On 12/07/2022 17:41, Max Demian wrote:
> > On 12/07/2022 11:09, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> So this seems to be an example of EU legislation making us all safer
>> than UK legislation might otherwise have done, and yet you're
>> complaining about it?  Nothing demonstrates the irrationality of the
>> Brexshit religion greater than that.
>>
>> And than this ...
>>
>> https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jun/14/jacob-rees-mogg-plan-to-axe-eu-laws-sparks-cabinet-row
>>
>> "The Brexit opportunities minister is pushing for the laws carried
>> over after Brexit to expire by a “cliff-edge” deadline of 23 June
>> 2026, marking 10 years since the EU referendum."
>>
>> So what he's trying to do is, regardless of the merit or otherwise of
>> each and every law, repeal them all by a given deadline.
>>
>> It's an irrational religion based on divisive populist xenophobia,
>> always was, and always will be.
>
> Those regulations you have quoted only affect us.

They were the UK's implementation of an EU wide directive, and when we
were still part of the EU, they didn't only affect us, but every country
in the EU, as they still do for those countries now - the point was
that EU legislation created both a *safe* and a *level* playing field
for all alike, so that, just as an example, UK bosses could not unfairly
over-exploit their workforce to obtain a competitive advantage for their
products over others originating elsewhere in the EU.

> We can make our own
> that say the same thing or are better (or suit us better).

On the contrary, reread the last point in my post above, the intention
of the most radicalised xenophobes in the government seems to be to junk
them all, regardless of their actual *WORTH*. Note that if we did so,
we'd be likely to incur even greater difficulties in trading with the EU
thereafter, because we would be breaking the aforementioned safe and
level playing field, and this might well be seen as a further breaking
of our agreement with them, over and above the existing intent to break
the NI protocol, and thereby incur increased tariffs in retaliation.

--

Fake news kills!

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

In message <tajfuj$20oc3$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
<java@evij.com.invalid> writes

>
>To blame Remainers for the failure of Brexshit is to blame the
>messenger for the message, and is the surest sign yet that Brexshit is
>just another irrational political religion.
>

What I can't understand is how have Remainers been able to make Brexit
go badly?

The process of Brexit has been (and still is being) handled entirely by
the Government, which owes its 2019, 80-seat majority to its firmly
pro-Brexit manifesto. While the Remainers can grumble and criticise till
they're all blue in the face, they have little or no control over what
is happening.
--
Ian

On 12/07/2022 20:06, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> In message <tajfuj$20oc3$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
> <java@evij.com.invalid> writes
>>
>> To blame Remainers for the failure of Brexshit is to blame the
>> messenger for the message, and is the surest sign yet that Brexshit is
>> just another irrational political religion.
>
> What I can't understand is how have Remainers been able to make Brexit
> go badly?
>
> The process of Brexit has been (and still is being) handled entirely by
> the Government, which owes its 2019, 80-seat majority to its firmly
> pro-Brexit manifesto. While the Remainers can grumble and criticise till
> they're all blue in the face, they have little or no control over what
> is happening.

Exactly, but now, as predicted from the start by anyone who understands
anything about politics/economics, the shit's hit the fan, they need
someone else to blame, so they blame the people who told them from the
start just what sort of intractable mess it would turn out to be. The
blaming of Remainers for the failure of Brexshit is simply the latest
brainless irrationality that the whole stinking cesspit has always been
mired by.

--

Fake news kills!

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

In message <tajfuj$20oc3$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
<java@evij.com.invalid> writes

>
>To blame Remainers for the failure of Brexshit is to blame the
>messenger for the message, and is the surest sign yet that Brexshit is
>just another irrational political religion.
>
What I can't understand is how have Remainers been able to make Brexit
go badly?

The process of Brexit has been (and still is being) handled entirely by
the Government, which owes its 2019, 80-seat majority to its firmly
pro-Brexit manifesto. While the Remainers can grumble and criticise till
they're all blue in the face, they have little or no control over what
is happening.
--
Ian

On 12/07/2022 12:07, Martin wrote:
> The column was written by Boris. The EU kept a public file of te lies he wrote.

I think the newspaper did similar with the lies from Brussels.

