December (almost a week ago) and
today, almost a week later, I get a ransom note from Parcelfarce that
there's £50 VAT to pay (plus £12 for their admin).
I hope Farage, Boris, Gove and thousands of gullible xenophobes who were
persuaded to vote "leave" are happy about this outcome, which if I could
find a bus, I'd paint on the side.
Maybe they are happy with it. Maybe their priorities are different to yours. Maybe they rarely buy from foreign sellers, and see no reason to be
concerned about those who do. Maybe discouraging imports was one of their goals. Maybe they see it as an acceptable negative consequence of a change that will have other, greater benefits.
Roland Perry wrote:
I don't remember the Leave campaign saying "vote for us, and pay 20%
extra on everything you buy from France".
Buy from a UK business at £300 inc VAT,
or import privately from EU at £250 then pay the VAT separately.
OK the admin fee is extra, but that's always existed for e.g. USA >transactions
On 14/12/2024 in message <91rUJbIZicXnFArb@perry.uk> Roland Perry wrote:
In message <xn0ouk3ggecrym000@news.individual.net>, at 17:36:02 on
Sat, 14 Dec 2024, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> remarked:
On 14/12/2024 in message <oRwRwJE3zbXnFA7U@perry.uk> Roland Perry wrote:(a) Because when we were in the EU we didn't on goods from France
Bought something on eBay, a person to person thing. From France.
Today I learn it arrived in UK on 8th December (almost a week ago)
and today, almost a week later, I get a ransom note from Parcelfarce >>>>that there's £50 VAT to pay (plus £12 for their admin).
I hope Farage, Boris, Gove and thousands of gullible xenophobes who >>>>were persuaded to vote "leave" are happy about this outcome, which
if I could find a bus, I'd paint on the side.
Taxes are usually payable on imported good, why do you find it surprising? >>
(b) And buying something off a person should not incur VAT. Import duty,
maybe, but this is VAT.
I don't remember the Leave campaign saying "vote for us, and pay 20%
extra on everything you buy from France".
It's interesting that after the, usually offensive, rhetoric about
Brexit the only specific complaints people raise are when it hits them >personally.
Not the country, not the economy, not the boat people
but "I can't visit France like I used to", I can't go to my second
home", this item now costs ME more".
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
Bought something on eBay, a person to person thing. From France.
Today I learn it arrived in UK on 8th December (almost a week ago) and
today, almost a week later, I get a ransom note from Parcelfarce that
there's £50 VAT to pay (plus £12 for their admin).
Can it be taken that imports from the US and ROW never attracted these >heinous charges?
I hope Farage, Boris, Gove and thousands of gullible xenophobes who were
persuaded to vote "leave" are happy about this outcome, which if I could
find a bus, I'd paint on the side.
I voted against the European version of the Soviet Union, and there can’t >be too high a price on that.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
Bought something on eBay, a person to person thing. From France.
Today I learn it arrived in UK on 8th December (almost a week ago) and
today, almost a week later, I get a ransom note from Parcelfarce that
there's £50 VAT to pay (plus £12 for their admin).
I hope Farage, Boris, Gove and thousands of gullible xenophobes who were
persuaded to vote "leave" are happy about this outcome, which if I could
find a bus, I'd paint on the side.
If you were buying from the USA, there would be a similar bill. Would you >complain about American being given Independence?
Seriously, the real issue is HMRC imposing VAT on personal imports. It >isn’t necessary and could be waived.
On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 17:14:31 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
Bought something on eBay, a person to person thing. From France.
Today I learn it arrived in UK on 8th December (almost a week ago) and >>today, almost a week later, I get a ransom note from Parcelfarce that >>there's £50 VAT to pay (plus £12 for their admin).
I hope Farage, Boris, Gove and thousands of gullible xenophobes who were >>persuaded to vote "leave" are happy about this outcome, which if I could >>find a bus, I'd paint on the side.
Maybe they are happy with it. Maybe their priorities are different to yours. >Maybe they rarely buy from foreign sellers, and see no reason to be
concerned about those who do. Maybe discouraging imports was one of their >goals. Maybe they see it as an acceptable negative consequence of a change >that will have other, greater benefits.
On 14/12/2024 20:34, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 17:14:31 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
Bought something on eBay, a person to person thing. From France.
Today I learn it arrived in UK on 8th December (almost a week ago) and
today, almost a week later, I get a ransom note from Parcelfarce that
there's £50 VAT to pay (plus £12 for their admin).
I hope Farage, Boris, Gove and thousands of gullible xenophobes who were >>> persuaded to vote "leave" are happy about this outcome, which if I could >>> find a bus, I'd paint on the side.
Maybe they are happy with it. Maybe their priorities are different
to yours.
Maybe they rarely buy from foreign sellers, and see no reason to be
concerned about those who do. Maybe discouraging imports was one of their
goals. Maybe they see it as an acceptable negative consequence of a change >> that will have other, greater benefits.
Perhaps the strangest thing about Brexit is that it seems to have
induced in Remainers an everlasting state of OCD, in which if something
can be "blamed" on it (rightly or wrongly), they cannot stop themselves >commenting on it. It's now well over eight years since the Brexit vote,
and I do wonder why Remainers keep scratching away at this - to them - >festering sore rather than leave it alone. It won't help them as there
will be no referendum in the near or even medium future to change the
status quo.
Who are they letting know with the endless "I told you so" comments? >Brexiteers won't agree or care, and Remainers will just nod their heads
in agreement. It's a pointless exercise, which just emphasises its OCD >condition.
In message <ls64buFq0vsU1@mid.individual.net>, at 19:24:46 on Sat, 14 Dec >2024, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
Bought something on eBay, a person to person thing. From France.
Today I learn it arrived in UK on 8th December (almost a week ago) and >>>today, almost a week later, I get a ransom note from Parcelfarce that >>>there's £50 VAT to pay (plus £12 for their admin).
Can it be taken that imports from the US and ROW never attracted these >>heinous charges?
Irrelevant, we didn't "leave" the USA/ROW. Nor did the Leave campaign
explain the consequences of leaving when it came to matters such as
personal imports.
I hope Farage, Boris, Gove and thousands of gullible xenophobes who were >>>persuaded to vote "leave" are happy about this outcome, which if I could >>>find a bus, I'd paint on the side.
I voted against the European version of the Soviet Union, and there
can’t
be too high a price on that.
Jolly good, you were perfectly entitled to that view. However, it's A >democracy and the majority was wafer-thin, with your reason hardly showing
up on the radar. People voted for trumped up reasons like bent bananas and >the false promise of more money for the NHS.
On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 17:14:31 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
Bought something on eBay, a person to person thing. From France.
Today I learn it arrived in UK on 8th December (almost a week ago) and
today, almost a week later, I get a ransom note from Parcelfarce that
there's £50 VAT to pay (plus £12 for their admin).
I hope Farage, Boris, Gove and thousands of gullible xenophobes who were
persuaded to vote "leave" are happy about this outcome, which if I could
find a bus, I'd paint on the side.
Maybe they are happy with it. Maybe their priorities are different to yours. Maybe they rarely buy from foreign sellers, and see no reason to be
concerned about those who do. Maybe discouraging imports was one of their goals. Maybe they see it as an acceptable negative consequence of a change that will have other, greater benefits.
On 15/12/2024 in message <Ai8r8iPHhqXnFAtb@perry.uk> Roland Perry wrote:
In message <ls64buFq0vsU1@mid.individual.net>, at 19:24:46 on Sat, 14
Dec 2024, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> remarked:
I voted against the European version of the Soviet Union, and there
can’t
be too high a price on that.
Jolly good, you were perfectly entitled to that view. However, it's A
democracy and the majority was wafer-thin, with your reason hardly
showing up on the radar. People voted for trumped up reasons like bent
bananas and the false promise of more money for the NHS.
Come on, we're not going there again surely? I voted against the United States of Europe as I'm sure did many others.
The banana regulations certainly did exist, you can find them here:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ eur/2011/1333#:~:text=19%20December%202011-,laying%20down%20marketing%20standards%20for%20bananas%2C%20rules%20on%20the%20verification,notifications%20in%20the%20banana%20sector
Was it common for people to rely on being told the "consequences of >>leaving"? Only adults had a vote so most of them would have been capable
of making their own decisions surely?
Let’s just be sure what we are saying. It is demonstrably the case that >many did not understand minimally the consequences of their vote
So whilst capable of deciding, far from competent to decide.
Like the "patriotic" blue British passport now made by a Franco-Dutch
company instead of nasty old maroon coloured EU ones made by British
firm De la Rue.
They can think about that as they queue for ages to enter the EU for
their holidays as non-EU citizens.
On 15/12/2024 in message <vjmeud$i62m$2@dont-email.me> Dave wrote:
Was it common for people to rely on being told the "consequences of >>>leaving"? Only adults had a vote so most of them would have been capable >>>of making their own decisions surely?
Let’s just be sure what we are saying. It is demonstrably the case that >>many did not understand minimally the consequences of their vote
So whilst capable of deciding, far from competent to decide.
That is highly offensive to everybody who voted in the referendum. My >friends/colleague were perfectly competent to make their own decisions
as was/am I.
I was caught out in a similar way to Roland
for a professional grade 4k monitor on Amazon at a good price. I didn't
spot that it was on Amazon market place and the business seller was
actually in Italy. I only found that out when I got a phone call from
the UK import handlers demanding payment for customs and UK VAT on top
of that. I thought about declining but after doing some sums I was only
out of pocket by ~£50 and the monitor was exactly what I wanted. The
monitor is excellent but I was not at all impressed to find that I was >unwittingly importing it from Italy.
"ANNEX I
"Marketing standards for bananas
"...the bananas must be:
"- free from malformation or abnormal curvature of the fingers,"
(Among 14 requirements)
Martin Brown wrote:
They can think about that as they queue for ages to enter the EU for
their holidays as non-EU citizens.
Or they can go somewhere that isn't tourist-phobic
<https://globaledge.msu.edu/blog/post/57411>
In message <xn0oul918z3mg000@news.individual.net>, at 11:55:57 on Sun, 15
Dec 2024, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> remarked:
On 15/12/2024 in message <vjmeud$i62m$2@dont-email.me> Dave wrote:
Was it common for people to rely on being told the "consequences of >>>>leaving"? Only adults had a vote so most of them would have been capable >>>>of making their own decisions surely?
Let’s just be sure what we are saying. It is demonstrably the case that >>>many did not understand minimally the consequences of their vote
So whilst capable of deciding, far from competent to decide.
That is highly offensive to everybody who voted in the referendum. My >>friends/colleague were perfectly competent to make their own decisions as >>was/am I.
This isn't about you, but the vast majority of voters who aren't you. And
the lesson to be learned, and pressed home whenever similar votes are
taken in future, is that we need to take far more care to educate the
public about the consequences.
On 14/12/2024 20:34, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 17:14:31 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
Bought something on eBay, a person to person thing. From France.
Today I learn it arrived in UK on 8th December (almost a week ago) and
today, almost a week later, I get a ransom note from Parcelfarce that
there's £50 VAT to pay (plus £12 for their admin).
I hope Farage, Boris, Gove and thousands of gullible xenophobes who were >>> persuaded to vote "leave" are happy about this outcome, which if I could >>> find a bus, I'd paint on the side.
They can think about that as they queue for ages to enter the EU for
their holidays as non-EU citizens.
Maybe they are happy with it. Maybe their priorities are different to yours. >> Maybe they rarely buy from foreign sellers, and see no reason to be
concerned about those who do. Maybe discouraging imports was one of their
goals. Maybe they see it as an acceptable negative consequence of a change >> that will have other, greater benefits.
Like the "patriotic" blue British passport now made by a Franco-Dutch
company instead of nasty old maroon coloured EU ones made by British
firm De la Rue.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jun/17/de-la-rue-raise-100m-cut-jobs-gateshead-printing-site
I was caught out in a similar way to Roland for a professional grade 4k monitor on Amazon at a good price. I didn't spot that it was on Amazon
market place and the business seller was actually in Italy. I only found
that out when I got a phone call from the UK import handlers demanding payment for customs and UK VAT on top of that. I thought about declining
but after doing some sums I was only out of pocket by ~£50 and the
monitor was exactly what I wanted. The monitor is excellent but I was
not at all impressed to find that I was unwittingly importing it from Italy.
In message <ls64buFq0vsU1@mid.individual.net>, at 19:24:46 on Sat, 14
Dec 2024, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
Bought something on eBay, a person to person thing. From France.
Today I learn it arrived in UK on 8th December (almost a week ago) and
today, almost a week later, I get a ransom note from Parcelfarce that
there's £50 VAT to pay (plus £12 for their admin).
Can it be taken that imports from the US and ROW never attracted these
heinous charges?
Irrelevant, we didn't "leave" the USA/ROW. Nor did the Leave campaign
explain the consequences of leaving when it came to matters such as
personal imports.
I hope Farage, Boris, Gove and thousands of gullible xenophobes who were >>> persuaded to vote "leave" are happy about this outcome, which if I could >>> find a bus, I'd paint on the side.
I voted against the European version of the Soviet Union, and there can’t >> be too high a price on that.
Jolly good, you were perfectly entitled to that view. However, it's A democracy and the majority was wafer-thin, with *your* reason hardly
showing up on the radar. People voted for trumped up reasons like bent bananas and the false promise of more money for the NHS.
I voted against the European version of the Soviet Union, and there can’t >> be too high a price on that.
Jolly good, you were perfectly entitled to that view. However, it's A democracy and the majority was wafer-thin, with *your* reason hardly
showing up on the radar. People voted for trumped up reasons like bent bananas and the false promise of more money for the NHS.
It's important because we should never let popularist politicians ever
again sway a vote, without the electorate being fully appraised of the consequences.
On 15/12/2024 in message <Ai8r8iPHhqXnFAtb@perry.uk> Roland Perry wrote:
In message <ls64buFq0vsU1@mid.individual.net>, at 19:24:46 on Sat, 14
Dec 2024, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
Bought something on eBay, a person to person thing. From France.
Today I learn it arrived in UK on 8th December (almost a week ago) and >>>>today, almost a week later, I get a ransom note from Parcelfarce that >>>>there's £50 VAT to pay (plus £12 for their admin).
Can it be taken that imports from the US and ROW never attracted these >>>heinous charges?
Irrelevant, we didn't "leave" the USA/ROW. Nor did the Leave campaign >>explain the consequences of leaving when it came to matters such as >>personal imports.
It is highly relevant in that on leaving the EU people should have
expected that its members became just another country and would be
treated as such.
Was it common for people to rely on being told the "consequences of
leaving"? Only adults had a vote so most of them would have been
capable of making their own decisions surely?
I did, as I do for elections. No party has ever honoured election
promises in the way that people tend to interpret them so why listen to
them? Much more sensible to consider this party generally stand for
this, that party generally stand for that surely?
I hope Farage, Boris, Gove and thousands of gullible xenophobes who were >>>>persuaded to vote "leave" are happy about this outcome, which if I could >>>>find a bus, I'd paint on the side.
I voted against the European version of the Soviet Union, and there >>>can’t be too high a price on that.
Jolly good, you were perfectly entitled to that view. However, it's A >>democracy and the majority was wafer-thin, with your reason hardly
showing up on the radar. People voted for trumped up reasons like bent >>bananas and the false promise of more money for the NHS.
Come on, we're not going there again surely? I voted against the United >States of Europe as I'm sure did many others.
The banana regulations certainly did exist, you can find them here:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2011/1333#:~:text=19%20December%20201 >1-,laying%20down%20marketing%20standards%20for%20bananas%2C%20rules%20on >%20the%20verification,notifications%20in%20the%20banana%20sector
On 14/12/2024 20:34, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 17:14:31 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
Bought something on eBay, a person to person thing. From France.
Today I learn it arrived in UK on 8th December (almost a week ago) and
today, almost a week later, I get a ransom note from Parcelfarce that
there's £50 VAT to pay (plus £12 for their admin).
I hope Farage, Boris, Gove and thousands of gullible xenophobes who were >>> persuaded to vote "leave" are happy about this outcome, which if I could >>> find a bus, I'd paint on the side.
They can think about that as they queue for ages to enter the EU for
their holidays as non-EU citizens.
The banana regulations certainly did exist, you can find them here:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ eur/2011/1333#:~:text=19%20December%202011-,laying%20down%20marketing%20standards%20for%20bananas%2C%20rules%20on%20the%20verification,notifications%20in%20the%20banana%20sector
In message <vjmfeg$hpsa$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:44:16 on Sun, 15 Dec
2024, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> remarked:
"ANNEX I
"Marketing standards for bananas
"...the bananas must be:
"- free from malformation or abnormal curvature of the fingers,"
(Among 14 requirements)
That's not *all* bananas, just the top class ones.
On Sun, 15 Dec 2024 11:44:16 +0000, Max Demian wrote...
The banana regulations certainly did exist, you can find them here:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/
eur/ 2011/1333#:~:text=19%20December%202011-,laying%20down%20marketing%20standards%20for%20bananas%2C%20rules%20on%20the%20verification,notifications%20in%20the%20banana%20sector
Since Brexit, these EU regulations have been adopted into UK law. We
still classify bananas based on them.
On 15 Dec 2024 at 11:13:42 GMT, "Martin Brown"
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 14/12/2024 20:34, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 17:14:31 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
Bought something on eBay, a person to person thing. From France.
Today I learn it arrived in UK on 8th December (almost a week ago)
and today, almost a week later, I get a ransom note from Parcelfarce
that there's £50 VAT to pay (plus £12 for their admin).
I hope Farage, Boris, Gove and thousands of gullible xenophobes who
were persuaded to vote "leave" are happy about this outcome, which if
I could find a bus, I'd paint on the side.
They can think about that as they queue for ages to enter the EU for
their holidays as non-EU citizens.
Maybe they are happy with it. Maybe their priorities are different to
yours.
Maybe they rarely buy from foreign sellers, and see no reason to be
concerned about those who do. Maybe discouraging imports was one of
their goals. Maybe they see it as an acceptable negative consequence
of a change that will have other, greater benefits.
Like the "patriotic" blue British passport now made by a Franco-Dutch
company instead of nasty old maroon coloured EU ones made by British
firm De la Rue.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jun/17/de-la-rue-raise-100m- cut-jobs-gateshead-printing-site
I was caught out in a similar way to Roland for a professional grade 4k
monitor on Amazon at a good price. I didn't spot that it was on Amazon
market place and the business seller was actually in Italy. I only
found that out when I got a phone call from the UK import handlers
demanding payment for customs and UK VAT on top of that. I thought
about declining but after doing some sums I was only out of pocket by
~£50 and the monitor was exactly what I wanted. The monitor is
excellent but I was not at all impressed to find that I was unwittingly
importing it from Italy.
I would complain to Amazon. The seller (and therefore arguably Amazon)
was acting illegally by failing to quote a VAT inclusive price and remit
the VAT to HMRC. Assuming you were buying as a consumer. In practice,
things sold this way don't seem to incur customs handling charges, let
alone unexpected VAT.
On 15/12/2024 09:58, Roland Perry wrote:
I voted against the European version of the Soviet Union, and there can’t >>> be too high a price on that.
Jolly good, you were perfectly entitled to that view. However, it'sDo you seriously suggest that half of the country voted because of bent >bananas & the like?
A democracy and the majority was wafer-thin, with *your* reason
hardly showing up on the radar. People voted for trumped up reasons
like bent bananas and the false promise of more money for the NHS.
Whatever the pros & cons of Brexit, I still regard the issue of giving
an organisation loads of your money in the hope that they would allow
you a bit back (but only to spend as THEY deem fit) was insane.
The banana regulations certainly did exist, you can find them here:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2011/1333#:~:text=19%20December%202011-,laying%20down%20marketing%20standards%20for%20bananas%2C%20rules%20on%20the%20verification,notifications%20in%20the%20banana%20sector
Q? What part of those regulations to you find objectionable?
Q2: What part of those regulations has the UK government changed?
On 15/12/2024 in message <OBTYEVa5ysXnFAvL@perry.uk> Roland Perry wrote:
In message <xn0oul918z3mg000@news.individual.net>, at 11:55:57 on Sun,
15 Dec 2024, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> remarked:
On 15/12/2024 in message <vjmeud$i62m$2@dont-email.me> Dave wrote:
Was it common for people to rely on being told the "consequences of >>>>>leaving"? Only adults had a vote so most of them would have been capable >>>>>of making their own decisions surely?
Let’s just be sure what we are saying. It is demonstrably the case that >>>>many did not understand minimally the consequences of their vote
So whilst capable of deciding, far from competent to decide.
That is highly offensive to everybody who voted in the referendum. My >>>friends/colleague were perfectly competent to make their own
decisions as was/am I.
This isn't about you, but the vast majority of voters who aren't you.
And the lesson to be learned, and pressed home whenever similar votes
are taken in future, is that we need to take far more care to educate
the public about the consequences.
I disagree. If people have the vote they must be deemed competent to
exercise it,
only the communist party chooses candidates
and tells people who to vote for as far as I know.
On Sun, 15 Dec 2024 11:44:16 +0000, Max Demian wrote...
The banana regulations certainly did exist, you can find them here:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/
eur/2011/1333#:~:text=19%20December%202011-,laying%20down%20marketing%20standards%20for%20bananas%2C%20rules%20on%20the%20verification,notifications%20in%20the%20banana%20sector
Since Brexit, these EU regulations have been adopted into UK law. We
still classify bananas based on them.
In message <xn0oul7x31g145a005@news.individual.net>, at 11:10:46 on Sun,
15 Dec 2024, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> remarked:
On 15/12/2024 in message <Ai8r8iPHhqXnFAtb@perry.uk> Roland Perry wrote:
In message <ls64buFq0vsU1@mid.individual.net>, at 19:24:46 on Sat, 14 Dec >>>2024, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
Bought something on eBay, a person to person thing. From France.
Today I learn it arrived in UK on 8th December (almost a week ago) and >>>>>today, almost a week later, I get a ransom note from Parcelfarce that >>>>>there's £50 VAT to pay (plus £12 for their admin).
Can it be taken that imports from the US and ROW never attracted these >>>>heinous charges?
Irrelevant, we didn't "leave" the USA/ROW. Nor did the Leave campaign >>>explain the consequences of leaving when it came to matters such as >>>personal imports.
It is highly relevant in that on leaving the EU people should have
expected that its members became just another country and would be treated >>as such.
Except almost nobody did realise that!
Was it common for people to rely on being told the "consequences of >>leaving"? Only adults had a vote so most of them would have been capable
of making their own decisions surely?
Except they were bamboozled by bent bananas, fake pictures of queues of >'asylum seekers' and so on.
I did, as I do for elections. No party has ever honoured election promises >>in the way that people tend to interpret them so why listen to them? Much >>more sensible to consider this party generally stand for this, that party >>generally stand for that surely?
I think you'll find that the number painted on a bus was far more than
just an average "election promise".
I hope Farage, Boris, Gove and thousands of gullible xenophobes who >>>>>were
persuaded to vote "leave" are happy about this outcome, which if I >>>>>could
find a bus, I'd paint on the side.
I voted against the European version of the Soviet Union, and there >>>>can’t be too high a price on that.
Jolly good, you were perfectly entitled to that view. However, it's A >>>democracy and the majority was wafer-thin, with your reason hardly showing >>>up on the radar. People voted for trumped up reasons like bent bananas and >>>the false promise of more money for the NHS.
Come on, we're not going there again surely? I voted against the United >>States of Europe as I'm sure did many others.
Only a few percent. That doesn't make them wrong to have voted like that,
but in a democracy it's a lonely voice.
The banana regulations certainly did exist, you can find them here:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2011/1333#:~:text=19%20December%20201 >>1-,laying%20down%20marketing%20standards%20for%20bananas%2C%20rules%20on >>%20the%20verification,notifications%20in%20the%20banana%20sector
It's all about pests and pesticides, not the shape.
Well, you are now free to trade with the rest of the world at similar
costs, with all the benefit that extra choice brings, and not limit
yourself to just a small part of the world.
On 15/12/2024 in message <mkrtlj509kctfm6810nh0c17dura6p877p@4ax.com>
Martin Harran wrote:
The banana regulations certainly did exist, you can find them here:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2011/1333#:~:text=19%20December%202 >>>011-,laying%20down%20marketing%20standards%20for%20bananas%2C%20rules% >>>20on%20the%20verification,notifications%20in%20the%20banana%20sector
Q? What part of those regulations to you find objectionable?
Q2: What part of those regulations has the UK government changed?
Don't know, don't care, haven't read them!
The argument is usually around whether or not such regulations exist
and clearly they do.
In message <xn0ouleuy8tx3f002@news.individual.net>, at 15:35:53 on Sun, 15 >Dec 2024, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> remarked:
On 15/12/2024 in message <mkrtlj509kctfm6810nh0c17dura6p877p@4ax.com> >>Martin Harran wrote:
The banana regulations certainly did exist, you can find them here:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2011/1333#:~:text=19%20December%202 >>>>011-,laying%20down%20marketing%20standards%20for%20bananas%2C%20rules% >>>>20on%20the%20verification,notifications%20in%20the%20banana%20sector
Q? What part of those regulations to you find objectionable?
Q2: What part of those regulations has the UK government changed?
Don't know, don't care, haven't read them!
The argument is usually around whether or not such regulations exist and >>clearly they do.
But not a regulation which says "The EU has banned bent bananas", which
was the mantra Boris kept ramming down voters' thoats.
I've never seen anyone claiming that the regulations didn't exist but
nobody could ever tell me what part of it they didn't like.
On Sun, 15 Dec 2024 14:59:02 +0000, Tim Jackson wrote:
On Sun, 15 Dec 2024 11:44:16 +0000, Max Demian wrote...
The banana regulations certainly did exist, you can find them here:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/
eur/ 2011/1333#:~:text=19%20December%202011-,laying%20down%20marketing%20standards%20for%20bananas%2C%20rules%20on%20the%20verification,notifications%20in%20the%20banana%20sector
Since Brexit, these EU regulations have been adopted into UK law. We
still classify bananas based on them.
Plus tethered bottle caps
USB charging cables
Mandatory speed limiters.
The banana regulations certainly did exist, you can find them here:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2011/1333#:~:text=19%20December%202011-,laying%20down%20marketing%20standards%20for%20bananas%2C%20rules%20on%20the%20verification,notifications%20in%20the%20banana%20sector
Q? What part of those regulations to you find objectionable?
Q2: What part of those regulations has the UK government changed?
Don't know, don't care, haven't read them!
On the basis that you would know if there is something you don't like,
I take that as nothing and nothing.
So what part of "the United States of Europe" did you vote against?
The argument is usually around whether or not such regulations exist and >>clearly they do.
I've never seen anyone claiming that the regulations didn't exist but
nobody could ever tell me what part of it they didn't like.
Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 14/12/2024 20:34, Mark Goodge wrote:Or maybe they care about facts and ongoing problems caused by it.
On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 17:14:31 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>
Bought something on eBay, a person to person thing. From France.
Today I learn it arrived in UK on 8th December (almost a week ago) and >>>> today, almost a week later, I get a ransom note from Parcelfarce that
there's £50 VAT to pay (plus £12 for their admin).
I hope Farage, Boris, Gove and thousands of gullible xenophobes who were >>>> persuaded to vote "leave" are happy about this outcome, which if I could >>>> find a bus, I'd paint on the side.
Maybe they are happy with it. Maybe their priorities are different to yours.
Maybe they rarely buy from foreign sellers, and see no reason to be
concerned about those who do. Maybe discouraging imports was one of their >>> goals. Maybe they see it as an acceptable negative consequence of a change >>> that will have other, greater benefits.
