In article <t7img5$uct$1@dont-email.me>, Wilf <wilf@postingx.uk> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, someday it'll almost certainly have to happen, but, as you say,
> > not for some time - even in the growing cold light of dawn, there's
> > still nothing like enough realism in English politics.
> >

> Sounds nice, but why would they ever accept us back in?

May depend on the meaning of "us" I suspect. 8-]

After all, Scotland voted against leaving the EU, and may become
independent. It may then amuse the EU to welcome Scotland as a member in
the future - if nothing else, amusing as a way to 'surround' the rUK and
give it yet another 'border' problem to muddle. 8->

Not likely soon, but given how things have been changing recently, who
knows!

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <xn0nirlw6bxc92300t@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines
<jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Not sure who "we" is, do you have a split personality? I note your view
> "these things" are true, you are of course welcome to that view and free
> to express it. I am delighted that we have regained our independence,
> long may it last.

You'll be an SNP supporter, then. :-)

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <xn0nirltlbx8j9800s@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines
<jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 05/06/2022 in message
> <b0593ef1-26bb-4178-bf0f-32ec065eb060n@googlegroups.com> R. Mark Clayton
> wrote:

> >Or do you have some facts to disprove that?

> I have expressed my view and I'm happy with it. fortunately we live in a
> free country so you can have your view,

Alas "view" has a different meaning to "fact". In this case "fairy tale" is
fine as your "view" *provided* you don't delude others into believing it is
the real world.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <xn0nise7ucilm8k00v@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines
<jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> I am not interested in any facts you come up with, I have my view, I
> am entitled to my view and you can take it or leave it.

Perhaps you should write fairy stories for a living. However I should point
out that getting people to beleve delusions wrt actual reality is a risky
activity. Particularly when they find out harsh reality is very different.

Of course con-men over they ages usually ensure they have a financially
well-padded bolt-hole by then. But that's because they know in the first
place that they're talking dribble to fool the marks. And exploit the wish
many have to prefer a rosy promise to a shakey reality.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <xn0nise9vciohe400w@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines
<jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >So, as everyone knew all along, no *FACT*s to support your view.

> I have no obligation to provide facts to support my view, who do you
> think you are?

You really should stop digging. :-)

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <t7ia2u$8tu$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> It's time to move on. The damage has been done. Time to consider how to
>> fix things.
>
> I'd agree. The snag is that some right-whinge people still can't face the
> fact that Brexit *has* - and still *is* - causing various problems despite
> the promises made of a Golden Age arriving via Unicorns. One reason for
> this is the sheer incompetence of the BloJo Government, covered by their
> fairy-tale promises.
>
> Jim
>

I’m relatively optimistic. Although things run more slowly than some of us
would like, the democratic system eventually disposes of those that do
harm. Pragmatism will eventually prevail. The right’s influence will
wither, as their attraction was based on promises of better things. That is
proving to be hollow and they’ve little left in their locker to promise.

On 06/06/2022 in message <59f43aa270noise@audiomisc.co.uk> Jim Lesurf wrote:

>In article <xn0nirlw6bxc92300t@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines
><jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Not sure who "we" is, do you have a split personality? I note your view
>>"these things" are true, you are of course welcome to that view and free
>>to express it. I am delighted that we have regained our independence,
>>long may it last.
>
>You'll be an SNP supporter, then. :-)

If the UK wants Scotland to be independent then it should be, we should
know from our imperial past that trying to force countries to stay in the
empire doesn't work. Obviously the whole UK must vote.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil but by those who
watch them without doing anything. (Albert Einstein)

On 06/06/2022 in message <59f43b4911noise@audiomisc.co.uk> Jim Lesurf wrote:

>In article <xn0nise9vciohe400w@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines
><jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>So, as everyone knew all along, no *FACT*s to support your view.
>
>>I have no obligation to provide facts to support my view, who do you
>>think you are?
>
>You really should stop digging. :-)

Why?