On 12/07/2022 14:43, Indy Jess John wrote:
> That reminds me of a business trip to London, where I arrived at the
> station for my train back home to discover it had been cancelled and I
> had to wait for the next one. I went along to Burger King and ordered a
> hamburger and a cup of coffee. The till was broken. The till jockey (a
> great description!) told me the till wasn't working and had 4 goes at
> adding two numbers together. Meanwhile my burger and coffee were getting
> cold because they wouldn't be handed over until paid for, so after the
> 4th go I gave the correct amount I should be charged and I handed over a
> £5 note. Then there were 3 goes at telling me what change I should get,
> none of which were right. Then the tannoy announced my train and what I
> was being offered was only 10p too much so I took it and went for my train.

A work colleague's wife worked at a local establishment and was very
familiar with their credit card reader. She was in a shop one day when
the shop assistant was having problems with the credit card reader.

She told her enter something like #12*567 (random number from me as no
idea what was used). It burst back into life, much to the amazement of
the shop assistant!

On 12/07/2022 21:09, Ian Jackson wrote:
> What I can't understand is how have Remainers been able to make Brexit
> go badly?
>
> The process of Brexit has been (and still is being) handled entirely by
> the Government, which owes its 2019, 80-seat majority to its firmly
> pro-Brexit manifesto. While the Remainers can grumble and criticise till
> they're all blue in the face, they have little or no control over what
> is happening.

But the people in the EU who fund some of them can arrange for
unnecessary delays etc which can blamed on BREXIT.

I saw news report earlier about the EU building an 8 million euro
bunker. I thought it was going to be the long anticipated EU
Führerbunker but at only 8 million euro, I think it is just an
overpriced SCIF.

On 12/07/2022 21:40, MB wrote:
>
> On 12/07/2022 12:07, Martin wrote:
>>
>> The column was written by Boris. The EU kept a public file of te lies
>> he wrote.
>
> I think the newspaper did similar with the lies from Brussels.

Like this for example, which paints a rather different picture than you
are implying, and, for The Spectator, is an unusually balanced contribution:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-lies-and-liars-of-brexit

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 12/07/2022 17:46, Java Jive wrote:
> On 12/07/2022 16:21, Indy Jess John wrote:
>> On 12/07/2022 14:12, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 12/07/2022 13:35, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 12/07/2022 10:46, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It's hypocrisy whatever else you choose to call it.
>>>>
>>>> I suppose that is as near as I am likely to get to you admitting
>>>> that you did make an ad hominem attack.
>>>
>>> I made one about you after you had made one about Remainers.  If you
>>> don't like the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
>>
>> Hee hee!  The usual change of direction to avoid admitting it.
>> You are *so* predictable.
>
> Jeez, you're so fucking incompetent that you can't even get that right:
> I ADMITTED IT, stating that it was in retaliation to your own ad
> hominems.  You continue to act like a child.  You are *so* predictable.
>
But ad hominems are against a specific person. I commented on a class of
people, not an identifiable single person. Can I recommend you read the
work of George Boole?

Jim

On 12/07/2022 21:51, MB wrote:
> On 12/07/2022 21:09, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> What I can't understand is how have Remainers been able to make Brexit
>> go badly?
>>
>> The process of Brexit has been (and still is being) handled entirely by
>> the Government, which owes its 2019, 80-seat majority to its firmly
>> pro-Brexit manifesto. While the Remainers can grumble and criticise till
>> they're all blue in the face, they have little or no control over what
>> is happening.
>
> But the people in the EU who fund some of them can arrange for
> unnecessary delays etc which can blamed on BREXIT.

Again an EU-phobic claim made without supporting evidence, so as usual
will be regarded as a lie until such evidence is provided.

> I saw news report earlier about the EU building an 8 million euro
> bunker.  I thought it was going to be the long anticipated EU
> Führerbunker  but at only 8 million euro, I think it is just an
> overpriced SCIF.

SFA to do with Brexshit.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 12/07/2022 23:07, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> On 12/07/2022 17:46, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> Jeez, you're so fucking incompetent that you can't even get that
>> right: I ADMITTED IT, stating that it was in retaliation to your own
>> ad hominems.  You continue to act like a child.  You are *so*
>> predictable.
>>
> But ad hominems are against a specific person.

Surprising as it may seem to you, Remainers are actually people too.

> I commented on a class of
> people, not an identifiable single person.

So effectively you insulted a whole class of people, most of whom are
unknown to you, and which therefore you can have no justification for
making sweeping assumptions about, let alone blaming them for something
which they cannot possibly have done, all of which is worse than
insulting just one person whose own statements condemn him as being
rather stupid, which is what I did.

