On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 09:06:36 +0100
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> 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.
>
>

There's still a lot of 'big is beautiful' hanging around, despite the
concept being discredited in almost all cases.

--
Joe

On 12/08/2023 09:06, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> 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.

As seems to be the case with some of the actions of the present
government, particularly with their handling of refugees.

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'.

You may have missed the bit about human rights in my post.

> Or that an (originally) democratically elected Hitler, was fine by you
> as well.

Not me, but I used to know a few people who still thought he was the
best thing that happened to Germany after WW1 and that he was betrayed
by his lieutenants.

> 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.

As I have said many times before, I want to see Britain have a strong
economy and, for that, I believe we should have stayed in the EU.

--
Colin Bignell

On 12/08/2023 09:56, Joe wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 09:06:36 +0100
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>
> There's still a lot of 'big is beautiful' hanging around, despite the
> concept being discredited in almost all cases.
>

The problem is people say 'I think...' when they really mean 'I dont
think, so I read the Guardian or listen to the BBC as a substitute'.

If small was better, there would be no big. If big was better,
everything would be gigantic.

In reality there are more (or less) happy mediums.

The problems occur when ideology and greed for power and money overtake
natural conservatism, by which I mean 'stuff that has been found to work
OK'.
WE have spent thousands of years arriving at tribes, fiefdoms, states
and then nations, principalities, and empires, and all have flaws.

There is great commonality of culture across Western Europe, but it is
not identical. Ergo national government has its place, but also pan
national *voluntary* organisations like ISO, CERN, Interpol NATO and so
on also have their place. What is less clear is if the *imposition* of a
centralised undemocratic bureaucracy that seeks to dominate rather than
get consensus, is an appropriate model for Europe.

The EU is the USSR, without the tanks and artillery. What Russia is
doing to Ukraine, is what the EU and its supporters would like to do to
Britain. For identical reasons. The existence of a free(er) democracy on
its borders making a success is simply intolerable. A successful
brexited Britain begs the question of 'what did the EU ever do for us?'
and being able to spend 91 days at your second home in Tuscany is not an
adequate answer to any but the most selfish and entitled.

The problem with the EU is that it was designed by communists and
implemented by criminals.

Increasingly the cost-benefit of memberships is swinging away from
membership for the larger nations. Smaller nations are rushing to join
NATO, not the EU. And the Euro has destroyed, along with corruptions,the
economies of Italy and Greece.

The British empire didn't survive by actively ruling its member nations
but simply by keeping enough peace to allow trade, and once they thought
they could rule themselves, letting them.

The EU should learn.

--
To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote.

On 12/08/2023 10:01, Colin Bignell wrote:
> On 12/08/2023 09:06, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> 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.
>
> As seems to be the case with some of the actions of the present
> government, particularly with their handling of refugees.
>
> 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'.
>
> You may have missed the bit about human rights in my post.
>
>> Or that an (originally) democratically elected Hitler, was fine by you
>> as well.
>
> Not me, but I used to know a few people who still thought he was the
> best thing that happened to Germany after WW1 and that he was betrayed
> by his lieutenants.
>
>> 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.
>
> As I have said many times before, I want to see Britain have a strong
> economy and, for that, I believe we should have stayed in the EU.
>
Even when the evidence is that despite Rishi and the Remoaners, we are
in fact doing better than the 26 overall?

There is a point where a belief beconmes simply an act of faith, not
grounded in real facts.

--
Labour - a bunch of rich people convincing poor people to vote for rich
people by telling poor people that "other" rich people are the reason
they are poor.

Peter Thompson

On 12/08/2023 10:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 12/08/2023 10:01, Colin Bignell wrote:
>> On 12/08/2023 09:06, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> As seems to be the case with some of the actions of the present
>> government, particularly with their handling of refugees.
>>
>> 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'.
>>
>> You may have missed the bit about human rights in my post.
>>
>>> Or that an (originally) democratically elected Hitler, was fine by
>>> you as well.
>>
>> Not me, but I used to know a few people who still thought he was the
>> best thing that happened to Germany after WW1 and that he was betrayed
>> by his lieutenants.
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> As I have said many times before, I want to see Britain have a strong
>> economy and, for that, I believe we should have stayed in the EU.
>>
> Even when the evidence is that despite Rishi and the Remoaners, we are
> in fact doing better than the 26 overall?