I have expressed my view and people can take it or leave it or do you feel
that others have a right to tell me how to think?

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
All those who believe in psychokinesis raise my hand.

On 06/06/2022 in message <59f43a8f8enoise@audiomisc.co.uk> Jim Lesurf wrote:

>In article <xn0nirltlbx8j9800s@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines
><jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>On 05/06/2022 in message
>><b0593ef1-26bb-4178-bf0f-32ec065eb060n@googlegroups.com> R. Mark Clayton
>>wrote:
>
>>>Or do you have some facts to disprove that?
>
>>I have expressed my view and I'm happy with it. fortunately we live in a
>>free country so you can have your view,
>
>Alas "view" has a different meaning to "fact". In this case "fairy tale" is
>fine as your "view" provided you don't delude others into believing it is
>the real world.

I am not trying to persuade others of anything. Sadly the die hard
remoaners still continue to barf out their views as facts but I am
sensible enough to ignore what they say - unless it is unusually outrageous.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day.
Tomorrow, isn't looking good either.

On 06/06/2022 in message <59f43b1bddnoise@audiomisc.co.uk> Jim Lesurf wrote:

>In article <xn0nise7ucilm8k00v@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines
><jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> I am not interested in any facts you come up with, I have my view, I
>>am entitled to my view and you can take it or leave it.
>
>Perhaps you should write fairy stories for a living. However I should point
>out that getting people to beleve delusions wrt actual reality is a risky
>activity. Particularly when they find out harsh reality is very different.

Perhaps you could point me to a post where I have tried to persuade people
to my view?

>Of course con-men over they ages usually ensure they have a financially
>well-padded bolt-hole by then. But that's because they know in the first
>place that they're talking dribble to fool the marks. And exploit the wish
>many have to prefer a rosy promise to a shakey reality.

No idea and it's not relevant.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
There is absolutely no substitute for a genuine lack of preparation

On 07/06/2022 11:13, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>
> Perhaps you could point me to a post where I have tried to persuade
> people to my view?

Every post you make, why else would you make them?

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 07/06/2022 11:09, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>
> I have expressed my view and people can take it or leave it or do you
> feel that others have a right to tell me how to think?

No-one's trying to tell you what to think, they are merely trying to
persuade not to post lies in public.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 07/06/2022 11:11, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>
> I am not trying to persuade others of anything. Sadly the die hard
> remoaners still continue to barf out their views as facts but I am
> sensible enough to ignore what they say - unless it is unusually
> outrageous.

The very act of posting lies is an attempt to persuade others to believe
them. In your own private fairy land you can believe what you like, all
that is being asked of you is that you don't post about lies about the
real world on public media.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 06/06/2022 23:50, Java Jive wrote:
> On 06/06/2022 08:19, Jeff Layman wrote:
>>
>> As to the demographics of who did what in the each referendum, there is
>> some interesting analysis here:
>> <https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/07/31/the-referendums-of-1975-and-2016-illustrate-the-continuity-and-change-in-british-euroscepticism/>
>
> The LSE blogs are usually pretty good, but perhaps not in this case -
> graph after graph for 1975, but not a single one one for 2016, yet they
> claim to be comparing the two.

Yes, I found that a bit puzzling. But near the bottom, in the section
headed "Comparing voting at the 1975 and 2016 referendums", it states
"For the 2016 EU referendum, detailed results for group voting were
provided in a NatCen report published in December 2016*, and the
findings discussed below are taken from this report."

(*hyperlinked to
<http://natcen.ac.uk/media/1319222/natcen_brexplanations-report-final-web2.pdf>)

The pdf is pretty comprehensive, but it would have been nice to have a
1975/2016 direct comparison where that was possible, rather than skip
between the LSE and NatCen figures.

> And, besides, the vote has happened already, the current debate, or
> rather wall of denial by certain people for whom this is a religion
> rather than something about facts, is about what is happening now.