> Can I recommend you read the
> work of George Boole?

Can I recommend that you:

1) Learn to admit when you're wrong;
2) Look up the meaning of hypocrisy;
3) Learn to base your views on *EVIDENCE*;
4) Stick to what you said you would do several posts ago, viz:

Stop wasting everyone's time by arguing a point that you cannot possibly
win.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 12/07/2022 20:06, Ian Jackson wrote:
> In message <tajfuj$20oc3$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
> <java@evij.com.invalid> writes
>
>
>
>>
>> To blame Remainers for the failure of Brexshit is to blame the
>> messenger for the message, and is the surest sign yet that Brexshit is
>> just another irrational political religion.
>>
>
> What I can't understand is how have Remainers been able to make Brexit
> go badly?

The referendum was won by those who wanted Brexit, and if Parliament had
got behind the result, a decent severance would have been possible.
However, Cameron promised to deliver the result of the Referendum
whatever it was, and resigned instead as soon as he found out that the
outcome was not the "Remain" that he expected, and his successor was a
Remainer too. The Remainers had the majority in Parliament, and that
fact encouraged the EU's negotiators to foil attempts to undermine their
control. Thus the Remainers encouraged the EU to be awkward, and they
could block in Parliament the Brexit legislation that the public thought
they would get after winning the referendum. Teresa May was a remainer
tasked with the job of delivering Brexit and she negotiated with an EU
that wanted to punish Britain for daring to want to leave, and so
between them they cobbled together something that the press were
describing as Brexit In Name Only because it didn't break the EU ties,
and they blocked that four times too, and they blocked the "No Deal"
last resort. Effectively they adopted a "The answer is No, whatever the
question" attitude to retain the status quo for as long as possible.
That was the driver for the outcome that Brexit would go badly.

After Teresa May ran out of options and resigned, the leadership contest
was won by Boris, and he managed to get a waiver from Cameron's Fixed
Term Parliament Act by using his right as a newly appointed Prime
Minister to threaten asking the Queen to dissolve Parliament and order a
General Election unless he was given permission by Parliament to call a
General Election.

By claiming he had an "oven ready" deal he managed to get a large
majority at the General Election that followed. However, being Boris
his oven ready deal was an exaggeration because negotiating a very
different deal would have taken years, so what he had was just May's
BRINO, with an added concession that the EU and the UK could mutually
agree alterations to it. The EU has refused to amend it at all so no
changes could be agreed. That is why Northern Ireland is nominally part
of the UK but it remains in the EU Customs Union.

>
> The process of Brexit has been (and still is being) handled entirely by
> the Government, which owes its 2019, 80-seat majority to its firmly
> pro-Brexit manifesto. While the Remainers can grumble and criticise till
> they're all blue in the face, they have little or no control over what
> is happening.

What was actually needed was a Parliament with the guts to follow up
Teresa May's mantra that "No Deal is better than a bad deal" and vote
for a No Deal. Britain buys more from the EU than the EU buys from us
so it would have hurt the EU's budget far more than it would have
damaged ours. Faced with that reality the EU would then be trying to
salvage something from the wreckage rather that remaining in the driving
seat. But neither the Remainers in the other parties nor sufficient of
the newly elected Conservatives were prepared to vote for a No Deal, and
that effectively killed some of the benefits that Brexit could have
delivered.

Some benefits have been delivered. Trade Deals have been made with other
countries which would never have been possible under EU rules, and if
the coronavirus pandemic hadn't interfered with world trade that would
have brought a Brexit dividend in cheaper goods in the shops by now. It
was the pandemic and Russia's invasion of Ukraine that wrecked that
ideal, not Brexit itself.

The other benefit is that Britain had a Covid vaccine available in bulk
and was delivering it to the UK population long before the EU had a
vaccination policy; and with their "Punish Britain" attitude they
claimed that the Astra Zeneca vaccine was unusable and by buying it and
then refusing to use it they condemned many of their citizens to an
avoidable Covid death, while removing from the market the available
stocks that could have been supplied to poorer countries and so
increased their death rates too.

There are other complications remaining from the half in and half out
situation we are currently in, but the above will give you a flavour of
how we are where we are, and how different it might have been if
Parliament had got wholly behind the referendum decision.