Inflation UK 7.9%, EU 5.5%

Effective mortgage rates UK 3%, EU 2%

Growth, the UK and Germany are the only G7 nations with smaller
economies than at the end of 2019

Unemployment may be good, but the UK is one of the few rich countries
where there are more inactive people (not counted as unemployed) than
before the pandemic. In terms of workforce participation rates (the
proportion working or seeking work), the UK is the worst in the G7.

I don't see the UK doing much better there.

> There is a point where a belief beconmes simply an act of faith, not
> grounded in real facts.

Brexit was entirely an act of faith, which has yet to deliver its promise.

--
Colin Bignell

On 12/08/2023 13:18, Colin Bignell wrote:
> Brexit was entirely an act of faith, which has yet to deliver its promise.
It may seem like that to you, because that is your modus operandi. To
others it was a carefully calculated risk.

--
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 12/08/2023 10:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 12/08/2023 09:56, Joe wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 09:06:36 +0100
>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> There's still a lot of 'big is beautiful' hanging around, despite the
>> concept being discredited in almost all cases.
>>
>
> The problem is people say 'I think...' when they really mean 'I dont
> think, so I read the Guardian or listen to the BBC as a substitute'.
>
> If small was better, there would be no big. If big was better,
> everything would be gigantic.
>
> In reality there are more (or less) happy mediums.
>
> The problems occur when ideology and greed for power and money overtake
> natural conservatism, by which I mean 'stuff that has been found to work
> OK'.
> WE have spent thousands of years arriving at tribes, fiefdoms, states
> and then nations, principalities, and empires, and all have flaws.
>
> There is great commonality of culture across Western Europe, but it is
> not identical. Ergo national government has its place, but also pan
> national *voluntary* organisations like ISO, CERN, Interpol NATO and so
> on also have their place. What is less clear is if the *imposition* of a
> centralised undemocratic bureaucracy that seeks to dominate rather than
> get consensus, is an appropriate model for Europe.
>
>
> The EU is the USSR, without the tanks and artillery. What Russia is
> doing to Ukraine, is what the EU and its supporters would like to do to
> Britain. For identical reasons.

Feel free to cite any respected EU politician who would think an
invasion of the UK is a good idea.

As per usual you dress up a fact with lies, making out to everyone
you're a twat.

> The existence of a free(er) democracy on
> its borders making a success is simply intolerable. A successful
> brexited  Britain begs the question of 'what did the EU ever do for us?'
> and being able to spend 91 days at your second home in Tuscany is not an
> adequate answer to any but the most selfish and entitled.
>
> The problem with the EU is that it was designed by communists and
> implemented by criminals.

The only criminal I can think of is Berlusconi but I don't think he had
any undue control over the EU.

> Increasingly the cost-benefit of memberships is swinging away from
> membership for the larger nations.

No, Germany does very well as a strong country with lesser countries
sharing the same currency. There is always a net movement of money from
poor to richer states. The same happens in the USA from states like
California with it's federal taxes moving to poorer states.

> Smaller nations are rushing to join
> NATO, not the EU. And the Euro has destroyed, along with corruptions,the
> economies of Italy and Greece.

Both the Italian and Greek countries have done better sharing a common
currency and staying in the EU. Otherwise inflation would still be
rampant. It's no longer in the high double digits so promotes economic
stability.

> The British empire didn't survive by actively ruling its member  nations
> but simply by keeping enough peace to allow trade, and once they thought
> they could rule themselves, letting them.

Oh dear. Stop living in the past. The world has moved on a very long way
since the British Empire.

On 12/08/2023 13:18, Colin Bignell wrote:

<snip>

> Brexit was entirely an act of faith, which has yet to deliver its promise.

Like NP you wear blinkers but looking in the opposite direction.

I for one, and many other workers have found that Brexit has delivered
for them. For those too lazy to work, then I can see your point.