Come now JJ, you mean that you don't appreciate the MPs in the Tory
party who supported Boris yesterday? I understand from the news that
those 59% stand firmly behind Boris. Well, how else are they supposed to
carry out their glossoanal activity when they've put him on a pedestal?

--

Jeff

On 07/06/2022 in message <t7naen$dfu$3@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:

>On 07/06/2022 11:11, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>
>>I am not trying to persuade others of anything. Sadly the die hard
>>remoaners still continue to barf out their views as facts but I am
>>sensible enough to ignore what they say - unless it is unusually
>>outrageous.
>
>The very act of posting lies is an attempt to persuade others to believe
>them. In your own private fairy land you can believe what you like, all
>that is being asked of you is that you don't post about lies about the
>real world on public media.

My first response in the thread was:

"We owe him an enormous debt, I'm pretty sure that without him we would
still be stuck in the EU."

And others have been of a similar ilk, if you can find one that you
believe is a lie then point it out to me.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists
or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies.

On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 13:24:54 +0100, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>On 06/06/2022 10:27 am, Martin wrote:
>
>> "Jeff Gaines" <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Martin wrote:
>
>>>>>> I refuse to watch a TV station that employs the stinking turd in humanoid
>>>>>> form know as "Farage".
>
>>>>> We owe him an enormous debt, I'm pretty sure that without him we would
>>>>> still be stuck in the EU.
>
>>>> So it was him and not Boris who destroyed the UK economy?
>
>>> Garbage. There are many outside factors affecting the economy and we are
>>> now free to take our own action to deal with them.
>
>>> Did you know that the number of unemployed is now about equal to the
>>> number of job vacancies? Time for the unemployed to get on their bikes.
>
>> Unemployed are low skilled. Job vacancies are for skilled.
>
>There's nothing (except arrogance manifested as misplaced pride) to stop
>"the skilled" from taking unskilled work as a stopgap. I remember taking
>a temporary job felling trees and clearing shrubbery in the planned path
>of a motorway in Cheshire, a really long time ago - more than fifty
>years. It was exhausting and not very well-paid, but it was better than
>claiming benefit.

There's a lot of things stopping unskilled taking skilled jobs.

>
>AAMOF, that's the way the benefit system was designed to work.
>
>> For years the EU was UK's main trading partner. Look at import export figures
>> now.
--

Martin in Zuid Holland

On 07/06/2022 11:50, Jeff Layman wrote:
>
> On 06/06/2022 23:50, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 06/06/2022 08:19, Jeff Layman wrote:
>>>
>>> As to the demographics of who did what in the each referendum, there is
>>> some interesting analysis here:
>>> <https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/07/31/the-referendums-of-1975-and-2016-illustrate-the-continuity-and-change-in-british-euroscepticism/>
>>
>> The LSE blogs are usually pretty good, but perhaps not in this case  -
>> graph after graph for 1975, but not a single one one for 2016, yet they
>> claim to be comparing the two.
>
> Yes, I found that a bit puzzling. But near the bottom, in the section
> headed "Comparing voting at the 1975 and 2016 referendums", it states
> "For the 2016 EU referendum, detailed results for group voting were
> provided in a NatCen report published in December 2016*, and the
> findings discussed below are taken from this report."
>
> (*hyperlinked to
> <http://natcen.ac.uk/media/1319222/natcen_brexplanations-report-final-web2.pdf>)
>
> The pdf is pretty comprehensive, but it would have been nice to have a
> 1975/2016 direct comparison where that was possible, rather than skip
> between the LSE and NatCen figures.

Yes, it would have made the imparting of understanding a great deal more
straightforward.

>> And, besides, the vote has happened already, the current debate, or
>> rather wall of denial by certain people for whom this is a religion
>> rather than something about facts, is about what is happening now.
>
> Come now JJ, you mean that you don't appreciate the MPs in the Tory
> party who supported Boris yesterday? I understand from the news that
> those 59% stand firmly behind Boris. Well, how else are they supposed to
> carry out their glossoanal activity when they've put him on a pedestal?