Perhaps the strangest thing about Brexit is that it seems to have
induced in Remainers an everlasting state of OCD, in which if something
can be "blamed" on it (rightly or wrongly), they cannot stop themselves
commenting on it. It's now well over eight years since the Brexit vote,
and I do wonder why Remainers keep scratching away at this - to them -
festering sore rather than leave it alone. It won't help them as there
will be no referendum in the near or even medium future to change the
status quo.
Who are they letting know with the endless "I told you so" comments?
Brexiteers won't agree or care, and Remainers will just nod their heads
in agreement. It's a pointless exercise, which just emphasises its OCD
condition.
In economic terms, the business case is overwhelmingly in their favour and moving ever more in their favour every single day. The only difference is that is now undeniably so.
Bought something on eBay, a person to person thing. From France.
Today I learn it arrived in UK on 8th December (almost a week ago) and today, almost a week later, I get a ransom note from Parcelfarce that there's £50 VAT to pay (plus £12 for their admin).
I hope Farage, Boris, Gove and thousands of gullible xenophobes who were persuaded to vote "leave" are happy about this outcome, which if I could find a bus, I'd paint on the side.
On Sun, 15 Dec 2024 18:05:13 -0000, Tim Jackson
<news@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Dec 2024 15:01:10 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk wrote...
On Sun, 15 Dec 2024 14:59:02 +0000, Tim Jackson wrote:
On Sun, 15 Dec 2024 11:44:16 +0000, Max Demian wrote...2011/1333#:~:text=19%20December%202011-,laying%20down%20marketing%20standards%20for%20bananas%2C%20rules%20on%20the%20verification,notifications%20in%20the%20banana%20sector
The banana regulations certainly did exist, you can find them here: >> >> >
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/
eur/
Since Brexit, these EU regulations have been adopted into UK law. We
still classify bananas based on them.
Plus tethered bottle caps
USB charging cables
Mandatory speed limiters.
What do you object to about those?
On Sun, 15 Dec 2024 17:57:19 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Dec 2024 17:51:28 +0000, Martin Harran wrote:
I've never seen anyone claiming that the regulations didn't exist but
nobody could ever tell me what part of it they didn't like.
Like human rights.
You don't subscribe to the idea that human rights should be protected
in law?
On 15/12/2024 in message <te5ulj9b094ul9nhufercq25aujhj5poej@4ax.com>
Martin Harran wrote:
The banana regulations certainly did exist, you can find them here:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2011/1333#:~:text=19%20December%202011-,laying%20down%20marketing%20standards%20for%20bananas%2C%20rules%20on%20the%20verification,notifications%20in%20the%20banana%20sector
Q? What part of those regulations to you find objectionable?
Q2: What part of those regulations has the UK government changed?
Don't know, don't care, haven't read them!
On the basis that you would know if there is something you don't like,
I take that as nothing and nothing.
The argument is usually around whether or not such regulations exist and >>clearly they do.
I've never seen anyone claiming that the regulations didn't exist but >nobody could ever tell me what part of it they didn't like.
Really? I've not seen anything else!
So what part of "the United States of Europe" did you vote against?
The United States of Europe bit.
So you voted against it but you didn't quite know what you were voting >against. There seemed to be a lot of that about.
The argument is usually around whether or not such regulations exist and >>>>clearly they do.
I've never seen anyone claiming that the regulations didn't exist but >>>nobody could ever tell me what part of it they didn't like.
Really? I've not seen anything else!
Maybe what you've seen is the incorrect information that they ban bendy >bananas.
Given that that misinformation came from Boris Johnson, you can be
forgiven for having got it wrong. But it's still wrong.
On 15/12/2024 in message <MPG.41c93f0047b4421498a0b0@text.usenet.plus.net> Tim Jackson wrote:
The argument is usually around whether or not such regulations exist and >>>>> clearly they do.
I've never seen anyone claiming that the regulations didn't exist but
nobody could ever tell me what part of it they didn't like.
Really? I've not seen anything else!
Maybe what you've seen is the incorrect information that they ban bendy
bananas.
Given that that misinformation came from Boris Johnson, you can be
forgiven for having got it wrong. But it's still wrong.
No, what I've seen is a denial that the legislation exists which it
clearly does.
On 15/12/2024 in message <3u9ulj1dpeaumchi63gneoo159sm5k5p28@4ax.com>
Martin Harran wrote:
So what part of "the United States of Europe" did you vote against?
The United States of Europe bit.
So you voted against it but you didn't quite know what you were voting
against. There seemed to be a lot of that about.
I voted against becoming part of the USE, what don't you understand about that?
On 15/12/2024 in message <MPG.41c93f0047b4421498a0b0@text.usenet.plus.net> Tim Jackson wrote:
The argument is usually around whether or not such regulations exist and >>>>clearly they do.
I've never seen anyone claiming that the regulations didn't exist but >>>nobody could ever tell me what part of it they didn't like.
Really? I've not seen anything else!
Maybe what you've seen is the incorrect information that they ban bendy >bananas.
Given that that misinformation came from Boris Johnson, you can be
forgiven for having got it wrong. But it's still wrong.
No, what I've seen is a denial that the legislation exists which it
clearly does.
On 15 Dec 2024 at 19:56:56 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 15/12/2024 in message <3u9ulj1dpeaumchi63gneoo159sm5k5p28@4ax.com> >>Martin Harran wrote:
So what part of "the United States of Europe" did you vote against?
The United States of Europe bit.
So you voted against it but you didn't quite know what you were voting >>>against. There seemed to be a lot of that about.
I voted against becoming part of the USE, what don't you understand about >>that?
Just that it seems totally irrational; if Hungary under Orban can stay in
it
it can't be that restrictive of sovereignty. Not much like a political >dictatorship! And before long it looks like our choices will be EU or
Russia.
On 15 Dec 2024 at 19:57:51 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 15/12/2024 in message <MPG.41c93f0047b4421498a0b0@text.usenet.plus.net> >>Tim Jackson wrote:
The argument is usually around whether or not such regulations exist >>>>>>and
clearly they do.
I've never seen anyone claiming that the regulations didn't exist but >>>>>nobody could ever tell me what part of it they didn't like.
Really? I've not seen anything else!
Maybe what you've seen is the incorrect information that they ban bendy >>>bananas.
Given that that misinformation came from Boris Johnson, you can be >>>forgiven for having got it wrong. But it's still wrong.
No, what I've seen is a denial that the legislation exists which it
clearly does.
No one has denied it exists, just that it doesn't actually ban anything!
On 15/12/2024 in message <9529857043.11c6170a@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 15 Dec 2024 at 19:57:51 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 15/12/2024 in message <MPG.41c93f0047b4421498a0b0@text.usenet.plus.net> >>> Tim Jackson wrote:
The argument is usually around whether or not such regulations exist >>>>>>> and
clearly they do.
I've never seen anyone claiming that the regulations didn't exist but >>>>>> nobody could ever tell me what part of it they didn't like.
Really? I've not seen anything else!
Maybe what you've seen is the incorrect information that they ban bendy >>>> bananas.
Given that that misinformation came from Boris Johnson, you can be
forgiven for having got it wrong. But it's still wrong.
No, what I've seen is a denial that the legislation exists which it
clearly does.
No one has denied it exists, just that it doesn't actually ban anything!
As I said what I've seen is a denial that the legislation exists, how can
you possibly say that "No one has denied it exists"?
On 15/12/2024 in message <9529857043.11c6170a@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 15 Dec 2024 at 19:57:51 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>wrote:
On 15/12/2024 in message <MPG.41c93f0047b4421498a0b0@text.usenet.plus.net> >>>Tim Jackson wrote:
The argument is usually around whether or not such regulations exist >>>>>>>and
clearly they do.
I've never seen anyone claiming that the regulations didn't exist but >>>>>>nobody could ever tell me what part of it they didn't like.
Really? I've not seen anything else!
Maybe what you've seen is the incorrect information that they ban bendy >>>>bananas.
Given that that misinformation came from Boris Johnson, you can be >>>>forgiven for having got it wrong. But it's still wrong.
No, what I've seen is a denial that the legislation exists which it >>>clearly does.
No one has denied it exists, just that it doesn't actually ban anything!
As I said what I've seen is a denial that the legislation exists, how can
you possibly say that "No one has denied it exists"?
On 15/12/2024 09:58, Roland Perry wrote:
Do you seriously suggest that half of the country voted because of bent >bananas & the like?I voted against the European version of the Soviet Union, and there can’t >>> be too high a price on that.Jolly good, you were perfectly entitled to that view. However, it's
A democracy and the majority was wafer-thin, with *your* reason
hardly showing up on the radar. People voted for trumped up reasons
like bent bananas and the false promise of more money for the NHS.
Whatever the pros & cons of Brexit, I still regard the issue of giving
an organisation loads of your money in the hope that they would allow
you a bit back (but only to spend as THEY deem fit) was insane.
On 15/12/2024 in message <9517574328.ea8ce5d6@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 15 Dec 2024 at 19:56:56 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 15/12/2024 in message <3u9ulj1dpeaumchi63gneoo159sm5k5p28@4ax.com>
Martin Harran wrote:
So what part of "the United States of Europe" did you vote against? >>>>>The United States of Europe bit.
So you voted against it but you didn't quite know what you were voting >>>> against. There seemed to be a lot of that about.
I voted against becoming part of the USE, what don't you understand about >>> that?
Just that it seems totally irrational; if Hungary under Orban can stay in
it
it can't be that restrictive of sovereignty. Not much like a political
dictatorship! And before long it looks like our choices will be EU or
Russia.
Clearly that's your opinion which is different to mine, are you suggesting
I am not entitled to vote as I see fit?
On 15/12/2024 in message <OBTYEVa5ysXnFAvL@perry.uk> Roland Perry wrote:
In message <xn0oul918z3mg000@news.individual.net>, at 11:55:57 on Sun,
15 Dec 2024, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> remarked:
On 15/12/2024 in message <vjmeud$i62m$2@dont-email.me> Dave wrote:
Was it common for people to rely on being told the "consequences of >>>>>leaving"? Only adults had a vote so most of them would have been capable >>>>>of making their own decisions surely?
Let’s just be sure what we are saying. It is demonstrably the case that >>>>many did not understand minimally the consequences of their vote
So whilst capable of deciding, far from competent to decide.
That is highly offensive to everybody who voted in the referendum. My >>>friends/colleague were perfectly competent to make their own
decisions as was/am I.
This isn't about you, but the vast majority of voters who aren't you.
And the lesson to be learned, and pressed home whenever similar votes
are taken in future, is that we need to take far more care to educate
the public about the consequences.
I disagree. If people have the vote they must be deemed competent to
exercise it, only the communist party chooses candidates and tells
people who to vote for as far as I know.
Brexit is costing us an ongoing 4% of GDP, countered by an anticipated
0.5% gain as a result of new trade deals (CPTPP). This dwarfs the Government-level figures many times over. We are poorer as a nation
than we otherwise would be.
On 15/12/2024 in message <3hCWc5Z$wsXnFAq6@perry.uk> Roland Perry wrote:
In message <xn0oul7x31g145a005@news.individual.net>, at 11:10:46 on
Sun, 15 Dec 2024, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> remarked:
On 15/12/2024 in message <Ai8r8iPHhqXnFAtb@perry.uk> Roland Perry wrote:
In message <ls64buFq0vsU1@mid.individual.net>, at 19:24:46 on Sat,
14 Dec 2024, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
Bought something on eBay, a person to person thing. From France.
Today I learn it arrived in UK on 8th December (almost a week ago) and >>>>>>today, almost a week later, I get a ransom note from Parcelfarce that >>>>>>there's £50 VAT to pay (plus £12 for their admin).
Can it be taken that imports from the US and ROW never attracted these >>>>>heinous charges?
Irrelevant, we didn't "leave" the USA/ROW. Nor did the Leave
campaign explain the consequences of leaving when it came to matters >>>>such as personal imports.
It is highly relevant in that on leaving the EU people should have >>>expected that its members became just another country and would be >>>treated as such.
Except almost nobody did realise that!
No idea why you say that and I don't believe it for one minute.
Was it common for people to rely on being told the "consequences of >>>leaving"? Only adults had a vote so most of them would have been
capable of making their own decisions surely?
Except they were bamboozled by bent bananas, fake pictures of queues
of 'asylum seekers' and so on.
I did, as I do for elections. No party has ever honoured election >>>promises in the way that people tend to interpret them so why listen
to them? Much more sensible to consider this party generally stand
for this, that party generally stand for that surely?
I think you'll find that the number painted on a bus was far more than
just an average "election promise".
But the number was wrong, far from getting an extra £350 million per
week it turned out to be £710 million:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-13304953/remainers-brexit-ext >ra-350-nhs-ross-clark.html
I hope Farage, Boris, Gove and thousands of gullible xenophobes
who were
persuaded to vote "leave" are happy about this outcome, which if I >>>>>>could
find a bus, I'd paint on the side.
I voted against the European version of the Soviet Union, and there >>>>>can’t be too high a price on that.
Jolly good, you were perfectly entitled to that view. However, it's
A democracy and the majority was wafer-thin, with your reason hardly >>>>showing up on the radar. People voted for trumped up reasons like
bent bananas and the false promise of more money for the NHS.
Come on, we're not going there again surely? I voted against the
United States of Europe as I'm sure did many others.
Only a few percent. That doesn't make them wrong to have voted like
that, but in a democracy it's a lonely voice.
Again I don't believe it.
The banana regulations certainly did exist, you can find them here:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2011/1333#:~:text=19%20December%20201 >>>1-,laying%20down%20marketing%20standards%20for%20bananas%2C%20rules%20on >>>%20the%20verification,notifications%20in%20the%20banana%20sector
It's all about pests and pesticides, not the shape.
The argument is usually about whether they exist or not, not what they
say.
I certainly haven't read them!
On 15/12/2024 09:58, Roland Perry wrote:
I voted against the European version of the Soviet Union, and there can’t >>> be too high a price on that.
Jolly good, you were perfectly entitled to that view. However, it's A
democracy and the majority was wafer-thin, with *your* reason hardly
showing up on the radar. People voted for trumped up reasons like bent
bananas and the false promise of more money for the NHS.
Do you seriously suggest that half of the country voted because of bent bananas & the like? Whatever the pros & cons of Brexit, I still regard
the issue of giving an organisation loads of your money in the hope that
they would allow you a bit back (but only to spend as THEY deem fit) was insane.
In message <ls60vbFpfupU1@mid.individual.net>, at 18:26:44 on Sat, 14
Dec 2024, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
I don't remember the Leave campaign saying "vote for us, and pay 20%
extra on everything you buy from France".
Buy from a UK business at £300 inc VAT,
It's a secondhand item from eBay, you have to get them where you can.
or import privately from EU at £250 then pay the VAT separately.
I thought I *was* importing privately. I'm not a business.
OK the admin fee is extra, but that's always existed for e.g. USA
transactions
If there was no "VAT" to pay, they wouldn't need an admin fee!
Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> remarked:
On 14/12/2024 20:34, Mark Goodge wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
Bought something on eBay, a person to person thing. From France.
Today I learn it arrived in UK on 8th December (almost a week ago) and >>>> today, almost a week later, I get a ransom note from Parcelfarce that
there's £50 VAT to pay (plus £12 for their admin).
I hope Farage, Boris, Gove and thousands of gullible xenophobes who
were persuaded to vote "leave" are happy about this outcome, which
if I could find a bus, I'd paint on the side.
 Maybe they are happy with it. Maybe their priorities are different
to yours.
Maybe they rarely buy from foreign sellers, and see no reason to be
concerned about those who do. Maybe discouraging imports was one of
their goals. Maybe they see it as an acceptable negative consequence
of a change that will have other, greater benefits.
Perhaps the strangest thing about Brexit is that it seems to have
induced in Remainers an everlasting state of OCD, in which if
something can be "blamed" on it (rightly or wrongly), they cannot stop
themselves commenting on it. It's now well over eight years since the
Brexit vote, and I do wonder why Remainers keep scratching away at
this - to them - festering sore rather than leave it alone. It won't
help them as there will be no referendum in the near or even medium
future to change the status quo.
Who are they letting know with the endless "I told you so" comments?
Brexiteers won't agree or care, and Remainers will just nod their
heads in agreement. It's a pointless exercise, which just emphasises
its OCD condition.
It's important because we should never let popularist politicians ever
again sway a vote, without the electorate being fully appraised of the consequences.
On 15/12/2024 09:58, Roland Perry wrote:
I voted against the European version of the Soviet Union, and there
can’t be too high a price on that.
Jolly good, you were perfectly entitled to that view. However, it's ADo you seriously suggest that half of the country voted because of bent bananas & the like? Whatever the pros & cons of Brexit, I still regard
democracy and the majority was wafer-thin, with *your* reason hardly
showing up on the radar. People voted for trumped up reasons like bent
bananas and the false promise of more money for the NHS.
the issue of giving an organisation loads of your money in the hope that
they would allow you a bit back (but only to spend as THEY deem fit) was insane.
On 15/12/2024 in message <vjmeud$i62m$2@dont-email.me> Dave wrote:
Was it common for people to rely on being told the "consequences of
leaving"? Only adults had a vote so most of them would have been capable >>> of making their own decisions surely?
Let’s just be sure what we are saying. It is demonstrably the case that
many did not understand minimally the consequences of their vote
So whilst capable of deciding, far from competent to decide.
That is highly offensive to everybody who voted in the referendum. My friends/colleague were perfectly competent to make their own decisions
as was/am I.
Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 15/12/2024 in message <Ai8r8iPHhqXnFAtb@perry.uk> Roland Perry wrote:
In message <ls64buFq0vsU1@mid.individual.net>, at 19:24:46 on Sat, 14 Dec >>> 2024, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
Bought something on eBay, a person to person thing. From France.
Today I learn it arrived in UK on 8th December (almost a week ago) and >>>>> today, almost a week later, I get a ransom note from Parcelfarce that >>>>> there's £50 VAT to pay (plus £12 for their admin).
Can it be taken that imports from the US and ROW never attracted these >>>> heinous charges?
Irrelevant, we didn't "leave" the USA/ROW. Nor did the Leave campaign
explain the consequences of leaving when it came to matters such as
personal imports.
It is highly relevant in that on leaving the EU people should have
expected that its members became just another country and would be treated >> as such.
Was it common for people to rely on being told the "consequences of
leaving"? Only adults had a vote so most of them would have been capable
of making their own decisions surely?
Let’s just be sure what we are saying. It is demonstrably the case that many did not understand minimally the consequences of their vote
So whilst capable of deciding, far from competent to decide.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jun/17/de-la-rue-raise-100m-cut-jobs-gateshead-printing-site
I was caught out in a similar way to Roland for a professional grade 4k monitor on Amazon at a good price. I didn't spot that it was on Amazon
market place and the business seller was actually in Italy. I only found
that out when I got a phone call from the UK import handlers demanding payment for customs and UK VAT on top of that. I thought about declining
but after doing some sums I was only out of pocket by ~£50 and the
monitor was exactly what I wanted. The monitor is excellent but I was
not at all impressed to find that I was unwittingly importing it from
Italy.
Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> remarked:
Dave wrote:
Was it common for people to rely on being told the "consequences of
leaving"? Only adults had a vote so most of them would have been
capable of making their own decisions surely?
Let’s just be sure what we are saying. It is demonstrably the case that >>> many did not understand minimally the consequences of their vote
So whilst capable of deciding, far from competent to decide.
That is highly offensive to everybody who voted in the referendum. My
friends/colleague were perfectly competent to make their own decisions
as was/am I.
This isn't about *you*, but the vast majority of voters who aren't you.
And the lesson to be learned, and pressed home whenever similar votes
are taken in future, is that we need to take far more care to educate
the public about the consequences...
On 15/12/2024 in message <3hCWc5Z$wsXnFAq6@perry.uk> Roland Perry wrote:
In message <xn0oul7x31g145a005@news.individual.net>, at 11:10:46 on Sun,
15 Dec 2024, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> remarked:
snip
The banana regulations certainly did exist, you can find them here:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2011/1333#:~:text=19%20December%20201 >>> 1-,laying%20down%20marketing%20standards%20for%20bananas%2C%20rules%20on >>> %20the%20verification,notifications%20in%20the%20banana%20sector
It's all about pests and pesticides, not the shape.
The argument is usually about whether they exist or not, not what they
say. I certainly haven't read them!
On 15/12/2024 in message Roland Perry wrote:
In message <xn0oul918z3mg000@news.individual.net>, at 11:55:57 on Sun,
15 Dec 2024, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> remarked:
On 15/12/2024 in message <vjmeud$i62m$2@dont-email.me> Dave wrote:
Was it common for people to rely on being told the "consequences of >>>>>leaving"? Only adults had a vote so most of them would have been >>>>>capable of making their own decisions surely?
Let’s just be sure what we are saying. It is demonstrably the case
that many did not understand minimally the consequences of their
vote
So whilst capable of deciding, far from competent to decide.
That is highly offensive to everybody who voted in the referendum. My >>>friends/colleague were perfectly competent to make their own
decisions as was/am I.
This isn't about you, but the vast majority of voters who aren't you.
And the lesson to be learned, and pressed home whenever similar votes
are taken in future, is that we need to take far more care to educate
the public about the consequences.
I disagree. If people have the vote they must be deemed competent to
exercise it, only the communist party chooses candidates and tells
people who to vote for as far as I know.
On Sun, 15 Dec 2024 10:16:10 +0000, Les. Hayward wrote...
Do you seriously suggest that half of the country voted because of
bent bananas & the like? Whatever the pros & cons of Brexit, I still
regard the issue of giving an organisation loads of your money in the
hope that they would allow you a bit back (but only to spend as THEY
deem fit) was insane.
During the referendum campaign, Brexiters argued that strongly
(numbers on the side of a bus etc). Remainer politicians failed to
counter it effectively.
What we can now see is that the argument should have been in terms of
the benefits and costs to the UK economy as a whole, not just the
amounts paid and received by the Government.
Brexit is costing us an ongoing 4% of GDP, countered by an anticipated
0.5% gain as a result of new trade deals (CPTPP). This dwarfs the Government-level figures many times over. We are poorer as a nation
than we otherwise would be.
In message <xn0oulav63c4yc001@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines ><jgnewsid@outlook.com> writes
On 15/12/2024 in message <OBTYEVa5ysXnFAvL@perry.uk> Roland Perry wrote:Few of the people who were invited to vote in the Brexit referendum really >had sufficient competence to make a proper assessment of the real pros and >cons of EU membership.
In message <xn0oul918z3mg000@news.individual.net>, at 11:55:57 on Sun, 15 >>>Dec 2024, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> remarked:
On 15/12/2024 in message <vjmeud$i62m$2@dont-email.me> Dave wrote:
Was it common for people to rely on being told the "consequences of >>>>>>leaving"? Only adults had a vote so most of them would have been >>>>>>capable
of making their own decisions surely?
Let’s just be sure what we are saying. It is demonstrably the case >>>>>that
many did not understand minimally the consequences of their vote
So whilst capable of deciding, far from competent to decide.
That is highly offensive to everybody who voted in the referendum. My >>>>friends/colleague were perfectly competent to make their own decisions as >>>>was/am I.
This isn't about you, but the vast majority of voters who aren't you. And >>>the lesson to be learned, and pressed home whenever similar votes are >>>taken in future, is that we need to take far more care to educate the >>>public about the consequences.
I disagree. If people have the vote they must be deemed competent to >>exercise it, only the communist party chooses candidates and tells people >>who to vote for as far as I know.
Unfortunately, in the absence of the knowledge of - or interest in - all
the facts, it's very easy for opinions to be swayed if we're told that >'"We're getting a raw deal" - which was essentially what the Brexit >protagonists put about, and upon which a majority made their decision.
The argument is usually about whether they exist or not, not what they
say.
OK, so you'll vote on the basis of a regulation existing, and not because >there's some [non-existent] provision of that regulation you dislike? It
was Boris lie, surprise surprise.
I certainly haven't read them!
That says it all, really!
So you voted against it but you didn't quite know what you were voting >>>>>against. There seemed to be a lot of that about.
I voted against becoming part of the USE, what don't you understand >>>>about
that?
Just that it seems totally irrational; if Hungary under Orban can stay in >>>it
it can't be that restrictive of sovereignty. Not much like a political >>>dictatorship! And before long it looks like our choices will be EU or >>>Russia.
Clearly that's your opinion which is different to mine, are you suggesting >>I am not entitled to vote as I see fit?
Of course you are entitled. You asked the assembled group what they didn't >understand about it; and I answered, even though I was not the person >addressed. I'm certainly not trying to make you do anything.
Given that that misinformation came from Boris Johnson, you can be >>>>>forgiven for having got it wrong. But it's still wrong.
No, what I've seen is a denial that the legislation exists which it >>>>clearly does.
No one has denied it exists, just that it doesn't actually ban anything!
As I said what I've seen is a denial that the legislation exists, how can >>you possibly say that "No one has denied it exists"?
Until you can provide a name or a quotation from someone who has denied
that
regulations on the safety and quality of bananas exist in the EU I will >continue to assert with confidence that no one on this group has ever
denied
they exist. If you mean the assertion that any particular shape of banana
was
"banned" then, no, such a rule never existed. The very word "banned" is not >much used outside tabloid headlines.
No, what I've seen is a denial that the legislation exists which it >>>>clearly does.
No one has denied it exists, just that it doesn't actually ban anything!
As I said what I've seen is a denial that the legislation exists, how can >>you possibly say that "No one has denied it exists"?
EU legislation that bans bendy bananas does not exist. I would have
hoped it was obvious that you finding EU legislation that does not
ban bendy bananas does not disprove this statement, but here we are.
I've never seen anyone claiming that the regulations didn't exist but >>>>>nobody could ever tell me what part of it they didn't like.
Really? I've not seen anything else!
Maybe what you've seen is the incorrect information that they ban bendy >>>bananas.
Given that that misinformation came from Boris Johnson, you can be >>>forgiven for having got it wrong. But it's still wrong.
No, what I've seen is a denial that the legislation exists which it
clearly does.
Nobody denies that it exists. It just doesn't ban bendy bananas. It
says that they're not in the "Extra" class, but in Class I or Class II, >depending how bendy they are. (In the language of the regulation you
cited, depending on their "defects of shape" relative to the ideal.)
On 15/12/2024 in message <slrnvluod5.6a0.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
As I said what I've seen is a denial that the legislation exists, how can >>>you possibly say that "No one has denied it exists"?No, what I've seen is a denial that the legislation exists which it >>>>>clearly does.
No one has denied it exists, just that it doesn't actually ban anything! >>>
EU legislation that bans bendy bananas does not exist. I would have
hoped it was obvious that you finding EU legislation that does not
ban bendy bananas does not disprove this statement, but here we are.
You too are adding words to what I said. I have not mentioned bendy
bananas anywhere.
On 15/12/2024 in message <9517574328.ea8ce5d6@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 15 Dec 2024 at 19:56:56 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 15/12/2024 in message <3u9ulj1dpeaumchi63gneoo159sm5k5p28@4ax.com>
Martin Harran wrote:
So what part of "the United States of Europe" did you vote against? >>>>>The United States of Europe bit.
So you voted against it but you didn't quite know what you were voting >>>> against. There seemed to be a lot of that about.
I voted against becoming part of the USE, what don't you understand
about
that?
Just that it seems totally irrational; if Hungary under Orban can stay
in it
it can't be that restrictive of sovereignty. Not much like a political
dictatorship! And before long it looks like our choices will be EU or
Russia.