On 12/08/2023 14:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 12/08/2023 13:18, Colin Bignell wrote:
>> Brexit was entirely an act of faith, which has yet to deliver its
>> promise.
> It may seem like that to you, because that is your modus operandi. To
> others it was a carefully calculated risk.

+1

On 12/08/2023 14:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 12/08/2023 13:18, Colin Bignell wrote:
>> Brexit was entirely an act of faith, which has yet to deliver its
>> promise.
> It may seem like that to you, because that is your modus operandi. To
> others it was a carefully calculated risk.
>

If so, why, in the build up to the referendum, could nobody provide
details of any calculations to support leaving?

--
Colin Bignell

On 12 Aug 2023 at 15:33:04 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:

> No, Germany does very well as a strong country with lesser countries
> sharing the same currency. There is always a net movement of money from
> poor to richer states. The same happens in the USA from states like
> California with its federal taxes moving to poorer states.

You're contradicting yourself there. (a) California is going to be one of the
richer states. (b) Poor states like Mississippi stay poor because they don't
have devaluation as a tool.

--
"Freedom is sloppy. But since tyranny's the only guaranteed byproduct of those who insist on a perfect world, freedom will have to do." -- Bigby Wolf

On 12/08/2023 15:48, Colin Bignell wrote:
> On 12/08/2023 14:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 12/08/2023 13:18, Colin Bignell wrote:
>>> Brexit was entirely an act of faith, which has yet to deliver its
>>> promise.
>> It may seem like that to you, because that is your modus operandi. To
>> others it was a carefully calculated risk.
>>
>
> If so, why, in the build up to the referendum, could nobody provide
> details of any calculations to support leaving?
>

They did, but the BBC didn't broadcast them and the Guardian didn't
print them, so you missed them

--
"Nature does not give up the winter because people dislike the cold."

― Confucius

On 12/08/2023 15:48, Colin Bignell wrote:
> On 12/08/2023 14:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 12/08/2023 13:18, Colin Bignell wrote:
>>> Brexit was entirely an act of faith, which has yet to deliver its
>>> promise.
>> It may seem like that to you, because that is your modus operandi. To
>> others it was a carefully calculated risk.
>>
>
> If so, why, in the build up to the referendum, could nobody provide
> details of any calculations to support leaving?

Because, the same as a recession, a substantial proportion of the
population benefit, and the rest claim poverty.

A subset of the electorate believed they would be better off with
Brexit. It's a gut feeling after years of housing shortages and wage
stagnation.

No one was able to prove wages would go up by x% or that housing costs
would go up y% instead of a higher z%. However common sense suggested
that is what would happen, simply down to the rules of supply and demand.

On 12/08/2023 16:35, Tim Streater wrote:
> On 12 Aug 2023 at 15:33:04 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> No, Germany does very well as a strong country with lesser countries
>> sharing the same currency. There is always a net movement of money from
>> poor to richer states. The same happens in the USA from states like
>> California with its federal taxes moving to poorer states.
>
> You're contradicting yourself there. (a) California is going to be one of the
> richer states. (b) Poor states like Mississippi stay poor because they don't
> have devaluation as a tool.
>
I think California is cattled completely. It will become as poor as
Alabama.

It runs on crime, drugs and hippy ideology utterly divorced from reality.

--
"Nature does not give up the winter because people dislike the cold."

― Confucius

Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
> On 12/08/2023 14:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 12/08/2023 13:18, Colin Bignell wrote:
>>> Brexit was entirely an act of faith, which has yet to deliver its
>>> promise.
>> It may seem like that to you, because that is your modus operandi. To
>> others it was a carefully calculated risk.
>>
>
> If so, why, in the build up to the referendum, could nobody provide
> details of any calculations to support leaving?

So why, after 43 years of EEC/EC/EU largesse, did not Remain provide any
calculations to support staying in?