As Jake Thackray once said - in his song entitled, IIRC, 'The Bigger
The Bull':
If you must put people on pedestals,
be sure to wear a big hat!
Chorus:
The bigger the bull
The bigger the bull shit falls!

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On Tuesday, 7 June 2022 at 10:07:39 UTC+1, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <t7img5$uct$1...@dont-email.me>, Wilf <wi...@postingx.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, someday it'll almost certainly have to happen, but, as you say,
> > > not for some time - even in the growing cold light of dawn, there's
> > > still nothing like enough realism in English politics.
> > >
>
> > Sounds nice, but why would they ever accept us back in?
> May depend on the meaning of "us" I suspect. 8-]
>
> After all, Scotland voted against leaving the EU, and may become
> independent. It may then amuse the EU to welcome Scotland as a member in
> the future - if nothing else, amusing as a way to 'surround' the rUK and
> give it yet another 'border' problem to muddle. 8->
>
> Not likely soon, but given how things have been changing recently, who
> knows!
> Jim
>
> --
> Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
> Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
> biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
> Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Border with Scotland in sparsely populated area, with few crossing points.

On Tuesday, 7 June 2022 at 00:28:52 UTC+1, Java Jive wrote:
> On 06/06/2022 10:34, Bob Latham wrote:
> >
> > In article <0ab019b9-c0a7-46f6...@googlegroups.com>,
> > R. Mark Clayton <notya...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>

SNIP

> >
> > Really. This from the man who once told us that whilst driving at
> > speed in his car listening to the radio, he could clearly tell the
> > difference in sound quality between CDs and LPs.

I did and it is TRUE.

>>and when asked, told
> > us this was not surface noise, just sound quality.

There was lots of noise - road, wind, engine, but nevertheless I could easily differentiate. Probably the dynamic range, or just the much poorer S/N ratio on vinyl.

>
> Mmmmm! From memory because it's not worth the bother to check, I rather
> think that was someone else actually.
>
> > Yes. people believe anything, even that surrendering control of our
> > own country and any semblance of democracy to an unelected elite in
> > Brussels is good idea.
>
> TROLL! PROVEN LIE REPEATED!

Yes MEP's ARE elected.

Who elected Johnson PM?

>
> As has already been proven months ago in this same thread, the EU's
> system of government is at least as democratic as the UK's, and arguably
> is more so.
>

On 07/06/2022 12:10, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 07/06/2022 in message <t7naen$dfu$3@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
>
>> On 07/06/2022 11:11, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>>
>>> I am not trying to persuade others of anything. Sadly the die hard
>>> remoaners still continue to barf out their views as facts but I am
>>> sensible enough to ignore what they say - unless it is unusually
>>> outrageous.
>>
>> The very act of posting lies is an attempt to persuade others to
>> believe them.  In your own private fairy land you can believe what you
>> like, all that is being asked of you is that you don't post about lies
>> about the real world on public media.
>
> My first response in the thread was:
>
> "We owe him an enormous debt, I'm pretty sure that without him we would
> still be stuck in the EU."
>
> And others have been of a similar ilk, if you can find one that you
> believe is a lie then point it out to me.

On 05/06/2022 17:41, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>
> On 05/06/2022 <mess-id snipped for brevity> R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>>
>> On Saturday, 4 June 2022 at 22:56:42 UTC+1, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>>
>>> We're doing very well, left wing remoaner bullshit isn't convincing.

The statement "We're doing very well" is a lie, because the economic
indicators available to us show that we are not. See also below.

>> Afraid not, look at the facts, not what Grant Schapps said this
>> morning (best in G7, when we are probably the worst)
>> For some facts have a glance at
>>
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/may/30/brexit-uk-firms-eu-trade-northern-ireland

>>
>> No need to read the text, just look at the reputably sourced graphs.
>
> Wow, in reply to a complaint of left wing bullshit you provide a link
> to left wing bullshit, you couldn't make it up.

As the old saying has it: "You can lead a horse to water, but you
cannot make him drink!"

