On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 22:37:43 +1000, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:

> On 11/08/2023 13:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 11/08/2023 12:49, Fredxx wrote:

>>> 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.

Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.

On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 08:16:10 +1000, Colin Bignell
<cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:

> 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.

More fool you. That is precisely what happened with Blair and Brown.

> 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.

More fool you again.

Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote
> The Natural Philosopher wrote
>> 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.

Doesnt matter what you believe, the majority who bothered to
vote voted to leave and you get to like that or lump it, as always.

On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 22:18:48 +1000, Colin Bignell
<cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:

> 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%

Mindlessly superficial. What matters is individual countrys, not the EU
average.

And what matters is what it would have been if the UK had stayed
in the EU and there isnt a shred of evidence that the UK would not
have got the same result.

> Effective mortgage rates UK 3%, EU 2%

Mindlessly superficial. What matters is individual countrys, not the EU
average.

And what matters is what it would have been if the UK had stayed
in the EU and there isnt a shred of evidence that the UK would not
have got the same result.

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

And even you should have noticed that Germany did not leave the EU.

> 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.

BULLSHIT

And that's due to Covid, not Brexit.

> In terms of workforce participation rates (the proportionworking or
> seeking work), the UK is the worst in the G7.

And that's due to Covid, not Brexit.

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

That remains to be seen given we have no idea how long long covid will be
a problem.

>> 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.

The original article proves that that is just another remoaner lie.

On Sun, 13 Aug 2023 00:48:54 +1000, 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?

They clearly did with the saving of the contribution to the EU budget.

And you don't need calculations on the question of taking
back control of the UK laws, borders and immigration.

On Sun, 13 Aug 2023 01:44:24 +1000, 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.

Not a chance.

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

On Sun, 13 Aug 2023 02:22:23 +1000, Tim Streater <tim@streater.me.uk>
wrote:

> 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.

No chance, he is completely off with the fucking fairies as always.

Almost as stupid as his previous stupid claim that if the UK dared
to leave the EU, it would be tanks through the chunnel in minutes.

Prop 13 and
> its
> effects on education may have been an initial catalyst.

Nope.

> It'll be Hobson's choice next year for the Yanks.

That remains to be seen depending on whether
Biden even manages to survive that long.

> 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

Even sillier given the amendments.

> (well, not easily anyway). That is now starting to
> sink them.

Fantasy

On Sun, 13 Aug 2023 03:13:20 +1000, Andrew <Andrew97d@btinternet.com>
wrote:

> 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.

The reality is that the UK had been bankrupted by two world wars
and could no longer afford to do what they did to India previously
and Labour chose to pull the plug on the empire.

On Sun, 13 Aug 2023 08:44:12 +1000, Colin Bignell
<cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:

> 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.

Nothing unsupported about the fact that brexit allows the UK to do
its own laws and decide who it will allow to migrate into the UK.

On Sun, 13 Aug 2023 08:56:25 +1000, Colin Bignell
<cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:

> 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.

And that is all completely irrelevant to the effect of brexit.

On Sun, 13 Aug 2023 09:02:51 +1000, Colin Bignell
<cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> 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
>>
>
> 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,

Then you need new glasses on the saving of the contribution to the EU
budget alone.

> only unsupported assertions that things would be better after Brexit.

That is flagrantly dishonest. Nothing unsupported about
the fact that the UK would be free to do its own laws and
decided who would be allowed to migrate into the UK.

On 13/08/2023 00:02, Colin Bignell 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
>>
>
> 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.
>
Channel 4 is the light programme with ads,

> 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.
>

--
"An intellectual is a person knowledgeable in one field who speaks out
only in others...”

Tom Wolfe

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?

Or, more importantly, details of how the EU was going to change,
enlarge, implement new rules, etc. over a period of years. How many
areas would move from countries having a veto to majority voting, etc.

Another reason was the simple fact that there was going to be so much
difficulty implementing leave, showing how entwined our institutions,
laws and ways of doing things, had become enmeshed with EU institutions
and another decade or perhaps two would have made it pretty well
impossible to leave.

On 12/08/2023 23:56, Colin Bignell wrote:
> 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.

So, in other words, the difference between EU and UK mortgage rates has
little or nothing to do with Brexit, but simply that UK rate changes act
far faster than EU ones do.

What is needed is a comparison of the rates for NEW mortgages - and even
then, EU ones will not have changed as much, simply because banks know
that it will all even out over the long term, while UK mortgages do not
have the luxury of that length of time.

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.
>

dont think you need knowledge if it was written in the Telegraph.

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.

Sorry, yes, I meant from poorer states to states like California.

On 12/08/2023 23:56, Colin Bignell wrote:
> 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.

"Not taking inflation into account".

That's a pretty big exclusion.

Andy