--
Spike

On 12 Aug 2023 at 16:44:24 BST, "The Natural Philosopher"
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 12/08/2023 16:35, Tim Streater wrote:
>> On 12 Aug 2023 at 15:33:04 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> No, Germany does very well as a strong country with lesser countries
>>> sharing the same currency. There is always a net movement of money from
>>> poor to richer states. The same happens in the USA from states like
>>> California with its federal taxes moving to poorer states.
>>
>> You're contradicting yourself there. (a) California is going to be one of the
>> richer states. (b) Poor states like Mississippi stay poor because they don't
>> have devaluation as a tool.
>>
> I think California is cattled completely. It will become as poor as
> Alabama.
>
> It runs on crime, drugs and hippy ideology utterly divorced from reality.

Well it's 30 years since I left, so you might well be right. Prop 13 and its
effects on education may have been an initial catalyst.

It'll be Hobson's choice next year for the Yanks. Part of it is also how
brain-washed they all are about the wonderfulness of their Constitution, which
came down from the Mountain carved on tablets of stone, and which is not
subject to modification (well, not easily anyway). That is now starting to
sink them.

--
If socialism helps the poor, why are the poor in socialist countries so much poorer than the poor in capitalist countries?

Mark

On 12/08/2023 10:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 12/08/2023 09:56, Joe wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 09:06:36 +0100
>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> There's still a lot of 'big is beautiful' hanging around, despite the
>> concept being discredited in almost all cases.
>>

<snip typical nonsense>

> And the Euro has destroyed, along with corruptions,the
> economies of Italy and Greece.
>
ROFL. The Euro imposed order on those countries that (like the UK)
thought that they could live beyond their means by printing money
and deflating their currency.

> The British empire didn't survive by actively ruling its member  nations
> but simply by keeping enough peace to allow trade, and once they thought
> they could rule themselves, letting them.

More nonsense. The British Empire took control over spear-waving locals
with gun boats. By the end of WW2 many of those countries had realised
that it was all a bluff. British troops and administrators were
massively outnumbered. The locals saw that they could 'take back
control' of their own borders and laws.
Britain had no option but to agree.

On 12/08/2023 16:42, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 12/08/2023 15:48, Colin Bignell wrote:
>> On 12/08/2023 14:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 12/08/2023 13:18, Colin Bignell wrote:
>>>> Brexit was entirely an act of faith, which has yet to deliver its
>>>> promise.
>>> It may seem like that to you, because that is your modus operandi. To
>>> others it was a carefully calculated risk.
>>>
>>
>> If so, why, in the build up to the referendum, could nobody provide
>> details of any calculations to support leaving?
>>
>
> They did, but the BBC didn't broadcast them and the Guardian didn't
> print them, so you missed them
>

Bit difficult to miss the "350 million" splattered all over the side
of the bus

On 12 Aug 2023 at 18:16:04 BST, "Andrew" <Andrew97d@btinternet.com> wrote:

> On 12/08/2023 16:42, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 12/08/2023 15:48, Colin Bignell wrote:
>>> On 12/08/2023 14:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 12/08/2023 13:18, Colin Bignell wrote:
>>>>> Brexit was entirely an act of faith, which has yet to deliver its
>>>>> promise.
>>>> It may seem like that to you, because that is your modus operandi. To
>>>> others it was a carefully calculated risk.
>>>
>>> If so, why, in the build up to the referendum, could nobody provide
>>> details of any calculations to support leaving?
>>
>> They did, but the BBC didn't broadcast them and the Guardian didn't
>> print them, so you missed them
>
> Bit difficult to miss the "350 million" splattered all over the side
> of the bus

Indeed. And the money for the NHS has gone up considerably more than that
since then. So there was one figure that was produced. And done in such a way
that there was no missing it.

--
"Freedom is sloppy. But since tyranny's the only guaranteed byproduct of those who insist on a perfect world, freedom will have to do." -- Bigby Wolf

On 12/08/2023 13:18, Colin Bignell wrote:
> Effective mortgage rates UK 3%, EU 2%

Snipping just that out - how do you get those numbers?

It seems to me that with a mortgage rate of 7.5% and inflation at 10.5%
(which we recently had) mortgage rates are MINUS 3%... and yes that's
oversimplified.