The links given up thread and above were to a wide variety of sources,
including at least one to a government department stating the economic
facts as the government currently understands them to be, some of the
others were analysing and commenting on those same figures, while yet
others were of independent analyses, and all were saying pretty much the
same sort of thing, so both your claims above that they were to
left-wing bullshit were public lies.

On 07/06/2022 11:11, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>
> Sadly the die hard remoaners still continue to barf out their views
as facts

As described above, you were given copious links to *facts*, so the
above is another lie.

Etc, etc. You've been led to water many times now, it's time to drink it.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 07/06/2022 in message <t7ndtn$q8m$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:

>On 07/06/2022 12:10, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>On 07/06/2022 in message <t7naen$dfu$3@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
>>
>>>On 07/06/2022 11:11, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>>>
>>>>I am not trying to persuade others of anything. Sadly the die hard
>>>>remoaners still continue to barf out their views as facts but I am
>>>>sensible enough to ignore what they say - unless it is unusually
>>>>outrageous.
>>>
>>>The very act of posting lies is an attempt to persuade others to believe
>>>them.  In your own private fairy land you can believe what you like, all
>>>that is being asked of you is that you don't post about lies about the
>>>real world on public media.
>>
>>My first response in the thread was:
>>
>>"We owe him an enormous debt, I'm pretty sure that without him we would
>>still be stuck in the EU."
>>
>>And others have been of a similar ilk, if you can find one that you
>>believe is a lie then point it out to me.
>
>On 05/06/2022 17:41, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>
>>On 05/06/2022 <mess-id snipped for brevity> R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>>>
>>>On Saturday, 4 June 2022 at 22:56:42 UTC+1, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>>>
>>>>We're doing very well, left wing remoaner bullshit isn't convincing.
>
>The statement "We're doing very well" is a lie, because the economic
>indicators available to us show that we are not. See also below.

We are doing very well in many areas. It is you who is trying to interpret
that as just relating to economics -where there are many factors affecting
it of course.

>
>>>Afraid not, look at the facts, not what Grant Schapps said this
>>>morning (best in G7, when we are probably the worst)
>>>For some facts have a glance at
>>>https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/may/30/brexit-uk-firms-eu-trade-northern-ireland
>>>
>>>No need to read the text, just look at the reputably sourced graphs.
>>
>>Wow, in reply to a complaint of left wing bullshit you provide a link >
>>to left wing bullshit, you couldn't make it up.
>
>As the old saying has it: "You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot
>make him drink!"
>
>The links given up thread and above were to a wide variety of sources,
>including at least one to a government department stating the economic
>facts as the government currently understands them to be, some of the
>others were analysing and commenting on those same figures, while yet
>others were of independent analyses, and all were saying pretty much the
>same sort of thing, so both your claims above that they were to left-wing
>bullshit were public lies.

The quoting is getting a little confused but from memory the link was to
the Graudian - left wing bullshit.

>
>On 07/06/2022 11:11, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>
>>Sadly the die hard remoaners still continue to barf out their views as
>>facts
>
>As described above, you were given copious links to facts, so the above is
>another lie.
>
>Etc, etc. You've been led to water many times now, it's time to drink it.

Not sure what I am supposed to drink but why do you keep talking about
economics? Our independence from the EU (which we didn't vote to join)
brings many benefits in my view but I am not stuck in the economics groove.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
There is absolutely no substitute for a genuine lack of preparation