Jim

On 12/07/2022 23:27, Java Jive wrote:
> On 12/07/2022 23:07, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>
>> On 12/07/2022 17:46, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> Jeez, you're so fucking incompetent that you can't even get that
>>> right: I ADMITTED IT, stating that it was in retaliation to your own
>>> ad hominems.  You continue to act like a child.  You are *so*
>>> predictable.
>>>
>> But ad hominems are against a specific person.
>
> Surprising as it may seem to you, Remainers are actually people too.

But ad hominems are against *specific* people.
>
>> I commented on a class of people, not an identifiable single person.
>
> So effectively you insulted a whole class of people

Yes I did. But that is *not* an ad hominem attack like the one you
made. Which is what I have said all along, and I say it again.

The Remainers are entitled to their opinions and I support their right
to have them. What I don't support is their continued attempts to
overturn or interfere with a decision made by the majority of those who
responded to the referendum.

Jim

Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:

> But ad hominems are against a specific person. I commented on a class of
> people, not an identifiable single person. Can I recommend you read the
> work of George Boole?

I found “The Laws of Thought” rather heavy going and I am still only half
way through. I do not remember anything in it that seems relevant to the
current discussion. Did you mean some other work of his?

Other authors have written things that are more relevant I think.
Schopenhauer for example.

On 12/07/2022 17:26, Jeff Layman wrote:
> On 12/07/2022 13:37, Indy Jess John wrote:
>> On 12/07/2022 11:05, Jeff Layman wrote:
>>> On 12/07/2022 09:04, Martin wrote:
>>>
>>>> Can you give some examples? I've never voted in an EU referendum.
>>>
>>> Has anybody?
>>>
>>> I think upthread we've mentioned Ireland, Denmark, The Netherlands, and
>>> the UK in terms of having a referendum, but has there ever been an
>>> EU-wide referendum about an EU matter (not just a national referendum
>>> about an EU matter or matter affecting only that state)?
>>>
>>> I can't remember one, BICBW. Was there one before the UK joined in 1972?
>>>
>> I think we joined and then had a referendum on whether we wanted to
>> stay in.
>>
>> Jim
>
> Yes, but that comes under the category of "an EU matter affecting only
> that state (and carried out by that state)". I don't know of an EU-wide
> referendum on any matter - all decisions on such are carried out by the
> EU politicians.
>
Ted Heath, who took us into "The Common Market" knew at the time that by
joining the UK would eventually be committed to be part of the EU's
united states of Europe model. But the 1972 referendum question was
whether we wanted to stay in "The Common Market" with the trade benefits
that would bring. There was no suggestion of any loss of sovereignty at
that time, it was merely a trade deal, which is why the answer was that
we wanted to stay in.

The EU as it exists today was formed by the Maastricht Treaty. John
Major promised a referendum on any treaty that resulted in a loss of
sovereignty, but he lied!

Jim

On 12/07/2022 17:48, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 12/07/2022 17:36, NY wrote:
>
>> I can remember the crucial conversion factors: 454 g = 1 lb, 568 fl oz
>> = 1 pint, 25.4 cm = 1 inch.
>
> Well, one out of three anyway.
>
568 fl oz = 1 pint is wrong. It is 568cc (or ml) = 1 pint.
568 fl oz is about 3 and 5/9 gallons!

The other useful near enough conversion is that 1 litre is about 36 fl
oz and a pint is 20 fl oz and that 20:36 ratio is quite useful for
converting recipes.

Jim

On 13/07/2022 00:33, Indy Jess John wrote:
> On 12/07/2022 23:27, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 12/07/2022 23:07, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>
>>> On 12/07/2022 17:46, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Jeez, you're so fucking incompetent that you can't even get that
>>>> right: I ADMITTED IT, stating that it was in retaliation to your own
>>>> ad hominems.  You continue to act like a child.  You are *so*
>>>> predictable.
>>>>
>>> But ad hominems are against a specific person.
>>
>> Surprising as it may seem to you, Remainers are actually people too.
>
> But ad hominems are against *specific* people.

Negative stereotyping, as you were doing, is fundamentally no different,
from ad hominems.

>>> I commented on a class of people, not an identifiable single person.
>>
>> So effectively you insulted a whole class of people
>
> Yes I did.  But that is *not* an ad hominem attack like the one you
> made. Which is what I have said all along, and I say it again.