Clearly that's your opinion which is different to mine, are you
suggesting I am not entitled to vote as I see fit?
On 15/12/2024 in message <1vDAN2Iqh2XnFwa3@brattleho.plus.com> Ian Jackson wrote:
In message <xn0oulav63c4yc001@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines >><jgnewsid@outlook.com> writes
On 15/12/2024 in message <OBTYEVa5ysXnFAvL@perry.uk> Roland Perry wrote:Few of the people who were invited to vote in the Brexit referendum really >>had sufficient competence to make a proper assessment of the real pros and >>cons of EU membership.
In message <xn0oul918z3mg000@news.individual.net>, at 11:55:57 on Sun, 15 >>>>Dec 2024, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> remarked:
On 15/12/2024 in message <vjmeud$i62m$2@dont-email.me> Dave wrote:
Was it common for people to rely on being told the "consequences of >>>>>>>leaving"? Only adults had a vote so most of them would have been >>>>>>>capable
of making their own decisions surely?
Let’s just be sure what we are saying. It is demonstrably the case >>>>>>that
many did not understand minimally the consequences of their vote
So whilst capable of deciding, far from competent to decide.
That is highly offensive to everybody who voted in the referendum. My >>>>>friends/colleague were perfectly competent to make their own decisions as >>>>>was/am I.
This isn't about you, but the vast majority of voters who aren't you. And >>>>the lesson to be learned, and pressed home whenever similar votes are >>>>taken in future, is that we need to take far more care to educate the >>>>public about the consequences.
I disagree. If people have the vote they must be deemed competent to >>>exercise it, only the communist party chooses candidates and tells people >>>who to vote for as far as I know.
Unfortunately, in the absence of the knowledge of - or interest in - all >>the facts, it's very easy for opinions to be swayed if we're told that >>'"We're getting a raw deal" - which was essentially what the Brexit >>protagonists put about, and upon which a majority made their decision.
It's very sad to see the offensive remarks continue but we voted to leave,
we left, it's over.
I voted against becoming part of the USE, what don't you understand about >>>> that?
Just that it seems totally irrational; if Hungary under Orban can
stay in it it can't be that restrictive of sovereignty. Not much
like a political dictatorship! And before long it looks like our
choices will be EU or Russia.
Clearly that's your opinion which is different to mine, are you suggesting >> I am not entitled to vote as I see fit?
Of course you are entitled.
On 15 Dec 2024 at 19:57:51 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 15/12/2024 in message <MPG.41c93f0047b4421498a0b0@text.usenet.plus.net> >> Tim Jackson wrote:
The argument is usually around whether or not such regulations exist and >>>>>> clearly they do.
I've never seen anyone claiming that the regulations didn't exist but >>>>> nobody could ever tell me what part of it they didn't like.
Really? I've not seen anything else!
Maybe what you've seen is the incorrect information that they ban bendy
bananas.
Given that that misinformation came from Boris Johnson, you can be
forgiven for having got it wrong. But it's still wrong.
No, what I've seen is a denial that the legislation exists which it
clearly does.
No one has denied it exists, just that it doesn't actually *ban* anything!
Unfortunately, in the absence of the knowledge of - or interest in -
all the facts, it's very easy for opinions to be swayed if we're told
that '"We're getting a raw deal" - which was essentially what the
Brexit protagonists put about, and upon which a majority made their >>decision.
It's very sad to see the offensive remarks continue
but we voted to leave, we left, it's over.
On 15/12/2024 in message
<MPG.41c95f75543ef45b98a0b1@text.usenet.plus.net> Tim Jackson wrote:
I've never seen anyone claiming that the regulations didn't exist but >>>>>>nobody could ever tell me what part of it they didn't like.
Really? I've not seen anything else!
Maybe what you've seen is the incorrect information that they ban bendy >>>>bananas.
Given that that misinformation came from Boris Johnson, you can be >>>>forgiven for having got it wrong. But it's still wrong.
No, what I've seen is a denial that the legislation exists which it >>>clearly does.
Nobody denies that it exists. It just doesn't ban bendy bananas. It
says that they're not in the "Extra" class, but in Class I or Class II, >>depending how bendy they are. (In the language of the regulation you >>cited, depending on their "defects of shape" relative to the ideal.)
I can assure you there are people who deny that the banana regulations
exist,
this group isn't the only place such matters are discussed!
I know it doesn't ban bendy bananas, I have never claimed it does.
On Sun, 15 Dec 2024 18:16:24 +0000, Martin Harran wrote...
[quoted text muted]
I think Jethro's point is that people who say we should leave the ECHR haven't read it.
On 15 Dec 2024 at 15:41:23 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 15/12/2024 in message <3hCWc5Z$wsXnFAq6@perry.uk> Roland Perry wrote:
In message <xn0oul7x31g145a005@news.individual.net>, at 11:10:46 on Sun, >>> 15 Dec 2024, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> remarked:
snip
The banana regulations certainly did exist, you can find them here:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2011/1333#:~:text=19%20December%20201 >>>> 1-,laying%20down%20marketing%20standards%20for%20bananas%2C%20rules%20on >>>> %20the%20verification,notifications%20in%20the%20banana%20sector
It's all about pests and pesticides, not the shape.
The argument is usually about whether they exist or not, not what they
say. I certainly haven't read them!
That seems a foolish argument, because if we don't have a centralised bureaucracy to write regulations for a whole free trade area the only
result is that we have to use much more resources to write comparable regulations for ourselves. Indeed, we have a whole new regulation
scheme, although currently it largely reproduces EU regs because they
are better and cheaper than what we have had time to write for
ourselves. No one has seriously suggested that we don't need wiring regulations, building regulations, goods quality regulations etc. We
even have our own version of the CE mark, though it seems unlikely any
major manufacterers will actually read our regs; more likely if they
meet EU and US regulations they can just assume they meet ours for our relatively tiny market, and print our quality mark regardless.
In message <0104299853.de9186a4@uninhabited.net>, at 22:17:23 on Sun, 15
Dec 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
I voted against becoming part of the USE, what don't you understand >>>>>about
that?
Just that it seems totally irrational; if Hungary under Orban can stay in >>>>it it can't be that restrictive of sovereignty. Not much like a political >>>> dictatorship! And before long it looks like our choices will be EU or Russia.
Clearly that's your opinion which is different to mine, are you >>>suggesting
I am not entitled to vote as I see fit?
Of course you are entitled.
But what he's not entitled to do is claim that there were a significant >number of people who voted for the same reason as him. Rather than for >reasons of hysteria whipped up by the Leave campaign.
On 15/12/2024 in message <1vDAN2Iqh2XnFwa3@brattleho.plus.com> Ian Jackson wrote:
In message <xn0oulav63c4yc001@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines
<jgnewsid@outlook.com> writes
On 15/12/2024 in message <OBTYEVa5ysXnFAvL@perry.uk> Roland Perry wrote: >>>Few of the people who were invited to vote in the Brexit referendum really >> had sufficient competence to make a proper assessment of the real pros and >> cons of EU membership.
In message <xn0oul918z3mg000@news.individual.net>, at 11:55:57 on Sun, 15 >>>> Dec 2024, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> remarked:
On 15/12/2024 in message <vjmeud$i62m$2@dont-email.me> Dave wrote:
Was it common for people to rely on being told the "consequences of >>>>>>> leaving"? Only adults had a vote so most of them would have been >>>>>>> capable
of making their own decisions surely?
Let’s just be sure what we are saying. It is demonstrably the case >>>>>> that
many did not understand minimally the consequences of their vote
So whilst capable of deciding, far from competent to decide.
That is highly offensive to everybody who voted in the referendum. My >>>>> friends/colleague were perfectly competent to make their own decisions as >>>>> was/am I.
This isn't about you, but the vast majority of voters who aren't you. And >>>> the lesson to be learned, and pressed home whenever similar votes are
taken in future, is that we need to take far more care to educate the
public about the consequences.
I disagree. If people have the vote they must be deemed competent to
exercise it, only the communist party chooses candidates and tells people >>> who to vote for as far as I know.
Unfortunately, in the absence of the knowledge of - or interest in - all
the facts, it's very easy for opinions to be swayed if we're told that
'"We're getting a raw deal" - which was essentially what the Brexit
protagonists put about, and upon which a majority made their decision.
It's very sad to see the offensive remarks continue but we voted to leave,
we left, it's over.
On 15/12/2024 21:54, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 15/12/2024 in message <9517574328.ea8ce5d6@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 15 Dec 2024 at 19:56:56 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>>wrote:
On 15/12/2024 in message <3u9ulj1dpeaumchi63gneoo159sm5k5p28@4ax.com> >>>>Martin Harran wrote:
So what part of "the United States of Europe" did you vote against? >>>>>>The United States of Europe bit.
So you voted against it but you didn't quite know what you were voting >>>>>against. There seemed to be a lot of that about.
I voted against becoming part of the USE, what don't you understand >>>>about
that?
Just that it seems totally irrational; if Hungary under Orban can stay in >>>it
it can't be that restrictive of sovereignty. Not much like a political >>>dictatorship! And before long it looks like our choices will be EU or >>>Russia.
Clearly that's your opinion which is different to mine, are you
suggesting I am not entitled to vote as I see fit?
You are entitled to vote in the way that you see fit but when you have
been misled by populist demagogues like Johnson and Farage into voting >against your own best interests then you must accept the consequences.
On 16/12/2024 in message <TbN$iixBS8XnFAtt@perry.uk> Roland Perry wrote:
The argument is usually about whether they exist or not, not what they
say.
OK, so you'll vote on the basis of a regulation existing, and not because
there's some [non-existent] provision of that regulation you dislike? It
was Boris lie, surprise surprise.
I certainly haven't read them!
That says it all, really!
I voted based on my experience of living pre-EEC and after the USE started
to come into effect. The point I have tried to make several times is that many people have said there were no regulations re bananas and clearly
there were.
Les. Hayward <les@nospam.invalid> wrote:
On 15/12/2024 09:58, Roland Perry wrote:
I voted against the European version of the Soviet Union, and there can’t
be too high a price on that.
Jolly good, you were perfectly entitled to that view. However, it's A
democracy and the majority was wafer-thin, with *your* reason hardly
showing up on the radar. People voted for trumped up reasons like bent
bananas and the false promise of more money for the NHS.
Do you seriously suggest that half of the country voted because of bent
bananas & the like? Whatever the pros & cons of Brexit, I still regard
the issue of giving an organisation loads of your money in the hope that
they would allow you a bit back (but only to spend as THEY deem fit) was
insane.
The ‘bent banana’ non-issue is one method used by Remainers when attempting
to trivialise the reasons for supporting Brexit and by doing so undermine
the authority of the vote in favour. Other such topics have also been used, >ad nauseam since the vote.
On 2024-12-16, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 15/12/2024 in message <slrnvluod5.6a0.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> >>Jon Ribbens wrote:
No, what I've seen is a denial that the legislation exists which it >>>>>>clearly does.
No one has denied it exists, just that it doesn't actually ban >>>>>anything!
As I said what I've seen is a denial that the legislation exists, how >>>>can
you possibly say that "No one has denied it exists"?
EU legislation that bans bendy bananas does not exist. I would have
hoped it was obvious that you finding EU legislation that does not
ban bendy bananas does not disprove this statement, but here we are.
You too are adding words to what I said. I have not mentioned bendy
bananas anywhere.
My apologies for assuming that you were not arguing against a total
strawman of your own invention.
So to be clear, when you said that you have "seen ... a denial that
the legislation exists", if you are now saying that you meant any EU >legislation regarding bananas then your claim is not credible. You have
not seen anyone claiming that the EU has never passed any legislation >whatsoever regarding bananas.
On 16/12/2024 in message <slrnvlvt6d.6a0.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-12-16, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 15/12/2024 in message <slrnvluod5.6a0.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> >>>Jon Ribbens wrote:
No, what I've seen is a denial that the legislation exists which it >>>>>>>clearly does.
No one has denied it exists, just that it doesn't actually ban >>>>>>anything!
As I said what I've seen is a denial that the legislation exists, how >>>>>can
you possibly say that "No one has denied it exists"?
EU legislation that bans bendy bananas does not exist. I would have >>>>hoped it was obvious that you finding EU legislation that does not
ban bendy bananas does not disprove this statement, but here we are.
You too are adding words to what I said. I have not mentioned bendy >>>bananas anywhere.
My apologies for assuming that you were not arguing against a total >>strawman of your own invention.
So to be clear, when you said that you have "seen ... a denial that
the legislation exists", if you are now saying that you meant any EU >>legislation regarding bananas then your claim is not credible. You have
not seen anyone claiming that the EU has never passed any legislation >>whatsoever regarding bananas.
I most certainly have!
On 16 Dec 2024 at 08:40:55 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 15/12/2024 in message <1vDAN2Iqh2XnFwa3@brattleho.plus.com> Ian Jackson >> wrote:
In message <xn0oulav63c4yc001@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines
<jgnewsid@outlook.com> writes
On 15/12/2024 in message <OBTYEVa5ysXnFAvL@perry.uk> Roland Perry wrote: >>>>> In message <xn0oul918z3mg000@news.individual.net>, at 11:55:57 on Sun, 15 >>>>> Dec 2024, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> remarked:Few of the people who were invited to vote in the Brexit referendum really >>> had sufficient competence to make a proper assessment of the real pros and >>> cons of EU membership.
On 15/12/2024 in message <vjmeud$i62m$2@dont-email.me> Dave wrote: >>>>>>
Was it common for people to rely on being told the "consequences of >>>>>>>> leaving"? Only adults had a vote so most of them would have been >>>>>>>> capable
of making their own decisions surely?
Let’s just be sure what we are saying. It is demonstrably the case >>>>>>> that
many did not understand minimally the consequences of their vote >>>>>>>
So whilst capable of deciding, far from competent to decide.
That is highly offensive to everybody who voted in the referendum. My >>>>>> friends/colleague were perfectly competent to make their own decisions as
was/am I.
This isn't about you, but the vast majority of voters who aren't you. And >>>>> the lesson to be learned, and pressed home whenever similar votes are >>>>> taken in future, is that we need to take far more care to educate the >>>>> public about the consequences.
I disagree. If people have the vote they must be deemed competent to
exercise it, only the communist party chooses candidates and tells people >>>> who to vote for as far as I know.
Unfortunately, in the absence of the knowledge of - or interest in - all >>> the facts, it's very easy for opinions to be swayed if we're told that
'"We're getting a raw deal" - which was essentially what the Brexit
protagonists put about, and upon which a majority made their decision.
It's very sad to see the offensive remarks continue but we voted to leave, >> we left, it's over.
A sort of final act of sabotage by the boomer generation?
On 16 Dec 2024 at 08:44:53 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 16/12/2024 in message <TbN$iixBS8XnFAtt@perry.uk> Roland Perry wrote:
The argument is usually about whether they exist or not, not what they >>>>say.
OK, so you'll vote on the basis of a regulation existing, and not because >>>there's some [non-existent] provision of that regulation you dislike? It >>>was Boris lie, surprise surprise.
I certainly haven't read them!
That says it all, really!
I voted based on my experience of living pre-EEC and after the USE started >>to come into effect. The point I have tried to make several times is that >>many people have said there were no regulations re bananas and clearly >>there were.
Again, I challenge you to name or quote from even one person who has ever >said
that.
My apologies for assuming that you were not arguing against a total >>>strawman of your own invention.
So to be clear, when you said that you have "seen ... a denial that
the legislation exists", if you are now saying that you meant any EU >>>legislation regarding bananas then your claim is not credible. You have >>>not seen anyone claiming that the EU has never passed any legislation >>>whatsoever regarding bananas.
I most certainly have!
Are you able to provide any evidence of this?
Few of the people who were invited to vote in the Brexit referendum
really had sufficient competence to make a proper assessment of the real
pros and cons of EU membership.
Unfortunately, in the absence of the knowledge of - or interest in - all
the facts, it's very easy for opinions to be swayed if we're told that '"We're getting a raw deal" - which was essentially what the Brexit protagonists put about, and upon which a majority made their decision.
In message <0104299853.de9186a4@uninhabited.net>, at 22:17:23 on Sun, 15
Dec 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
I voted against becoming part of the USE, what don't you understand about >>>>> that?
Just that it seems totally irrational; if Hungary under Orban can
stay in it it can't be that restrictive of sovereignty. Not much
like a political dictatorship! And before long it looks like our
choices will be EU or Russia.
Clearly that's your opinion which is different to mine, are you suggesting >>> I am not entitled to vote as I see fit?
Of course you are entitled.
But what he's not entitled to do is claim that there were a significant number of people who voted for the same reason as him. Rather than for reasons of hysteria whipped up by the Leave campaign.
In message <ls8d08F6i3bU1@mid.individual.net>, Spike
<aero.spike@mail.com> writes
Les. Hayward <les@nospam.invalid> wrote:The subject of bent bananas was definitely not a 'non-issue'. It was certainly an easy-to-understand (and also easy-to-blame) reason for
On 15/12/2024 09:58, Roland Perry wrote:
I voted against the European version of the Soviet Union, and there can’t
be too high a price on that.
Jolly good, you were perfectly entitled to that view. However, it's A
democracy and the majority was wafer-thin, with *your* reason hardly
showing up on the radar. People voted for trumped up reasons like bent >>>> bananas and the false promise of more money for the NHS.
Do you seriously suggest that half of the country voted because of bent
bananas & the like? Whatever the pros & cons of Brexit, I still regard
the issue of giving an organisation loads of your money in the hope that >>> they would allow you a bit back (but only to spend as THEY deem fit) was >>> insane.
The ‘bent banana’ non-issue is one method used by Remainers when attempting
to trivialise the reasons for supporting Brexit and by doing so undermine
the authority of the vote in favour. Other such topics have also been used, >> ad nauseam since the vote.
wanting to leave. With some it appeared to be top of their list of
reasons to leave (and with a few, maybe the only reason!). For other
leavers, it was possibly simply the last straw, and that was what
finally swung their decision.
In message <xn0oumihm19g2be00b@news.individual.net>, at 08:40:55 on Mon,
16 Dec 2024, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> remarked:
Unfortunately, in the absence of the knowledge of - or interest in -
all the facts, it's very easy for opinions to be swayed if we're told
that '"We're getting a raw deal" - which was essentially what the
Brexit protagonists put about, and upon which a majority made their
decision.
It's very sad to see the offensive remarks continue
"The truth hurts".
but we voted to leave, we left, it's over.
Not yet it isn't. If nothing else, we can put a reminder in our diary
not to believe a word any of the former main Leave campaigners say.
On 2024-12-16, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
It's very sad to see the offensive remarks continue but we voted to leave, >> we left, it's over.
It is not over.
On 15/12/2024 21:54, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 15/12/2024 in message <9517574328.ea8ce5d6@uninhabited.net> Roger >>Hayter wrote:
On 15 Dec 2024 at 19:56:56 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines""Clearly that's your opinion which is different to mine, are you >>suggesting I am not entitled to vote as I see fit?
<jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 15/12/2024 in message <3u9ulj1dpeaumchi63gneoo159sm5k5p28@4ax.com>
Martin Harran wrote:
So what part of "the United States of Europe" did you vote against? >>>>>>The United States of Europe bit.
So you voted against it but you didn't quite know what you were voting >>>>> against. There seemed to be a lot of that about.
I voted against becoming part of the USE, what don't you understand >>>>about
that?
Just that it seems totally irrational; if Hungary under Orban can
stay in it
it can't be that restrictive of sovereignty. Not much like a political
dictatorship! And before long it looks like our choices will be EU
or Russia.
You are entitled to vote in the way that you see fit but when you have
been misled by populist demagogues like Johnson and Farage into voting >against your own best interests then *you* must accept the consequences.
Despite voting against Brexit I have actually benefited from it (much
to my surprise). It is amusing to watch the Brexiteers try and square
the circle as more and more UK jobs are lost as a result of exports to
the EU being hampered by all the *new* red tape and delays post Brexit.
It was all so predictable :(
Even funnier is that the EU now check UK citizens on entry but we can't
even manage to reciprocate - how is that "taking back control"?
It is really sad for all the small UK companies that can't cope with
the extra paperwork and long customs delays that our being outside the
EU entails. They effectively lost access to the entire EU market in one
go.
This time of year it is langoustine and lobster fisheries that suffer
the most from customs delays. Fresh shellfish has a *very* limited
shelf life and is a popular continental Xmas dinner. Not so much in the
UK.
I suspect many Brexit voters lacked mental capacity, if only because
they weren't sufficiently on guard against the incredible assurances
they were given by Leave-zealots.
Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
In message <ls8d08F6i3bU1@mid.individual.net>, Spike
<aero.spike@mail.com> writes
Les. Hayward <les@nospam.invalid> wrote:The subject of bent bananas was definitely not a 'non-issue'. It was
On 15/12/2024 09:58, Roland Perry wrote:
I voted against the European version of the Soviet Union, and there can’t
be too high a price on that.
Jolly good, you were perfectly entitled to that view. However, it's A >>>>> democracy and the majority was wafer-thin, with *your* reason hardly >>>>> showing up on the radar. People voted for trumped up reasons like bent >>>>> bananas and the false promise of more money for the NHS.
Do you seriously suggest that half of the country voted because of bent >>>> bananas & the like? Whatever the pros & cons of Brexit, I still regard >>>> the issue of giving an organisation loads of your money in the hope that >>>> they would allow you a bit back (but only to spend as THEY deem fit) was >>>> insane.
The ‘bent banana’ non-issue is one method used by Remainers when attempting
to trivialise the reasons for supporting Brexit and by doing so undermine >>> the authority of the vote in favour. Other such topics have also been used, >>> ad nauseam since the vote.
certainly an easy-to-understand (and also easy-to-blame) reason for
wanting to leave. With some it appeared to be top of their list of
reasons to leave (and with a few, maybe the only reason!). For other
leavers, it was possibly simply the last straw, and that was what
finally swung their decision.
Some seem to have forgotten the wine lakes (later turned into industrial alcohol) and butter mountains (sold at a loss to third world countries),
but it’s nice to know where your CAP contributions were going… …and it wasn’t to benefit you but to maintain a failing ideology. And you’re happy
with that?
Dedicated Brexiteers seem very reluctant to accept responsibility the consequences. Some even deny that there ARE any adverse consequences of Brexit. More often, they claim that the obvious problems are because
we've never really achieved Brexit, and that this is all because of
concerted opposition from those who are determined to thwart it
(although I have no idea who these people are and, if they do exist,
what blocking powers they employ).
Is it possible that we have deliberately been tardy in setting up
tighter controls because we hope that we will soon come to some form of
'no checking' agreement with the EU?
Ah, but ...... the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for
Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), came into force for the United
Kingdom (UK) on 15 December 2024, and will be the first free trade
agreement between the UK and Malaysia. The small businesses should look
for new markets there (some hope!).
Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
[…]
Few of the people who were invited to vote in the Brexit referendum
really had sufficient competence to make a proper assessment of the real
pros and cons of EU membership.
It must come very hard to Remainers that we were in the EEC/EC/EU for 43 >years, and having that knowledge and experience of its benefits -such as
they were - the voters rejected further membership.
So where can we find the “…proper assessment of the real pros and cons of >EU membership†of which you speak?
Unfortunately, in the absence of the knowledge of - or interest in - all
the facts, it's very easy for opinions to be swayed if we're told that
'"We're getting a raw deal" - which was essentially what the Brexit
protagonists put about, and upon which a majority made their decision.
After 43 years of membership, it’s obvious that the thinking voter rejected >belonging any further, while the Remainers voted on a knee-jerk.
On 15 Dec 2024 19:56:56 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 15/12/2024 in message <3u9ulj1dpeaumchi63gneoo159sm5k5p28@4ax.com> >>Martin Harran wrote:
So what part of "the United States of Europe" did you vote against?
The United States of Europe bit.
So you voted against it but you didn't quite know what you were voting >>>against. There seemed to be a lot of that about.
I voted against becoming part of the USE, what don't you understand about >>that?
I don't understand why you voted against what you regard as the
"United States of Europe" and you seem somewhat reluctant to help me >understand why you did so.
On Sun, 15 Dec 2024 19:16:47 +0000, Tim Jackson wrote:
I think Jethro's point is that people who say we should leave the ECHR haven't read it.
And therefore can *never* articulate what rights they want to give up.
On 16 Dec 2024 08:53:42 GMT, Jeff Gaines wrote...
I know it doesn't ban bendy bananas, I have never claimed it does.
Quote (Roland):
"People voted for trumped up reasons like bent bananas..."
Jeff in reply:
"The banana regulations certainly did exist, you can find them here:..."
Message-ID: <xn0oul7x31g145a005@news.individual.net> 15/12/24 11:10
So although you might not have explicitly said "bent bananas" yourself,
that is what you were replying to.
On 16/12/2024 in message <frd0mjh46gghiih88g1ssl4ep2kj6j5hit@4ax.com>
Martin Harran wrote:
On 15 Dec 2024 19:56:56 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 15/12/2024 in message <3u9ulj1dpeaumchi63gneoo159sm5k5p28@4ax.com>
Martin Harran wrote:
So what part of "the United States of Europe" did you vote against? >>>>>The United States of Europe bit.
So you voted against it but you didn't quite know what you were voting >>>> against. There seemed to be a lot of that about.
I voted against becoming part of the USE, what don't you understand about >>> that?
I don't understand why you voted against what you regard as the
"United States of Europe" and you seem somewhat reluctant to help me
understand why you did so.
I am struggling to understand why on earth I should. It was a secret
ballot (like elections) which is something people of the UK fought for for many years, are you trying to take that away from me?
In message <xn0oulav63c4yc001@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> writes
On 15/12/2024 in message <OBTYEVa5ysXnFAvL@perry.uk> Roland Perry wrote:Few of the people who were invited to vote in the Brexit referendum
In message <xn0oul918z3mg000@news.individual.net>, at 11:55:57 on
Sun, 15 Dec 2024, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> remarked:
On 15/12/2024 in message <vjmeud$i62m$2@dont-email.me> Dave wrote:
Was it common for people to rely on being told the "consequences of >>>>>> leaving"? Only adults had a vote so most of them would have been
capable
of making their own decisions surely?
Let’s just be sure what we are saying. It is demonstrably the case >>>>> that
many did not understand minimally the consequences of their vote
So whilst capable of deciding, far from competent to decide.
That is highly offensive to everybody who voted in the referendum.
My friends/colleague were perfectly competent to make their own
decisions as was/am I.
This isn't about you, but the vast majority of voters who aren't you.
And the lesson to be learned, and pressed home whenever similar votes
are taken in future, is that we need to take far more care to educate
the public about the consequences.
I disagree. If people have the vote they must be deemed competent to
exercise it, only the communist party chooses candidates and tells
people who to vote for as far as I know.
really had sufficient competence to make a proper assessment of the real
pros and cons of EU membership.
In message <lsafnuFgo57U1@mid.individual.net>, Spike
<aero.spike@mail.com> writes
Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
[…]
Few of the people who were invited to vote in the Brexit referendum
really had sufficient competence to make a proper assessment of the real >>> pros and cons of EU membership.
It must come very hard to Remainers that we were in the EEC/EC/EU for 43
years, and having that knowledge and experience of its benefits -such as
they were - the voters rejected further membership.
Outside their own personal experiences, I doubt if many voters had much significant knowledge of the complicated pros and cons of membership.