On 07/06/2022 12:59, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 07/06/2022 in message <t7ndtn$q8m$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
>
>> On 07/06/2022 12:10, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>> On 07/06/2022 in message <t7naen$dfu$3@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 07/06/2022 11:11, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not trying to persuade others of anything. Sadly the die hard
>>>>> remoaners still continue to barf out their views as facts but I am
>>>>> sensible enough to ignore what they say - unless it is unusually
>>>>> outrageous.
>>>>
>>>> The very act of posting lies is an attempt to persuade others to
>>>> believe them.  In your own private fairy land you can believe what
>>>> you  like, all that is being asked of you is that you don't post
>>>> about lies  about the real world on public media.
>>>
>>> My first response in the thread was:
>>>
>>> "We owe him an enormous debt, I'm pretty sure that without him we
>>> would still be stuck in the EU."
>>>
>>> And others have been of a similar ilk, if you can find one that you
>>> believe is a lie then point it out to me.
>>
>> On 05/06/2022 17:41, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>>
>>> On 05/06/2022 <mess-id snipped for brevity> R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Saturday, 4 June 2022 at 22:56:42 UTC+1, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> We're doing very well, left wing remoaner bullshit isn't convincing.
>>
>> The statement "We're doing very well" is a lie, because the economic
>> indicators available to us show that we are not.  See also below.
>
> We are doing very well in many areas.

In what areas, where are your facts to support this claim?

And now the goalposts move again. First it was: "We're doing very
well". Next, after being challenged to justify that claim, it was: "I
don't have to, it's just my view", now it's: "We are doing very well in
many areas", all without a single supporting fact given in evidence.

> It is you who is trying to
> interpret that as just relating to economics -where there are many
> factors affecting it of course.

The lie written on the side of a bus was economic one, and you haven't
given any evidence whatsoever to support any other claim of benefit.

>>>> Afraid not, look at the facts, not what Grant Schapps said this
>>>> morning (best in G7, when we are probably the worst)
>>>> For some facts have a glance at
>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/may/30/brexit-uk-firms-eu-trade-northern-ireland
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No need to read the text, just look at the reputably sourced graphs.
>>>
>>> Wow, in reply to a complaint of left wing bullshit you provide a
>>> link  > to left wing bullshit, you couldn't make it up.
>>
>> As the old saying has it:  "You can lead a horse to water, but you
>> cannot make him drink!"
>>
>> The links given up thread and above were to a wide variety of sources,
>> including at least one to a government department stating the economic
>> facts as the government currently understands them to be, some of the
>> others were analysing and commenting on those same figures, while yet
>> others were of independent analyses, and all were saying pretty much
>> the same sort of thing, so both your claims above that they were to
>> left-wing bullshit were public lies.
>
> The quoting is getting a little confused but from memory the link was to
> the Graudian - left wing bullshit.

As stated above, from memory, you have been given up to this point at
least 12 links to a wide variety of sources, only two of which were to
the Guardian. The Guardian is perhaps tending to the left, but those
articles were certainly not left-wing bullshit, as you would have
discovered had you bothered to try and educate yourself on the subject
about which you have chosen to pontificate on the basis of zilch actual
knowledge perceivable by others. And see further below ...

>> On 07/06/2022 11:11, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>>
>>> Sadly the die hard remoaners still continue to barf out their views
>>> as facts
>>
>> As described above, you were given copious links to facts, so the
>> above is another lie.
>>
>> Etc, etc.  You've been led to water many times now, it's time to drink
>> it.
>
> Not sure what I am supposed to drink but why do you keep talking about
> economics? Our independence from the EU (which we didn't vote to join)
> brings many benefits in my view but I am not stuck in the economics groove.

Yet, despite many requests, you seem unable to state a single one, let
alone actually justify it with supporting facts. When anyone posts crap
here which I set out to debunk, if they supply a link, usually I
read/listen/watch it, if only far enough to be able to debunk it
convincingly, whereas you just refuse to even read the links to
information that runs counter to your religion, in other words, you are
in a state of denial.

What you choose to believe in your own private fairyland is your own
business, but any lie you post here will be debunked.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 07/06/2022 in message <t7nhd9$1dt$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:

>>We are doing very well in many areas.
>
>In what areas, where are your facts to support this claim?
>
>And now the goalposts move again. First it was: "We're doing very well".
>Next, after being challenged to justify that claim, it was: "I don't have
>to, it's just my view", now it's: "We are doing very well in many areas",
>all without a single supporting fact given in evidence.