Andy

On 12/08/2023 16:46, Spike wrote:
> Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
>> On 12/08/2023 14:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 12/08/2023 13:18, Colin Bignell wrote:
>>>> Brexit was entirely an act of faith, which has yet to deliver its
>>>> promise.
>>> It may seem like that to you, because that is your modus operandi. To
>>> others it was a carefully calculated risk.
>>>
>>
>> If so, why, in the build up to the referendum, could nobody provide
>> details of any calculations to support leaving?
>
> So why, after 43 years of EEC/EC/EU largesse, did not Remain provide any
> calculations to support staying in?
>

There were a lot of figures produced, from showing that the UK economy
had grown 10% more then it would have had we not joined, to predictions
of the adverse effects Brexit would have on the economy. Unfortunately,
numbers don't really get people's pulses racing the way that unsupported
populist claims do.

--
Colin Bignell

On 12/08/2023 21:39, Vir Campestris wrote:
> On 12/08/2023 13:18, Colin Bignell wrote:
>> Effective mortgage rates UK 3%, EU 2%
>
> Snipping just that out - how do you get those numbers?
>
> It seems to me that with a mortgage rate of 7.5% and inflation at 10.5%
> (which we recently had) mortgage rates are MINUS 3%... and yes that's
> oversimplified

It is the average that people are paying across existing and new home
loans, not taking inflation into account. It makes it easier to compare
the UK, where fixed rate mortgages are generally two to five years, with
Europe, where they are typically 25-30 years. The UK effective rate will
rise as mortgage rates are re-fixed in the next few years, but the long
terms of mortgages in the EU means that theirs will see little change in
the foreseeable future.

--
Colin Bignell

On 12/08/2023 16:42, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 12/08/2023 15:48, Colin Bignell wrote:
>> On 12/08/2023 14:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 12/08/2023 13:18, Colin Bignell wrote:
>>>> Brexit was entirely an act of faith, which has yet to deliver its
>>>> promise.
>>> It may seem like that to you, because that is your modus operandi. To
>>> others it was a carefully calculated risk.
>>>
>>
>> If so, why, in the build up to the referendum, could nobody provide
>> details of any calculations to support leaving?
>>
>
> They did, but the BBC didn't broadcast them and the Guardian didn't
> print them, so you missed them
>

Sorry to dispel your image of me, but I have watched a lot more Channel
4 News than I have BBC News. I have also never bought The Guardian. I'm
not sure I have even ever read it. When I did buy a newspaper, it was
the Express.

During the run up to the referendum, I checked out as much different
media as I could. I still didn't see any pro-leave calculations, only
unsupported assertions that things would be better after Brexit.

--
Colin Bignell

On 12/08/2023 18:24, Tim Streater wrote:
> On 12 Aug 2023 at 18:16:04 BST, "Andrew" <Andrew97d@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> On 12/08/2023 16:42, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 12/08/2023 15:48, Colin Bignell wrote:
>>>> On 12/08/2023 14:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>> On 12/08/2023 13:18, Colin Bignell wrote:
>>>>>> Brexit was entirely an act of faith, which has yet to deliver its
>>>>>> promise.
>>>>> It may seem like that to you, because that is your modus operandi. To
>>>>> others it was a carefully calculated risk.
>>>>
>>>> If so, why, in the build up to the referendum, could nobody provide
>>>> details of any calculations to support leaving?
>>>
>>> They did, but the BBC didn't broadcast them and the Guardian didn't
>>> print them, so you missed them
>>
>> Bit difficult to miss the "350 million" splattered all over the side
>> of the bus
>
> Indeed. And the money for the NHS has gone up considerably more than that
> since then.

While true, the electorate getting angry when it appeared that wasn't
going to happen, made it a political landmine not to give the NHS at
least that much. Although it sounds a lot to the person on the street,
it isn't that much in terms of the NHS budget and falls well short of
what it needs.

So there was one figure that was produced. And done in such a way
> that there was no missing it.
>

--
Colin Bignell

On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 19:58:11 +1000, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:

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

>> 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.

Because that is what the Ukraine wanted to do, for obvious
reasons given what Putin had done with the Crimea.

>> 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.

The author won't be reading your shit.

Can't imagine why for the life of me.

> Also any changes would have been subject to UK's veto.

BULLSHIT

>> 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.

The Torys aren't actually that stupid given the
massive hike due to the sanctions on Russia.