On 15/12/2024 23:38, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message <xn0oulav63c4yc001@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines >><jgnewsid@outlook.com> writes
On 15/12/2024 in message <OBTYEVa5ysXnFAvL@perry.uk> Roland Perry wrote: >>>> In message <xn0oul918z3mg000@news.individual.net>, at 11:55:57 onFew of the people who were invited to vote in the Brexit referendum
Sun, 15 Dec 2024, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> remarked:
On 15/12/2024 in message <vjmeud$i62m$2@dont-email.me> Dave wrote:
Was it common for people to rely on being told the "consequences of >>>>>>> leaving"? Only adults had a vote so most of them would have been >>>>>>>capable
of making their own decisions surely?
Let’s just be sure what we are saying. It is demonstrably the >>>>>>case that
many did not understand minimally the consequences of their vote
So whilst capable of deciding, far from competent to decide.
That is highly offensive to everybody who voted in the referendum. >>>>>My friends/colleague were perfectly competent to make their own >>>>>decisions as was/am I.
This isn't about you, but the vast majority of voters who aren't
you. And the lesson to be learned, and pressed home whenever
similar votes are taken in future, is that we need to take far more >>>>care to educate the public about the consequences.
I disagree. If people have the vote they must be deemed competent to >>>exercise it, only the communist party chooses candidates and tells
people who to vote for as far as I know.
really had sufficient competence to make a proper assessment of the
real pros and cons of EU membership.
So who would have been competent to extract us from Europe?
On 16/12/2024 14:22, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message <lsafnuFgo57U1@mid.individual.net>, Spike
<aero.spike@mail.com> writes
Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:Outside their own personal experiences, I doubt if many voters had
[…]
Few of the people who were invited to vote in the Brexit referendum
really had sufficient competence to make a proper assessment of the real >>>> pros and cons of EU membership.
It must come very hard to Remainers that we were in the EEC/EC/EU for 43 >>> years, and having that knowledge and experience of its benefits -such as >>> they were - the voters rejected further membership.
much significant knowledge of the complicated pros and cons of
membership.
"Complication" is reason enough to leave.
Who wants to belong to a club whose "complications" are incomprehensible?
On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 09:52:36 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 16/12/2024 09:38, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-12-16, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
It's very sad to see the offensive remarks continue but we voted to leave, >>>> we left, it's over.
It is not over.
What's going to happen then, and when, in your view?
My projection is that x years from now, some political party will
finally grow the balls to say "We did the wrong thing, let's undo it."
The problem will be that when they ask to get back in, the EU will
tell them to fuck off.
On 16 Dec 2024 at 11:17:27 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Some seem to have forgotten the wine lakes (later turned into industrial
alcohol) and butter mountains (sold at a loss to third world countries),
but it’s nice to know where your CAP contributions were going… …and it
wasn’t to benefit you but to maintain a failing ideology. And you’re happy
with that?
It was to support failing farmers, not an ideology! And now we're responsible
it's suddenly a good idea to subsidise farmers again!
On 16 Dec 2024 at 22:11:05 GMT, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 09:52:36 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 16/12/2024 09:38, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-12-16, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
It's very sad to see the offensive remarks continue but we voted to leave,
we left, it's over.
It is not over.
What's going to happen then, and when, in your view?
My projection is that x years from now, some political party will
finally grow the balls to say "We did the wrong thing, let's undo it."
The problem will be that when they ask to get back in, the EU will
tell them to fuck off.
I really doubt if the EU will oppose us rejoining. It is so obviously in our and their interests for us to be a member. Why do you think Putin spent so much money and effort on buying politicians to support Brexit?
There will only be problems if we overestimate our value and demand better terms than before we left.
On 14/12/2024 17:14, Roland Perry wrote:
Bought something on eBay, a person to person thing. From France.
Today I learn it arrived in UK on 8th December (almost a week ago) and
today, almost a week later, I get a ransom note from Parcelfarce that
there's £50 VAT to pay (plus £12 for their admin).
I hope Farage, Boris, Gove and thousands of gullible xenophobes who
were persuaded to vote "leave" are happy about this outcome, which if I
could find a bus, I'd paint on the side.
About 70% of the citizens of Luton voted for Brexit, to my amazement.
The result, entirely predictable and which I did indeed predict in
advance, was that the Vauxhall Factory would close, though it wasn't
quite instant. The plant manager says that Brexit was the principal
factor.
In message <lsafnuFgo57U1@mid.individual.net>, Spike
<aero.spike@mail.com> writes
Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
[…]
Few of the people who were invited to vote in the Brexit referendum
really had sufficient competence to make a proper assessment of the real >>> pros and cons of EU membership.
It must come very hard to Remainers that we were in the EEC/EC/EU for 43
years, and having that knowledge and experience of its benefits -such as
they were - the voters rejected further membership.
Outside their own personal experiences, I doubt if many voters had much significant knowledge of the complicated pros and cons of membership. Instead, any decision they made would have been largely influenced by
what they were told by the campaigners.
I have to admit that my vote to remain was largely based on how
membership of the Customs Union and Single Market had made life so much easier for me and my works colleagues when we had to travel to Europe to provide engineering support and associated business.
So where can we find the “…proper assessment of the real pros and cons of
EU membership†of which you speak?
Concise and comprehensive comparisons were pretty rare. Even if they had
been readily available and understandable, for those who were
more-readily influenced by emotive propaganda, I doubt whether many
would have got past the few lines before becoming bored out of their
minds. After all, the last thing we tend to do is to read the official instructions!
After 43 years of membership, it’s obvious that the thinking voter rejected
belonging any further, while the Remainers voted on a knee-jerk.
Before 2015, when Cameron started to think about how to permanently
quell the anti-EU rebels in then Conservative Party, I don't recall
there being much unrest among the UK citizenry in general.
On 13:02 15 Dec 2024, Jeff Gaines said:
On 15/12/2024 in message Roland Perry wrote:
In message <xn0oul918z3mg000@news.individual.net>, at 11:55:57 on Sun,
15 Dec 2024, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> remarked:
On 15/12/2024 in message <vjmeud$i62m$2@dont-email.me> Dave wrote:
Was it common for people to rely on being told the "consequences of >>>>>> leaving"? Only adults had a vote so most of them would have been
capable of making their own decisions surely?
Let’s just be sure what we are saying. It is demonstrably the case >>>>> that many did not understand minimally the consequences of their
vote
So whilst capable of deciding, far from competent to decide.
That is highly offensive to everybody who voted in the referendum. My
friends/colleague were perfectly competent to make their own
decisions as was/am I.
This isn't about you, but the vast majority of voters who aren't you.
And the lesson to be learned, and pressed home whenever similar votes
are taken in future, is that we need to take far more care to educate
the public about the consequences.
I disagree. If people have the vote they must be deemed competent to
exercise it, only the communist party chooses candidates and tells
people who to vote for as far as I know.
The Electoral Commission advises that a lack of mental capacity is not a legal incapacity to vote.
The Electoral Administration Act 2006 states in section 73:
"Abolition of common law incapacity: mental state. (1) Any rule of
the common law which provides that a person is subject to a legal
incapacity to vote by reason of his mental state is abolished."
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/22/section/73
I suspect many Brexit voters lacked mental capacity, if only because
they weren't sufficiently on guard against the incredible assurances
they were given by Leave-zealots.
On 15/12/2024 21:54, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Roger Hayter wrote:
Just that it seems totally irrational; if Hungary under Orban can
stay in it it can't be that restrictive of sovereignty. Not much like
a political dictatorship! And before long it looks like our choices
will be EU or Russia.
Clearly that's your opinion which is different to mine, are you
suggesting I am not entitled to vote as I see fit?
You are entitled to vote in the way that you see fit but when you have
been misled by populist demagogues like Johnson and Farage into voting against your own best interests then *you* must accept the consequences.
Bought something on eBay, a person to person thing. From France.
Today I learn it arrived in UK on 8th December (almost a week ago) and
today, almost a week later, I get a ransom note from Parcelfarce that
there's £50 VAT to pay (plus £12 for their admin).
I hope Farage, Boris, Gove and thousands of gullible xenophobes who were persuaded to vote "leave" are happy about this outcome, which if I could
find a bus, I'd paint on the side.
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
I voted against becoming part of the USE, what don't you understand about
that?
I don't understand *why* you voted against what you regard as the
"United States of Europe" and you seem somewhat reluctant to help me understand why you did so.
In message <0104299853.de9186a4@uninhabited.net>, at 22:17:23 on Sun, 15
Dec 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
I voted against becoming part of the USE, what don't you understand
about
that?
Just that it seems totally irrational; if Hungary under Orban can
stay in it it can't be that restrictive of sovereignty. Not much
like a political dictatorship! And before long it looks like our
choices will be EU or Russia.
Clearly that's your opinion which is different to mine, are you
suggesting
I am not entitled to vote as I see fit?
Of course you are entitled.
But what he's not entitled to do is claim that there were a significant number of people who voted for the same reason as him. Rather than for reasons of hysteria whipped up by the Leave campaign.
On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 09:52:36 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 16/12/2024 09:38, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-12-16, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
It's very sad to see the offensive remarks continue but we voted to leave, >>>> we left, it's over.
It is not over.
What's going to happen then, and when, in your view?
My projection is that x years from now, some political party will
finally grow the balls to say "We did the wrong thing, let's undo it."
On 16 Dec 2024 22:30:12 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 16 Dec 2024 at 22:11:05 GMT, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 09:52:36 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 16/12/2024 09:38, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-12-16, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
It's very sad to see the offensive remarks continue but we voted to leave,
we left, it's over.
It is not over.
What's going to happen then, and when, in your view?
My projection is that x years from now, some political party will
finally grow the balls to say "We did the wrong thing, let's undo it."
The problem will be that when they ask to get back in, the EU will
tell them to fuck off.
I really doubt if the EU will oppose us rejoining. It is so obviously in our >> and their interests for us to be a member. Why do you think Putin spent so >> much money and effort on buying politicians to support Brexit?
I don't se the EU suffering much pain from the departure of the UK;
the temporary inconvenience has been overcome.
There will only be problems if we overestimate our value and demand better >> terms than before we left.
But that's what Brits always do, it's built into the DNA.
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 16 Dec 2024 at 11:17:27 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Some seem to have forgotten the wine lakes (later turned into industrial >>> alcohol) and butter mountains (sold at a loss to third world countries), >>> but it’s nice to know where your CAP contributions were going… >>>…and it
wasn’t to benefit you but to maintain a failing ideology. And
you’re happy
with that?
It was to support failing farmers, not an ideology! And now we're >>responsible
it's suddenly a good idea to subsidise farmers again!
The CAP, which cost us £billions, was intended to support inefficient
French farmers, not by a government subsidy, but a community subsidy! A >technique right out of the Marxist-Leninist Soviet Union handbook!
Now we’re in the position of UK farmers being subsidised by the UK >government.
In message <lsb30rFl0mqU1@mid.individual.net>, Spike
<aero.spike@mail.com> writes
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:Do you have any estimates as to whether we will now be paying more - or
On 16 Dec 2024 at 11:17:27 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Some seem to have forgotten the wine lakes (later turned into industrial >>>> alcohol) and butter mountains (sold at a loss to third world countries), >>>> but it’s nice to know where your CAP contributions were going…
…and it
wasn’t to benefit you but to maintain a failing ideology. And
you’re happy
with that?
It was to support failing farmers, not an ideology! And now we're
responsible
it's suddenly a good idea to subsidise farmers again!
The CAP, which cost us £billions, was intended to support inefficient
French farmers, not by a government subsidy, but a community subsidy! A
technique right out of the Marxist-Leninist Soviet Union handbook!
Now we’re in the position of UK farmers being subsidised by the UK
government.
less - than we did before?
Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
In message <lsafnuFgo57U1@mid.individual.net>, Spike
<aero.spike@mail.com> writes
Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
[…]
Few of the people who were invited to vote in the Brexit referendum
really had sufficient competence to make a proper assessment of the real >>>> pros and cons of EU membership.
It must come very hard to Remainers that we were in the EEC/EC/EU for 43 >>> years, and having that knowledge and experience of its benefits -such as >>> they were - the voters rejected further membership.
Outside their own personal experiences, I doubt if many voters had much
significant knowledge of the complicated pros and cons of membership.
Instead, any decision they made would have been largely influenced by
what they were told by the campaigners.
If that is the case, why did Remainers vote as they did, them not having,
to quote your own words, “…much significant knowledge of the complicated >pros and cons of membership†but they trusted ‘the campaigners’ >nonetheless?
I have to admit that my vote to remain was largely based on how
membership of the Customs Union and Single Market had made life so much
easier for me and my works colleagues when we had to travel to Europe to
provide engineering support and associated business.
So where can we find the “…proper assessment of the real pros
and cons of
EU membership†of which you speak?
Concise and comprehensive comparisons were pretty rare. Even if they had
been readily available and understandable, for those who were
more-readily influenced by emotive propaganda, I doubt whether many
would have got past the few lines before becoming bored out of their
minds. After all, the last thing we tend to do is to read the official
instructions!
Ah, so on the one hand you are demanding voters better inform themselves by >reading a “…proper assessment of the real pros and cons of EU >membershipâ€,
which you now claim that would bore them to tears.
So, having now shot yourself in the foot by claiming these things, just how >are voters supposed to have informed themselves to the standard you set
them?
Do tell…
After 43 years of membership, it’s obvious that the thinking voter >>>rejected
belonging any further, while the Remainers voted on a knee-jerk.
Before 2015, when Cameron started to think about how to permanently
quell the anti-EU rebels in then Conservative Party, I don't recall
there being much unrest among the UK citizenry in general.
Perhaps they had all died of boredom from trying to read The Gospel
According to the EU?
In message <lsb3htFl37kU1@mid.individual.net>, Spike
<aero.spike@mail.com> writes
Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
In message <lsafnuFgo57U1@mid.individual.net>, Spike
<aero.spike@mail.com> writes
Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
[…]
Few of the people who were invited to vote in the Brexit referendum
really had sufficient competence to make a proper assessment of the real >>>>> pros and cons of EU membership.
It must come very hard to Remainers that we were in the EEC/EC/EU for 43 >>>> years, and having that knowledge and experience of its benefits -such as >>>> they were - the voters rejected further membership.
Outside their own personal experiences, I doubt if many voters had much
significant knowledge of the complicated pros and cons of membership.
Instead, any decision they made would have been largely influenced by
what they were told by the campaigners.
If that is the case, why did Remainers vote as they did, them not having,
to quote your own words, “…much significant knowledge of the complicated >> pros and cons of membership†but they trusted ‘the campaigners’
nonetheless?
I guess that Remainers tended to vote for what could be seen to exist
(ie the status quo, warts and all). Leavers were promised that leaving
would allow a supposedly independent UK government, freed from the
hindrance and restraints of the EU, to make things better for us. What's
not to like?
I have to admit that my vote to remain was largely based on how
membership of the Customs Union and Single Market had made life so much
easier for me and my works colleagues when we had to travel to Europe to >>> provide engineering support and associated business.
So where can we find the “…proper assessment of the real pros
and cons of
EU membership†of which you speak?
Concise and comprehensive comparisons were pretty rare. Even if they had >>> been readily available and understandable, for those who were
more-readily influenced by emotive propaganda, I doubt whether many
would have got past the few lines before becoming bored out of their
minds. After all, the last thing we tend to do is to read the official
instructions!
Ah, so on the one hand you are demanding voters better inform themselves by >> reading a “…proper assessment of the real pros and cons of EU
membershipâ€,
which you now claim that would bore them to tears.
So, having now shot yourself in the foot by claiming these things, just how >> are voters supposed to have informed themselves to the standard you set
them?
Do tell…
I'm not 'demanding' anything. I'm just suggesting that few voters would
have made any detailed comparison of the essentially abstract (to most
of us) rules of the EU.
The number of us who would have had personal and
direct experiences of the pros and cons would have been limited. I know
why I favour membership, but it doesn't mean that I think that
everything about it is great.
After 43 years of membership, it’s obvious that the thinking voter
rejected
belonging any further, while the Remainers voted on a knee-jerk.
Before 2015, when Cameron started to think about how to permanently
quell the anti-EU rebels in then Conservative Party, I don't recall
there being much unrest among the UK citizenry in general.
Perhaps they had all died of boredom from trying to read The Gospel
According to the EU?
I'm sure that The Gospel According to the EU is far too complicated and boring for most of us to understand - but that doesn't necessarily mean
it is wrong.
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 08:58:06 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 16/12/2024 22:11, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 09:52:36 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 16/12/2024 09:38, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-12-16, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
It's very sad to see the offensive remarks continue but we voted to leave,
we left, it's over.
It is not over.
What's going to happen then, and when, in your view?
My projection is that x years from now, some political party will
finally grow the balls to say "We did the wrong thing, let's undo it."
How many do you think x will represent? Is that more or less than 'a
generation' (ie 32 years based on the average age of first time mothers
in the UK) from the referendum?
Crystal ball stuff but I'd guess not this government, possibly the
next, likely by one following so I'd say between 5 and 15 years.
Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
[quoted text muted]
[quoted text muted]
If that is the case, why did Remainers vote as they did, them not
having, to quote your own words, “…much significant knowledge of the complicated pros and cons of membership†but they trusted ‘the campaigners’ nonetheless?
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 14:39:21 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 17/12/2024 12:44, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 08:58:06 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 16/12/2024 22:11, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 09:52:36 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 16/12/2024 09:38, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-12-16, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
It's very sad to see the offensive remarks continue but we voted >>>>>>>> to leave,
we left, it's over.
It is not over.
What's going to happen then, and when, in your view?
My projection is that x years from now, some political party will
finally grow the balls to say "We did the wrong thing, let's undo
it."
How many do you think x will represent? Is that more or less than 'a
generation' (ie 32 years based on the average age of first time
mothers in the UK) from the referendum?
Crystal ball stuff but I'd guess not this government, possibly the
next, likely by one following so I'd say between 5 and 15 years.
I can't personally see Reform doing it. Or any government reliant on
its support.
Definitely not Reform and Conservatives unlikely if they still even
exist. Perhaps a Labour/Liberal Democrats coalition which i think is the nmost likely alternative to a Reform led governmwnt.
.
I don't actually see any government doing it without holding a
referendum anyway. And that, as we know from the last one, may be
somewhat unpredictable even with government support. If it requires a >>supermajority as some have proposed, that in fact makes any reversal of
the status quo very unlikely.
In addition to that, a requirement to abandon the pound and adopt the
Euro, and to open our borders without question to anyone in the EU who >>wants to come in, which will be required,
Undoubtedly so. Anyone who thinks the UK could change its mind and waltz
back in on the same terms as before is in for a rude awakening.
might just prove a little unpopular.
It depends how unpopular the effects of Brexit turn out over the next
few years.
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 14:39:21 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
In addition to that, a requirement to abandon the pound and adopt the
Euro, and to open our borders without question to anyone in the EU who
wants to come in, which will be required,
Undoubtedly so. Anyone who thinks the UK could change its mind and
waltz back in on the same terms as before is in for a rude awakening.
It depends how unpopular the effects of Brexit turn out over the next few years.
In message <vjpqou$182du$2@dont-email.me>, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> writes
On 16/12/2024 14:22, Ian Jackson wrote:Surely you don't expect all the rules for a club catering for 500M souls
In message <lsafnuFgo57U1@mid.individual.net>, Spike
<aero.spike@mail.com> writes
Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:Â Outside their own personal experiences, I doubt if many voters had
[…]
Few of the people who were invited to vote in the Brexit referendum
really had sufficient competence to make a proper assessment of the
real
pros and cons of EU membership.
It must come very hard to Remainers that we were in the EEC/EC/EU
for 43
years, and having that knowledge and experience of its benefits -
such as
they were - the voters rejected further membership.
much significant knowledge of the complicated pros and cons of
membership.
"Complication" is reason enough to leave.
Who wants to belong to a club whose "complications" are incomprehensible?
to be simple?
Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
In message <lsb30rFl0mqU1@mid.individual.net>, Spike
<aero.spike@mail.com> writes
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:Do you have any estimates as to whether we will now be paying more - or
On 16 Dec 2024 at 11:17:27 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Some seem to have forgotten the wine lakes (later turned into industrial >>>>> alcohol) and butter mountains (sold at a loss to third world countries), >>>>> but it’s nice to know where your CAP contributions were going…
…and it
wasn’t to benefit you but to maintain a failing ideology. And
you’re happy
with that?
It was to support failing farmers, not an ideology! And now we're
responsible
it's suddenly a good idea to subsidise farmers again!
The CAP, which cost us £billions, was intended to support inefficient
French farmers, not by a government subsidy, but a community subsidy! A
technique right out of the Marxist-Leninist Soviet Union handbook!
Now we’re in the position of UK farmers being subsidised by the UK
government.
less - than we did before?
Why does it matter whether we will be paying more or less that we were
under the CAP? The money’s staying in the UK rather than being squandered >on French farmers producing stuff no-one wants.
Given the slide in the current fortunes of France and Germany, we’re well >out of it.
If it gets any worse, there might not be any queues at EU ports of >holidaymakers getting their papers processed for you to complain about!
On 16/12/2024 20:48, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message <vjpqou$182du$2@dont-email.me>, Max Demian
<max_demian@bigfoot.com> writes
On 16/12/2024 14:22, Ian Jackson wrote:Surely you don't expect all the rules for a club catering for 500M souls
In message <lsafnuFgo57U1@mid.individual.net>, Spike
<aero.spike@mail.com> writes
Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:Outside their own personal experiences, I doubt if many voters had
[…]
Few of the people who were invited to vote in the Brexit referendum >>>>>> really had sufficient competence to make a proper assessment of the >>>>>> real
pros and cons of EU membership.
It must come very hard to Remainers that we were in the EEC/EC/EU
for 43
years, and having that knowledge and experience of its benefits -
such as
they were - the voters rejected further membership.
much significant knowledge of the complicated pros and cons of
membership.
"Complication" is reason enough to leave.
Who wants to belong to a club whose "complications" are incomprehensible? >>>
to be simple?
No, that's why such an enormous conglomerations is impractical.
On 17 Dec 2024 17:59:25 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 17 Dec 2024 at 17:45:33 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote: >>
On 16/12/2024 20:48, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message <vjpqou$182du$2@dont-email.me>, Max Demian
<max_demian@bigfoot.com> writes
On 16/12/2024 14:22, Ian Jackson wrote:Surely you don't expect all the rules for a club catering for 500M souls >>>> to be simple?
In message <lsafnuFgo57U1@mid.individual.net>, Spike
<aero.spike@mail.com> writes
Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:Outside their own personal experiences, I doubt if many voters had >>>>>> much significant knowledge of the complicated pros and cons of
[…]
Few of the people who were invited to vote in the Brexit referendum >>>>>>>> really had sufficient competence to make a proper assessment of the >>>>>>>> real
pros and cons of EU membership.
It must come very hard to Remainers that we were in the EEC/EC/EU >>>>>>> for 43
years, and having that knowledge and experience of its benefits - >>>>>>> such as
they were - the voters rejected further membership.
membership.
"Complication" is reason enough to leave.
Who wants to belong to a club whose "complications" are incomprehensible? >>>>>
No, that's why such an enormous conglomerations is impractical.
And, of course, why the existence of the USA is completely impossible.
Maybe not a great eaxample nowadays :)
On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 16:41:33 +0000, Spike wrote:
Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
[quoted text muted]
[quoted text muted]
If that is the case, why did Remainers vote as they did, them not
having, to quote your own words, “…much significant knowledge of the
complicated pros and cons of membership†but they trusted ‘the
campaigners’ nonetheless?
Deciding to stay on a path, and deciding to vary from it are not
equivalent decisions. Ask anyone standing on the deck of a ship "Shall we stay here, or jump overboard".
The vote to leave was not a vote not to remain.
I am sure there is a more elegant way of expressing this.
In message <lsden9F2162U1@mid.individual.net>, Spike
<aero.spike@mail.com> writes
Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
In message <lsb30rFl0mqU1@mid.individual.net>, Spike
<aero.spike@mail.com> writes
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:Do you have any estimates as to whether we will now be paying more - or
On 16 Dec 2024 at 11:17:27 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Some seem to have forgotten the wine lakes (later turned into industrial >>>>>> alcohol) and butter mountains (sold at a loss to third world countries), >>>>>> but it’s nice to know where your CAP contributions were going… >>>>>> …and it
wasn’t to benefit you but to maintain a failing ideology. And
you’re happy
with that?
It was to support failing farmers, not an ideology! And now we're
responsible
it's suddenly a good idea to subsidise farmers again!
The CAP, which cost us £billions, was intended to support inefficient >>>> French farmers, not by a government subsidy, but a community subsidy! A >>>> technique right out of the Marxist-Leninist Soviet Union handbook!
Now we’re in the position of UK farmers being subsidised by the UK
government.
less - than we did before?
Why does it matter whether we will be paying more or less that we were
under the CAP? The money’s staying in the UK rather than being squandered >> on French farmers producing stuff no-one wants.
British subsidies for British farmers? Presumably our 'loads of money'
EU subs used to go into an EU slush-fund pool. What does it matter
whether our farmers received (say) £100M via an EU CAP subsidy, or we
pay them (say) £100M directly.
Given the slide in the current fortunes of France and Germany, we’re well >> out of it.
If it gets any worse, there might not be any queues at EU ports of
holidaymakers getting their papers processed for you to complain about!
Fortunately, I've never been abroad since the imposition of the new procedures required for non-EU travellers (which I believe the UK had a
hand in formulating when we were still a member).
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 16:41:33 +0000, Spike wrote:
Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
[quoted text muted]
[quoted text muted]
If that is the case, why did Remainers vote as they did, them not
having, to quote your own words, “…much significant knowledge of the >>> complicated pros and cons of membership†but they trusted ‘the
campaigners’ nonetheless?
Deciding to stay on a path, and deciding to vary from it are not
equivalent decisions. Ask anyone standing on the deck of a ship "Shall
we stay here, or jump overboard".
The vote to leave was not a vote not to remain.
I am sure there is a more elegant way of expressing this.
But Ian’s point was that the voters hadn’t bothered to inform themselves.
And that includes Remainers.
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 16:41:33 +0000, Spike wrote:
Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
[quoted text muted]
[quoted text muted]
If that is the case, why did Remainers vote as they did, them not
having, to quote your own words, “…much significant knowledge of the >>> complicated pros and cons of membership†but they trusted ‘the
campaigners’ nonetheless?
Deciding to stay on a path, and deciding to vary from it are not
equivalent decisions. Ask anyone standing on the deck of a ship "Shall we
stay here, or jump overboard".
The vote to leave was not a vote not to remain.
I am sure there is a more elegant way of expressing this.
But Ian’s point was that the voters hadn’t bothered to inform themselves.
And that includes Remainers.
Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
In message <lsb3htFl37kU1@mid.individual.net>, Spike
<aero.spike@mail.com> writes
Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
In message <lsafnuFgo57U1@mid.individual.net>, Spike
<aero.spike@mail.com> writes
Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
[…]
Few of the people who were invited to vote in the Brexit referendum >>>>>> really had sufficient competence to make a proper assessment of the real >>>>>> pros and cons of EU membership.
It must come very hard to Remainers that we were in the EEC/EC/EU for 43 >>>>> years, and having that knowledge and experience of its benefits -such as >>>>> they were - the voters rejected further membership.
Outside their own personal experiences, I doubt if many voters had much >>>> significant knowledge of the complicated pros and cons of membership.
Instead, any decision they made would have been largely influenced by
what they were told by the campaigners.
If that is the case, why did Remainers vote as they did, them not having, >>> to quote your own words, “…much significant knowledge of the complicated
pros and cons of membership†but they trusted ‘the campaigners’
nonetheless?
