Written by Lord Peter Lilley

Leaving the EU has given us back democratic control over our laws, money
and borders. Yet too often we focus only on the failure to do more. In
fact, quite a lot has been achieved

“What has Brexit ever done for us?” to redirect the question originally
asked about the Romans in a famous Monty Python sketch. On the seventh
anniversary of the referendum, it is being asked by Brexit critics who,
as in the original sketch, are reluctant to hear the answer. Which is:
“quite a lot actually”. With more to come.

Most fundamentally, Brexit has, as promised, given us back democratic
control over our laws, money and borders. How those powers are used is
up to Parliament and government. But if we don’t like their decisions,
we can chuck the blighters out – which we could never do to EU
commissioners.

Dismissing democracy, Monty Python style critics ask, but how has it
affected people’s lives? For a start, Brexit has saved hundreds, maybe
thousands, of lives. Without Brexit, we would never have developed,
approved or rolled out vaccines so fast. Every day counted, since
hundreds of people were dying daily. The claim that had we remained in
the EU we could theoretically have opted out of the EU of its Covid
policies is inane. No member state did so. And EU supporters across
parties opposed leaving the EU Medicines Agency and urged joining the EU
vaccine procurement programme.

Brexit is also saving British taxpayers billions of pounds. As members
we would have had to contribute our 14 per cent share of the €800
billion EU Covid Recovery Fund and got only a fraction of that back. The
referendum campaign bus slogan “We send £350 million a week to the EU”
was criticised since that was the gross figure. However, had we stayed
in our net contribution last year would have risen to hundreds of
millions per week.

On foreign affairs, Britain is no longer bound by the EU “doctrine of
sincere cooperation”. So we were free to take a lead in supporting
Ukraine when the EU were equivocal. Germany even banned UK planes flying
arms to Kiev through its airspace. Our bold example helped catalyse an
EU change of heart. Paradoxically, we had more influence on EU policy
from outside than within.

But how has our our freedom to change old EU laws benefited us?

Remember the HGV driver crisis in late 2021? Drivers’ pay was held down
for years as East European drivers displaced Brits. During the pandemic,
EU drivers went home and Brits left to deliver online retail orders. So,
when the economy recovered from the Covid lockdowns, there was an acute
shortage of HGV drivers. Petrol stations were closed, and food
deliveries disrupted. Now the shortage has virtually disappeared. Why?
Because the Government resisted calls to issue thousands of visas. So
pay rose, attracting recruits. Employers expanded training. Ministers
set up training “bootcamps”. Above all, they exploited Brexit freedoms
to alter old EU rules and speed up training and granting permits. Now,
thousands of Brits have better paid jobs.

We have all been spared a £50 increase in motor insurance premiums
because the Government legislated to reverse a European Court judgement
which would have added that amount.

Our farmers will be able to plant gene-edited crops. They were
previously banned under EU law, even though they are harmless in
themselves and reduce use of noxious pesticides and fertilisers.

Animal lovers can be pleased that the UK has been able to largely ban
the export of live animals and crack down on smuggling puppies into the
UK. We reduced VAT on energy products and female sanitary products –
previously blocked by EU law. Instead of funding EU subsidies to
landowners just for owning land – we now reward farmers for
environmentally friendly practices. 100 tariffs on components used by
our manufacturers were abolished.

This is a sample of changes resulting from Brexit. You may never have
heard of them. The reluctance of mainstream media to mention Brexit
successes has been compounded by disgruntled Leavers, so angry at
failure to do more that they ignore initial successes.

It is true that potential gains far exceed achievements so far. It is
time for both Leavers and Remainers to accept former Bank of England
Governor, Mervyn King’s wise words: “There was a case for remaining in
the EU to have some, albeit small, influence over the laws governing us.
And there was a case for leaving to regain control over those laws. But
there is no case for leaving then not exercising the power to set our
own laws”.

Meanwhile, we are told that all this is offset by the harm Brexit would
do to our exports to Europe. The House of Lords Library charts the value
and volume of our goods exports (excluding erratic items) every quarter
since before the referendum. It shows that exports to the EU have defied
predictions and fared slightly better than exports to the rest of the
world. Any adverse effect due to EU border costs is dwarfed by other
factors.