But only you care about the difference between one and many because you
think, mistakenly, it's the only way you can appear to come out on top
in this argument, while everyone else just notices the rank hypocrisy
that you think you can insult a whole class of people, based on zilch
evidence provided, while you complain about being insulted on the very
real grounds of the many irrational beliefs that you constantly display
in every argument here.

> The Remainers are entitled to their opinions and I support their right
> to have them. What I don't support is their continued attempts to
> overturn or interfere with a decision made by the majority of those who
> responded to the referendum.

Which they haven't done to the agreement, binding in international law,
that Johnson himself negotiated, but now wishes to tear up or at least
break significant parts of, and which has caused all the current
problems which everyone and anyone who knew anything about the subject
said it would cause all along.

Your trying to blame Remainers for the shit in Brexshit is unjust,
irrational, and plumbs the cesspit of dishonest hypocritical bigotry,
but then why should we expect anything different from a Brexshitter, or
indeed someone who knows SFA about agriculture yet tries to lecture
another person, whose father was a farmer and who has a diploma in the
subject, as to what is the usual shape of agricultural drainage ditches?

One of the chief reasons that Brexshit was always bound to fail was the
irrational, ignorant, and dishonest clowns who supported it, both in
politics and in the general population - yes, in the latter case I'm
talking specifically about you and the other Humpty Dumpties here -
for whom no problem, warned of by others who were more knowledgeable
and/or sensible, couldn't simply be lied away. Now the lies have been
shown for what they always were, lies. Get real, get used to it. You'd
better, because this shit is coming your way every time you try to raise
the subject here, and, it seems, none of you are capable of showing the
simple common sense of stopping digging when you're in a hole.

Duh!

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 13/07/2022 00:20, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> [snip fantasy interpretation of recent events]

As most people who understand these things seem to agree -
surprisingly to me, even the Spectator article I linked earlier said it
- once the ridiculous shooting in the foot in the form of the
referendum result had occurred, May's deal was actually the least worst
that could reasonably be expected under the circumstances.

If you must dabble in these absurd conspiracy theories, at least choose
a more plausible one, that Leavers wanted May to fail because that was
the only way that they could gain power. Think about it for a moment,
just who or what has actually gained by all this? Not the country as a
whole, not the economy, certainly not Remainers, and certainly not
rational political debate, so who? The *only* people to benefit are the
people who (ab)used the referendum campaign by lying to gain power, oh,
and Russia of course, because both Europe and ourselves are weakened
politically and economically by our leaving, ourselves much more so in
both respects.

>> The process of Brexit has been (and still is being) handled entirely
>> by the Government, which owes its 2019, 80-seat majority to its firmly
>> pro-Brexit manifesto. While the Remainers can grumble and criticise
>> till they're all blue in the face, they have little or no control over
>> what is happening.
>
> What was actually needed was a Parliament with the guts to follow up
> Teresa May's mantra that "No Deal is better than a bad deal" and vote
> for a No Deal.  Britain buys more from the EU than the EU buys from us
> so it would have hurt the EU's budget far more than it would have
> damaged ours. Faced with that reality the EU would then be trying to
> salvage something from the wreckage rather that remaining in the driving
> seat. But neither the Remainers in the other parties nor sufficient of
> the newly elected Conservatives were prepared to vote for a No Deal, and
> that effectively killed some of the benefits that Brexit could have
> delivered.

No-one, Remainers or Leavers, wanted No Deal, because it was the worst
possible outcome for the UK. The idea that our leaving the EU without a
deal would hurt the EU much more than it would hurt us is the sort of
utterly absurd fantasy that only a Brexshitter could invent, almost half
our trade is with the EU, but only about 8% of the EU's is with us,
that's how much the EU matters to us, and how little we matter to the EU.

> Some benefits have been delivered. Trade Deals have been made with other
> countries which would never have been possible under EU rules,

Allowing, for example, Australian farmers who still use pesticides long
since banned in Europe and the UK to compete with British farmers who
cannot use them:

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/jul/11/why-are-pesticides-banned-overseas-still-used-in-australia-and-what-does-it-mean-for-the-environment

> and if
> the coronavirus pandemic hadn't interfered with world trade that would
> have brought a Brexit dividend in cheaper goods in the shops by now.

You cannot possibly know that, it may have, but it may not because ...

> It
> was the pandemic and Russia's invasion of Ukraine that wrecked that
> ideal, not Brexit itself.

.... the pandemic and Ukraine are just examples of the sort of things
that throw such hopes out of the window.