I guess that Remainers tended to vote for what could be seen to exist
(ie the status quo, warts and all). Leavers were promised that leaving
would allow a supposedly independent UK government, freed from the
hindrance and restraints of the EU, to make things better for us. What's
not to like?
You seem to be saying that Remainers had some form of special insight, >because ‘few of the people who were invited to vote in the Brexit >referendum really had sufficient competence to make a proper assessment of >the real pros and cons of EU membership’ - (your words).
I have to admit that my vote to remain was largely based on how
membership of the Customs Union and Single Market had made life so much >>>> easier for me and my works colleagues when we had to travel to Europe to >>>> provide engineering support and associated business.
So where can we find the “…proper assessment of the real pros
and cons of
EU membership†of which you speak?
Concise and comprehensive comparisons were pretty rare. Even if they had >>>> been readily available and understandable, for those who were
more-readily influenced by emotive propaganda, I doubt whether many
would have got past the few lines before becoming bored out of their
minds. After all, the last thing we tend to do is to read the official >>>> instructions!
Ah, so on the one hand you are demanding voters better inform themselves by >>> reading a “…proper assessment of the real pros and cons of EU
membershipâ€,
which you now claim that would bore them to tears.
So, having now shot yourself in the foot by claiming these things, just how >>> are voters supposed to have informed themselves to the standard you set
them?
Do tell…
I'm not 'demanding' anything. I'm just suggesting that few voters would
have made any detailed comparison of the essentially abstract (to most
of us) rules of the EU.
If that is true, then Remainers were no better informed than anyone else.
So why do they bang on endlessly about Brexit supporters being
ill-informed?
The number of us who would have had personal and
direct experiences of the pros and cons would have been limited. I know
why I favour membership, but it doesn't mean that I think that
everything about it is great.
After 43 years of membership, it’s obvious that the thinking voter >>>>> rejected
belonging any further, while the Remainers voted on a knee-jerk.
Before 2015, when Cameron started to think about how to permanently
quell the anti-EU rebels in then Conservative Party, I don't recall
there being much unrest among the UK citizenry in general.
Perhaps they had all died of boredom from trying to read The Gospel
According to the EU?
I'm sure that The Gospel According to the EU is far too complicated and
boring for most of us to understand - but that doesn't necessarily mean
it is wrong.
But you are saying that voters weren’t sufficiently informed to vote in the >referendum, but somehow Remainers were right in their choice??
Come on, Ian, that’s rubbish!
On 17 Dec 2024 at 17:18:49 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 16:41:33 +0000, Spike wrote:
Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
[quoted text muted]
[quoted text muted]
If that is the case, why did Remainers vote as they did, them not
having, to quote your own words, “…much significant knowledge of the >>>> complicated pros and cons of membership†but they trusted ‘the
campaigners’ nonetheless?
Deciding to stay on a path, and deciding to vary from it are not
equivalent decisions. Ask anyone standing on the deck of a ship "Shall we >>> stay here, or jump overboard".
The vote to leave was not a vote not to remain.
I am sure there is a more elegant way of expressing this.
But Ian’s point was that the voters hadn’t bothered to inform >>themselves.
And that includes Remainers.
But if remain had won it wouldn't have mattered so much, because there >wouldn't have been a mass choir of loons declaring that god (and Mr Cameron) >had decided that the decision couldn't be revisited for a 1000 years, or >whatever. We could have had another referendum any time it seemed expedient.
You seem to be saying that Remainers had some form of special insight, >>because ‘few of the people who were invited to vote in the Brexit >>referendum really had sufficient competence to make a proper assessment of >>the real pros and cons of EU membership’ - (your words).
Not at all. I doubt if Remainers had any 'special insight'. They merely >believed the evidence of their own eyes and ears, and saw the EU for what
it is - and decided to settle for it. Leavers seemed to have great faith
in the enthusiastic promises of great things to come if only we could >unshackle ourselves from the suppression of the EU.
In message <7110240317.7d964dcb@uninhabited.net>, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> writes
On 17 Dec 2024 at 17:18:49 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:Didn't Nigel Farage say that if there was a Remain win, that would be unfinished business?
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 16:41:33 +0000, Spike wrote:
Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
[quoted text muted]
[quoted text muted]
If that is the case, why did Remainers vote as they did, them not
having, to quote your own words, “…much significant knowledge of the >>>>> complicated pros and cons of membership†but they trusted ‘the
campaigners’ nonetheless?
Deciding to stay on a path, and deciding to vary from it are not
equivalent decisions. Ask anyone standing on the deck of a ship "Shall we >>>> stay here, or jump overboard".
The vote to leave was not a vote not to remain.
I am sure there is a more elegant way of expressing this.
But Ian’s point was that the voters hadn’t bothered to inform
themselves.
And that includes Remainers.
But if remain had won it wouldn't have mattered so much, because there
wouldn't have been a mass choir of loons declaring that god (and Mr Cameron) >> had decided that the decision couldn't be revisited for a 1000 years, or
whatever. We could have had another referendum any time it seemed expedient. >>
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 17:18:49 +0000, Spike wrote:
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 16:41:33 +0000, Spike wrote:
Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
[quoted text muted]
[quoted text muted]
If that is the case, why did Remainers vote as they did, them not
having, to quote your own words, “…much significant knowledge of the >>>> complicated pros and cons of membership†but they trusted ‘the
campaigners’ nonetheless?
Deciding to stay on a path, and deciding to vary from it are not
equivalent decisions. Ask anyone standing on the deck of a ship "Shall
we stay here, or jump overboard".
The vote to leave was not a vote not to remain.
I am sure there is a more elegant way of expressing this.
But Ian’s point was that the voters hadn’t bothered to inform
themselves.
And that includes Remainers.
Yes, I got that.
My point is an uninformed decision to remain was not equivalent to an uninformed decision to leave. I refer to the jumping off a ship analogy
- only now it's in the dark.
On 17/12/2024 in message <Mkd+v1Gs4eYnFwFW@brattleho.plus.com> Ian Jackson
Not at all. I doubt if Remainers had any 'special insight'. They merely
believed the evidence of their own eyes and ears, and saw the EU for what
it is - and decided to settle for it. Leavers seemed to have great faith
in the enthusiastic promises of great things to come if only we could
unshackle ourselves from the suppression of the EU.
Indeed. And as somebody who voted to leave I believed the evidence of my
own eyes and ears, and saw the EU for what it is - and decided I wanted to leave it.
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 17:18:49 +0000, Spike wrote:
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 16:41:33 +0000, Spike wrote:
Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
[quoted text muted]
[quoted text muted]
If that is the case, why did Remainers vote as they did, them not
having, to quote your own words, “…much significant knowledge of the >>>> complicated pros and cons of membership†but they trusted ‘the
campaigners’ nonetheless?
Deciding to stay on a path, and deciding to vary from it are not
equivalent decisions. Ask anyone standing on the deck of a ship "Shall
we stay here, or jump overboard".
The vote to leave was not a vote not to remain.
I am sure there is a more elegant way of expressing this.
But Ian’s point was that the voters hadn’t bothered to inform
themselves.
And that includes Remainers.
Yes, I got that.
My point is an uninformed decision to remain was not equivalent to an uninformed decision to leave. I refer to the jumping off a ship analogy - only now it's in the dark.
In message <lsdhq9F2gonU1@mid.individual.net>, Spike
<aero.spike@mail.com> writes
Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
In message <lsb3htFl37kU1@mid.individual.net>, Spike
<aero.spike@mail.com> writes
Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
In message <lsafnuFgo57U1@mid.individual.net>, Spike
<aero.spike@mail.com> writes
Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
[…]
Few of the people who were invited to vote in the Brexit referendum >>>>>>> really had sufficient competence to make a proper assessment of the real
pros and cons of EU membership.
It must come very hard to Remainers that we were in the EEC/EC/EU for 43 >>>>>> years, and having that knowledge and experience of its benefits -such as >>>>>> they were - the voters rejected further membership.
Outside their own personal experiences, I doubt if many voters had much >>>>> significant knowledge of the complicated pros and cons of membership. >>>>> Instead, any decision they made would have been largely influenced by >>>>> what they were told by the campaigners.
If that is the case, why did Remainers vote as they did, them not having, >>>> to quote your own words, “…much significant knowledge of the complicated
pros and cons of membership†but they trusted ‘the campaigners’
nonetheless?
I guess that Remainers tended to vote for what could be seen to exist
(ie the status quo, warts and all). Leavers were promised that leaving
would allow a supposedly independent UK government, freed from the
hindrance and restraints of the EU, to make things better for us. What's >>> not to like?
You seem to be saying that Remainers had some form of special insight,
because ‘few of the people who were invited to vote in the Brexit
referendum really had sufficient competence to make a proper assessment of >> the real pros and cons of EU membership’ - (your words).
Not at all. I doubt if Remainers had any 'special insight'. They merely believed the evidence of their own eyes and ears, and saw the EU for
what it is - and decided to settle for it. Leavers seemed to have great
faith in the enthusiastic promises of great things to come if only we
could unshackle ourselves from the suppression of the EU.
I have to admit that my vote to remain was largely based on how
membership of the Customs Union and Single Market had made life so much >>>>> easier for me and my works colleagues when we had to travel to Europe to >>>>> provide engineering support and associated business.
So where can we find the “…proper assessment of the real pros
and cons of
EU membership†of which you speak?
Concise and comprehensive comparisons were pretty rare. Even if they had >>>>> been readily available and understandable, for those who were
more-readily influenced by emotive propaganda, I doubt whether many
would have got past the few lines before becoming bored out of their >>>>> minds. After all, the last thing we tend to do is to read the official >>>>> instructions!
Ah, so on the one hand you are demanding voters better inform themselves by
reading a “…proper assessment of the real pros and cons of EU
membershipâ€,
which you now claim that would bore them to tears.
So, having now shot yourself in the foot by claiming these things, just how
are voters supposed to have informed themselves to the standard you set >>>> them?
Do tell…
I'm not 'demanding' anything. I'm just suggesting that few voters would
have made any detailed comparison of the essentially abstract (to most
of us) rules of the EU.
If that is true, then Remainers were no better informed than anyone else.
So why do they bang on endlessly about Brexit supporters being
ill-informed?
The same information was available to all the voters, but the Remainers
chose not to believe what was largely optimistic make-believe (and in
some cases, downright lies).
The number of us who would have had personal and
direct experiences of the pros and cons would have been limited. I know
why I favour membership, but it doesn't mean that I think that
everything about it is great.
After 43 years of membership, it’s obvious that the thinking voter >>>>>> rejected
belonging any further, while the Remainers voted on a knee-jerk.
Before 2015, when Cameron started to think about how to permanently
quell the anti-EU rebels in then Conservative Party, I don't recall
there being much unrest among the UK citizenry in general.
Perhaps they had all died of boredom from trying to read The Gospel
According to the EU?
I'm sure that The Gospel According to the EU is far too complicated and
boring for most of us to understand - but that doesn't necessarily mean
it is wrong.
But you are saying that voters weren’t sufficiently informed to vote in the
referendum, but somehow Remainers were right in their choice??
That's more or less what I am saying. The pros, cons and complexities of
the EU are far too great for your typical citizen to make a valued
judgement. Everyone will be able to think of a few pet reasons to stay
or to leave, but many will ignore or dismiss much which is to the
contrary.
Come on, Ian, that’s rubbish!
On 17 Dec 2024 at 17:45:33 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 16/12/2024 20:48, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message <vjpqou$182du$2@dont-email.me>, Max Demian
<max_demian@bigfoot.com> writes
On 16/12/2024 14:22, Ian Jackson wrote:Surely you don't expect all the rules for a club catering for 500M souls >>> to be simple?
In message <lsafnuFgo57U1@mid.individual.net>, Spike
<aero.spike@mail.com> writes
Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:Outside their own personal experiences, I doubt if many voters had
[…]
Few of the people who were invited to vote in the Brexit referendum >>>>>>> really had sufficient competence to make a proper assessment of the >>>>>>> real
pros and cons of EU membership.
It must come very hard to Remainers that we were in the EEC/EC/EU
for 43
years, and having that knowledge and experience of its benefits -
such as
they were - the voters rejected further membership.
much significant knowledge of the complicated pros and cons of
membership.
"Complication" is reason enough to leave.
Who wants to belong to a club whose "complications" are incomprehensible? >>>>
No, that's why such an enormous conglomerations is impractical.
And, of course, why the existence of the USA is completely impossible.
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 17 Dec 2024 at 17:45:33 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote: >>> On 16/12/2024 20:48, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message <vjpqou$182du$2@dont-email.me>, Max Demian
<max_demian@bigfoot.com> writes
On 16/12/2024 14:22, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message <lsafnuFgo57U1@mid.individual.net>, Spike
Surely you don't expect all the rules for a club catering for 500M souls >>>> to be simple?It must come very hard to Remainers that we were in the EEC/EC/EU >>>>>>> for 43Outside their own personal experiences, I doubt if many voters had >>>>>> much significant knowledge of the complicated pros and cons of
years, and having that knowledge and experience of its benefits - >>>>>>> such as
they were - the voters rejected further membership.
membership.
"Complication" is reason enough to leave.
Who wants to belong to a club whose "complications" are incomprehensible? >>>>>
No, that's why such an enormous conglomerations is impractical.
And, of course, why the existence of the USA is completely impossible.
The Soviet Union was bigger than the US and it managed to last almost 70 years before imploding.
On 17/12/2024 22:15, Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 17 Dec 2024 at 17:45:33 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 16/12/2024 20:48, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message <vjpqou$182du$2@dont-email.me>, Max Demian
<max_demian@bigfoot.com> writes
On 16/12/2024 14:22, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message <lsafnuFgo57U1@mid.individual.net>, Spike
Surely you don't expect all the rules for a club catering for 500M souls >>>>> to be simple?It must come very hard to Remainers that we were in the EEC/EC/EU >>>>>>>> for 43Outside their own personal experiences, I doubt if many voters had >>>>>>> much significant knowledge of the complicated pros and cons of
years, and having that knowledge and experience of its benefits - >>>>>>>> such as
they were - the voters rejected further membership.
membership.
"Complication" is reason enough to leave.
Who wants to belong to a club whose "complications" are incomprehensible?
No, that's why such an enormous conglomerations is impractical.
And, of course, why the existence of the USA is completely impossible.
The USA was, at least as originally set up, relatively culturally homogeneous.
The Soviet Union was bigger than the US and it managed to last almost 70
years before imploding.
The Soviet Union took over an existing empire.
Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
In message <lsden9F2162U1@mid.individual.net>, Spike
<aero.spike@mail.com> writes
Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
In message <lsb30rFl0mqU1@mid.individual.net>, Spike
<aero.spike@mail.com> writes
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:Do you have any estimates as to whether we will now be paying more - or >>> less - than we did before?
On 16 Dec 2024 at 11:17:27 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote: >>>>
Some seem to have forgotten the wine lakes (later turned into industrial
alcohol) and butter mountains (sold at a loss to third world countries),
but it’s nice to know where your CAP contributions were going… >>>>>> …and it
wasn’t to benefit you but to maintain a failing ideology. And
you’re happy
with that?
It was to support failing farmers, not an ideology! And now we're >>>>> responsible
it's suddenly a good idea to subsidise farmers again!
The CAP, which cost us £billions, was intended to support inefficient >>>> French farmers, not by a government subsidy, but a community subsidy! A >>>> technique right out of the Marxist-Leninist Soviet Union handbook!
Now we’re in the position of UK farmers being subsidised by the UK >>>> government.
Why does it matter whether we will be paying more or less that we were
under the CAP? The money’s staying in the UK rather than being squandered
on French farmers producing stuff no-one wants.
British subsidies for British farmers? Presumably our 'loads of money'
EU subs used to go into an EU slush-fund pool. What does it matter
whether our farmers received (say) £100M via an EU CAP subsidy, or we
pay them (say) £100M directly.
It matters because in the former situation of receiving money from the EU’s CAP, we were paying more into it than we took out. Every year.
The UK was a net beneficiary of EEC/EC/EU largesse in only one year. Can
you guess when that was?
SPOILER ALERT
It was the year before we voted on whether to stay in the EEC.
Funny, that.
The rest of the 47 years was spent pouring money into wine lakes and butter mountains and the like.
Given the slide in the current fortunes of France and Germany, we’re well
out of it.
If it gets any worse, there might not be any queues at EU ports of
holidaymakers getting their papers processed for you to complain about!
Fortunately, I've never been abroad since the imposition of the new procedures required for non-EU travellers (which I believe the UK had a hand in formulating when we were still a member).
Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 17/12/2024 in message <Mkd+v1Gs4eYnFwFW@brattleho.plus.com> Ian
Jackson
[…]
Not at all. I doubt if Remainers had any 'special insight'. They
merely believed the evidence of their own eyes and ears, and saw the
EU for what it is - and decided to settle for it. Leavers seemed to
have great faith in the enthusiastic promises of great things to come
if only we could unshackle ourselves from the suppression of the EU.
Indeed. And as somebody who voted to leave I believed the evidence of
my own eyes and ears, and saw the EU for what it is - and decided I
wanted to leave it.
Yes, Remainers seem to have some difficulty in grasping that what’s
sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander.
Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
[quoted text muted]
If that’s the case, then Remainers were voting blindly for what they believed in.
In message <7110240317.7d964dcb@uninhabited.net>, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> writes
On 17 Dec 2024 at 17:18:49 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:Didn't Nigel Farage say that if there was a Remain win, that would be unfinished business?
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 16:41:33 +0000, Spike wrote:
Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
[quoted text muted]
[quoted text muted]
If that is the case, why did Remainers vote as they did, them not
having, to quote your own words, “…much significant knowledge of the >>>>> complicated pros and cons of membership†but they trusted ‘the
campaigners’ nonetheless?
Deciding to stay on a path, and deciding to vary from it are not
equivalent decisions. Ask anyone standing on the deck of a ship
"Shall we stay here, or jump overboard".
The vote to leave was not a vote not to remain.
I am sure there is a more elegant way of expressing this.
But Ian’s point was that the voters hadn’t bothered to inform >>>themselves.
And that includes Remainers.
But if remain had won it wouldn't have mattered so much, because there >>wouldn't have been a mass choir of loons declaring that god (and Mr >>Cameron)
had decided that the decision couldn't be revisited for a 1000 years, or >>whatever. We could have had another referendum any time it seemed >>expedient.
On 18 Dec 2024 at 11:56:32 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 17/12/2024 22:15, Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 17 Dec 2024 at 17:45:33 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
No, that's why such an enormous conglomerations is impractical.
And, of course, why the existence of the USA is completely impossible.
The USA was, at least as originally set up, relatively culturally
homogeneous.
So was the EEC, but both survived incorporating a number of very different states.
On 17 Dec 2024 19:40:01 GMT, Spike wrote...
Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
In message <lsden9F2162U1@mid.individual.net>, Spike
<aero.spike@mail.com> writes
Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
In message <lsb30rFl0mqU1@mid.individual.net>, Spike
<aero.spike@mail.com> writes
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:Do you have any estimates as to whether we will now be paying more - or >>>>> less - than we did before?
On 16 Dec 2024 at 11:17:27 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
Some seem to have forgotten the wine lakes (later turned into industrial
alcohol) and butter mountains (sold at a loss to third world countries),
but it’s nice to know where your CAP contributions were going… >>>>>>>> …and it
wasn’t to benefit you but to maintain a failing ideology. And >>>>>>>> you’re happy
with that?
It was to support failing farmers, not an ideology! And now we're >>>>>>> responsible
it's suddenly a good idea to subsidise farmers again!
The CAP, which cost us £billions, was intended to support inefficient >>>>>> French farmers, not by a government subsidy, but a community subsidy! A >>>>>> technique right out of the Marxist-Leninist Soviet Union handbook! >>>>>>
Now we’re in the position of UK farmers being subsidised by the UK >>>>>> government.
Why does it matter whether we will be paying more or less that we were >>>> under the CAP? The money’s staying in the UK rather than being squandered
on French farmers producing stuff no-one wants.
British subsidies for British farmers? Presumably our 'loads of money'
EU subs used to go into an EU slush-fund pool. What does it matter
whether our farmers received (say) £100M via an EU CAP subsidy, or we
pay them (say) £100M directly.
It matters because in the former situation of receiving money from the EU’s
CAP, we were paying more into it than we took out. Every year.
The UK was a net beneficiary of EEC/EC/EU largesse in only one year. Can
you guess when that was?
SPOILER ALERT
It was the year before we voted on whether to stay in the EEC.
Funny, that.
The rest of the 47 years was spent pouring money into wine lakes and butter >> mountains and the like.
Given the slide in the current fortunes of France and Germany, we’re well
out of it.
If it gets any worse, there might not be any queues at EU ports of
holidaymakers getting their papers processed for you to complain about!
Fortunately, I've never been abroad since the imposition of the new
procedures required for non-EU travellers (which I believe the UK had a
hand in formulating when we were still a member).
I answered that previously. You're forgetting that the benefits of EU membership (easier, increased trade with our nearest neighbours) far
outstrip the direct payments at Government level.
As a result of leaving, our GDP has falled an ongoing 4% from what it
would be. This far outstrips both the direct Government-level costs and
the miniscule new trade agreements we've reached since.
Your answer before was vague woffle about Severn Trent water, with the implication that you would rather not face up to the truth. Bullshit.
Wake up and smell the coffee.
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 22:42:12 +0000, Spike wrote:
Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 17/12/2024 in message <Mkd+v1Gs4eYnFwFW@brattleho.plus.com> Ian
Jackson
[…]
Not at all. I doubt if Remainers had any 'special insight'. They
merely believed the evidence of their own eyes and ears, and saw the
EU for what it is - and decided to settle for it. Leavers seemed to
have great faith in the enthusiastic promises of great things to come
if only we could unshackle ourselves from the suppression of the EU.
Indeed. And as somebody who voted to leave I believed the evidence of
my own eyes and ears, and saw the EU for what it is - and decided I
wanted to leave it.
Yes, Remainers seem to have some difficulty in grasping that what’s
sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander.
Because (passim) it isn't.
On 17 Dec 2024 at 17:18:49 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 16:41:33 +0000, Spike wrote:
Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
[quoted text muted]
[quoted text muted]
If that is the case, why did Remainers vote as they did, them not
having, to quote your own words, “…much significant knowledge of the >>>> complicated pros and cons of membership†but they trusted ‘the
campaigners’ nonetheless?
Deciding to stay on a path, and deciding to vary from it are not
equivalent decisions. Ask anyone standing on the deck of a ship "Shall we >>> stay here, or jump overboard".
The vote to leave was not a vote not to remain.
I am sure there is a more elegant way of expressing this.
But Ian’s point was that the voters hadn’t bothered to inform themselves.
And that includes Remainers.
But if remain had won it wouldn't have mattered so much, because there wouldn't have been a mass choir of loons declaring that god (and Mr Cameron) had decided that the decision couldn't be revisited for a 1000 years, or whatever. We could have had another referendum any time it seemed expedient.
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 17/12/2024 22:15, Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 17 Dec 2024 at 17:45:33 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 16/12/2024 20:48, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message <vjpqou$182du$2@dont-email.me>, Max Demian
<max_demian@bigfoot.com> writes
On 16/12/2024 14:22, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message <lsafnuFgo57U1@mid.individual.net>, Spike
It must come very hard to Remainers that we were in the EEC/EC/EU >>>>>>>>> for 43 years, and having that knowledge and experience of its benefits -Outside their own personal experiences, I doubt if many voters had >>>>>>>> much significant knowledge of the complicated pros and cons of >>>>>>>> membership.
such as they were - the voters rejected further membership.
"Complication" is reason enough to leave.
Who wants to belong to a club whose "complications" are incomprehensible?
Surely you don't expect all the rules for a club catering for 500M souls >>>>>> to be simple?
No, that's why such an enormous conglomerations is impractical.
And, of course, why the existence of the USA is completely impossible.
The USA was, at least as originally set up, relatively culturally
homogeneous.
So was the EEC,
but both survived incorporating a number of very different states.
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 22:42:12 +0000, Spike wrote:
Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 17/12/2024 in message <Mkd+v1Gs4eYnFwFW@brattleho.plus.com> Ian
Jackson
[…]
Not at all. I doubt if Remainers had any 'special insight'. They
merely believed the evidence of their own eyes and ears, and saw the >>>>> EU for what it is - and decided to settle for it. Leavers seemed to
have great faith in the enthusiastic promises of great things to
come if only we could unshackle ourselves from the suppression of
the EU.
Indeed. And as somebody who voted to leave I believed the evidence of
my own eyes and ears, and saw the EU for what it is - and decided I
wanted to leave it.
Yes, Remainers seem to have some difficulty in grasping that what’s
sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander.
Because (passim) it isn't.
A leap in the dark, which was what both Brexit and Remain would have entailed, is a leap in the dark.
On 17 Dec 2024 19:40:01 GMT, Spike wrote...
Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
Fortunately, I've never been abroad since the imposition of the new
procedures required for non-EU travellers (which I believe the UK had a
hand in formulating when we were still a member).
I answered that previously. You're forgetting that the benefits of EU membership (easier, increased trade with our nearest neighbours) far
outstrip the direct payments at Government level.
As a result of leaving, our GDP has falled an ongoing 4% from what it
would be. This far outstrips both the direct Government-level costs and
the miniscule new trade agreements we've reached since.
Your answer before was vague woffle about Severn Trent water, with the implication that you would rather not face up to the truth. Bullshit.
Wake up and smell the coffee.
On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 14:19:32 +0000, Spike wrote:
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 22:42:12 +0000, Spike wrote:
Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 17/12/2024 in message <Mkd+v1Gs4eYnFwFW@brattleho.plus.com> Ian
Jackson
[…]
Not at all. I doubt if Remainers had any 'special insight'. They
merely believed the evidence of their own eyes and ears, and saw the >>>>>> EU for what it is - and decided to settle for it. Leavers seemed to >>>>>> have great faith in the enthusiastic promises of great things to
come if only we could unshackle ourselves from the suppression of
the EU.
Indeed. And as somebody who voted to leave I believed the evidence of >>>>> my own eyes and ears, and saw the EU for what it is - and decided I
wanted to leave it.
Yes, Remainers seem to have some difficulty in grasping that what’s
sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander.
Because (passim) it isn't.
A leap in the dark, which was what both Brexit and Remain would have
entailed, is a leap in the dark.
Again, no.
The leap was leaving. Remaining was *not* leaping.
No amount of sophistry can make a decision to do something the same as a decision to *not* do something equivalent. Especially when the decision
to do something is irreversible, whereas the decision to not do something
can always be revised if needs be and is therefore not irreversible.
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 14:19:32 +0000, Spike wrote:
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 22:42:12 +0000, Spike wrote:
Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 17/12/2024 in message <Mkd+v1Gs4eYnFwFW@brattleho.plus.com> Ian >>>>>> Jackson
[…]
Not at all. I doubt if Remainers had any 'special insight'. They >>>>>>> merely believed the evidence of their own eyes and ears, and saw the >>>>>>> EU for what it is - and decided to settle for it. Leavers seemed to >>>>>>> have great faith in the enthusiastic promises of great things to >>>>>>> come if only we could unshackle ourselves from the suppression of >>>>>>> the EU.
Indeed. And as somebody who voted to leave I believed the evidence of >>>>>> my own eyes and ears, and saw the EU for what it is - and decided I >>>>>> wanted to leave it.
Yes, Remainers seem to have some difficulty in grasping that what’s >>>>> sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander.
Because (passim) it isn't.
A leap in the dark, which was what both Brexit and Remain would have
entailed, is a leap in the dark.
Again, no.