First published online by Daily Telegraph, 23 June 2023

--
It is the folly of too many to mistake the echo of a London coffee-house
for the voice of the kingdom.

Jonathan Swift

On 11/08/2023 09:27, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

<snip>

> Dismissing democracy, Monty Python style critics ask, but how has it
> affected people’s lives? For a start, Brexit has saved hundreds, maybe
> thousands, of lives. Without Brexit, we would never have developed,
> approved or rolled out vaccines so fast. Every day counted, since
> hundreds of people were dying daily. The claim that had we remained in
> the EU we could theoretically have opted out of the EU of its Covid
> policies is inane. No member state did so. And EU supporters across
> parties opposed leaving the EU Medicines Agency and urged joining the EU
> vaccine procurement programme.

Feel free to cite any barriers on us developing a vaccine if we were
still in the EU. I know you can't.

> Brexit is also saving British taxpayers billions of pounds. As members
> we would have had to contribute our 14 per cent share of the €800
> billion EU Covid Recovery Fund and got only a fraction of that back. The
> referendum campaign bus slogan “We send £350 million a week to the EU”
> was criticised since that was the gross figure. However, had we stayed
> in our net contribution last year would have risen to hundreds of
> millions per week.

No, that is something we could have opted out from. The scheme was
agreed by all other members. And TBH if the UK had entered the fund our
contribution would have been a fraction, plus it is a fund we could have
drawn from. It could have been net £0.

> On foreign affairs, Britain is no longer bound by the EU “doctrine of
> sincere cooperation”. So we were free to take a lead in supporting
> Ukraine when the EU were equivocal. Germany even banned UK planes flying
> arms to Kiev through its airspace. Our bold example helped catalyse an
> EU change of heart. Paradoxically, we had more influence on EU policy
> from outside than within.

Why were we supporting Ukraine attempt to join NATO and the EU. Did we
oppose the US attempts of preventing Cuba being an base for Soviet missiles?

> But how has our our freedom to change old EU laws benefited us?
>
> Remember the HGV driver crisis in late 2021? Drivers’ pay was held down
> for years as East European drivers displaced Brits. During the pandemic,
> EU drivers went home and Brits left to deliver online retail orders. So,
> when the economy recovered from the Covid lockdowns, there was an acute
> shortage of HGV drivers. Petrol stations were closed, and food
> deliveries disrupted. Now the shortage has virtually disappeared. Why?
> Because the Government resisted calls to issue thousands of visas. So
> pay rose, attracting recruits. Employers expanded training. Ministers
> set up training “bootcamps”.  Above all, they exploited Brexit freedoms
> to alter old EU rules and speed up training and granting permits. Now,
> thousands of Brits have better paid jobs.

Agreed.

> We have all been spared a £50 increase in motor insurance premiums
> because the Government legislated to reverse a European Court judgement
> which would have added that amount.

New to me, feel free to cite the legislation. Also any changes would
have been subject to UK's veto.

> Our farmers will be able to plant gene-edited crops. They were
> previously banned under EU law, even though they are harmless in
> themselves and reduce use of noxious pesticides and fertilisers.

Hmm. I suggest you rethink this one. Land owners haven't done very well
out of Brexit. However this is a small price to pay.

> Animal lovers can be pleased that the UK has been able to largely ban
> the export of live animals and crack down on smuggling puppies into the
> UK. We reduced VAT on energy products

If we wanted to be green VAT should have gone up on energy.

> and female sanitary products –
> previously blocked by EU law. Instead of funding EU subsidies to
> landowners just for owning land – we now reward farmers for
> environmentally friendly practices. 100 tariffs on components used by
> our manufacturers were abolished.

Agreed.

I do wonder if you actually read the article.

On 11/08/2023 in message <ub50ni$pug2$3@dont-email.me> Fredxx wrote:

>I do wonder if you actually read the article.

I wonder if you have enough knowledge to criticise the article, doesn't
look like it so far.

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

On 11/08/2023 11:59, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 11/08/2023 in message <ub50ni$pug2$3@dont-email.me> Fredxx wrote:
>
>> I do wonder if you actually read the article.
>
> I wonder if you have enough knowledge to criticise the article, doesn't
> look like it so far.
>
I presented it as an example of what one fairly qualified persons
opinion of Brexit was.