Effectively, Brexshit was a huge gamble with around 50% of our overseas
trade as the stake, and, unsurprisingly, we lost some of it, and now
have sizeable gambling debts as a result, which we'll have to spend
years paying off.

> The other benefit is that Britain had a Covid vaccine available in bulk
> and was delivering it to the UK population long before the EU had a
> vaccination policy; and with their "Punish Britain" attitude they
> claimed that the Astra Zeneca vaccine was unusable and by buying it and
> then refusing to use it they condemned many of their citizens to an
> avoidable Covid death, while removing from the market the available
> stocks that could have been supplied to poorer countries and so
> increased their death rates too.

Oh FFS stop making puerile and ignorant accusations like a kid on a
playground - as seemingly everyone else except you knows, the UK
vaccinations started on 8/12/2020, the EU's began on 27/12/2020, less
than 20 days later.

> There are other complications remaining from the half in and half out
> situation we are currently in, but the above will give you a flavour of
> how we are where we are, and how different it might have been if
> Parliament had got wholly behind the referendum decision.

All the above is a mindless rant from someone who lives in a
chip-on-shoulder xenophobic blame culture and clearly hasn't the
faintest idea of how the real world works.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 13/07/2022 00:41, Indy Jess John wrote:
> On 12/07/2022 17:26, Jeff Layman wrote:
>> On 12/07/2022 13:37, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>> On 12/07/2022 11:05, Jeff Layman wrote:
>>>> On 12/07/2022 09:04, Martin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Can you give some examples? I've never voted in an EU referendum.
>>>>
>>>> Has anybody?
>>>>
>>>> I think upthread we've mentioned Ireland, Denmark, The Netherlands, and
>>>> the UK in terms of having a referendum, but has there ever been an
>>>> EU-wide referendum about an EU matter (not just a national referendum
>>>> about an EU matter or matter affecting only that state)?
>>>>
>>>> I can't remember one, BICBW. Was there one before the UK joined in
>>>> 1972?
>>>>
>>> I think we joined and then had a referendum on whether we wanted to
>>> stay in.
>>>
>>> Jim
>>
>> Yes, but that comes under the category of "an EU matter affecting only
>> that state (and carried out by that state)". I don't know of an
>> EU-wide referendum on any matter - all decisions on such are carried
>> out by the EU politicians.
>>
> Ted Heath, who took us into "The Common Market" knew at the time that by
> joining the UK would eventually be committed to be part of the EU's
> united states of Europe model. But the 1972 referendum question was
> whether we wanted to stay in "The Common Market" with the trade benefits
> that would bring. There was no suggestion of any loss of sovereignty at
> that time, it was merely a trade deal, which is why the answer was that
> we wanted to stay in.

<Sigh/> Again, a failure to check the most basic facts that your fantasy
narrative relies upon, indeed a selective failure of memory because I've
told you this at least once before: the government's own leaflet
delivered to every household in the land in 1975, supporting our
remaining in, admitted correctly that there was some loss of
sovereignty, as there is in *EVERY* *SINGLE* *TREATY* the UK has ever
signed.

On 16/09/2020 10:41, NY wrote:
>
> "Indy Jess John" <jimwarren@OMITblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:VJ98H.2722271$6_j.758871@fx37.ams4...
>>
>> I rather liked the Justice Secretary pointing out that in order to
sit in the commons he had to swear loyalty to the Queen, and he could
not accept the EU taking precedence over the Queen's sovereignty. One in
the eye for John Major who gave away the sovereignty in the Maastricht
Treaty, reneging on his pledge to give the public a say in any future
loss of sovereignty, and was now bleating about losing trust.

[snip]

An issue that has been done to death here already. There is no such
thing as absolute sovereignty, no country in the world has any such.
All are bound by the treaties that they have signed, whether on an ad
hoc basis or on joining organisations such as the EU. Memberships of
all such organisations are a compromise between the benefits of
membership and some loss of sovereignty.

[snip]

https://digital.library.lse.ac.uk/objects/lse:fug282yox/read/single#page/1/mode/1up

.... and it's been reproduced in text form here ...

http://www.harvard-digital.co.uk/euro/pamphlet.htm

"WILL PARLIAMENT
LOSE ITS POWER?

Another anxiety expressed about Britain's membership of the Common
Market is that Parliament could lose its supremacy, and we would have to
obey laws passed by unelected 'faceless bureaucrats' sitting in their
headquarters in Brussels.