The leap was leaving. Remaining was *not* leaping.
No amount of sophistry can make a decision to do something the same as a
decision to *not* do something equivalent. Especially when the decision
to do something is irreversible, whereas the decision to not do something
can always be revised if needs be and is therefore not irreversible.
Heavens. To decide to remain was a leap in the dark. No-one saw back then
the troubles the EU was going to be in, in just a few years, it was just blind faith on the part of Remainers that all would be well. And apart from death, nothing is irreversible.
On 2024-12-19, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
No amount of sophistry can make a decision to do something the same as a >>> decision to *not* do something equivalent. Especially when the decision
to do something is irreversible, whereas the decision to not do something >>> can always be revised if needs be and is therefore not irreversible.
Heavens. To decide to remain was a leap in the dark. No-one saw back then
the troubles the EU was going to be in, in just a few years, it was just
blind faith on the part of Remainers that all would be well. And apart from >> death, nothing is irreversible.
Describing remaining, i.e. not changing, not moving, as a "leap"
is stretching the meaning of words beyond their breaking point.
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-12-19, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
No amount of sophistry can make a decision to do something the same as a >>>> decision to *not* do something equivalent. Especially when the decision >>>> to do something is irreversible, whereas the decision to not do something >>>> can always be revised if needs be and is therefore not irreversible.
Heavens. To decide to remain was a leap in the dark. No-one saw back then >>> the troubles the EU was going to be in, in just a few years, it was just >>> blind faith on the part of Remainers that all would be well. And apart from >>> death, nothing is irreversible.
Describing remaining, i.e. not changing, not moving, as a "leap"
is stretching the meaning of words beyond their breaking point.
My last word on this is to comment to the effect that you are saying that Remainers, by voting in that way, were assured that all would be well.
Apart from a war on the European continent, crippling energy prices, political uncertainty in the two dominant countries, and deteriorating trading conditions leading to financial concerns resulting in money
outflows, it has worked well. Not.
On 2024-12-19, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 14:19:32 +0000, Spike wrote:
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 22:42:12 +0000, Spike wrote:
Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 17/12/2024 in message <Mkd+v1Gs4eYnFwFW@brattleho.plus.com> Ian >>>>>>> Jackson
[…]
Not at all. I doubt if Remainers had any 'special insight'. They >>>>>>>> merely believed the evidence of their own eyes and ears, and saw >>>>>>>> the EU for what it is - and decided to settle for it. Leavers
seemed to have great faith in the enthusiastic promises of great >>>>>>>> things to come if only we could unshackle ourselves from the
suppression of the EU.
Indeed. And as somebody who voted to leave I believed the evidence >>>>>>> of my own eyes and ears, and saw the EU for what it is - and
decided I wanted to leave it.
Yes, Remainers seem to have some difficulty in grasping that what’s >>>>>> sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander.
Because (passim) it isn't.
A leap in the dark, which was what both Brexit and Remain would have
entailed, is a leap in the dark.
Again, no.
The leap was leaving. Remaining was *not* leaping.
No amount of sophistry can make a decision to do something the same as
a decision to *not* do something equivalent. Especially when the
decision to do something is irreversible, whereas the decision to not
do something can always be revised if needs be and is therefore not
irreversible.
Heavens. To decide to remain was a leap in the dark. No-one saw back
then the troubles the EU was going to be in, in just a few years, it
was just blind faith on the part of Remainers that all would be well.
And apart from death, nothing is irreversible.
Describing remaining, i.e. not changing, not moving, as a "leap"
is stretching the meaning of words beyond their breaking point.
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-12-19, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
No amount of sophistry can make a decision to do something the same
as a decision to *not* do something equivalent. Especially when the
decision to do something is irreversible, whereas the decision to
not do something can always be revised if needs be and is therefore
not irreversible.
Heavens. To decide to remain was a leap in the dark. No-one saw back then >>> the troubles the EU was going to be in, in just a few years, it was just >>> blind faith on the part of Remainers that all would be well. And
apart from death, nothing is irreversible.
Describing remaining, i.e. not changing, not moving, as a "leap"
is stretching the meaning of words beyond their breaking point.
My last word on this is to comment to the effect that you are saying that Remainers, by voting in that way, were assured that all would be well.
On 2024-12-19, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-12-19, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
No amount of sophistry can make a decision to do something the same
as a decision to *not* do something equivalent. Especially when the
decision to do something is irreversible, whereas the decision to
not do something can always be revised if needs be and is therefore
not irreversible.
Heavens. To decide to remain was a leap in the dark. No-one saw back
then the troubles the EU was going to be in, in just a few years, it
was just blind faith on the part of Remainers that all would be well.
And apart from death, nothing is irreversible.
Describing remaining, i.e. not changing, not moving, as a "leap"
is stretching the meaning of words beyond their breaking point.
My last word on this is to comment to the effect that you are saying
that Remainers, by voting in that way, were assured that all would be
well.
I said nothing of the sort.
Bought something on eBay, a person to person thing. From France.
Today I learn it arrived in UK on 8th December (almost a week ago) and today, almost a week later, I get a ransom note from Parcelfarce that there's £50 VAT to pay (plus £12 for their admin).
I hope Farage, Boris, Gove and thousands of gullible xenophobes who were persuaded to vote "leave" are happy about this outcome, which if I could find a bus, I'd paint on the side.
On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 17:29:02 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-12-19, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-12-19, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
No amount of sophistry can make a decision to do something the same >>>>>> as a decision to *not* do something equivalent. Especially when the >>>>>> decision to do something is irreversible, whereas the decision to
not do something can always be revised if needs be and is therefore >>>>>> not irreversible.
Heavens. To decide to remain was a leap in the dark. No-one saw back >>>>> then the troubles the EU was going to be in, in just a few years, it >>>>> was just blind faith on the part of Remainers that all would be well. >>>>> And apart from death, nothing is irreversible.
Describing remaining, i.e. not changing, not moving, as a "leap"
is stretching the meaning of words beyond their breaking point.
My last word on this is to comment to the effect that you are saying
that Remainers, by voting in that way, were assured that all would be
well.
I said nothing of the sort.
It's a common fallacy that Brexiteers try to portray all Reminers as believing the EU is heaven on earth (it's most certainly is not) and
beyond reproach (again, it most certainly is not).
However, to paraphrase Churchills view of democracy as being the least
worst option, most remainers would probably apply the same to the EU. I
know I do.
Does anyone know if the current Guinness shortage, about which there's
been a lot in the press, is Brexit-related?
On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 17:29:02 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-12-19, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
My last word on this is to comment to the effect that you are saying
that Remainers, by voting in that way, were assured that all would be
well.
I said nothing of the sort.
It's a common fallacy that Brexiteers try to portray all Reminers as believing the EU is heaven on earth (it's most certainly is not) and
beyond reproach (again, it most certainly is not).
However, to paraphrase Churchills view of democracy as being the least
worst option, most remainers would probably apply the same to the EU. I
know I do.
Many if not most Brexiteers, including myself, think the same way. It's always been a matter of weighing benefits against disbenefits. Until, I
don't know, maybe about 2008, my view was yeah, OK, the conveniences of staying in are probably worth the costs. But after the country became
flooded with Eastern European cheap labour, the calculation changed.
Clive Page wrote:
Does anyone know if the current Guinness shortage, about which there's
been a lot in the press, is Brexit-related?
I gather that so-called "Guinnfluencers" have created demand in USA, therefore it's profitable to ship lots of it over there, leading to
limiting supplies over here ...
On 14/12/2024 17:14, Roland Perry wrote:
Bought something on eBay, a person to person thing. From France.
Today I learn it arrived in UK on 8th December (almost a week ago) and today,
almost a week later, I get a ransom note from Parcelfarce that there's £50 VAT
to pay (plus £12 for their admin).
I hope Farage, Boris, Gove and thousands of gullible xenophobes who were
persuaded to vote "leave" are happy about this outcome, which if I could find
a bus, I'd paint on the side.
Does anyone know if the current Guinness shortage, about which there's been a lot in the press, is Brexit-related?
It could be as the only brewery in Europe now making the stuff is in Dublin and
presumably nearly all the countries they export it to are in the EU Single Market so need hardly any paperwork, except the UK.  And there is apparently no
shortage in Northern Ireland, where special cross-border trade arrangements apply.
On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 19:28:04 +0000, Andy Burns wrote...
Clive Page wrote:
Does anyone know if the current Guinness shortage, about which
there's been a lot in the press, is Brexit-related?
I gather that so-called "Guinnfluencers" have created demand in USA,
therefore it's profitable to ship lots of it over there, leading to
limiting supplies over here ...
I'm guessing, but presumably they can send their limited supplies to:
EU - Profitable because there's no expensive paperwork.
USA - Expensive paperwork, but still profitable because of
"Guinnfluencers".
UK - Used to be profitable, but now less so because of expensive
paperwork caused by Brexit.
Why is the UK still getting [...] soft drink bottles to EU standards ?
On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 18:26:56 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk wrote:
It's a common fallacy that Brexiteers try to portray all Reminers as
believing the EU is heaven on earth (it's most certainly is not) and
beyond reproach (again, it most certainly is not).
And exactly the same fallacy operates in the other direction; in fact a Remainer launched this very thread with just such an example. "Brexiteers told us everything would be perfect after we left, and now I find I've
been charged a few bob for receiving a parcel from France! This is worse
than being a POW on the Burma Railway! If only we were still in the EU!"
However, to paraphrase Churchills view of democracy as being the least
worst option, most remainers would probably apply the same to the EU. I
know I do.
Many if not most Brexiteers, including myself, think the same way. It's always been a matter of weighing benefits against disbenefits. Until, I
don't know, maybe about 2008, my view was yeah, OK, the conveniences of staying in are probably worth the costs. But after the country became
flooded with Eastern European cheap labour, the calculation changed.
On Fri, 20 Dec 2024 07:40:38 +0000, Handsome Jack wrote:
Many if not most Brexiteers, including myself, think the same way. It's
always been a matter of weighing benefits against disbenefits. Until, I
don't know, maybe about 2008, my view was yeah, OK, the conveniences of
staying in are probably worth the costs. But after the country became
flooded with Eastern European cheap labour, the calculation changed.
That is a not unreasonable line of thinking.
However, given that immigration and migration from non EU countries has
now increased as a result, how is your view of things now ?
My grandfather (born in Darjeeling to an English father running the Raj)
was thrilled when Indians started immigrating to the UK after the war.
He could finally get a decent curry and to speak Hindi which he missed.
He might well have been a Brexiteer if it wasn't for his experiences of
the war.
It's a common fallacy that Brexiteers try to portray all Reminers as believing the EU is heaven on earth (it's most certainly is not) and
beyond reproach (again, it most certainly is not).
Handsome Jack <jack@handsome.com> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 18:26:56 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk wrote:
It's a common fallacy that Brexiteers try to portray all Reminers as
believing the EU is heaven on earth (it's most certainly is not) and
beyond reproach (again, it most certainly is not).
And exactly the same fallacy operates in the other direction; in fact a
Remainer launched this very thread with just such an example. "Brexiteers
told us everything would be perfect after we left, and now I find I've
been charged a few bob for receiving a parcel from France! This is worse
than being a POW on the Burma Railway! If only we were still in the EU!"
Yes. Speaking generally about this attitude of Remainers, it is surprising how narrowly-focussed their views seem to be.
I have mentioned several times in this thread about political uncertainty
and trading difficulties in the two powerhouse economies of the EU being
the cause of investment moneys flowing away from the EU to get better
returns from the UK and US, and this view of the reality has studiously
been ignored! They just don’t want to know that the shine has somewhat dimmed on the EU project.
However, to paraphrase Churchills view of democracy as being the least
worst option, most remainers would probably apply the same to the EU. I
know I do.
Many if not most Brexiteers, including myself, think the same way. It's
always been a matter of weighing benefits against disbenefits. Until, I
don't know, maybe about 2008, my view was yeah, OK, the conveniences of
staying in are probably worth the costs. But after the country became
flooded with Eastern European cheap labour, the calculation changed.
Wasn’t the influx from the new accession countries due to New Labour’s Blair fully opening the doors straightaway with no transition period whatsoever?
On 20 Dec 2024 at 09:37:04 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Wasn’t the influx from the new accession countries due to New Labour’s >> Blair fully opening the doors straightaway with no transition period
whatsoever?
It was indeed, though some seek to blame the EU for it.
Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
[…]
Few of the people who were invited to vote in the Brexit referendum
really had sufficient competence to make a proper assessment of the real
pros and cons of EU membership.
It must come very hard to Remainers that we were in the EEC/EC/EU for 43 years, and having that knowledge and experience of its benefits -such as
they were - the voters rejected further membership.
So where can we find the “…proper assessment of the real pros and cons of EU membership†of which you speak?
Unfortunately, in the absence of the knowledge of - or interest in - all
the facts, it's very easy for opinions to be swayed if we're told that
'"We're getting a raw deal" - which was essentially what the Brexit
protagonists put about, and upon which a majority made their decision.
After 43 years of membership, it’s obvious that the thinking voter rejected belonging any further, while the Remainers voted on a knee-jerk.
It will be interesting to see if Starmer can think of a new way of
deflecting the blame. I expect he will simply resort to Gordon Brown's stratagem of calling us all bigoted far-right racists.
Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:None of us have forgotten the early disasters of the Common Market (as
In message <ls8d08F6i3bU1@mid.individual.net>, Spike
<aero.spike@mail.com> writes
Les. Hayward <les@nospam.invalid> wrote:The subject of bent bananas was definitely not a 'non-issue'. It was
On 15/12/2024 09:58, Roland Perry wrote:
I voted against the European version of the Soviet Union, and
there can’t be too high a price on that.
Jolly good, you were perfectly entitled to that view. However, it's >>>>>> A democracy and the majority was wafer-thin, with *your* reason
hardly showing up on the radar. People voted for trumped up reasons >>>>>> like bent bananas and the false promise of more money for the NHS.
Do you seriously suggest that half of the country voted because of
bent bananas & the like? Whatever the pros & cons of Brexit, I still >>>>> regard the issue of giving an organisation loads of your money in
the hope that they would allow you a bit back (but only to spend as
THEY deem fit) was insane.
The ‘bent banana’ non-issue is one method used by Remainers when
attempting to trivialise the reasons for supporting Brexit and by
doing so undermine the authority of the vote in favour. Other such
topics have also been used,
ad nauseam since the vote.
certainly an easy-to-understand (and also easy-to-blame) reason for
wanting to leave. With some it appeared to be top of their list of
reasons to leave (and with a few, maybe the only reason!). For other
leavers, it was possibly simply the last straw, and that was what
finally swung their decision.
Some seem to have forgotten the wine lakes (later turned into
industrial alcohol) and butter mountains (sold at a loss to third world
countries),
but it’s nice to know where your CAP contributions were going… …and it
wasn’t to benefit you but to maintain a failing ideology. And you’re
happy with that?
it then was) but, sadly, it seems typical of this country that we decide
to leave just when, after a long struggle, it is working really well.
Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
After 43 years of membership, it’s obvious that the thinking voter rejected
belonging any further, while the Remainers voted on a knee-jerk.
I would have thought that the precise opposite was the case.
Some seem to have forgotten the wine lakes (later turned into industrial
alcohol) and butter mountains (sold at a loss to third world countries),
but it’s nice to know where your CAP contributions were going… …and it
wasn’t to benefit you but to maintain a failing ideology. And you’re happy
with that?
None of us have forgotten the early disasters of the Common Market (as it then was) but, sadly, it seems typical of this country that we decide to leave just when, after a long struggle, it is working really well.
Some seem to have forgotten the wine lakes (later turned intoindustrial
alcohol) and butter mountains (sold at a loss to third world countries),
but it’s nice to know where your CAP contributions were going… …and it wasn’t to benefit you but to maintain a failing ideology. And you’re happy
with that?
Quote:
"Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market
without barriers - visible or invisible - giving you direct and
unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the
world's wealthiest and most prosperous people.
"Bigger than Japan. Bigger than the United States. On your doorstep. And
with the Channel Tunnel to give you direct access to it.
"It's not a dream. It's not a vision. It's not some bureaucrat's plan.
It's for real. And it's only five years away."
M. Thatcher
Lancaster House speech opening Single Market campaign
18th April 1988
Hmmm…I would have expected keen legal minds to appreciate the sharpness of the accounting brains that conjured up circa £1.5bn of profit for Severn Trent out of nothing other than a £2 company with no assets, but it looks
as if those expectations were unfounded. The parallel which you seem to
have missed is that if such can be done, then one can turn a claimed 4% downturn as a result of Brexit into any percentage of upturn one might
want, with merely a stroke or two of a pen. Hence concern over such an apparent downturn may be misplaced.
On Sat, 21 Dec 2024 10:39:17 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk wrote...
On Fri, 20 Dec 2024 22:47:50 +0000, Sir Tim wrote:
Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:None of us have forgotten the early disasters of the Common Market
In message <ls8d08F6i3bU1@mid.individual.net>, Spike
<aero.spike@mail.com> writes
Les. Hayward <les@nospam.invalid> wrote:The subject of bent bananas was definitely not a 'non-issue'. It
On 15/12/2024 09:58, Roland Perry wrote:
I voted against the European version of the Soviet Union, and
there can’t be too high a price on that.
Jolly good, you were perfectly entitled to that view. However,
it's A democracy and the majority was wafer-thin, with *your*
reason hardly showing up on the radar. People voted for trumped
up reasons like bent bananas and the false promise of more money
for the NHS.
Do you seriously suggest that half of the country voted because
of bent bananas & the like? Whatever the pros & cons of Brexit, I
still regard the issue of giving an organisation loads of your
money in the hope that they would allow you a bit back (but only
to spend as THEY deem fit) was insane.
The ‘bent banana’ non-issue is one method used by Remainers when
attempting to trivialise the reasons for supporting Brexit and by
doing so undermine the authority of the vote in favour. Other such
topics have also been used,
ad nauseam since the vote.
was certainly an easy-to-understand (and also easy-to-blame) reason
for wanting to leave. With some it appeared to be top of their list
of reasons to leave (and with a few, maybe the only reason!). For
other leavers, it was possibly simply the last straw, and that was
what finally swung their decision.
Some seem to have forgotten the wine lakes (later turned into
industrial alcohol) and butter mountains (sold at a loss to third
world countries),
but it’s nice to know where your CAP contributions were going… …and
it wasn’t to benefit you but to maintain a failing ideology. And
you’re happy with that?
(as it then was) but, sadly, it seems typical of this country that we
decide to leave just when, after a long struggle, it is working
really well.
The irony is the EU was very much moulded in the UKs shadow. The single
market being something a certain M. Thatcher practically had to ram
through against Franco-German opposition. Now of course they can't get
enough of it. Talk about killing the goose ...
Quote:
"Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market
without barriers - visible or invisible - giving you direct and
unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the
world's wealthiest and most prosperous people.
"Bigger than Japan. Bigger than the United States. On your doorstep. And
with the Channel Tunnel to give you direct access to it.
"It's not a dream. It's not a vision. It's not some bureaucrat's plan.
It's for real. And it's only five years away."
M. Thatcher Lancaster House speech opening Single Market campaign 18th
April 1988
Tim Jackson <news@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
On 17 Dec 2024 19:40:01 GMT, Spike wrote...
Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
Fortunately, I've never been abroad since the imposition of the new
procedures required for non-EU travellers (which I believe the UK had a >>> hand in formulating when we were still a member).
I answered that previously. You're forgetting that the benefits of EU membership (easier, increased trade with our nearest neighbours) far outstrip the direct payments at Government level.
As a result of leaving, our GDP has falled an ongoing 4% from what it
would be. This far outstrips both the direct Government-level costs and the miniscule new trade agreements we've reached since.
I’ll leave Ian Jackson to respond to your reply to his posting.
Sir Tim <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
After 43 years of membership, it’s obvious that the thinking voter
rejected belonging any further, while the Remainers voted on a
knee-jerk.
I would have thought that the precise opposite was the case.
I could have phrased that better…perhaps I should have said “After 43 years
of membership, it’s obvious that the thinking voter rejected belonging any further, while the Remainers voted for the child’s comforter world where the EU provided all and knows what’s bestâ€.
Le 19/12/2024 à 18:26, Jethro_uk a écrit :
It's a common fallacy that Brexiteers try to portray all Reminers as
believing the EU is heaven on earth (it's most certainly is not) and
beyond reproach (again, it most certainly is not).
In fact I remember a certain Jeremy C. saying that the EU was a
“great danger to the cause of socialism in this country or any other >country of the imposition of a bankers’ Europe on the people of this >countryâ€.
Was it not thank to the ambivalent position of Labour in 2016 that
Brexit won? Can I just remind the panel that Brexit won by a large
margin here in Brumland.
In message <vk44p3$3h39k$1@dont-email.me>, Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> writes
Le 19/12/2024 à 18:26, Jethro_uk a écrit :IIRC, statistics say that the main reason that Leave won was opposition
It's a common fallacy that Brexiteers try to portray all Reminers as
believing the EU is heaven on earth (it's most certainly is not) and
beyond reproach (again, it most certainly is not).
In fact I remember a certain Jeremy C. saying that the EU was a “great >>danger to the cause of socialism in this country or any other country of >>the imposition of a bankers’ Europe on the people of this countryâ€.
Was it not thank to the ambivalent position of Labour in 2016 that
Brexit won? Can I just remind the panel that Brexit won by a large
margin here in Brumland.
to immigration, so I would assume that it's the areas with a high
'non-ethnic British' population had more leavers.
On 16 Dec 2024 11:17:27 GMT, Spike wrote...
industrial
Some seem to have forgotten the wine lakes (later turned into
alcohol) and butter mountains (sold at a loss to third world countries),
but it’s nice to know where your CAP contributions were going… …and it
wasn’t to benefit you but to maintain a failing ideology. And you’re happy
with that?
Ancient history. They went decades ago, at least in part as a result of
UK influence in Brussels.
Is living in the past the best you can do?
On 19 Dec 2024 10:46:46 GMT, Spike wrote...
Hmmm…I would have expected keen legal minds to appreciate the sharpness of >> the accounting brains that conjured up circa £1.5bn of profit for Severn
Trent out of nothing other than a £2 company with no assets, but it looks >> as if those expectations were unfounded. The parallel which you seem to
have missed is that if such can be done, then one can turn a claimed 4%
downturn as a result of Brexit into any percentage of upturn one might
want, with merely a stroke or two of a pen. Hence concern over such an
apparent downturn may be misplaced.
Severn Trent is a completely different issue. Start a new thread if you
wish to discuss it.
Your reliance on it here shows that you've got no real answers. The 4% figure for loss of GDP comes from the Government's Office for Budget Responsibility, who have no reason for faked accountancy.
On 20 Dec 2024 17:09:09 GMT, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 20 Dec 2024 at 09:37:04 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Wasn’t the influx from the new accession countries due to New Labour’s >>> Blair fully opening the doors straightaway with no transition period
whatsoever?
It was indeed, though some seek to blame the EU for it.
No doubt Blair the Terrible bore a good deal of the blame too, though he
had probably received the same lying civil service advice as his
successors did. Suffice to say that it might not have happened if we had
not been an EU member state.
Of course, while we were an EU member, British governments and their Blob >appendages could deliver the immigration policies they wanted, while
hoping to shove the responsibility for them onto the EU. After Brexit,
this tactic no longer worked, as Rishi Sunak confirmed earlier this year.
It will be interesting to see if Starmer can think of a new way of
deflecting the blame. I expect he will simply resort to Gordon Brown's >stratagem of calling us all bigoted far-right racists.
On Sat, 21 Dec 2024 13:56:12 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message <vk44p3$3h39k$1@dont-email.me>, Ottavio Caruso
<ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> writes
Le 19/12/2024 à 18:26, Jethro_uk a écrit :IIRC, statistics say that the main reason that Leave won was opposition
It's a common fallacy that Brexiteers try to portray all Reminers as
believing the EU is heaven on earth (it's most certainly is not) and
beyond reproach (again, it most certainly is not).
In fact I remember a certain Jeremy C. saying that the EU was a “great >>> danger to the cause of socialism in this country or any other country of >>> the imposition of a bankers’ Europe on the people of this countryâ€.
Was it not thank to the ambivalent position of Labour in 2016 that
Brexit won? Can I just remind the panel that Brexit won by a large
margin here in Brumland.
to immigration, so I would assume that it's the areas with a high
'non-ethnic British' population had more leavers.
Indeed, but possibly from the opposite motivation. It's recorded that
quite a few voters of Indian and Pakistani felt (correctly as it turned
out) that leaving the EU would mean the UK would be much more amenable to immigration from their own countries.
Tim Jackson <news@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
On 19 Dec 2024 10:46:46 GMT, Spike wrote...
Hmmm…I would have expected keen legal minds to appreciate the sharpness of
the accounting brains that conjured up circa £1.5bn of profit for Severn >> Trent out of nothing other than a £2 company with no assets, but it looks >> as if those expectations were unfounded. The parallel which you seem to
have missed is that if such can be done, then one can turn a claimed 4%
downturn as a result of Brexit into any percentage of upturn one might
want, with merely a stroke or two of a pen. Hence concern over such an
apparent downturn may be misplaced.
Severn Trent is a completely different issue. Start a new thread if you wish to discuss it.
Severn Trent is a fine example of the sleight-of-hand can create something, in this case some £1.5billion, out of nothing and yet be within the rules. This is just one facet of the way accounting works. It raises the questions of which rules were used to determine the alleged 4% and what other rules might have been available that would have reached a different figure.
Your reliance on it here shows that you've got no real answers. The 4% figure for loss of GDP comes from the Government's Office for Budget Responsibility, who have no reason for faked accountancy.
Severn Trent’s conjuring of £1.5billion out of thin air wasn’t faked, it was within the rules. What rules were available to the OBR to determine the 4%, which did they use and which did they not? Do you know?
On 21 Dec 2024 12:32:37 GMT, Spike wrote...
Tim Jackson <news@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
Your reliance on it here shows that you've got no real answers. The 4%
figure for loss of GDP comes from the Government's Office for Budget
Responsibility, who have no reason for faked accountancy.
Severn Trent’s conjuring of £1.5billion out of thin air wasn’t faked, it
was within the rules. What rules were available to the OBR to determine the >> 4%, which did they use and which did they not? Do you know?
You're the person suggesting that a neutral public body faked their
figures.
Why would they do that, and what evidence do you have to
support your claim?
Why should we accept your wild allegation that a 4% downturn is really
an upturn of any desired size you care to choose? Is the upturn 1%?
5%? 10%?
Tim Jackson <news@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
On 21 Dec 2024 12:32:37 GMT, Spike wrote...
Tim Jackson <news@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
Your reliance on it here shows that you've got no real answers. The 4% >>> figure for loss of GDP comes from the Government's Office for Budget
Responsibility, who have no reason for faked accountancy.
‘Faked accountancy’ would doubtless be against the rules. What rules do you
think have been broken?
Severn Trent’s conjuring of £1.5billion out of thin air wasn’t faked, it
was within the rules. What rules were available to the OBR to determine the
4%, which did they use and which did they not? Do you know?
You're the person suggesting that a neutral public body faked their figures.
That’s an unfounded allegation, as I have suggested no such thing.
Why should we accept your wild allegation that a 4% downturn is really
an upturn of any desired size you care to choose? Is the upturn 1%?
5%? 10%?
It’s whatever the accountants’ clients want it to be. It’s the first question they ask of a client: “What outcome do you want from this?â€.
Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
Dedicated Brexiteers seem very reluctant to accept responsibility the
consequences. Some even deny that there ARE any adverse consequences of
Brexit. More often, they claim that the obvious problems are because
we've never really achieved Brexit, and that this is all because of
concerted opposition from those who are determined to thwart it
(although I have no idea who these people are and, if they do exist,
what blocking powers they employ).
Dedicated Remainers seem very reluctant to accept the consequences of
joining the EEC/EC/EU. Some even go on to deny that there ARE any adverse consequences of Remaining. More often, they ignore the fact that the
obvious problems are because we never really were allowed to achieve a
level playing-field, and that this is all because of concerted opposition from those who were determined to thwart it, such as de Gaulle, who blocked everything for as long as was possible.
Wasn't Brown's assessment of that lady was essentially correct? His real
sin was to have it recorded for posterity.
On 21/12/2024 13:45, Ian Jackson wrote:
Wasn't Brown's assessment of that lady was essentially correct? His real
sin was to have it recorded for posterity.
I don't recall the words, but I do recall what she said at the time
perfectly reasonable and NOT bigoted.
Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
IIRC most members of the EEC were keen for us to join but I agree that
de Gaulle certainly wasn’t.
Whilst he clearly nursed a deep dislike/resentment of the British I have often wondered whether his implacable opposition to UK entry wasn’t because, knowing the xenophobia so deeply ingrained in many Brits, he
foresaw something like Brexit and the harm it could do to the community.
Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
Dedicated Brexiteers seem very reluctant to accept responsibility the
consequences. Some even deny that there ARE any adverse consequences of
Brexit. More often, they claim that the obvious problems are because
we've never really achieved Brexit, and that this is all because of
concerted opposition from those who are determined to thwart it
(although I have no idea who these people are and, if they do exist,
what blocking powers they employ).
Dedicated Remainers seem very reluctant to accept the consequences of
joining the EEC/EC/EU. Some even go on to deny that there ARE any adverse
consequences of Remaining. More often, they ignore the fact that the
obvious problems are because we never really were allowed to achieve a
level playing-field, and that this is all because of concerted opposition
from those who were determined to thwart it, such as de Gaulle, who blocked >> everything for as long as was possible.
IIRC most members of the EEC were keen for us to join but I agree that de Gaulle certainly wasn’t.
Whilst he clearly nursed a deep dislike/resentment of the British I have often wondered whether his implacable opposition to UK entry wasn’t because, knowing the xenophobia so deeply ingrained in many Brits, he
foresaw something like Brexit and the harm it could do to the community.
It may be apocryphal but I have heard it said that Winston Churchill,
knowing that de Gaulle would be obliged to attend his, Winston’s, funeral, instructed that, if he died first, his body should be conveyed to Bladon
via Waterloo station.
On 2024-12-22, mw0sec <les@nospam.null> wrote:woman
On 21/12/2024 13:45, Ian Jackson wrote:
Wasn't Brown's assessment of that lady was essentially correct? His
real sin was to have it recorded for posterity.
I don't recall the words, but I do recall what she said at the time
perfectly reasonable and NOT bigoted.
Opinions may differ on that.
Allegedly she said:
You can't say anything about the immigrants because you're saying
that you're … but all these eastern European what are coming in,
where are they flocking from?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/apr/28/gordon-brown-bigoted-
It may well not have been exactly what she meant, but I imagine to Brown
it sounded like bog-standard racist rhetoric, "we're being flooded by migrants, and you're not allowed to say anything".
On Sat, 21 Dec 2024 10:39:17 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk wrote...
The irony is the EU was very much moulded in the UKs shadow. The single
market being something a certain M. Thatcher practically had to ram
through against Franco-German opposition. Now of course they can't get
enough of it. Talk about killing the goose ...
Quote:
"Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market
without barriers - visible or invisible - giving you direct and
unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the
world's wealthiest and most prosperous people.
"Bigger than Japan. Bigger than the United States. On your doorstep. And
with the Channel Tunnel to give you direct access to it.
"It's not a dream. It's not a vision. It's not some bureaucrat's plan.
It's for real. And it's only five years away."
M. Thatcher
Lancaster House speech opening Single Market campaign
18th April 1988
On 22 Dec 2024 11:14:12 GMT, Spike wrote...
Tim Jackson <news@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
On 21 Dec 2024 12:32:37 GMT, Spike wrote...
Tim Jackson <news@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
Your reliance on it here shows that you've got no real answers. The 4% >>>>> figure for loss of GDP comes from the Government's Office for Budget >>>>> Responsibility, who have no reason for faked accountancy.
‘Faked accountancy’ would doubtless be against the rules. What rules do you
think have been broken?
I don't. It's you that is suggesting there's something fishy, however
you want to call it.
Severn Trent’s conjuring of £1.5billion out of thin air wasn’t faked, it
was within the rules. What rules were available to the OBR to determine the
4%, which did they use and which did they not? Do you know?
You're the person suggesting that a neutral public body faked their
figures.
That’s an unfounded allegation, as I have suggested no such thing.
But it's you that is suggesting the official figure (4% downturn) is
wrong.
Why should we accept your wild allegation that a 4% downturn is really
an upturn of any desired size you care to choose? Is the upturn 1%?
5%? 10%?
It’s whatever the accountants’ clients want it to be. It’s the first >> question they ask of a client: “What outcome do you want from this?â€.
So there we have it. You don't like the official figures, so they must
be the result of "creative accounting".
But you've no evidence to support that view, which seems unlikely from
the public Office for Budget Responsibility.
On Sat, 21 Dec 2024 11:08:20 +0000, Tim Jackson wrote:
Since we left the EU and its regulations, pesticides in food especially
fruit have increased whereas in the EU theyr declining, despite the
govts declared aim of maintaining similar standards. So wash them
thoroughly. Apparently grapes and strawberries are most likely to have
more than 1 pesticide residue.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/sep/19/revealed-far-higher- pesticide-residues-allowed-on-food-since-brexit
On 23/12/2024 01:29, miked wrote:
On Sat, 21 Dec 2024 11:08:20 +0000, Tim Jackson wrote:
Since we left the EU and its regulations, pesticides in food especially
fruit have increased whereas in the EU theyr declining, despite the
govts declared aim of maintaining similar standards. So wash them
thoroughly. Apparently grapes and strawberries are most likely to have
more than 1 pesticide residue.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/sep/19/revealed-far-higher-
pesticide-residues-allowed-on-food-since-brexit
Yes, now we've left the EU and the pervasive, anti-science greenie
agendas prevalent in Germany and some other influential parts of the EU,
we are able to come to our own rather more rational scientific views on
an individual basis.
Which we do.
Although concerned with drinking water, this exemplifies the lack of scientific thinking in the EU:
"The maximum permitted concentration for most individual pesticides in drinking water is 0.1μg/l (microgrammes per litre). This corresponds to
a concentration of 1 part in ten billion. It is not a health-based
standard; it is based on the limit set by the European Commission in
1980 to reflect the limit of analytical methodology at the time and as
an environmental policy to generally limit pesticides".
https://dwi.gov.uk/consumers/learn-more-about-your-water/pesticides/
Pesticide residues on food in the UK are at a very low level, with the maximum allowed being one-hundredth of the absolutely no effect level established in compulsory animal testing.
Although Greenies who read the Guardian like to get excited about such things, it's notable that they can never point to any instances of
pesticide poisoning through the consumption of food in the UK.
Can you?
On 23 Dec 2024 at 12:43:08 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 23/12/2024 01:29, miked wrote:
On Sat, 21 Dec 2024 11:08:20 +0000, Tim Jackson wrote:
Since we left the EU and its regulations, pesticides in food especially
fruit have increased whereas in the EU theyr declining, despite the
govts declared aim of maintaining similar standards. So wash them
thoroughly. Apparently grapes and strawberries are most likely to have
more than 1 pesticide residue.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/sep/19/revealed-far-higher- >>> pesticide-residues-allowed-on-food-since-brexit
Yes, now we've left the EU and the pervasive, anti-science greenie
agendas prevalent in Germany and some other influential parts of the EU,
we are able to come to our own rather more rational scientific views on
an individual basis.
Which we do.
Although concerned with drinking water, this exemplifies the lack of
scientific thinking in the EU:
"The maximum permitted concentration for most individual pesticides in
drinking water is 0.1μg/l (microgrammes per litre). This corresponds to
a concentration of 1 part in ten billion. It is not a health-based
standard; it is based on the limit set by the European Commission in
1980 to reflect the limit of analytical methodology at the time and as
an environmental policy to generally limit pesticides".
https://dwi.gov.uk/consumers/learn-more-about-your-water/pesticides/
Pesticide residues on food in the UK are at a very low level, with the
maximum allowed being one-hundredth of the absolutely no effect level
established in compulsory animal testing.
Although Greenies who read the Guardian like to get excited about such
things, it's notable that they can never point to any instances of
pesticide poisoning through the consumption of food in the UK.
Can you?
Your question is moot because many of the pesticides are cumulative poisons that cannot be excreted or metabolised and thus cannot be blamed on specific life events. They may well cause chronic neurological problems but as we all accumulate them it is hard to find a control group. If we had better assays it
would be possible and desirable to *lower* the acceptable limits. This is not contentious.
Tim Jackson <news@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
It's you that is suggesting there's something fishy, however
you want to call it.
What I have said on the topic, several times now, does not accord with your interpretation of it. It is for you to address the latter, not for me to address the former.
Didn’t the Chancellor recently turn some debt into credit by a stroke
of the pen? It’s easily done.
Ah… here it is, from October:
“Chancellor to change debt rules to release billionsâ€
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg745ggn3no.amp>
On 23 Dec 2024 09:52:38 GMT, Spike wrote...
Tim Jackson <news@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
It's you that is suggesting there's something fishy, however
you want to call it.
What I have said on the topic, several times now, does not accord with your >> interpretation of it. It is for you to address the latter, not for me to
address the former.
Quote (by Spike, 19/12/2024, criticising the OBR's figure):
"The parallel which you seem to
have missed is that if such can be done, then one can turn a claimed 4% downturn as a result of Brexit into any percentage of upturn one might
want, with merely a stroke or two of a pen."
[....]
Didn’t the Chancellor recently turn some debt into credit by a stroke
of the pen? It’s easily done.
Ah… here it is, from October:
“Chancellor to change debt rules to release billionsâ€
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg745ggn3no.amp>
The Chancellor is not turning debt into credit. She's changing the
official rules which say what part of the debt has to be paid back by
what deadline. The remaining unpaid debt will still be an unpaid debt.
In message <vk44p3$3h39k$1@dont-email.me>, Ottavio Caruso ><ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> writes
Le 19/12/2024 à 18:26, Jethro_uk a écrit :IIRC, statistics say that the main reason that Leave won was opposition
It's a common fallacy that Brexiteers try to portray all Reminers as
believing the EU is heaven on earth (it's most certainly is not) and
beyond reproach (again, it most certainly is not).
In fact I remember a certain Jeremy C. saying that the EU was a
“great danger to the cause of socialism in this country or any other >>country of the imposition of a bankers’ Europe on the people of this >>country”.
Was it not thank to the ambivalent position of Labour in 2016 that
Brexit won? Can I just remind the panel that Brexit won by a large
margin here in Brumland.
to immigration, so I would assume that it's the areas with a high
'non-ethnic British' population had more leavers.
On Sat, 21 Dec 2024 13:56:12 +0000, Ian Jackson ><ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
In message <vk44p3$3h39k$1@dont-email.me>, Ottavio Caruso >><ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> writes
Le 19/12/2024 à 18:26, Jethro_uk a écrit :IIRC, statistics say that the main reason that Leave won was opposition
It's a common fallacy that Brexiteers try to portray all Reminers as
believing the EU is heaven on earth (it's most certainly is not) and
beyond reproach (again, it most certainly is not).
In fact I remember a certain Jeremy C. saying that the EU was a
“great danger to the cause of socialism in this country or any other >>>country of the imposition of a bankers’ Europe on the people of this >>>countryâ€.
Was it not thank to the ambivalent position of Labour in 2016 that
Brexit won? Can I just remind the panel that Brexit won by a large
margin here in Brumland.
to immigration, so I would assume that it's the areas with a high >>'non-ethnic British' population had more leavers.
That's not really true. London, for example, has a much higher than average >proportion of ethnic minority residents. And yet London, on average, voted >for Remain.
On Sat, 21 Dec 2024 13:56:12 +0000, Ian Jackson ><ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
In message <vk44p3$3h39k$1@dont-email.me>, Ottavio Caruso >><ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> writes
Le 19/12/2024 à 18:26, Jethro_uk a écrit :IIRC, statistics say that the main reason that Leave won was opposition
It's a common fallacy that Brexiteers try to portray all Reminers as
believing the EU is heaven on earth (it's most certainly is not) and
beyond reproach (again, it most certainly is not).
In fact I remember a certain Jeremy C. saying that the EU was a
“great danger to the cause of socialism in this country or any other >>>country of the imposition of a bankers’ Europe on the people of this >>>countryâ€.
Was it not thank to the ambivalent position of Labour in 2016 that
Brexit won? Can I just remind the panel that Brexit won by a large
margin here in Brumland.
to immigration, so I would assume that it's the areas with a high >>'non-ethnic British' population had more leavers.
That's not really true. London, for example, has a much higher than average >proportion of ethnic minority residents. And yet London, on average, voted >for Remain.
Maybe not London, but I've certainly heard Birmingham mentioned as oneIIRC, statistics say that the main reason that Leave won was opposition >>>to immigration, so I would assume that it's the areas with a high >>>'non-ethnic British' population had more leavers.
That's not really true. London, for example, has a much higher than average >>proportion of ethnic minority residents. And yet London, on average, voted >>for Remain.
area. Of course, it might not have been the minority residents who were >strongly voting to leave,
In message <5PODVBBywUcnFwBw@brattleho.plus.com>, at 13:18:42 on Sun, 29 Dec 2024, Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> remarked:
Maybe not London, but I've certainly heard Birmingham mentioned as one area. >> Of course, it might not have been the minority residents who were strongly >> voting to leave,IIRC, statistics say that the main reason that Leave won was opposition >>>> to immigration, so I would assume that it's the areas with a high
'non-ethnic British' population had more leavers.
That's not really true. London, for example, has a much higher than average >>> proportion of ethnic minority residents. And yet London, on average, voted >>> for Remain.
The implication is that the majority WASPs wanted to vote Leave, because they thought it would slow down the immigration into their homeland.
On 29/12/2024 14:17, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <5PODVBBywUcnFwBw@brattleho.plus.com>, at 13:18:42 on Sun, 29 Dec >> 2024, Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> remarked:
Maybe not London, but I've certainly heard Birmingham mentioned as one area.IIRC, statistics say that the main reason that Leave won was opposition >>>>> to immigration, so I would assume that it's the areas with a high
'non-ethnic British' population had more leavers.
That's not really true. London, for example, has a much higher than average
proportion of ethnic minority residents. And yet London, on average, voted >>>> for Remain.
Of course, it might not have been the minority residents who were strongly >>> voting to leave,
The implication is that the majority WASPs wanted to vote Leave, because they
thought it would slow down the immigration into their homeland.
I do vaguely recall some reports that suggested that some previous immigrants,
or possibly their descendants, also wanted to slow down immigration. Maybe, if
there is a problem with numbers, those already here felt affected, not just your
WASPs.
On 30 Dec 2024 at 10:39:18 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 29/12/2024 14:17, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <5PODVBBywUcnFwBw@brattleho.plus.com>, at 13:18:42 on Sun, 29 Dec
2024, Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> remarked:
Maybe not London, but I've certainly heard Birmingham mentioned as one area.IIRC, statistics say that the main reason that Leave won was opposition >>>>>> to immigration, so I would assume that it's the areas with a high
'non-ethnic British' population had more leavers.
That's not really true. London, for example, has a much higher than average
proportion of ethnic minority residents. And yet London, on average, voted
for Remain.
Of course, it might not have been the minority residents who were strongly >>>> voting to leave,
The implication is that the majority WASPs wanted to vote Leave, because they
thought it would slow down the immigration into their homeland.
I do vaguely recall some reports that suggested that some previous immigrants,
or possibly their descendants, also wanted to slow down immigration. Maybe, if
there is a problem with numbers, those already here felt affected, not just >> your
WASPs.
Or perhaps equally likely they fear that continued immigration will fuel a rise in aggression and discrimination against existing minorities.
On 30/12/2024 11:07, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 Dec 2024 at 10:39:18 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 29/12/2024 14:17, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <5PODVBBywUcnFwBw@brattleho.plus.com>, at 13:18:42 on Sun, 29 Dec
2024, Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> remarked:
Maybe not London, but I've certainly heard Birmingham mentioned as one area.IIRC, statistics say that the main reason that Leave won was opposition >>>>>>> to immigration, so I would assume that it's the areas with a high >>>>>>> 'non-ethnic British' population had more leavers.
That's not really true. London, for example, has a much higher than average
proportion of ethnic minority residents. And yet London, on average, voted
for Remain.
Of course, it might not have been the minority residents who were strongly
voting to leave,
The implication is that the majority WASPs wanted to vote Leave, because they
thought it would slow down the immigration into their homeland.
I do vaguely recall some reports that suggested that some previous immigrants,
or possibly their descendants, also wanted to slow down immigration. Maybe, if
there is a problem with numbers, those already here felt affected, not just >>> your
WASPs.
Or perhaps equally likely they fear that continued immigration will fuel a >> rise in aggression and discrimination against existing minorities.
Quite possible, but that reason is still down to numbers, isn't it.
On 30 Dec 2024 at 10:39:18 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
I do vaguely recall some reports that suggested that some previous immigrants,
or possibly their descendants, also wanted to slow down immigration. Maybe, if
there is a problem with numbers, those already here felt affected, not just >> your WASPs.
Or perhaps equally likely they fear that continued immigration will fuel a rise in aggression and discrimination against existing minorities.
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 30 Dec 2024 at 10:39:18 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
I do vaguely recall some reports that suggested that some previous immigrants,
or possibly their descendants, also wanted to slow down immigration. Maybe, if
there is a problem with numbers, those already here felt affected, not just >>> your WASPs.
Or perhaps equally likely they fear that continued immigration will fuel a >> rise in aggression and discrimination against existing minorities.
OTOH they might fear that there won’t be enough benefits - housing, doctors, schools, hospitals, Universal Credit and the like - to go round,
and they will lose out.
On 30 Dec 2024 at 13:01:37 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 30/12/2024 11:07, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 Dec 2024 at 10:39:18 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 29/12/2024 14:17, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <5PODVBBywUcnFwBw@brattleho.plus.com>, at 13:18:42 on Sun, 29 Dec
2024, Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> remarked:
Maybe not London, but I've certainly heard Birmingham mentioned as one area.IIRC, statistics say that the main reason that Leave won was opposition
to immigration, so I would assume that it's the areas with a high >>>>>>>> 'non-ethnic British' population had more leavers.
That's not really true. London, for example, has a much higher than average
proportion of ethnic minority residents. And yet London, on average, voted
for Remain.
Of course, it might not have been the minority residents who were strongly
voting to leave,
The implication is that the majority WASPs wanted to vote Leave, because they
thought it would slow down the immigration into their homeland.
I do vaguely recall some reports that suggested that some previous immigrants,
or possibly their descendants, also wanted to slow down immigration. Maybe, if
there is a problem with numbers, those already here felt affected, not just
your
WASPs.
Or perhaps equally likely they fear that continued immigration will fuel a >>> rise in aggression and discrimination against existing minorities.
Quite possible, but that reason is still down to numbers, isn't it.
Honestly I believe it is more due to sentiment and populist campaigning than numbers. The fact remains that areas with few immigrants are where the highest
concentration of anti-immigrant sentiment exists.
On 30 Dec 2024 at 14:20:45 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 30 Dec 2024 at 10:39:18 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
I do vaguely recall some reports that suggested that some previous immigrants,
or possibly their descendants, also wanted to slow down immigration. Maybe, if
there is a problem with numbers, those already here felt affected, not just
your WASPs.
Or perhaps equally likely they fear that continued immigration will fuel a >>> rise in aggression and discrimination against existing minorities.
OTOH they might fear that there won’t be enough benefits - housing,
doctors, schools, hospitals, Universal Credit and the like - to go round,
and they will lose out.
That would be irrational.
In message <rqn0nj10spau6pt45km9pj0opspfl1cauv@4ax.com>, at 20:31:09 on
Sat, 28 Dec 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
On Sat, 21 Dec 2024 13:56:12 +0000, Ian Jackson
<ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
In message <vk44p3$3h39k$1@dont-email.me>, Ottavio Caruso
<ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> writes
Le 19/12/2024 à 18:26, Jethro_uk a écrit :IIRC, statistics say that the main reason that Leave won was opposition
It's a common fallacy that Brexiteers try to portray all Reminers as >>>>> believing the EU is heaven on earth (it's most certainly is not) and >>>>> beyond reproach (again, it most certainly is not).
In fact I remember a certain Jeremy C. saying that the EU was a
“great danger to the cause of socialism in this country or any other >>>> country of the imposition of a bankers’ Europe on the people of this >>>> countryâ€.
Was it not thank to the ambivalent position of Labour in 2016 that
Brexit won? Can I just remind the panel that Brexit won by a large
margin here in Brumland.
to immigration, so I would assume that it's the areas with a high
'non-ethnic British' population had more leavers.
That's not really true. London, for example, has a much higher than
average
proportion of ethnic minority residents. And yet London, on average,
voted
for Remain.
Remember also that there's a lot of conflation between "immigrants" and "ethnics" (which is generally code for people with dark skin and foreign religions). The reason many country areas voted "Leave" was because the population felt overwhelmed by white-skinned catholic eastern Europeans.
On 30 Dec 2024 at 10:39:18 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 29/12/2024 14:17, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <5PODVBBywUcnFwBw@brattleho.plus.com>, at 13:18:42 on Sun, 29 Dec
2024, Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> remarked:
Maybe not London, but I've certainly heard Birmingham mentioned as one area.IIRC, statistics say that the main reason that Leave won was opposition >>>>>> to immigration, so I would assume that it's the areas with a high
'non-ethnic British' population had more leavers.
That's not really true. London, for example, has a much higher than average
proportion of ethnic minority residents. And yet London, on average, voted
for Remain.
Of course, it might not have been the minority residents who were strongly >>>> voting to leave,
The implication is that the majority WASPs wanted to vote Leave, because they
thought it would slow down the immigration into their homeland.
I do vaguely recall some reports that suggested that some previous immigrants,
or possibly their descendants, also wanted to slow down immigration. Maybe, if
there is a problem with numbers, those already here felt affected, not just >> your
WASPs.
Or perhaps equally likely they fear that continued immigration will fuel a rise in aggression and discrimination against existing minorities.
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 30 Dec 2024 at 14:20:45 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 30 Dec 2024 at 10:39:18 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>
I do vaguely recall some reports that suggested that some previous immigrants,
or possibly their descendants, also wanted to slow down immigration. Maybe, if
there is a problem with numbers, those already here felt affected, not just
your WASPs.
Or perhaps equally likely they fear that continued immigration will fuel a >>>> rise in aggression and discrimination against existing minorities.
OTOH they might fear that there won’t be enough benefits - housing,
doctors, schools, hospitals, Universal Credit and the like - to go round, >>> and they will lose out.
That would be irrational.
By whose measure?
Le 29/12/2024 à 12:06, Roland Perry a écrit :
In message <rqn0nj10spau6pt45km9pj0opspfl1cauv@4ax.com>, at 20:31:09
on Sat, 28 Dec 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
On Sat, 21 Dec 2024 13:56:12 +0000, Ian Jackson
<ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
In message <vk44p3$3h39k$1@dont-email.me>, Ottavio Caruso
<ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> writes
Le 19/12/2024 à 18:26, Jethro_uk a écrit :IIRC, statistics say that the main reason that Leave won was opposition >>>> to immigration, so I would assume that it's the areas with a high
It's a common fallacy that Brexiteers try to portray all Reminers as >>>>>> believing the EU is heaven on earth (it's most certainly is not) and >>>>>> beyond reproach (again, it most certainly is not).
In fact I remember a certain Jeremy C. saying that the EU was a
“great danger to the cause of socialism in this country or any other >>>>> country of the imposition of a bankers’ Europe on the people of this >>>>> countryâ€.
Was it not thank to the ambivalent position of Labour in 2016 that
Brexit won? Can I just remind the panel that Brexit won by a large
margin here in Brumland.
'non-ethnic British' population had more leavers.
That's not really true. London, for example, has a much higher than
average
proportion of ethnic minority residents. And yet London, on average,
voted
for Remain.
Remember also that there's a lot of conflation between "immigrants"
and "ethnics" (which is generally code for people with dark skin and
foreign religions). The reason many country areas voted "Leave" was
because the population felt overwhelmed by white-skinned catholic
eastern Europeans.
Thanks for validating that. I am always been pointed out at as "ra*ist"
for saying that.
On 31 Dec 2024 at 14:14:59 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 31/12/2024 09:28 am, Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 30 Dec 2024 at 14:20:45 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 30 Dec 2024 at 10:39:18 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
I do vaguely recall some reports that suggested that some previous immigrants,
or possibly their descendants, also wanted to slow down immigration. Maybe, if
there is a problem with numbers, those already here felt affected, not just
your WASPs.
Or perhaps equally likely they fear that continued immigration will fuel a
rise in aggression and discrimination against existing minorities.
OTOH they might fear that there won’t be enough benefits - housing, >>>>> doctors, schools, hospitals, Universal Credit and the like - to go round, >>>>> and they will lose out.
That would be irrational.
By whose measure?
Good point.
Although the Usual Suspects like to describe those who don't hold the
same political and social views as "irrational", in fact, people on the
whole do not act irrationally*. They simply differ in what they see as
optimum situations and outcomes.
[* The whole basis of economic analysis is that people take decisions
rationally.]
It's irrational because new, legal immigrants tend to generate much more wealth, and taxes, than they consume in government services and benefits. This is why successive governments, at the behest of the very rich people most
of the wealth generated goes to, tend to ignore the popular demand to reduce legal immigration.
On 31/12/2024 09:28 am, Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 30 Dec 2024 at 14:20:45 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 30 Dec 2024 at 10:39:18 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>
I do vaguely recall some reports that suggested that some previous immigrants,
or possibly their descendants, also wanted to slow down immigration. Maybe, if
there is a problem with numbers, those already here felt affected, not just
your WASPs.
Or perhaps equally likely they fear that continued immigration will fuel a
rise in aggression and discrimination against existing minorities.
OTOH they might fear that there won’t be enough benefits - housing,
doctors, schools, hospitals, Universal Credit and the like - to go round, >>>> and they will lose out.
That would be irrational.
By whose measure?
Good point.
Although the Usual Suspects like to describe those who don't hold the
same political and social views as "irrational", in fact, people on the
whole do not act irrationally*. They simply differ in what they see as optimum situations and outcomes.
[* The whole basis of economic analysis is that people take decisions rationally.]
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 31 Dec 2024 at 14:14:59 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 31/12/2024 09:28 am, Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 30 Dec 2024 at 14:20:45 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>> Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 30 Dec 2024 at 10:39:18 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>OTOH they might fear that there won’t be enough benefits - housing, >>>>>> doctors, schools, hospitals, Universal Credit and the like - to go round,
I do vaguely recall some reports that suggested that some previous immigrants,
or possibly their descendants, also wanted to slow down immigration. Maybe, if
there is a problem with numbers, those already here felt affected, not just
your WASPs.
Or perhaps equally likely they fear that continued immigration will fuel a
rise in aggression and discrimination against existing minorities. >>>>>>
and they will lose out.
That would be irrational.
By whose measure?