I am expressing a view, you keep making assumptions.

>>It is you who is trying to interpret that as just relating to economics
>>-where there are many factors affecting it of course.
>
>The lie written on the side of a bus was economic one, and you haven't
>given any evidence whatsoever to support any other claim of benefit.

I didn't write anything on the side of a bus. You didn't believe it did
you, you would have to be a complete muppet to believe that sort of
marketing puff.

>>>Etc, etc.  You've been led to water many times now, it's time to drink
>>>it.
>>
>>Not sure what I am supposed to drink but why do you keep talking about
>>economics? Our independence from the EU (which we didn't vote to join)
>>brings many benefits in my view but I am not stuck in the economics
>>groove.

>Yet, despite many requests, you seem unable to state a single one, let
>alone actually justify it with supporting facts. When anyone posts crap
>here which I set out to debunk, if they supply a link, usually I
>read/listen/watch it, if only far enough to be able to debunk it
>convincingly, whereas you just refuse to even read the links to
>information that runs counter to your religion, in other words, you are in
>a state of denial.

Why on earth should I post links about my views, I am not on a crusade and
don't care if people believe them or not.

>What you choose to believe in your own private fairyland is your own
>business, but any lie you post here will be debunked.

I used to work in a home for people with learning difficulties, autism,
down syndrome etc. and the way you express things, and your expectation
that sentient adults will march to your tune, is beginning to wake some
memories, have we met?

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
Here we go it's getting close, now it's just who wants it most.

In article <59f439bbf4noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

> The snag is that some right-whinge people still can't face the fact
> that Brexit *has* - and still *is* - causing various problems
> despite the promises made of a Golden Age arriving via Unicorns.
> One reason for this is the sheer incompetence of the BloJo
> Government, covered by their fairy-tale promises.

I love the way you refer to "right-whinge people" and then go on to
have a good whinge. :-)

I agree that Boris has made a pig's ear of Brexit with things like
leaving NI in the EU and the border down the Irish sea. Though in
fairness to him, he was left a terrible hand to play after the
duplicitous Theresa May intentionally negotiated a total surrender.

Brexit was never about improving trade, everyone who voted for Brexit
realised that it would have a negative impact especially during the
inevitable sulking phase but considered that other things were more
important.

I myself purchased some Hi-Fi kit from a dealer in Holland on 28th
April this year. It arrived at Charles de Gaulle airport the next
day. It didn't move at all for 2 weeks. Brexit punishment spite?
Looks like it may have been, I don't know of any other reason. It
will be interesting to see what trade is like if and when the EU,
France especially, stops sulking and acts in it's own interest by
supporting trade and cooperation with its neighbours.

For me, the fairy-tale promise that wasn't kept was getting us from
under the control of the EU, a body we can't un-elect. But we were
out enough to do a much better job on vaccines which resulted in some
odious antics and foot stamping from the embarrassed, plodding EU.

But I notice all the Liberal, Left, Remoaners on here wish to blame
Brexit for all our financial ills. Never a mention of the insanity of
shutting down the nation for two years, that had no impact did it? Or
how about the socialist style massive overspend of billions and the
consequential high tax demand? Or the effect of our absurd and
utterly pointless "action on climate change". or the endless sums of
money pumped into the NHS that ends up spent on wokery by idiot
managers. No, none of that has had any barring has it. No because the
Liberal left caused that damage and constantly wanted it all harder,
sooner, longer. Brexit is a very handy scapegoat indeed.

Disingenuous hypocrisy.

A very famous woman once said something to the effect that the EU's
collapse is inevitable, it's just a question of how much damage it
does between now and then. I'm sure she was correct, she usually was.

Bob.

In article <xn0niu16de9gs99017@news.individual.net>,
Jeff Gaines <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> I am expressing a view, you keep making assumptions.

Jeff, a word to the wise.

Trust me on this if nothing else.

Don't argue with JJ. There is nothing more pointless, he's happy to
argue black is white. He's a bit odd, just ignore him.

Bob.