What are the facts?

Fact No. 1 is that in the modern world even the Super Powers like
America and Russia do not have complete freedom of action. Medium-sized
nations like Britain are more and more subject to economic and political
forces we cannot control on our own.

A striking recent example of the impact of such forces is the way the
Arab oil-producing nations brought about an energy and financial crisis
not only in Britain but throughout a great part of the world.

Since we cannot go it alone in the modern world, Britain has for years
been a member of international groupings like the United Nations, NATO
and the International Monetary Fund.

Membership of such groupings imposes both rights and duties, but has not
deprived us of our national identity, or changed our way of life.

Membership of the Common Market also imposes new rights and duties on
Britain, but does not deprive us of our national identity. To say that
membership could force Britain to eat Euro-bread or drink Euro-beer is
nonsense.

Fact No. 2. No important new policy can be decided in Brussels or
anywhere else without the consent of a British Minister answerable to a
British Government and British Parliament.

The top decision-making body in the Market is the Council of Ministers,
which is composed of senior Ministers representing each of the nine
member governments.

It is the Council of Ministers, and not the market's officials, who take
the important decisions. These decisions can be taken only if all the
members of the Council agree. The Minister representing Britain can veto
any proposal for a new law or a new tax if he considers it to be against
British interests. Ministers from the other Governments have the same
right to veto.

All the nine member countries also agree that any changes or additions
to the Market Treaties must be acceptable to their own Governments and
Parliaments.

Remember: All the other countries in the Market today enjoy, like us,
democratically elected Governments answerable to their own Parliaments
and their own voters. They do not want to weaken their Parliaments any
more than we would."

Fact No. 3. The British Parliament in Westminster retains the final
right to repeal the Act which took us into the Market on January 1,
1973. Thus our continued membership will depend on the continuing assent
of Parliament.

The White Paper on the new Market terms recently presented to Parliament
by the Prime Minister declares that through membership of the Market we
are better able to advance and protect our national interests. This is
the essence of sovereignty.

Fact No. 4. On April 9, 1975, the House of Commons voted by 396 to 170
in favour of staying in on the new terms."

> The EU as it exists today was formed by the Maastricht Treaty. John
> Major promised a referendum on any treaty that resulted in a loss of
> sovereignty, but he lied!

See above, *ALL* treaties entail loss of sovereignty, but it has never
been the style of UK government to have a referendum every time a new
treaty is signed; perhaps that ought to change, but John Major was free
to sign Maastricht once its acceptance had been agreed by Parliament,
and his doing so was entirely normal procedure for British Governments
down the ages.

--

Fake news kills!

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

In message <takrb6$2531o$1@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John
<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> writes

>But ad hominems are against a specific person. I commented on a class
>of people, not an identifiable single person. Can I recommend you read
>the work of George Boole?
>
Well, for grammatical purity, there must be a plural of argumentum ad
hominem. But what is it? A Google fails to come up with one (other than
an obvious plural for 'argumentum').

'Hominem' is the accusitive case of 'homo', so the plural would be
'homines'. However, I have a feeling that the Latin expression might not
be grammatically correct. Shouldn't 'ad' not require the ablative case
(singular 'homine', plural 'hominibus'? If so, then an ad hominem attack
on a specific group of people could be 'argumentum ad homines', or maybe
more correctly, 'argumentum ad hominibus'?
--
Ian

On 13/07/2022 01:08, Java Jive wrote:

>> The Remainers are entitled to their opinions and I support their right
>> to have them. What I don't support is their continued attempts to
>> overturn or interfere with a decision made by the majority of those
>> who responded to the referendum.
>
> Which they haven't done to the agreement, binding in international law,
> that Johnson himself negotiated, but now wishes to tear up or at least
> break significant parts of, and which has caused all the current
> problems which everyone and anyone who knew anything about the subject
> said it would cause all along.

The agreement included the ability of the Uk and the EU to make agreed
changes to it. That was the alteration to Teresa May's BRINO draft that
Boris achieved.

The EU doesn't really want us as a member state, they just want us as a
net donor to the EU budget. By digging their heels in, encouraged by the
remainers in Parliament who are already suggesting increasing the EU
control over UK trade, the EU think they can make that happen. Thus, the
clause inserted in the agreement that modifications can be made will
never be used until the Remainers STFU and the EU give up the idea they
can once again dictate to Britain.