Good point.
Although the Usual Suspects like to describe those who don't hold the
same political and social views as "irrational", in fact, people on the
whole do not act irrationally*. They simply differ in what they see as
optimum situations and outcomes.
[* The whole basis of economic analysis is that people take decisions
rationally.]
It's irrational because new, legal immigrants tend to generate much more
wealth, and taxes, than they consume in government services and benefits.
This is why successive governments, at the behest of the very rich people most
of the wealth generated goes to, tend to ignore the popular demand to reduce >> legal immigration.
Ah…I now note you have introduced a qualifier. Two such, in fact[1] thus changing the argument you originally put forward.
[1] ‘new’ and ‘legal’ when applied to the term ‘immigrants’
On 31 Dec 2024 at 16:57:19 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 31 Dec 2024 at 14:14:59 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 31/12/2024 09:28 am, Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 30 Dec 2024 at 14:20:45 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 30 Dec 2024 at 10:39:18 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:OTOH they might fear that there won’t be enough benefits - housing, >>>>>>> doctors, schools, hospitals, Universal Credit and the like - to go round,
I do vaguely recall some reports that suggested that some previous immigrants,
or possibly their descendants, also wanted to slow down immigration. Maybe, if
there is a problem with numbers, those already here felt affected, not just
your WASPs.
Or perhaps equally likely they fear that continued immigration will fuel a
rise in aggression and discrimination against existing minorities. >>>>>>>
and they will lose out.
That would be irrational.
By whose measure?
Good point.
Although the Usual Suspects like to describe those who don't hold the
same political and social views as "irrational", in fact, people on the >>>> whole do not act irrationally*. They simply differ in what they see as >>>> optimum situations and outcomes.
[* The whole basis of economic analysis is that people take decisions
rationally.]
It's irrational because new, legal immigrants tend to generate much more >>> wealth, and taxes, than they consume in government services and benefits. >>> This is why successive governments, at the behest of the very rich people most
of the wealth generated goes to, tend to ignore the popular demand to reduce
legal immigration.
Ah…I now note you have introduced a qualifier. Two such, in fact[1] thus >> changing the argument you originally put forward.
[1] ‘new’ and ‘legal’ when applied to the term ‘immigrants’
Well obviously 'new' as we were talking about additional immigration. And legal immigrants are the vast majority. It seems that refugees arriving by boat are almost universally hated; as, for instance, were Jewish refugees in the 1930s. No one likes refugees.
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 31 Dec 2024 at 16:57:19 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 31 Dec 2024 at 14:14:59 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 31/12/2024 09:28 am, Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 30 Dec 2024 at 14:20:45 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 30 Dec 2024 at 10:39:18 GMT, "kat" >>>>>>>>><littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:OTOH they might fear that there won’t be enough benefits - housing, >>>>>>>> doctors, schools, hospitals, Universal Credit and the like - to >>>>>>>>go round,
I do vaguely recall some reports that suggested that some >>>>>>>>>>previous immigrants,
or possibly their descendants, also wanted to slow down >>>>>>>>>>immigration. Maybe, if
there is a problem with numbers, those already here felt >>>>>>>>>>affected, not just
your WASPs.
Or perhaps equally likely they fear that continued immigration >>>>>>>>>will fuel a
rise in aggression and discrimination against existing minorities. >>>>>>>>
and they will lose out.
That would be irrational.
By whose measure?
Good point.
Although the Usual Suspects like to describe those who don't hold the >>>>> same political and social views as "irrational", in fact, people on the >>>>> whole do not act irrationally*. They simply differ in what they see as >>>>> optimum situations and outcomes.
[* The whole basis of economic analysis is that people take decisions >>>>> rationally.]
It's irrational because new, legal immigrants tend to generate much more >>>> wealth, and taxes, than they consume in government services and benefits. >>>> This is why successive governments, at the behest of the very rich >>>>people most
of the wealth generated goes to, tend to ignore the popular demand
to reduce
legal immigration.
Ah…I now note you have introduced a qualifier. Two such, in fact[1] thus >>> changing the argument you originally put forward.
[1] ‘new’ and ‘legal’ when applied to the term ‘immigrants’
Well obviously 'new' as we were talking about additional immigration. And
legal immigrants are the vast majority.
It seems that refugees arriving by
boat are almost universally hated; as, for instance, were Jewish refugees in >> the 1930s. No one likes refugees.
In your rush to condemn you seem to have forgotten the kindertransport, who >were welcomed into British homes. As, eighty-five years later, were those >people from Ukraine.
In message <ltjgd0F5fs9U1@mid.individual.net>, Spike
<aero.spike@mail.com> writes
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 31 Dec 2024 at 16:57:19 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:Well obviously 'new' as we were talking about additional immigration. And >>> legal immigrants are the vast majority.
On 31 Dec 2024 at 14:14:59 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 31/12/2024 09:28 am, Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 30 Dec 2024 at 14:20:45 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 30 Dec 2024 at 10:39:18 GMT, "kat"OTOH they might fear that there won’t be enough benefits - housing, >>>>>>>>> doctors, schools, hospitals, Universal Credit and the like - to >>>>>>>>> go round,
<littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
I do vaguely recall some reports that suggested that some >>>>>>>>>>> previous immigrants,
or possibly their descendants, also wanted to slow down
immigration. Maybe, if
there is a problem with numbers, those already here felt >>>>>>>>>>> affected, not just
your WASPs.
Or perhaps equally likely they fear that continued immigration >>>>>>>>>> will fuel a
rise in aggression and discrimination against existing minorities. >>>>>>>>>
and they will lose out.
That would be irrational.
By whose measure?
Good point.
Although the Usual Suspects like to describe those who don't hold the >>>>>> same political and social views as "irrational", in fact, people on the >>>>>> whole do not act irrationally*. They simply differ in what they see as >>>>>> optimum situations and outcomes.
[* The whole basis of economic analysis is that people take decisions >>>>>> rationally.]
It's irrational because new, legal immigrants tend to generate much more >>>>> wealth, and taxes, than they consume in government services and benefits. >>>>> This is why successive governments, at the behest of the very rich
people most
of the wealth generated goes to, tend to ignore the popular demand
to reduce
legal immigration.
Ah…I now note you have introduced a qualifier. Two such, in fact[1] thus >>>> changing the argument you originally put forward.
[1] ‘new’ and ‘legal’ when applied to the term ‘immigrants’ >>>
Ate you sure? Despite the vast numbers. I understand the legal migration
is much greater than the illegal.
It seems that refugees arriving by
boat are almost universally hated; as, for instance, were Jewish refugees in
the 1930s. No one likes refugees.
In your rush to condemn you seem to have forgotten the kindertransport, who >> were welcomed into British homes. As, eighty-five years later, were those
people from Ukraine.
Certainly, before the war, I don't think that many German refugees were really made that welcome here. The British simply didn't understand what
they were fleeing from, and why they wanted to come here.
As for Ukrainian's coming to the UK - one of the reasons they're welcome
here is that, this time, we DO understand the situation, and unlike
refugees from the Middle East, there's a good chance that most will
return home when hostilities are over (as eventually they will be).
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 31 Dec 2024 at 16:57:19 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 31 Dec 2024 at 14:14:59 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 31/12/2024 09:28 am, Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 30 Dec 2024 at 14:20:45 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 30 Dec 2024 at 10:39:18 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:OTOH they might fear that there won’t be enough benefits - housing, >>>>>>>> doctors, schools, hospitals, Universal Credit and the like - to go round,
I do vaguely recall some reports that suggested that some previous immigrants,
or possibly their descendants, also wanted to slow down immigration. Maybe, if
there is a problem with numbers, those already here felt affected, not just
your WASPs.
Or perhaps equally likely they fear that continued immigration will fuel a
rise in aggression and discrimination against existing minorities. >>>>>>>>
and they will lose out.
That would be irrational.
By whose measure?
Good point.
Although the Usual Suspects like to describe those who don't hold the >>>>> same political and social views as "irrational", in fact, people on the >>>>> whole do not act irrationally*. They simply differ in what they see as >>>>> optimum situations and outcomes.
[* The whole basis of economic analysis is that people take decisions >>>>> rationally.]
It's irrational because new, legal immigrants tend to generate much more >>>> wealth, and taxes, than they consume in government services and benefits. >>>> This is why successive governments, at the behest of the very rich people most
of the wealth generated goes to, tend to ignore the popular demand to reduce
legal immigration.
Ah…I now note you have introduced a qualifier. Two such, in fact[1] thus >>> changing the argument you originally put forward.
[1] ‘new’ and ‘legal’ when applied to the term ‘immigrants’
Well obviously 'new' as we were talking about additional immigration. And
legal immigrants are the vast majority. It seems that refugees arriving by >> boat are almost universally hated; as, for instance, were Jewish refugees in >> the 1930s. No one likes refugees.
In your rush to condemn you seem to have forgotten the kindertransport, who were welcomed into British homes. As, eighty-five years later, were those people from Ukraine.
On 31 Dec 2024 at 14:14:59 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 31/12/2024 09:28 am, Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 30 Dec 2024 at 14:20:45 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
OTOH they might fear that there won’t be enough benefits - housing, >>>>> doctors, schools, hospitals, Universal Credit and the like - to go
round,
and they will lose out.
That would be irrational.
By whose measure?
Good point.
Although the Usual Suspects like to describe those who don't hold the
same political and social views as "irrational", in fact, people on the
whole do not act irrationally*. They simply differ in what they see as
optimum situations and outcomes.
[* The whole basis of economic analysis is that people take decisions
rationally.]
It's irrational because new, legal immigrants tend to generate much more wealth, and taxes, than they consume in government services and
benefits.
This is why successive governments, at the behest of the very
rich people most of the wealth generated goes to, tend to ignore the
popular demand to reduce legal immigration.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
"kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
I do vaguely recall some reports that suggested that some previous immigrants,
or possibly their descendants, also wanted to slow down immigration. Maybe, if
there is a problem with numbers, those already here felt affected, not just
your WASPs.
Or perhaps equally likely they fear that continued immigration will fuel a
rise in aggression and discrimination against existing minorities.
OTOH they might fear that there won’t be enough benefits - housing, >>>>> doctors, schools, hospitals, Universal Credit and the like - to go round, >>>>> and they will lose out.
That would be irrational.
By whose measure?
Good point.
Although the Usual Suspects like to describe those who don't hold the
same political and social views as "irrational", in fact, people on the
whole do not act irrationally*. They simply differ in what they see as
optimum situations and outcomes.
[* The whole basis of economic analysis is that people take decisions
rationally.]
It's irrational because new, legal immigrants tend to generate much more wealth, and taxes, than they consume in government services and benefits.
This is why successive governments, at the behest of the very rich people most
of the wealth generated goes to, tend to ignore the popular demand to reduce legal immigration.
On 31/12/2024 04:35 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
"kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
I do vaguely recall some reports that suggested that some previous immigrants,
or possibly their descendants, also wanted to slow down immigration. Maybe, if
there is a problem with numbers, those already here felt affected, not just
your WASPs.
Or perhaps equally likely they fear that continued immigration will fuel a
rise in aggression and discrimination against existing minorities.
OTOH they might fear that there won’t be enough benefits - housing, >>>>>> doctors, schools, hospitals, Universal Credit and the like - to go round,
and they will lose out.
That would be irrational.
By whose measure?
Good point.
Although the Usual Suspects like to describe those who don't hold the
same political and social views as "irrational", in fact, people on the
whole do not act irrationally*. They simply differ in what they see as
optimum situations and outcomes.
[* The whole basis of economic analysis is that people take decisions
rationally.]
It's irrational because new, legal immigrants tend to generate much more
wealth, and taxes, than they consume in government services and benefits.
It's irrational to assume:
(a) that those things, even if true, are the only factor to take into consideration and
(b) that others value them as much as you do.
This is why successive governments, at the behest of the very rich people most
of the wealth generated goes to, tend to ignore the popular demand to reduce >> legal immigration.
That's one way of looking at democracy.
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 31 Dec 2024 at 16:57:19 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 31 Dec 2024 at 14:14:59 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 31/12/2024 09:28 am, Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 30 Dec 2024 at 14:20:45 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 30 Dec 2024 at 10:39:18 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:OTOH they might fear that there won’t be enough benefits - housing, >>>>>>>> doctors, schools, hospitals, Universal Credit and the like - to go round,
I do vaguely recall some reports that suggested that some previous immigrants,
or possibly their descendants, also wanted to slow down immigration. Maybe, if
there is a problem with numbers, those already here felt affected, not just
your WASPs.
Or perhaps equally likely they fear that continued immigration will fuel a
rise in aggression and discrimination against existing minorities. >>>>>>>>
and they will lose out.
That would be irrational.
By whose measure?
Good point.
Although the Usual Suspects like to describe those who don't hold the >>>>> same political and social views as "irrational", in fact, people on the >>>>> whole do not act irrationally*. They simply differ in what they see as >>>>> optimum situations and outcomes.
[* The whole basis of economic analysis is that people take decisions >>>>> rationally.]
It's irrational because new, legal immigrants tend to generate much more >>>> wealth, and taxes, than they consume in government services and benefits. >>>> This is why successive governments, at the behest of the very rich people most
of the wealth generated goes to, tend to ignore the popular demand to reduce
legal immigration.
Ah…I now note you have introduced a qualifier. Two such, in fact[1] thus >>> changing the argument you originally put forward.
[1] ‘new’ and ‘legal’ when applied to the term ‘immigrants’
Well obviously 'new' as we were talking about additional immigration. And
legal immigrants are the vast majority. It seems that refugees arriving by >> boat are almost universally hated; as, for instance, were Jewish refugees in >> the 1930s. No one likes refugees.
In your rush to condemn you seem to have forgotten the kindertransport, who were welcomed into British homes. As, eighty-five years later, were those people from Ukraine.
In message <ltjgd0F5fs9U1@mid.individual.net>, Spike
<aero.spike@mail.com> writes
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 31 Dec 2024 at 16:57:19 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:Well obviously 'new' as we were talking about additional immigration.
On 31 Dec 2024 at 14:14:59 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 31/12/2024 09:28 am, Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 30 Dec 2024 at 14:20:45 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com>
wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 30 Dec 2024 at 10:39:18 GMT, "kat"
<littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
I do vaguely recall some reports that suggested that some >>>>>>>>>>> previous immigrants,
or possibly their descendants, also wanted to slow down
immigration. Maybe, if
there is a problem with numbers, those already here felt >>>>>>>>>>> affected, not just
your WASPs.
Or perhaps equally likely they fear that continued immigration >>>>>>>>>> will fuel a
rise in aggression and discrimination against existing
minorities.
OTOH they might fear that there won’t be enough benefits - >>>>>>>>> housing,
doctors, schools, hospitals, Universal Credit and the like - to >>>>>>>>> go round,
and they will lose out.
That would be irrational.
By whose measure?
Good point.
Although the Usual Suspects like to describe those who don't hold the >>>>>> same political and social views as "irrational", in fact, people
on the
whole do not act irrationally*. They simply differ in what they
see as
optimum situations and outcomes.
[* The whole basis of economic analysis is that people take decisions >>>>>> rationally.]
It's irrational because new, legal immigrants tend to generate much
more
wealth, and taxes, than they consume in government services and
benefits.
This is why successive governments, at the behest of the very rich
people most
of the wealth generated goes to, tend to ignore the popular demand
to reduce
legal immigration.
Ah…I now note you have introduced a qualifier. Two such, in fact[1]
thus
changing the argument you originally put forward.
[1] ‘new’ and ‘legal’ when applied to the term ‘immigrants’ >>>
And
legal immigrants are the vast majority.
Ate you sure? Despite the vast numbers. I understand the legal migration
is much greater than the illegal.
It seems that refugees arriving by
boat are almost universally hated; as, for instance, were Jewish
refugees in
the 1930s. No one likes refugees.
In your rush to condemn you seem to have forgotten the
kindertransport, who
were welcomed into British homes. As, eighty-five years later, were those
people from Ukraine.
Certainly, before the war, I don't think that many German refugees were really made that welcome here. The British simply didn't understand what
they were fleeing from, and why they wanted to come here.
As for Ukrainian's coming to the UK - one of the reasons they're welcome
here is that, this time, we DO understand the situation, and unlike
refugees from the Middle East, there's a good chance that most will
return home when hostilities are over (as eventually they will be).
On 31 Dec 2024 at 17:00:57 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 31/12/2024 04:35 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:It's irrational to assume:
Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
"kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
I do vaguely recall some reports that suggested that some previous immigrants,
or possibly their descendants, also wanted to slow down immigration. Maybe, if
there is a problem with numbers, those already here felt affected, not just
your WASPs.
Or perhaps equally likely they fear that continued immigration will fuel a
rise in aggression and discrimination against existing minorities.
OTOH they might fear that there won’t be enough benefits - housing, >>>>>>> doctors, schools, hospitals, Universal Credit and the like - to go round,
and they will lose out.
That would be irrational.
By whose measure?
Good point.
Although the Usual Suspects like to describe those who don't hold the
same political and social views as "irrational", in fact, people on the >>>> whole do not act irrationally*. They simply differ in what they see as >>>> optimum situations and outcomes.
[* The whole basis of economic analysis is that people take decisions
rationally.]
It's irrational because new, legal immigrants tend to generate much more >>> wealth, and taxes, than they consume in government services and benefits. >>
(a) that those things, even if true, are the only factor to take into
consideration and
(b) that others value them as much as you do.
This is why successive governments, at the behest of the very rich people most
of the wealth generated goes to, tend to ignore the popular demand to reduce
legal immigration.
That's one way of looking at democracy.
That governments routinely ignore such wishes? Doesn't actually conflict with how our democracy works with a two party system. Creates dissatisfaction though. Note, don't blame the messenger, by pointing out that both parties ignore popular opinion on legal immigration is an observation I am making, I am not promoting it.
On 01/01/2025 01:24 am, Ian Jackson wrote:
Comment put in wrong place.Ate you sure? Despite the vast numbers. I understand the legal
migration is much greater than the illegal.
You appear to be disagreeing with a point with which you agree.
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> writes
Ian Jackson wrote:
 Ate you sure? Despite the vast numbers. I understand the legal
migration is much greater than the illegal.
You appear to be disagreeing with a point with which you agree.
Comment put in wrong place.
On 31 Dec 2024 at 16:57:19 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 31 Dec 2024 at 14:14:59 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 31/12/2024 09:28 am, Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 30 Dec 2024 at 14:20:45 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 30 Dec 2024 at 10:39:18 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:OTOH they might fear that there won’t be enough benefits - housing, >>>>>>> doctors, schools, hospitals, Universal Credit and the like - to go round,
I do vaguely recall some reports that suggested that some previous immigrants,
or possibly their descendants, also wanted to slow down immigration. Maybe, if
there is a problem with numbers, those already here felt affected, not just
your WASPs.
Or perhaps equally likely they fear that continued immigration will fuel a
rise in aggression and discrimination against existing minorities. >>>>>>>
and they will lose out.
That would be irrational.
By whose measure?
Good point.
Although the Usual Suspects like to describe those who don't hold the
same political and social views as "irrational", in fact, people on the >>>> whole do not act irrationally*. They simply differ in what they see as >>>> optimum situations and outcomes.
[* The whole basis of economic analysis is that people take decisions
rationally.]
It's irrational because new, legal immigrants tend to generate much more >>> wealth, and taxes, than they consume in government services and benefits. >>> This is why successive governments, at the behest of the very rich people most
of the wealth generated goes to, tend to ignore the popular demand to reduce
legal immigration.
Ah…I now note you have introduced a qualifier. Two such, in fact[1] thus >> changing the argument you originally put forward.
[1] ‘new’ and ‘legal’ when applied to the term ‘immigrants’
Well obviously 'new' as we were talking about additional immigration. And legal immigrants are the vast majority. It seems that refugees arriving by boat are almost universally hated; as, for instance, were Jewish refugees in the 1930s. No one likes refugees.
Le 31/12/2024 à 20:20, Roger Hayter a écrit :
On 31 Dec 2024 at 16:57:19 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 31 Dec 2024 at 14:14:59 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 31/12/2024 09:28 am, Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 30 Dec 2024 at 14:20:45 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 30 Dec 2024 at 10:39:18 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:OTOH they might fear that there won’t be enough benefits - housing, >>>>>>>> doctors, schools, hospitals, Universal Credit and the like - to go round,
I do vaguely recall some reports that suggested that some previous immigrants,
or possibly their descendants, also wanted to slow down immigration. Maybe, if
there is a problem with numbers, those already here felt affected, not just
your WASPs.
Or perhaps equally likely they fear that continued immigration will fuel a
rise in aggression and discrimination against existing minorities. >>>>>>>>
and they will lose out.
That would be irrational.
By whose measure?
Good point.
Although the Usual Suspects like to describe those who don't hold the >>>>> same political and social views as "irrational", in fact, people on the >>>>> whole do not act irrationally*. They simply differ in what they see as >>>>> optimum situations and outcomes.
[* The whole basis of economic analysis is that people take decisions >>>>> rationally.]
It's irrational because new, legal immigrants tend to generate much more >>>> wealth, and taxes, than they consume in government services and benefits. >>>> This is why successive governments, at the behest of the very rich people most
of the wealth generated goes to, tend to ignore the popular demand to reduce
legal immigration.
Ah…I now note you have introduced a qualifier. Two such, in fact[1] thus >>> changing the argument you originally put forward.
[1] ‘new’ and ‘legal’ when applied to the term ‘immigrants’
Well obviously 'new' as we were talking about additional immigration. And
legal immigrants are the vast majority. It seems that refugees arriving by >> boat are almost universally hated; as, for instance, were Jewish refugees in >> the 1930s. No one likes refugees.
EU immigrants were never hated because "refugees". Only some slow
thinkers would have assumed that. A lot of hate against EU citizens was
due to painting them as "white" and "racist", especially by the left.
I remember a certain Labour leader saying (and I am quoting) "wholesale
EU immigration has destroyed conditions for British workers".
Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]Telling the workers that immigrants are to blame for their poor
conditions goes back a long way.
Telling the workers that immigrants are to blame for their poor
conditions goes back a long way.
Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
Le 31/12/2024 à 20:20, Roger Hayter a écrit :
On 31 Dec 2024 at 16:57:19 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:Well obviously 'new' as we were talking about additional immigration. And >>> legal immigrants are the vast majority. It seems that refugees arriving by >>> boat are almost universally hated; as, for instance, were Jewish refugees in
On 31 Dec 2024 at 14:14:59 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 31/12/2024 09:28 am, Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 30 Dec 2024 at 14:20:45 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 30 Dec 2024 at 10:39:18 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:OTOH they might fear that there won’t be enough benefits - housing, >>>>>>>>> doctors, schools, hospitals, Universal Credit and the like - to go round,
I do vaguely recall some reports that suggested that some previous immigrants,
or possibly their descendants, also wanted to slow down immigration. Maybe, if
there is a problem with numbers, those already here felt affected, not just
your WASPs.
Or perhaps equally likely they fear that continued immigration will fuel a
rise in aggression and discrimination against existing minorities. >>>>>>>>>
and they will lose out.
That would be irrational.
By whose measure?
Good point.
Although the Usual Suspects like to describe those who don't hold the >>>>>> same political and social views as "irrational", in fact, people on the >>>>>> whole do not act irrationally*. They simply differ in what they see as >>>>>> optimum situations and outcomes.
[* The whole basis of economic analysis is that people take decisions >>>>>> rationally.]
It's irrational because new, legal immigrants tend to generate much more >>>>> wealth, and taxes, than they consume in government services and benefits. >>>>> This is why successive governments, at the behest of the very rich people most
of the wealth generated goes to, tend to ignore the popular demand to reduce
legal immigration.
Ah…I now note you have introduced a qualifier. Two such, in fact[1] thus >>>> changing the argument you originally put forward.
[1] ‘new’ and ‘legal’ when applied to the term ‘immigrants’ >>>
the 1930s. No one likes refugees.
EU immigrants were never hated because "refugees". Only some slow
thinkers would have assumed that. A lot of hate against EU citizens was
due to painting them as "white" and "racist", especially by the left.
I remember a certain Labour leader saying (and I am quoting) "wholesale
EU immigration has destroyed conditions for British workers".
Telling the workers that immigrants are to blame for their poor conditions goes back a long way. IIRC Jack London wrote about it in People of the
Abyss (1903?) - I think it was Russian and Polish Jews back then. We have
not moved on much in the years since then.
On Thu, 02 Jan 2025 23:22:42 +0000, Owen Rees wrote:
Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]Telling the workers that immigrants are to blame for their poor
conditions goes back a long way.
As does the tradition of folk with no qualifications thinking they'd be a super paid high flying executive if it wasn't for those pesky foreigners
and their "education".
Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
Le 31/12/2024 à 20:20, Roger Hayter a écrit :
On 31 Dec 2024 at 16:57:19 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:Well obviously 'new' as we were talking about additional immigration. And >>> legal immigrants are the vast majority. It seems that refugees arriving by >>> boat are almost universally hated; as, for instance, were Jewish refugees in
On 31 Dec 2024 at 14:14:59 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 31/12/2024 09:28 am, Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 30 Dec 2024 at 14:20:45 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 30 Dec 2024 at 10:39:18 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:OTOH they might fear that there won’t be enough benefits - housing, >>>>>>>>> doctors, schools, hospitals, Universal Credit and the like - to go round,
I do vaguely recall some reports that suggested that some previous immigrants,
or possibly their descendants, also wanted to slow down immigration. Maybe, if
there is a problem with numbers, those already here felt affected, not just
your WASPs.
Or perhaps equally likely they fear that continued immigration will fuel a
rise in aggression and discrimination against existing minorities. >>>>>>>>>
and they will lose out.
That would be irrational.
By whose measure?
Good point.
Although the Usual Suspects like to describe those who don't hold the >>>>>> same political and social views as "irrational", in fact, people on the >>>>>> whole do not act irrationally*. They simply differ in what they see as >>>>>> optimum situations and outcomes.
[* The whole basis of economic analysis is that people take decisions >>>>>> rationally.]
It's irrational because new, legal immigrants tend to generate much more >>>>> wealth, and taxes, than they consume in government services and benefits. >>>>> This is why successive governments, at the behest of the very rich people most
of the wealth generated goes to, tend to ignore the popular demand to reduce
legal immigration.
Ah…I now note you have introduced a qualifier. Two such, in fact[1] thus >>>> changing the argument you originally put forward.
[1] ‘new’ and ‘legal’ when applied to the term ‘immigrants’ >>>
the 1930s. No one likes refugees.
EU immigrants were never hated because "refugees". Only some slow
thinkers would have assumed that. A lot of hate against EU citizens was
due to painting them as "white" and "racist", especially by the left.
I remember a certain Labour leader saying (and I am quoting) "wholesale
EU immigration has destroyed conditions for British workers".
Telling the workers that immigrants are to blame for their poor conditions goes back a long way. IIRC Jack London wrote about it in People of the
Abyss (1903?) - I think it was Russian and Polish Jews back then. We have
not moved on much in the years since then.
Le 03/01/2025 à 09:58, Jethro_uk a écrit :
On Thu, 02 Jan 2025 23:22:42 +0000, Owen Rees wrote:You are misquoting me. I didn't write the block of text.
Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]Telling the workers that immigrants are to blame for their poor
conditions goes back a long way.
As does the tradition of folk with no qualifications thinking they'd be
a super paid high flying executive if it wasn't for those pesky
foreigners and their "education".
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 75:35:08 |
| Calls: | 9,819 |
| Calls today: | 7 |
| Files: | 13,757 |
| Messages: | 6,190,027 |