Just as remoaners here are wont to present any article that says it was
actually a crock of shit.
Without any justification

--
When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over
the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that
authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

Frédéric Bastiat

On 11/08/2023 09:27, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> Written by Lord Peter Lilley
>
> Leaving the EU has given us back democratic control over our laws,

Of which, only 29% of laws that were in force in 2014 were in any way
derived from our being a member of the EU. Of those, the vast majority
were approved by the UK government anyway. We only objected to 2% of the
laws proposed by the EU. So, not much of a gain.

> money

No change there. We had already agreed that we would retain the Pound.

> and borders.

No change there. That was one of the opt-outs that we had from the treaties.

.....
> Dismissing democracy, Monty Python style critics ask, but how has it
> affected people’s lives? For a start, Brexit has saved hundreds, maybe
> thousands, of lives. Without Brexit, we would never have developed,
> approved or rolled out vaccines so fast.

Even had we still been in the EU, we would have still been able to do
that. Other countries decided to wait for EU approval for vaccines, but
there was nothing to prevent their own national bodies from approving
them for use in their own countries. The speed of approval was down to
an herculean effort by the MHRA and had nothing to do with Brexit.

....
> Remember the HGV driver crisis in late 2021? Drivers’ pay was held down
> for years as East European drivers displaced Brits. During the pandemic,
> EU drivers went home and Brits left to deliver online retail orders. So,
> when the economy recovered from the Covid lockdowns, there was an acute
> shortage of HGV drivers. Petrol stations were closed, and food
> deliveries disrupted. Now the shortage has virtually disappeared. Why?
> Because the Government resisted calls to issue thousands of visas. So
> pay rose, attracting recruits. Employers expanded training. Ministers
> set up training “bootcamps”.  Above all, they exploited Brexit freedoms
> to alter old EU rules and speed up training and granting permits. Now,
> thousands of Brits have better paid jobs...

We are now only 60,000 HGV drivers short, rather than 100,000 at the
peak. However, a major factor in that has been the economic slowdown
reducing the demand for transport.

--
Colin Bignell

On 11/08/2023 11:59, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 11/08/2023 in message <ub50ni$pug2$3@dont-email.me> Fredxx wrote:
>
>> I do wonder if you actually read the article.
>
> I wonder if you have enough knowledge to criticise the article, doesn't
> look like it so far.

There was no criticism. The exception is perhaps where the UK government
agreed to banning gene edited crops. I apologise if I am remiss that the
UK exercised it's veto and the EU went on with the ban regardless. In
any case there is strong objection in the UK to gene editing and would
probably have been / remain banned accordingly.

NP made the post and has the choice of burying his head in the sand, or
justify elements of his post.

You're coming across as NP's sock where you have nothing substantive to
add, or justify your claim.

On 11/08/2023 in message <ub55rt$qqtu$3@dont-email.me> The Natural
Philosopher wrote:

>On 11/08/2023 11:59, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>On 11/08/2023 in message <ub50ni$pug2$3@dont-email.me> Fredxx wrote:
>>
>>>I do wonder if you actually read the article.
>>
>>I wonder if you have enough knowledge to criticise the article, doesn't
>>look like it so far.
>>
>I presented it as an example of what one fairly qualified persons opinion
>of Brexit was.
>
>Just as remoaners here are wont to present any article that says it was
>actually a crock of shit.
>Without any justification

Indeed, it was a good, reasoned, argument.

Remoaners/remainiacs have been renamed Trump-mainers since they actually
won - they just needed to find a few more votes.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
You can't tell which way the train went by looking at the tracks

On 11/08/2023 in message <ub5789$r1fe$1@dont-email.me> Fredxx wrote:

>You're coming across as NP's sock where you have nothing substantive to
>add, or justify your claim.

Oh dear, no cohesive arguments so you revert to insults.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
Have you ever noticed that all the instruments searching for intelligent
life are pointing away from Earth?

On 11/08/2023 12:25, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 11/08/2023 11:59, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>> On 11/08/2023 in message <ub50ni$pug2$3@dont-email.me> Fredxx wrote:
>>
>>> I do wonder if you actually read the article.
>>
>> I wonder if you have enough knowledge to criticise the article,
>> doesn't look like it so far.
>>
> I presented it as an example of what one fairly qualified persons
> opinion of Brexit was.

And others would say George Osborne would be equally qualified. If
you're the sort to place politicians on a pedestal then I can see where
you are coming from.

> Just as remoaners here are wont to present any article that says it was
> actually a crock of shit.
> Without any justification

Yes, the same as fanatical Brexiters who wont to present any article
that says it was actually a crock of shit.
Without any justification

On 11/08/2023 12:49, Fredxx wrote:
> On 11/08/2023 11:59, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>> On 11/08/2023 in message <ub50ni$pug2$3@dont-email.me> Fredxx wrote:
>>
>>> I do wonder if you actually read the article.
>>
>> I wonder if you have enough knowledge to criticise the article,
>> doesn't look like it so far.
>
> There was no criticism. The exception is perhaps where the UK government
> agreed to banning gene edited crops. I apologise if I am remiss that the
> UK exercised it's veto and the EU went on with the ban regardless. In
> any case there is strong objection in the UK to gene editing and would
> probably have been / remain banned accordingly.
>
> NP made the post and has the choice of burying his head in the sand, or
> justify elements of his post.
>
I am neither defending it nor advocating it. I DIDN'T WRITE IT.

It is no more and no less as valid or invalid as anyone here posting an
article that says brexit has cost us billions

I note that certain people have already cherry picked it. and ignored
what it actually said.

Viz.

"Without Brexit, we would never have developed, approved or rolled out
vaccines so fast. Every day counted, since hundreds of people were dying
daily. The claim that had we remained in the EU we could theoretically
have opted out of the EU of its Covid policies is inane. No member state
did so. And EU supporters across parties opposed leaving the EU
Medicines Agency and urged joining the EU vaccine procurement programme."

The latter part of which was conveniently omitted by those criticising it.

> You're coming across as NP's sock where you have nothing substantive to
> add, or justify your claim.
>
>
The hilarious thing is the leap to cancel ME, as if I had actually
written the article. So swivel eyed and foaming at the mouth were our
resident remainers that they failed to see it was written by Peter
Lilley and originally published in the Telegraph.

>

--
The biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On 11/08/2023 12:53, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 11/08/2023 in message <ub5789$r1fe$1@dont-email.me> Fredxx wrote:
>
>> You're coming across as NP's sock where you have nothing substantive
>> to add, or justify your claim.
>
> Oh dear, no cohesive arguments so you revert to insults.
>
That is the Remoaner way.

--
"Strange as it seems, no amount of learning can cure stupidity, and
higher education positively fortifies it."

- Stephen Vizinczey

On 11/08/2023 12:53, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 11/08/2023 in message <ub5789$r1fe$1@dont-email.me> Fredxx wrote:
>
>> You're coming across as NP's sock where you have nothing substantive
>> to add, or justify your claim.
>
> Oh dear, no cohesive arguments so you revert to insults.

That is what happens when you snip the entire post and make insults
leaving no argument to counter.

It wasn't an insult but an observation. Even now you haven't denied my
suggestion of how you come across.

On 11 Aug 2023 at 12:47:24 BST, "Colin Bignell" <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk>
wrote:

> On 11/08/2023 09:27, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> Written by Lord Peter Lilley
>>
>> Leaving the EU has given us back democratic control over our laws,
>
> Of which, only 29% of laws that were in force in 2014 were in any way
> derived from our being a member of the EU. Of those, the vast majority
> were approved by the UK government anyway.

You mean by Parliament. And EU regulations were never approved by Parliament
(until the Reception Statute, passed during the Brexit arrangements, made them
part of UK law). And that was done to ensure continuity. It's a process that
happens when countries get their independence.

> We only objected to 2% of the laws proposed by the EU. So, not much of a gain.

You're forgetting all the laws we may pass in the future. So your 2% figure is
meaningless.

>> Dismissing democracy, Monty Python style critics ask, but how has it
>> affected people’s lives? For a start, Brexit has saved hundreds, maybe
>> thousands, of lives. Without Brexit, we would never have developed,
>> approved or rolled out vaccines so fast.
>
> Even had we still been in the EU, we would have still been able to do
> that. Other countries decided to wait for EU approval for vaccines, but
> there was nothing to prevent their own national bodies from approving
> them for use in their own countries.

Weren't the Dutch, amongst others, wanting to do that? And weren't they
smacked down by the Commission for wanting to?

--
I was brought up to believe that you should never give offence if you can avoid it; the new culture tells us you should always take offence if you can. There are now experts in the art of taking offence, indeed whole academic subjects, such as 'gender studies', devoted to it.

Roger Scruton

On 11/08/2023 13:03, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

<snip>

> That is the Remoaner way.

Nope it's the Brexit way to snip the relevant post and then put forward
an insult to an observation.

On 11/08/2023 13:09, Tim Streater wrote:
> On 11 Aug 2023 at 12:47:24 BST, "Colin Bignell" <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> On 11/08/2023 09:27, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> Written by Lord Peter Lilley
>>>
>>> Leaving the EU has given us back democratic control over our laws,
>>
>> Of which, only 29% of laws that were in force in 2014 were in any way
>> derived from our being a member of the EU. Of those, the vast majority
>> were approved by the UK government anyway.
>
> You mean by Parliament.

I mean by the UK representatives in the EU, which included government
ministers. Parliament was only involved at the stage of implementing
Directives.

And EU regulations were never approved by Parliament
> (until the Reception Statute, passed during the Brexit arrangements, made them
> part of UK law). And that was done to ensure continuity. It's a process that
> happens when countries get their independence.

All those EU regulations were included in the count that came up with
the 29% figure.

>> We only objected to 2% of the laws proposed by the EU. So, not much of a gain.
>
> You're forgetting all the laws we may pass in the future. So your 2% figure is
> meaningless.

Taken over a number of years, as it was, it is an indication of how well
EU legislation aligned with the desires of the UK government.

>>> Dismissing democracy, Monty Python style critics ask, but how has it
>>> affected people’s lives? For a start, Brexit has saved hundreds, maybe
>>> thousands, of lives. Without Brexit, we would never have developed,
>>> approved or rolled out vaccines so fast.
>>
>> Even had we still been in the EU, we would have still been able to do
>> that. Other countries decided to wait for EU approval for vaccines, but
>> there was nothing to prevent their own national bodies from approving
>> them for use in their own countries.
>
> Weren't the Dutch, amongst others, wanting to do that? And weren't they
> smacked down by the Commission for wanting to?

The Commission had no powers to stop them, had they chosen to proceed
with national approval.

--
Colin Bignell

On 11/08/2023 13:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 11/08/2023 12:49, Fredxx wrote:
>> On 11/08/2023 11:59, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>> On 11/08/2023 in message <ub50ni$pug2$3@dont-email.me> Fredxx wrote:
>>>
>>>> I do wonder if you actually read the article.
>>>
>>> I wonder if you have enough knowledge to criticise the article,
>>> doesn't look like it so far.
>>
>> There was no criticism. The exception is perhaps where the UK
>> government agreed to banning gene edited crops. I apologise if I am
>> remiss that the UK exercised it's veto and the EU went on with the ban
>> regardless. In any case there is strong objection in the UK to gene
>> editing and would probably have been / remain banned accordingly.
>>
>> NP made the post and has the choice of burying his head in the sand,
>> or justify elements of his post.
>>
> I am neither defending it nor advocating it. I DIDN'T WRITE IT.

Copying and pasting this political post in this DIY newsgroup makes you
the author. In the same way repeating a libellous statement makes you
liable as per the original. If you knew parts were nonsense then you
should have excluded those parts.

> It is no more and no less as valid or invalid as anyone here posting an
> article that says brexit has cost us billions

Quite. So why stoop to their level.

> I note that certain people have already cherry picked it. and ignored
> what it actually said.

Because generally there are erroneous claims intermingled with the truth
to gives those who are lacking brain cells something to grasp on. It's
not uncommon to cherry pick the claims you know to be untrue which you
know the OP won't be able to back up and justify. Perhaps it's best to
leave them out in the first place so save looking like a twit.

> Viz.
>
> "Without Brexit, we would never have developed, approved or rolled out
> vaccines so fast. Every day counted, since hundreds of people were dying
> daily. The claim that had we remained in the EU we could theoretically
> have opted out of the EU of its Covid policies is inane. No member state
> did so. And EU supporters across parties opposed leaving the EU
> Medicines Agency and urged joining the EU vaccine procurement programme."

Another lie from a fanatical Brexiter. Try looking at Hungary.

> The latter part of which was conveniently omitted by those criticising it.

Thank you for enlightening us to UK's success. Now go and cite sources
to say membership of the EU vaccination programme wasn't voluntary.

>> You're coming across as NP's sock where you have nothing substantive
>> to add, or justify your claim.

> The hilarious thing is the leap to cancel ME, as if I had actually
> written the article. So swivel eyed and foaming at the mouth were our
> resident remainers that they failed to see it was written by Peter
> Lilley and originally published in the Telegraph.

You posted the article, entirely off-topic without the decency to even
put OT in the subject. And now you attempt to justify your mate's post,
who appears to act as your sock or, has his nose firmly planted up your
has arse, who snips the whole post containing your lies and request for
justifying those lies. I can only observe how things look.

On 11/08/2023 13:09, Tim Streater wrote:
> On 11 Aug 2023 at 12:47:24 BST, "Colin Bignell" <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> On 11/08/2023 09:27, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> Written by Lord Peter Lilley
>>>
>>> Leaving the EU has given us back democratic control over our laws,
>>
>> Of which, only 29% of laws that were in force in 2014 were in any way
>> derived from our being a member of the EU. Of those, the vast majority
>> were approved by the UK government anyway.
>
> You mean by Parliament. And EU regulations were never approved by Parliament
> (until the Reception Statute, passed during the Brexit arrangements, made them
> part of UK law). And that was done to ensure continuity. It's a process that
> happens when countries get their independence.
>
>> We only objected to 2% of the laws proposed by the EU. So, not much of a gain.
>
> You're forgetting all the laws we may pass in the future. So your 2% figure is
> meaningless.
>
>>> Dismissing democracy, Monty Python style critics ask, but how has it
>>> affected people’s lives? For a start, Brexit has saved hundreds, maybe
>>> thousands, of lives. Without Brexit, we would never have developed,
>>> approved or rolled out vaccines so fast.
>>
>> Even had we still been in the EU, we would have still been able to do
>> that. Other countries decided to wait for EU approval for vaccines, but
>> there was nothing to prevent their own national bodies from approving
>> them for use in their own countries.
>
> Weren't the Dutch, amongst others, wanting to do that? And weren't they
> smacked down by the Commission for wanting to?

It was always an option. Hungary took that option. Isn't that what
democracy is about, choice?

On 11/08/2023 13:18, Fredxx wrote:
> On 11/08/2023 13:03, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> That is the Remoaner way.
>
> Nope it's the Brexit way to snip the relevant post and then put forward
> an insult to an observation.
>
>
Are you a Brexiteer then?

--
WOKE is an acronym... Without Originality, Knowledge or Education.

On 11/08/2023 13:37, Fredxx wrote:
> Copying and pasting this political post in this DIY newsgroup makes you
> the author.

Utter remoaner BULLSHIT.
You can weasel, but you cant reverse...

--
WOKE is an acronym... Without Originality, Knowledge or Education.

On 11/08/2023 16:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 11/08/2023 13:18, Fredxx wrote:
>> On 11/08/2023 13:03, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> That is the Remoaner way.
>>
>> Nope it's the Brexit way to snip the relevant post and then put
>> forward an insult to an observation.
>>
>>
> Are you a Brexiteer then?

I thought that might elicit a response.

Yes, so stop acting like a remoaner with their deceit and lies.

On 11/08/2023 16:03, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 11/08/2023 13:37, Fredxx wrote:
>> Copying and pasting this political post in this DIY newsgroup makes
>> you the author.
>
> Utter remoaner BULLSHIT.
> You can weasel, but you cant reverse...

Most here will know I was never in support of Remain, however much you
would like me to be.

What I am though, is against lies and deceit you regularly post in the
name of Brexit, giving Brexit a bad name.

Every time you snip the corrections I apply to your lies it just proves
how utterly taken in and blinkered to these lies.

Best stick to art.

On 11/08/2023 13:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
....
> I note that certain people have already cherry picked it. and ignored
> what it actually said.
>
> Viz.
>
> "Without Brexit, we would never have developed, approved or rolled out
> vaccines so fast. Every day counted, since hundreds of people were dying
> daily. The claim that had we remained in the EU we could theoretically
> have opted out of the EU of its Covid policies is inane. No member state
> did so. And EU supporters across parties opposed leaving the EU
> Medicines Agency and urged joining the EU vaccine procurement programme."
>
> The latter part of which was conveniently omitted by those criticising it.
....

We've been over this ground so often that I now only reply to the bits I
can do from memory. Anything I need to confirm with research is likely
to be ignored as I can't usually be bothered.

--
Colin Bignell

On 11 Aug 2023 at 19:25:57 BST, "Colin Bignell" <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk>
wrote:

> On 11/08/2023 13:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> ...
>> I note that certain people have already cherry picked it. and ignored
>> what it actually said.
>>
>> Viz.
>>
>> "Without Brexit, we would never have developed, approved or rolled out
>> vaccines so fast. Every day counted, since hundreds of people were dying
>> daily. The claim that had we remained in the EU we could theoretically
>> have opted out of the EU of its Covid policies is inane. No member state
>> did so. And EU supporters across parties opposed leaving the EU
>> Medicines Agency and urged joining the EU vaccine procurement programme."
>>
>> The latter part of which was conveniently omitted by those criticising it.
> ...
>
> We've been over this ground so often that I now only reply to the bits I
> can do from memory. Anything I need to confirm with research is likely
> to be ignored as I can't usually be bothered.

Neither can I, for the most part. Still, I find it disappointing that even
though I explained carefully the other day how we differ structurally from our
continental friends, you still don't get it, or understand why I feel this is
far more important than any economic considerations.

Ideally, I would not only abolish the EU, I'd break up Russia, China, India,
and the US into more manageable components. And the Catholic Church, too, for
similar reasons. These large entities have too many layers and interfaces
between them that are answerable to no one.

--
Socialism only works in two places: Heaven where they don't need it, and Hell where they already have it.

Ronald Reagan

On 11/08/2023 22:31, Tim Streater wrote:
> On 11 Aug 2023 at 19:25:57 BST, "Colin Bignell" <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> On 11/08/2023 13:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> ...
>>> I note that certain people have already cherry picked it. and ignored
>>> what it actually said.
>>>
>>> Viz.
>>>
>>> "Without Brexit, we would never have developed, approved or rolled out
>>> vaccines so fast. Every day counted, since hundreds of people were dying
>>> daily. The claim that had we remained in the EU we could theoretically
>>> have opted out of the EU of its Covid policies is inane. No member state
>>> did so. And EU supporters across parties opposed leaving the EU
>>> Medicines Agency and urged joining the EU vaccine procurement programme."
>>>
>>> The latter part of which was conveniently omitted by those criticising it.
>> ...
>>
>> We've been over this ground so often that I now only reply to the bits I
>> can do from memory. Anything I need to confirm with research is likely
>> to be ignored as I can't usually be bothered.
>
> Neither can I, for the most part. Still, I find it disappointing that even
> though I explained carefully the other day how we differ structurally from our
> continental friends, you still don't get it, or understand why I feel this is
> far more important than any economic considerations.

I understand it, but I simply don't care about it. I consider the idea
that 'we' can change a government if 'we' don't like them a chimera. It
matters not to me which faceless lot of bureaucrats is making the laws,
provided that human rights are not abused and that the country prospers.

> Ideally, I would not only abolish the EU, I'd break up Russia, China, India,
> and the US into more manageable components. And the Catholic Church, too, for
> similar reasons. These large entities have too many layers and interfaces
> between them that are answerable to no one.
>

--
Colin Bignell

On 11/08/2023 23:16, Colin Bignell wrote:
> It matters not to me which faceless lot of bureaucrats is making the
> laws, provided that human rights are not abused and that the country
> prospers.

The problem is, that without some sort of brake on them, that is not
something they have any interest in doing. I find it hard to believe
that you think that what e.g. Post Mugabe's Zimbabwe or Putin's Russia
is doing to its citizens is 'all right by you'.

Or that an (originally) democratically elected Hitler, was fine by you
as well.
And if the above is really what you think why are you even interested in
discussing Brexit? Clearly you DO favour one set of faceless bureaucrats
over another.

--
Gun Control: The law that ensures that only criminals have guns.