There is plenty of evidence for this if you trawl through the news
archives. At the time Teresa May was getting nowhere in her
negotiations with the EU, Donald Trump was facing similar EU blocking
tactics to the agreement he was trying to obtain. He gave them a blunt
ultimatum, that the EU signed the agreement offered to them or America
would block all imports from all EU member states until they did sign
it. He got agreement in days to a better deal than Britain achieved in
years.

Anyway, breaking international law happens from time to time when the
small print in the agreement becomes a major inconvenience. America tore
up their agreement with Iran, for instance. After a bit of fuss in the
media for a while, it all became yesterdays news. There were no
consequences to America.

Jim

Jim

On 13/07/2022 00:35, Owen Rees wrote:
> Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
>
>> But ad hominems are against a specific person. I commented on a class of
>> people, not an identifiable single person. Can I recommend you read the
>> work of George Boole?
>
> I found “The Laws of Thought” rather heavy going and I am still only half
> way through. I do not remember anything in it that seems relevant to the
> current discussion. Did you mean some other work of his?

I was thinking of the text book attributed to him on set theory that I
studied at school in 1964. I can't remember what it was called though.

Jim

On 13/07/2022 08:26, Ian Jackson wrote:
> In message <takrb6$2531o$1@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John
> <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> writes
>
>
>> But ad hominems are against a specific person. I commented on a class
>> of people, not an identifiable single person.  Can I recommend you
>> read the work of George Boole?
>>
> Well, for grammatical purity, there must be a plural of argumentum ad
> hominem. But what is it? A Google fails to come up with one (other than
> an obvious plural for 'argumentum').
>
> 'Hominem' is the accusitive case of 'homo', so the plural would be
> 'homines'. However, I have a feeling that the Latin expression might not
> be grammatically correct. Shouldn't 'ad' not require the ablative case
> (singular 'homine', plural 'hominibus'? If so, then an ad hominem attack
> on a specific group of people could be 'argumentum ad homines', or maybe
> more correctly, 'argumentum ad hominibus'?

I can't help admire your search for grammatical purity, and you are
right that "argumentum" should precede it. I suggest though that
expressions that have arrived in common usage in English don't have to
be grammatically correct in the original Latin. I found this:
<quote>
Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem
(Latin for 'argument to the person'), refers to several types of
arguments, some but not all of which are fallacious. Typically this term
refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character,
motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather
than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
<end quote>
and
<quote>
Several types of ad hominem fallacies exist. All of these follow a
general scheme where instead of dealing with the essence of someone's
argument, the interlocutor attacks the character of the proponent of the
argument and concludes that the attack refutes the argument.
<end quote>

Thanks for your input. It encouraged me to explore the subject rather
than just use it. And that proved my usage of it in my circumstances
was correct. :-)

Jim

On 13/07/2022 07:36, Java Jive wrote:

> If you must dabble in these absurd conspiracy theories, at least choose
> a more plausible one, that Leavers wanted May to fail because that was
> the only way that they could gain power.

I did NOT say that.
Thus your reply just reflects your entrenched position, not reality.

Jim

On 13/07/2022 08:26, Ian Jackson wrote:
> In message <takrb6$2531o$1@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John
> <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> writes
>
>
>> But ad hominems are against a specific person. I commented on a class
>> of people, not an identifiable single person.  Can I recommend you
>> read the work of George Boole?
>>
> Well, for grammatical purity, there must be a plural of argumentum ad
> hominem. But what is it? A Google fails to come up with one (other than
> an obvious plural for 'argumentum').
>
> 'Hominem' is the accusitive case of 'homo', so the plural would be
> 'homines'. However, I have a feeling that the Latin expression might not
> be grammatically correct. Shouldn't 'ad' not require the ablative case
> (singular 'homine', plural 'hominibus'? If so, then an ad hominem attack
> on a specific group of people could be 'argumentum ad homines', or maybe
> more correctly, 'argumentum ad hominibus'?

I am not persuaded grammatical purity needs a plural. If we accept "ad
hominem" as an English adjective (or adverb) "borrowed" from Latin then
it has no need of one. In other words, the phrase "ad hominem argument"
implies a single person no more than "schoolboy argument".

And ISTR that the phrase comes not from the classical period but from
the Latin used after the dark ages so what we learned at school (and
I've forgotten) may not apply.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid