Leave.EU fined £70k, turning bitchy.

[pensive hamster]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-leave-eu-fined-70000-electoral-law-arron-banks-referendum-a8346176.html
11 May 2018
'Police are examining evidence that the chief executive of a key
organisation that pushed for Brexit committed criminal offences
during 2016 referendum campaign.

'It comes after the Electoral Commission fined Leave.EU – the
group backed by Nigel Farage and funded by Arron Banks – the
maximum £70,000 for multiple breaches of electoral rules.

'The group failed to include at least £77,380 in its spending return
following the national vote, meaning it exceeding the legal spending
limits ahead of the referendum, in which the country backed leaving
the European Union.

'... Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Mr Banks called
the Commission’s findings a “joke”, and vowed to fight them in the
courts and claimed the Commission was trying strip the referendum
result of credibility.

'He said: “The entire Commission is composed of former MPs,
Liberal MPs, the SNP, former Labour leaders of councils – all sorts
of people that believe in Remain.

'... A statement from Leave.EU built on the theme, branding the
Commission “a ‘Blairite Swamp Creation’ packed full of
establishment ‘Remoaners’ that couldn’t quite make it to the House
of Lords, but managed to get their noses in the trough via
appointment to public bodies like the Electoral Commission”.

Handbags at dawn?

[tim...]

Post by pensive hamster
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-leave-eu-fined-70000-electoral-law-arron-banks-referendum-a8346176.html
11 May 2018
'Police are examining evidence that the chief executive of a key
organisation that pushed for Brexit committed criminal offences
during 2016 referendum campaign.
'It comes after the Electoral Commission fined Leave.EU – the
group backed by Nigel Farage and funded by Arron Banks – the
maximum £70,000 for multiple breaches of electoral rules.
'The group failed to include at least £77,380 in its spending return
following the national vote, meaning it exceeding the legal spending
limits ahead of the referendum, in which the country backed leaving
the European Union.
'... Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Mr Banks called
the Commission’s findings a “joke”, and vowed to fight them in the
courts and claimed the Commission was trying strip the referendum
result of credibility.

he was on DP later and made the credible point that his "forensic"
accountant had shown that they are wrong and as such he intended to
challenge the fine in court.

without being bitchy at all

tim

[R. Mark Clayton]

Post by tim...

Post by pensive hamster
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-leave-eu-fined-70000-electoral-law-arron-banks-referendum-a8346176.html
11 May 2018
'Police are examining evidence that the chief executive of a key
organisation that pushed for Brexit committed criminal offences
during 2016 referendum campaign.
'It comes after the Electoral Commission fined Leave.EU – the
group backed by Nigel Farage and funded by Arron Banks – the
maximum £70,000 for multiple breaches of electoral rules.
'The group failed to include at least £77,380 in its spending return
following the national vote, meaning it exceeding the legal spending
limits ahead of the referendum, in which the country backed leaving
the European Union.
'... Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Mr Banks called
the Commission’s findings a “joke”, and vowed to fight them in the
courts and claimed the Commission was trying strip the referendum
result of credibility.

he was on DP later and made the credible point that his "forensic"
accountant had shown that they are wrong and as such he intended to
challenge the fine in court.
without being bitchy at all
tim

Did the Leave campaign lie and cheat? Who would have thought it.

PS NHS is still waiting for its cheque for £33.6 Billion unpaid so far...

[Norman Wells]

Post by R. Mark Clayton
Did the Leave campaign lie and cheat? Who would have thought it.
PS NHS is still waiting for its cheque for £33.6 Billion unpaid so far...

Just two questions for you. Where was that money supposed to come from?
And when's the earliest it could possibly become available?

[R. Mark Clayton]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by R. Mark Clayton
Did the Leave campaign lie and cheat? Who would have thought it.
PS NHS is still waiting for its cheque for £33.6 Billion unpaid so far...

Just two questions for you. Where was that money supposed to come from?

Gross money paid to the EU.

Post by Norman Wells
And when's the earliest it could possibly become available?

Never.

[Norman Wells]

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells

Post by R. Mark Clayton
Did the Leave campaign lie and cheat? Who would have thought it.
PS NHS is still waiting for its cheque for £33.6 Billion unpaid so far...

Just two questions for you. Where was that money supposed to come from?

Gross money paid to the EU.

Which we're still paying because we're members of the EU.

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells
And when's the earliest it could possibly become available?

Never.

Then it can't be available now, and it can't be 'unpaid', can it?

[Ian Jackson]

Post by Norman Wells
Which we're still paying because we're members of the EU.

Yes - you're right. There's no chance of any EU payments being diverted
to the NHS until we've stopped paying our EU subs.

Also, I can't imagine what the final cost of leaving the EU will end up
being. It must be mounting up second-by-second (a lot of paper clips and
staples will certainly be being consumed). Almost certainly we'll have
to wait until we've recovered from settling all the bills incurred en
route.

[tim...]

Post by Norman Wells
Which we're still paying because we're members of the EU.

Yes - you're right. There's no chance of any EU payments being diverted to
the NHS until we've stopped paying our EU subs.

and no-one promised otherwise

Also, I can't imagine what the final cost of leaving the EU will end up
being. It must be mounting up second-by-second (a lot of paper clips and
staples will certainly be being consumed). Almost certainly we'll have to
wait until we've recovered from settling all the bills incurred en route.

we seem to have negotiated a bill of 40 billion

what makes you think that will not be the case?

tim

[R. Mark Clayton]

Post by tim...

Post by Norman Wells
Which we're still paying because we're members of the EU.

Yes - you're right. There's no chance of any EU payments being diverted to
the NHS until we've stopped paying our EU subs.

and no-one promised otherwise

Also, I can't imagine what the final cost of leaving the EU will end up
being. It must be mounting up second-by-second (a lot of paper clips and
staples will certainly be being consumed). Almost certainly we'll have to
wait until we've recovered from settling all the bills incurred en route.

we seem to have negotiated a bill of 40 billion
what makes you think that will not be the case?

That is just the payment. Then there is all the one off costs of setting up customs, employing thousands of more jobsworths in the HO, HMRC etc.

Most of this will fall on the UK, as few EU nations will want to help us pay to strangle ourselves in red tape...

Post by tim...
tim

[Ian Jackson]

Post by tim...

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Norman Wells
Which we're still paying because we're members of the EU.

Yes - you're right. There's no chance of any EU payments being
diverted to the NHS until we've stopped paying our EU subs.

and no-one promised otherwise

Post by Ian Jackson
Also, I can't imagine what the final cost of leaving the EU will end
up being. It must be mounting up second-by-second (a lot of paper
clips and staples will certainly be being consumed). Almost certainly
we'll have to wait until we've recovered from settling all the bills
incurred en route.

we seem to have negotiated a bill of 40 billion
what makes you think that will not be the case?

I'm not talking about the 40 billion (or any other sums of money we hand
to the EU). I'm talking about all the money the discussions, the
preparations and all the other ramifications preparing for Brexit is
presently costing the UK taxpayer and the world of commerce and trade.
It all costing money - and it's costing money at this very moment. Do
you have any idea what the final cost might be? I certainly don't!

[R. Mark Clayton]

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Norman Wells
Which we're still paying because we're members of the EU.

Yes - you're right. There's no chance of any EU payments being diverted
to the NHS until we've stopped paying our EU subs.
Also, I can't imagine what the final cost of leaving the EU will end up
being. It must be mounting up second-by-second (a lot of paper clips and
staples will certainly be being consumed). Almost certainly we'll have
to wait until we've recovered from settling all the bills incurred en
route.
--
Ian

The damage will be permanent, with huge transition costs and a long term disadvantage of 6 - 9% compared with staying in the EU. OTOH many Poles will return to Poland, because by the time we finally leave they will be better off there.

Be careful what you vote for.

[Fredxx]

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Norman Wells
Which we're still paying because we're members of the EU.

Yes - you're right. There's no chance of any EU payments being
diverted to the NHS until we've stopped paying our EU subs.
Also, I can't imagine what the final cost of leaving the EU will
end up being. It must be mounting up second-by-second (a lot of
paper clips and staples will certainly be being consumed). Almost
certainly we'll have to wait until we've recovered from settling
all the bills incurred en route.
-- Ian

The damage will be permanent, with huge transition costs and a long
term disadvantage of 6 - 9% compared with staying in the EU. OTOH
many Poles will return to Poland, because by the time we finally
leave they will be better off there.

The sooner the later then. So what you are saying is that Remoaners are
dragging things out by their prevarication costing the country jobs and
costs.

Post by R. Mark Clayton
Be careful what you vote for.

Like a promise to reduce tuition fees?

[R. Mark Clayton]

Post by Fredxx

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Norman Wells
Which we're still paying because we're members of the EU.

Yes - you're right. There's no chance of any EU payments being
diverted to the NHS until we've stopped paying our EU subs.
Also, I can't imagine what the final cost of leaving the EU will
end up being. It must be mounting up second-by-second (a lot of
paper clips and staples will certainly be being consumed). Almost
certainly we'll have to wait until we've recovered from settling
all the bills incurred en route.
-- Ian

The damage will be permanent, with huge transition costs and a long
term disadvantage of 6 - 9% compared with staying in the EU. OTOH
many Poles will return to Poland, because by the time we finally
leave they will be better off there.

The sooner the later then. So what you are saying is that Remoaners are
dragging things out by their prevarication costing the country jobs and
costs.

??

Post by Fredxx

Post by R. Mark Clayton
Be careful what you vote for.

Like a promise to reduce tuition fees?

Bad mistake that, although I spotted the trap and did not sign.

Which party promised not only to abolish fees, but to cancel all the debt owed by recent students?

[Fredxx]

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Norman Wells
Which we're still paying because we're members of the EU.

Yes - you're right. There's no chance of any EU payments being
diverted to the NHS until we've stopped paying our EU subs.
Also, I can't imagine what the final cost of leaving the EU will
end up being. It must be mounting up second-by-second (a lot of
paper clips and staples will certainly be being consumed). Almost
certainly we'll have to wait until we've recovered from settling
all the bills incurred en route.
-- Ian

The damage will be permanent, with huge transition costs and a long
term disadvantage of 6 - 9% compared with staying in the EU.  OTOH
many Poles will return to Poland, because by the time we finally
leave they will be better off there.

The sooner the better then. So what you are saying is that Remoaners are

Correction ^^^^^^

dragging things out by their prevarication costing the country jobs and
costs.

Post by R. Mark Clayton
Be careful what you vote for.

Like a promise to reduce tuition fees?

[Ian Jackson]

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Norman Wells
Which we're still paying because we're members of the EU.

Yes - you're right. There's no chance of any EU payments being diverted
to the NHS until we've stopped paying our EU subs.
Also, I can't imagine what the final cost of leaving the EU will end up
being. It must be mounting up second-by-second (a lot of paper clips and
staples will certainly be being consumed). Almost certainly we'll have
to wait until we've recovered from settling all the bills incurred en
route.

The damage will be permanent, with huge transition costs and a long
term disadvantage of 6 - 9% compared with staying in the EU. OTOH many
Poles will return to Poland, because by the time we finally leave they
will be better off there.
Be careful what you vote for.

In Ambridge, because of impending Brexit, Adam is already having trouble
coping with the crisis at Home Farm caused by a shortage of EU
strawberry pickers. He was even interviewed about it on Borchester local
radio, but the interviewer seemed more interested in asking him about
the pollution of the River Am, from the chemicals that Brian Aldridge
allowed to be illegally dumped in his land over 40 years ago.

[Fredxx]

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Norman Wells
Which we're still paying because we're members of the EU.

Yes - you're right. There's no chance of any EU payments being diverted
to the NHS until we've stopped paying our EU subs.
Also, I can't imagine what the final cost of leaving the EU will end up
being. It must be mounting up second-by-second (a lot of paper clips and
staples will certainly be being consumed). Almost certainly we'll have
to wait until we've recovered from settling all the bills incurred en
route.

The damage will be permanent, with huge transition costs and a long
term disadvantage of 6 - 9% compared with staying in the EU. OTOH many
Poles will return to Poland, because by the time we finally leave they
will be better off there.
Be careful what you vote for.

In Ambridge, because of impending Brexit, Adam is already having trouble
coping with the crisis at Home Farm caused by a shortage of EU
strawberry pickers. He was even interviewed about it on Borchester local
radio, but the interviewer seemed more interested in asking him about
the pollution of the River Am, from the chemicals that Brian Aldridge
allowed to be illegally dumped in his land over 40 years ago.

Oh no, does that mean he will have to pay indigenous workers more money.

If he paid enough I would pick them too. But I doubt lazy parasite
Remoaners would get off their fat back-sides.

[pamela]

Post by Fredxx

In message

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Norman Wells
Which we're still paying because we're members of the EU.

Yes - you're right. There's no chance of any EU payments being
diverted to the NHS until we've stopped paying our EU subs.
Also, I can't imagine what the final cost of leaving the EU
will end up being. It must be mounting up second-by-second (a
lot of paper clips and staples will certainly be being
consumed). Almost certainly we'll have to wait until we've
recovered from settling all the bills incurred en route.

The damage will be permanent, with huge transition costs and a
long term disadvantage of 6 - 9% compared with staying in the
EU. OTOH many Poles will return to Poland, because by the time
we finally leave they will be better off there.
Be careful what you vote for.

In Ambridge, because of impending Brexit, Adam is already having
trouble coping with the crisis at Home Farm caused by a shortage
of EU strawberry pickers. He was even interviewed about it on
Borchester local radio, but the interviewer seemed more
interested in asking him about the pollution of the River Am,
from the chemicals that Brian Aldridge allowed to be illegally
dumped in his land over 40 years ago.

Oh no, does that mean he will have to pay indigenous workers more money.
If he paid enough I would pick them too. But I doubt lazy parasite
Remoaners would get off their fat back-sides.

Tsk tsk!

[tim...]

Post by Fredxx

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Norman Wells
Which we're still paying because we're members of the EU.

Yes - you're right. There's no chance of any EU payments being diverted
to the NHS until we've stopped paying our EU subs.
Also, I can't imagine what the final cost of leaving the EU will end up
being. It must be mounting up second-by-second (a lot of paper clips and
staples will certainly be being consumed). Almost certainly we'll have
to wait until we've recovered from settling all the bills incurred en
route.

The damage will be permanent, with huge transition costs and a long term
disadvantage of 6 - 9% compared with staying in the EU. OTOH many Poles
will return to Poland, because by the time we finally leave they will be
better off there.
Be careful what you vote for.

In Ambridge, because of impending Brexit, Adam is already having trouble
coping with the crisis at Home Farm caused by a shortage of EU strawberry
pickers. He was even interviewed about it on Borchester local radio, but
the interviewer seemed more interested in asking him about the pollution
of the River Am, from the chemicals that Brian Aldridge allowed to be
illegally dumped in his land over 40 years ago.

Oh no, does that mean he will have to pay indigenous workers more money.

They actually get paid quite well

This is not a minimum wage job

Post by Fredxx
If he paid enough I would pick them too. But I doubt lazy parasite
Remoaners would get off their fat back-sides.

Farming has had a problem employing indigenous workers for crop picking
since long before the Eastern European joined the EU

we had the Season Agricultural workers scheme to "import" people from ROW to
do the work before the Poles could come here legitimately visa free

It's a tough job and it's seasonal, not a great combination to encourage
people to do it.

tim

[Fredxx]

Post by tim...

Post by Fredxx

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Norman Wells
Which we're still paying because we're members of the EU.

Yes - you're right. There's no chance of any EU payments being diverted
to the NHS until we've stopped paying our EU subs.
Also, I can't imagine what the final cost of leaving the EU will end up
being. It must be mounting up second-by-second (a lot of paper clips and
staples will certainly be being consumed). Almost certainly we'll have
to wait until we've recovered from settling all the bills incurred en
route.

The damage will be permanent, with huge transition costs and a long
term disadvantage of 6 - 9% compared with staying in the EU. OTOH
many Poles will return to Poland, because by the time we finally
leave they will be better off there.
Be careful what you vote for.

In Ambridge, because of impending Brexit, Adam is already having
trouble coping with the crisis at Home Farm caused by a shortage of
EU strawberry pickers. He was even interviewed about it on Borchester
local radio, but the interviewer seemed more interested in asking him
about the pollution of the River Am, from the chemicals that Brian
Aldridge allowed to be illegally dumped in his land over 40 years ago.

Oh no, does that mean he will have to pay indigenous workers more money.

They actually get paid quite well

Enough to support a family without any in-work benefits, plus the cost
temporary accommodation.

Post by tim...
This is not a minimum wage job

So how much?

Post by tim...

Post by Fredxx
If he paid enough I would pick them too. But I doubt lazy parasite
Remoaners would get off their fat back-sides.

Farming has had a problem employing indigenous workers for crop picking
since long before the Eastern European joined the EU
we had the Season Agricultural workers scheme to "import" people from
ROW to do the work before the Poles could come here legitimately visa free
It's a tough job and it's seasonal, not a great combination to encourage
people to do it.

It is was paid enough even in my earlier years I might have taken 2
weeks off as leave. Same goes for my student days, but I could always
find better paid work. Despite your claim, it's never had a reputation
for good pay.

[tim...]

Post by Fredxx

Post by tim...

Post by Fredxx

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Norman Wells
Which we're still paying because we're members of the EU.

Yes - you're right. There's no chance of any EU payments being diverted
to the NHS until we've stopped paying our EU subs.
Also, I can't imagine what the final cost of leaving the EU will end up
being. It must be mounting up second-by-second (a lot of paper clips and
staples will certainly be being consumed). Almost certainly we'll have
to wait until we've recovered from settling all the bills incurred en
route.

The damage will be permanent, with huge transition costs and a long
term disadvantage of 6 - 9% compared with staying in the EU. OTOH many
Poles will return to Poland, because by the time we finally leave they
will be better off there.
Be careful what you vote for.

In Ambridge, because of impending Brexit, Adam is already having
trouble coping with the crisis at Home Farm caused by a shortage of EU
strawberry pickers. He was even interviewed about it on Borchester
local radio, but the interviewer seemed more interested in asking him
about the pollution of the River Am, from the chemicals that Brian
Aldridge allowed to be illegally dumped in his land over 40 years ago.

Oh no, does that mean he will have to pay indigenous workers more money.

They actually get paid quite well

Enough to support a family without any in-work benefits, plus the cost
temporary accommodation.

probably not

but that would apply if a Brit did it

Post by Fredxx

Post by tim...
This is not a minimum wage job

So how much?

Can't recall, but it was certainly a few pounds above minimum wage the last
time I heard anyone quote a figure

Post by Fredxx

Post by tim...

Post by Fredxx
If he paid enough I would pick them too. But I doubt lazy parasite
Remoaners would get off their fat back-sides.

Farming has had a problem employing indigenous workers for crop picking
since long before the Eastern European joined the EU
we had the Season Agricultural workers scheme to "import" people from ROW
to do the work before the Poles could come here legitimately visa free
It's a tough job and it's seasonal, not a great combination to encourage
people to do it.

It is was paid enough even in my earlier years I might have taken 2 weeks
off as leave.

It's never going to be worth anyone doing that.

It's unrealistic to expect the demand for workers to be satisfied by people
in other jobs doing it in their paid leave period (even if that is what
happened in the 50s).

Post by Fredxx
Same goes for my student days, but I could always find better paid work.

Exactly

Post by Fredxx
Despite your claim, it's never had a reputation for good pay.

I didn't say it was "good" pay, just that it's enough above minimum wage to
encourage those people who need an entry into the job market to qualify for
benefits to do it (which Brits don't need).

[Fredxx]

Post by tim...

Post by Fredxx

Post by tim...

Post by Fredxx

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Norman Wells
Which we're still paying because we're members of the EU.

Yes - you're right. There's no chance of any EU payments being diverted
to the NHS until we've stopped paying our EU subs.
Also, I can't imagine what the final cost of leaving the EU will end up
being. It must be mounting up second-by-second (a lot of paper clips and
staples will certainly be being consumed). Almost certainly we'll have
to wait until we've recovered from settling all the bills incurred en
route.

The damage will be permanent, with huge transition costs and a
long term disadvantage of 6 - 9% compared with staying in the EU.
OTOH many Poles will return to Poland, because by the time we
finally leave they will be better off there.
Be careful what you vote for.

In Ambridge, because of impending Brexit, Adam is already having
trouble coping with the crisis at Home Farm caused by a shortage of
EU strawberry pickers. He was even interviewed about it on
Borchester local radio, but the interviewer seemed more interested
in asking him about the pollution of the River Am, from the
chemicals that Brian Aldridge allowed to be illegally dumped in his
land over 40 years ago.

Oh no, does that mean he will have to pay indigenous workers more money.

They actually get paid quite well

Enough to support a family without any in-work benefits, plus the cost
temporary accommodation.

probably not
but that would apply if a Brit did it

Post by Fredxx

Post by tim...
This is not a minimum wage job

So how much?

Can't recall, but it was certainly a few pounds above minimum wage the
last time I heard anyone quote a figure

Post by Fredxx

Post by tim...

Post by Fredxx
If he paid enough I would pick them too. But I doubt lazy parasite
Remoaners would get off their fat back-sides.

Farming has had a problem employing indigenous workers for crop
picking since long before the Eastern European joined the EU
we had the Season Agricultural workers scheme to "import" people from
ROW to do the work before the Poles could come here legitimately visa free
It's a tough job and it's seasonal, not a great combination to
encourage people to do it.

It is was paid enough even in my earlier years I might have taken 2
weeks off as leave.

It's never going to be worth anyone doing that.
It's unrealistic to expect the demand for workers to be satisfied by
people in other jobs doing it in their paid leave period (even if that
is what happened in the 50s).

Post by Fredxx
Same goes for my student days, but I could always find better paid work.

Exactly

Post by Fredxx
Despite your claim, it's never had a reputation for good pay.

I didn't say it was "good" pay, just that it's enough above minimum wage
to encourage those people who need an entry into the job market to
qualify for benefits to do it (which Brits don't need).

What you are admirably demonstrating is that seasonal fruit and veg
picking doesn't pay very well, and like all supply and demand, shows
that pay for such jobs ought to increase.

The alternative is to export the growing of fruit and veg to low wage
economies, in much the same way as most of our manufacturing is carried
out abroad.

[Yellow]

On Sat, 12 May 2018 11:07:00 +0100, Ian Jackson

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Norman Wells
Which we're still paying because we're members of the EU.

Yes - you're right. There's no chance of any EU payments being diverted
to the NHS until we've stopped paying our EU subs.
Also, I can't imagine what the final cost of leaving the EU will end up
being. It must be mounting up second-by-second (a lot of paper clips and
staples will certainly be being consumed). Almost certainly we'll have
to wait until we've recovered from settling all the bills incurred en
route.

The damage will be permanent, with huge transition costs and a long
term disadvantage of 6 - 9% compared with staying in the EU. OTOH many
Poles will return to Poland, because by the time we finally leave they
will be better off there.
Be careful what you vote for.

In Ambridge, because of impending Brexit, Adam is already having trouble
coping with the crisis at Home Farm caused by a shortage of EU
strawberry pickers. He was even interviewed about it on Borchester local
radio, but the interviewer seemed more interested in asking him about
the pollution of the River Am, from the chemicals that Brian Aldridge
allowed to be illegally dumped in his land over 40 years ago.

Out of curiosity, I wonder where the people from the EU who would have
done this work are now working instead.

[tim...]

Post by Yellow
On Sat, 12 May 2018 11:07:00 +0100, Ian Jackson

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Norman Wells
Which we're still paying because we're members of the EU.

Yes - you're right. There's no chance of any EU payments being diverted
to the NHS until we've stopped paying our EU subs.
Also, I can't imagine what the final cost of leaving the EU will end up
being. It must be mounting up second-by-second (a lot of paper clips and
staples will certainly be being consumed). Almost certainly we'll have
to wait until we've recovered from settling all the bills incurred en
route.

The damage will be permanent, with huge transition costs and a long
term disadvantage of 6 - 9% compared with staying in the EU. OTOH many
Poles will return to Poland, because by the time we finally leave they
will be better off there.
Be careful what you vote for.

In Ambridge, because of impending Brexit, Adam is already having trouble
coping with the crisis at Home Farm caused by a shortage of EU
strawberry pickers. He was even interviewed about it on Borchester local
radio, but the interviewer seemed more interested in asking him about
the pollution of the River Am, from the chemicals that Brian Aldridge
allowed to be illegally dumped in his land over 40 years ago.

Out of curiosity, I wonder where the people from the EU who would have
done this work are now working instead.

They've gone back home to work on all the infrastructure improvements that
EU money is paying for ;-)

tim

[Yellow]

Post by tim...

Post by Yellow
On Sat, 12 May 2018 11:07:00 +0100, Ian Jackson

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Norman Wells
Which we're still paying because we're members of the EU.

Yes - you're right. There's no chance of any EU payments being diverted
to the NHS until we've stopped paying our EU subs.
Also, I can't imagine what the final cost of leaving the EU will end up
being. It must be mounting up second-by-second (a lot of paper clips and
staples will certainly be being consumed). Almost certainly we'll have
to wait until we've recovered from settling all the bills incurred en
route.

The damage will be permanent, with huge transition costs and a long
term disadvantage of 6 - 9% compared with staying in the EU. OTOH many
Poles will return to Poland, because by the time we finally leave they
will be better off there.
Be careful what you vote for.

In Ambridge, because of impending Brexit, Adam is already having trouble
coping with the crisis at Home Farm caused by a shortage of EU
strawberry pickers. He was even interviewed about it on Borchester local
radio, but the interviewer seemed more interested in asking him about
the pollution of the River Am, from the chemicals that Brian Aldridge
allowed to be illegally dumped in his land over 40 years ago.

Out of curiosity, I wonder where the people from the EU who would have
done this work are now working instead.

They've gone back home to work on all the infrastructure improvements that
EU money is paying for ;-)

I would not be at all surprised if that was the case.

[tim...]

Post by Yellow

Post by tim...

Post by Yellow
On Sat, 12 May 2018 11:07:00 +0100, Ian Jackson

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Norman Wells
Which we're still paying because we're members of the EU.

Yes - you're right. There's no chance of any EU payments being diverted
to the NHS until we've stopped paying our EU subs.
Also, I can't imagine what the final cost of leaving the EU will
end
up
being. It must be mounting up second-by-second (a lot of paper
clips
and
staples will certainly be being consumed). Almost certainly we'll have
to wait until we've recovered from settling all the bills incurred en
route.

The damage will be permanent, with huge transition costs and a long
term disadvantage of 6 - 9% compared with staying in the EU. OTOH many
Poles will return to Poland, because by the time we finally leave they
will be better off there.
Be careful what you vote for.

In Ambridge, because of impending Brexit, Adam is already having trouble
coping with the crisis at Home Farm caused by a shortage of EU
strawberry pickers. He was even interviewed about it on Borchester local
radio, but the interviewer seemed more interested in asking him about
the pollution of the River Am, from the chemicals that Brian Aldridge
allowed to be illegally dumped in his land over 40 years ago.

Out of curiosity, I wonder where the people from the EU who would have
done this work are now working instead.

They've gone back home to work on all the infrastructure improvements that
EU money is paying for ;-)

I would not be at all surprised if that was the case.

Oh it is.

I wasn't joking

[tim...]

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Norman Wells
Which we're still paying because we're members of the EU.

Yes - you're right. There's no chance of any EU payments being diverted
to the NHS until we've stopped paying our EU subs.
Also, I can't imagine what the final cost of leaving the EU will end up
being. It must be mounting up second-by-second (a lot of paper clips and
staples will certainly be being consumed). Almost certainly we'll have
to wait until we've recovered from settling all the bills incurred en
route.
--
Ian

The damage will be permanent,

no it wont.

Post by R. Mark Clayton
with huge transition costs and a long term disadvantage of 6 - 9% compared
with staying in the EU.

Which as far as can be established is predicated on not having an additional
5% increase in population (which more or less means that per capita GDP
doesn't change one bit - and that's what's important to every individual,
per per capita GDP. Total national GDP is just an entry in a willy waving
competition, of no interest to individual citizens at all).

Personally, I would rather have that lower GDP growth and the lower
population growth, given that on its past record, HMG seems to be
unwilling/unable to increase provision of essential services for that
population growth (and that's a problem that all three parties have been
complicit in not solving).

Post by R. Mark Clayton
OTOH many Poles will return to Poland, because by the time we finally
leave they will be better off there.

They're doing this anyway.

This idea that the Poles came here to settle forever is just nonsense.

Post by R. Mark Clayton
Be careful what you vote for.

there will always be a steady stream of foreigners who want to come to work
here

tim

[Fredxx]

Post by tim...

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Norman Wells
Which we're still paying because we're members of the EU.

Yes - you're right. There's no chance of any EU payments being diverted
to the NHS until we've stopped paying our EU subs.
Also, I can't imagine what the final cost of leaving the EU will end up
being. It must be mounting up second-by-second (a lot of paper clips and
staples will certainly be being consumed). Almost certainly we'll have
to wait until we've recovered from settling all the bills incurred en
route.
--
Ian

The damage will be permanent,

no it wont.

Post by R. Mark Clayton
with huge transition costs and a long term disadvantage of 6 - 9%
compared with staying in the EU.

Which as far as can be established is predicated on not having an
additional 5% increase in population (which more or less means that per
capita GDP doesn't change one bit - and that's what's important to every
individual, per per capita GDP.  Total national GDP is just an entry in
a willy waving competition, of no interest to individual citizens at all).
Personally, I would rather have that lower GDP growth and the lower
population growth, given that on its past record, HMG seems to be
unwilling/unable to increase provision of essential services for that
population growth (and that's a problem that all three parties have been
complicit in not solving).

Which I believe is the fundamental cause of Brexit.

Post by tim...

Post by R. Mark Clayton
 OTOH many Poles will return to Poland, because by the time we finally
leave they will be better off there.

They're doing this anyway.
This idea that the Poles came here to settle forever is just nonsense.

I know of two families, it does happen.

Post by tim...

Post by R. Mark Clayton
Be careful what you vote for.

there will always be a steady stream of foreigners who want to come to
work here

Hopefully just 'want'.

[tim...]

Post by Fredxx

Post by tim...

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Norman Wells
Which we're still paying because we're members of the EU.

Yes - you're right. There's no chance of any EU payments being diverted
to the NHS until we've stopped paying our EU subs.
Also, I can't imagine what the final cost of leaving the EU will end up
being. It must be mounting up second-by-second (a lot of paper clips and
staples will certainly be being consumed). Almost certainly we'll have
to wait until we've recovered from settling all the bills incurred en
route.
--
Ian

The damage will be permanent,

no it wont.

Post by R. Mark Clayton
with huge transition costs and a long term disadvantage of 6 - 9%
compared with staying in the EU.

Which as far as can be established is predicated on not having an
additional 5% increase in population (which more or less means that per
capita GDP doesn't change one bit - and that's what's important to every
individual, per per capita GDP. Total national GDP is just an entry in a
willy waving competition, of no interest to individual citizens at all).
Personally, I would rather have that lower GDP growth and the lower
population growth, given that on its past record, HMG seems to be
unwilling/unable to increase provision of essential services for that
population growth (and that's a problem that all three parties have been
complicit in not solving).

Which I believe is the fundamental cause of Brexit.

agreed.

Post by Fredxx

Post by tim...

Post by R. Mark Clayton
OTOH many Poles will return to Poland, because by the time we finally
leave they will be better off there.

They're doing this anyway.
This idea that the Poles came here to settle forever is just nonsense.

I know of two families, it does happen.

well yes.

I have worked abroad on temporary gigs for 15 of the past 25 years.

Occasionally, I meet some other Brit who met and married a local and hence
stayed. It happens

but most of us where just there for long enough to get the UK working
overseas tax breaks (sometimes not even that long - a right PITA of form
filling that is) and came back home again.

Post by Fredxx

Post by tim...

Post by R. Mark Clayton
Be careful what you vote for.

there will always be a steady stream of foreigners who want to come to
work here

Hopefully just 'want'.

unfortunately in agriculture and care work we need these unskilled people to
come (as well as a long list of skilled people)

what we don't need is a shed load of unskilled people to come and do:
warehouse/factory/delivery driving work

tim

[R. Mark Clayton]

SNIP

Post by tim...

Post by R. Mark Clayton
The damage will be permanent,

no it wont.

Well about as impermanent as Ireland leaving the UK a century ago - it took until the 1990's (and twenty years of EU membership) to catch up.

Post by tim...

Post by R. Mark Clayton
with huge transition costs and a long term disadvantage of 6 - 9% compared
with staying in the EU.

Which as far as can be established is predicated on not having an additional
5% increase in population (which more or less means that per capita GDP
doesn't change one bit - and that's what's important to every individual,
per per capita GDP.

Flows from new EU countries tend to be temporary until their economy catches up - as with Ireland (see above).

Post by tim...
Total national GDP is just an entry in a willy waving
competition, of no interest to individual citizens at all).

That seems to contradict all the claims that east EU nationals come here to steal our [better paid] jobs. Of course it does.

Post by tim...
Personally, I would rather have that lower GDP growth and the lower
population growth, given that on its past record, HMG seems to be
unwilling/unable to increase provision of essential services for that
population growth (and that's a problem that all three parties have been
complicit in not solving).

They encouraged it with child tax credits and generous benefits without qualification.

Post by tim...

Post by R. Mark Clayton
OTOH many Poles will return to Poland, because by the time we finally
leave they will be better off there.

They're doing this anyway.

That is what I said - they are leaving anyway, because GDP per capita has trebled in twenty years in Poland, whereas in the UK it has only increased 50%.

Post by tim...
This idea that the Poles came here to settle forever is just nonsense.

Some will stay. Many members of the free Polish armed forces during WWII settled in the UK because Poland had been trashed during the war (20% murdered, Warsaw systematically demolish, treasury looted) and they all knew what the NKVD had done to those left behind (at Katyn and elsewhere).

Post by tim...

Post by R. Mark Clayton
Be careful what you vote for.

there will always be a steady stream of foreigners who want to come to work
here

And vice versa, I spent two years working in the EU.

Post by tim...
tim

[tim...]

Post by R. Mark Clayton
SNIP

Post by tim...

Post by R. Mark Clayton
The damage will be permanent,

no it wont.

Well about as impermanent as Ireland leaving the UK a century ago

Oh come on

Ireland in the 20s was an impoverished country with bugger all in the way of
industry

equating the UK today with Ireland of then is just insulting.

Post by R. Mark Clayton
- it took until the 1990's (and twenty years of EU membership) to catch up.

Post by tim...

Post by R. Mark Clayton
with huge transition costs and a long term disadvantage of 6 - 9% compared
with staying in the EU.

Which as far as can be established is predicated on not having an additional
5% increase in population (which more or less means that per capita GDP
doesn't change one bit - and that's what's important to every individual,
per per capita GDP.

Flows from new EU countries tend to be temporary until their economy
catches up - as with Ireland (see above).

There's always going to be another country that's catching up

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by tim...
Total national GDP is just an entry in a willy waving
competition, of no interest to individual citizens at all).

That seems to contradict all the claims that east EU nationals come here
to steal our [better paid] jobs.

what claims are those?

I haven't made them

(assuming that by steal you mean come here to perform them here, not
actually move the work to their home country)

Post by R. Mark Clayton
Of course it does.

And in any case, I really don't see how it makes any point in this
discussion at all.

you'll have to show your working

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by tim...
Personally, I would rather have that lower GDP growth and the lower
population growth, given that on its past record, HMG seems to be
unwilling/unable to increase provision of essential services for that
population growth (and that's a problem that all three parties have been
complicit in not solving).

They encouraged it with child tax credits and generous benefits without qualification.

They encourage what?

I was discussing the fact that HMG has overseen an increase in population of
10 million people in the past 30 years

and has spent vastly insufficient sums to increase the provision of
housing/schools/hospitals/etc in that period.

This situation has, ISTM come about from a belief in the Treasury that
increased population (however so caused, but immigration is as good as any
other method) is good for the economy because all these extra workers
increase the national GDP of the country (without actually increasing per
capita GDP). But that they neglected to add into their model the costs of
providing the infrastructure to service this increase in population and
thought that they could just bank the increased money.

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by tim...

Post by R. Mark Clayton
OTOH many Poles will return to Poland, because by the time we finally
leave they will be better off there.

They're doing this anyway.

That is what I said - they are leaving anyway, because GDP per capita has
trebled in twenty years in Poland, whereas in the UK it has only increased
50%.

Of course

a poor country catching up

it's what happens when a very poor country is released from the shackles of
managed economy

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by tim...
This idea that the Poles came here to settle forever is just nonsense.

Some will stay. Many members of the free Polish armed forces during WWII
settled in the UK because Poland had been trashed during the war (20%
murdered, Warsaw systematically demolish, treasury looted) and they all
knew what the NKVD had done to those left behind (at Katyn and elsewhere).

ITYF that they didn't go back because there was no viable method of them
doing so.

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by tim...

Post by R. Mark Clayton
Be careful what you vote for.

there will always be a steady stream of foreigners who want to come to work
here

And vice versa, I spent two years working in the EU.

but we (mostly) only send skilled workers there

we don't seen unqualified school dropouts to do minimum wage work

tim

[pamela]

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Norman Wells
Which we're still paying because we're members of the EU.

Yes - you're right. There's no chance of any EU payments being
diverted to the NHS until we've stopped paying our EU subs.
Also, I can't imagine what the final cost of leaving the EU will
end up being. It must be mounting up second-by-second (a lot of
paper clips and staples will certainly be being consumed). Almost
certainly we'll have to wait until we've recovered from settling
all the bills incurred en route.

Dont forget the extra £40 billion (maybe more) on top of everything
else.

Those promised mega trade deals we have yet to strike with places like
India, Thailand and Brazil are going to have a lot to compensate for.

[Ian Jackson]

Post by pamela

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Norman Wells
Which we're still paying because we're members of the EU.

Yes - you're right. There's no chance of any EU payments being
diverted to the NHS until we've stopped paying our EU subs.
Also, I can't imagine what the final cost of leaving the EU will
end up being. It must be mounting up second-by-second (a lot of
paper clips and staples will certainly be being consumed). Almost
certainly we'll have to wait until we've recovered from settling
all the bills incurred en route.

Dont forget the extra £40 billion (maybe more) on top of everything
else.

The £40 billion will be a proverbial drop-in-the-ocean compared with
what it's presently costing us (only nobody's counting at the moment),
plus what it's going to keep on costing us before we eventually start to
break even doing all that lucrative post-Brexit RoW trade.

Post by pamela
Those promised mega trade deals we have yet to strike with places like
India, Thailand and Brazil are going to have a lot to compensate for.

It's not as if the RoW will suddenly be opened up to us. We already
trade with a lot of it. While some business may be indeed be brand new,
a lot may simply be IN ADDITION to that which we're already mutually
enjoying.

[GB]

Post by Ian Jackson
before we eventually start to
break even doing all that lucrative post-Brexit RoW trade.

Does the EU stop us trading with the RoW?

[Yellow]

Post by GB

Post by Ian Jackson
before we eventually start to
break even doing all that lucrative post-Brexit RoW trade.

Does the EU stop us trading with the RoW?

No, but there are tariffs to make it "cheaper" to trade with the EU.

[pamela]

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by pamela

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Norman Wells
Which we're still paying because we're members of the EU.

Yes - you're right. There's no chance of any EU payments being
diverted to the NHS until we've stopped paying our EU subs.
Also, I can't imagine what the final cost of leaving the EU will
end up being. It must be mounting up second-by-second (a lot of
paper clips and staples will certainly be being consumed).
Almost certainly we'll have to wait until we've recovered from
settling all the bills incurred en route.

Dont forget the extra £40 billion (maybe more) on top of
everything else.

The £40 billion will be a proverbial drop-in-the-ocean compared
with what it's presently costing us (only nobody's counting at the
moment),

Yes, that's th einfinite cost over infinite time argument. It
doesn't stack up. We have enjoyed some of the greatest propserity
in our nation's history in the last few decades after joining the
Common Market when previously we had been the sick man of Europe.
Where is our miracle new growth going to come from that wasn't
available in the Sick Man years?

Post by Ian Jackson
plus what it's going to keep on costing us before we
eventually start to break even doing all that lucrative
post-Brexit RoW trade.

Post by pamela
Those promised mega trade deals we have yet to strike with places
like India, Thailand and Brazil are going to have a lot to
compensate for.

It's not as if the RoW will suddenly be opened up to us. We
already trade with a lot of it. While some business may be indeed
be brand new, a lot may simply be IN ADDITION to that which we're
already mutually enjoying.

There is no proof of that because there are no new trade deals yet.
Those people who have managed trade negoatiations say it takes many
years and the UK will be in too weak to demand terms highly
favourable to itself.

[Fredxx]

Post by pamela

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by pamela

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Norman Wells
Which we're still paying because we're members of the EU.

Yes - you're right. There's no chance of any EU payments being
diverted to the NHS until we've stopped paying our EU subs.
Also, I can't imagine what the final cost of leaving the EU will
end up being. It must be mounting up second-by-second (a lot of
paper clips and staples will certainly be being consumed).
Almost certainly we'll have to wait until we've recovered from
settling all the bills incurred en route.

Dont forget the extra £40 billion (maybe more) on top of
everything else.

The £40 billion will be a proverbial drop-in-the-ocean compared
with what it's presently costing us (only nobody's counting at the
moment),

Yes, that's th einfinite cost over infinite time argument. It
doesn't stack up. We have enjoyed some of the greatest propserity
in our nation's history in the last few decades after joining the
Common Market when previously we had been the sick man of Europe.
Where is our miracle new growth going to come from that wasn't
available in the Sick Man years?

Not everyone has prospered. You only need look at the average age of a
first time buyer.

It is certainly a 'sick' decade for many.

Post by pamela

Post by Ian Jackson
plus what it's going to keep on costing us before we
eventually start to break even doing all that lucrative
post-Brexit RoW trade.

Post by pamela
Those promised mega trade deals we have yet to strike with places
like India, Thailand and Brazil are going to have a lot to
compensate for.

It's not as if the RoW will suddenly be opened up to us. We
already trade with a lot of it. While some business may be indeed
be brand new, a lot may simply be IN ADDITION to that which we're
already mutually enjoying.

There is no proof of that because there are no new trade deals yet.
Those people who have managed trade negoatiations say it takes many
years and the UK will be in too weak to demand terms highly
favourable to itself.

Brexit was always a long term option.

[Ian Jackson]

In message <pd7aqd$35c$***@dont-email.me>, Fredxx <***@nospam.com>
writes

Post by Fredxx
Brexit was always a long term option.

It could be so 'long term' that the promised explosion of prosperity
will always be 'just around the corner'. If this is the case, the
Brexiteers will never need to admit that were wrong - and by the same
token, the Remainers will never be able to prove they were wrong.

[pamela]

"Ian Jackson" wrote in message news:O$***@brattleho.plus.com...

In message <pd7aqd$35c$***@dont-email.me>, Fredxx <***@nospam.com>
writes

Post by Fredxx
Brexit was always a long term option.

It could be so 'long term' that the promised explosion of prosperity
will always be 'just around the corner'. If this is the case, the
Brexiteers will never need to admit that were wrong - and by the same
token, the Remainers will never be able to prove they were wrong.


Nobody promised anything.

You are on dumb leftycunt remoron.

--

[pamela]

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Fredxx
Brexit was always a long term option.

It could be so 'long term' that the promised explosion of
prosperity will always be 'just around the corner'. If this is the
case, the Brexiteers will never need to admit that were wrong -
and by the same token, the Remainers will never be able to prove
they were wrong.
Nobody promised anything.
You are on dumb leftycunt remoron.

Please spell correctly when you forge my post. Thank you.

[Ian Jackson]

Post by pamela

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Fredxx
Brexit was always a long term option.

It could be so 'long term' that the promised explosion of
prosperity will always be 'just around the corner'. If this is the
case, the Brexiteers will never need to admit that were wrong -
and by the same token, the Remainers will never be able to prove
they were wrong.
Nobody promised anything.
You are on dumb leftycunt remoron.

Please spell correctly when you forge my post. Thank you.

And use a news client that quotes correctly!

[pamela]

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Fredxx
Brexit was always a long term option.

It could be so 'long term' that the promised explosion of
prosperity will always be 'just around the corner'. If this is the
case, the Brexiteers will never need to admit that were wrong -
and by the same token, the Remainers will never be able to prove
they were wrong.

Initial claims for Brexit were that after a little adjustment during
the transition, all would be rosy.

At first, it seemed like improvements would roll in 6 to 12 months
after Brexit and that could get started pronto without waiting for the
full 2 years notice period.

Then reality intervened. Now it's not unusual to hear timescales like
10 to 15 years before Brexit settles down. When that doesn't happen
maybe we will probably be told, "it's a long term project and could
take 25 years".

[Norman Wells]

Post by pamela

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Fredxx
Brexit was always a long term option.

It could be so 'long term' that the promised explosion of
prosperity will always be 'just around the corner'. If this is the
case, the Brexiteers will never need to admit that were wrong -
and by the same token, the Remainers will never be able to prove
they were wrong.

Initial claims for Brexit were that after a little adjustment during
the transition, all would be rosy.
At first, it seemed like improvements would roll in 6 to 12 months
after Brexit and that could get started pronto without waiting for the
full 2 years notice period.

It only seemed like that to you, not to anyone else.

Why were you so optimistic?

Post by pamela
Then reality intervened. Now it's not unusual to hear timescales like
10 to 15 years before Brexit settles down. When that doesn't happen
maybe we will probably be told, "it's a long term project and could
take 25 years".

It *is* a long term project. No-one of any authority has ever said
otherwise.

[Ian Jackson]

Post by pamela

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Fredxx
Brexit was always a long term option.

It could be so 'long term' that the promised explosion of
prosperity will always be 'just around the corner'. If this is the
case, the Brexiteers will never need to admit that were wrong -
and by the same token, the Remainers will never be able to prove
they were wrong.

Initial claims for Brexit were that after a little adjustment during
the transition, all would be rosy.
At first, it seemed like improvements would roll in 6 to 12 months
after Brexit and that could get started pronto without waiting for the
full 2 years notice period.
Then reality intervened. Now it's not unusual to hear timescales like
10 to 15 years before Brexit settles down. When that doesn't happen
maybe we will probably be told, "it's a long term project and could
take 25 years".

So that's what "The road will DEFINITELY be bumpy for some time - but
we'll get there in the end" means?

[R. Mark Clayton]

Post by Fredxx

Post by pamela

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by pamela

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Norman Wells
Which we're still paying because we're members of the EU.

Yes - you're right. There's no chance of any EU payments being
diverted to the NHS until we've stopped paying our EU subs.
Also, I can't imagine what the final cost of leaving the EU will
end up being. It must be mounting up second-by-second (a lot of
paper clips and staples will certainly be being consumed).
Almost certainly we'll have to wait until we've recovered from
settling all the bills incurred en route.

Dont forget the extra £40 billion (maybe more) on top of
everything else.

The £40 billion will be a proverbial drop-in-the-ocean compared
with what it's presently costing us (only nobody's counting at the
moment),

Yes, that's th einfinite cost over infinite time argument. It
doesn't stack up. We have enjoyed some of the greatest propserity
in our nation's history in the last few decades after joining the
Common Market when previously we had been the sick man of Europe.
Where is our miracle new growth going to come from that wasn't
available in the Sick Man years?

Not everyone has prospered. You only need look at the average age of a
first time buyer.

Nowhere to build houses and people keep having children, I suppose you could argue migration worsens the problem, but it is not the main cause.

Post by Fredxx
It is certainly a 'sick' decade for many.

Post by pamela

Post by Ian Jackson
plus what it's going to keep on costing us before we
eventually start to break even doing all that lucrative
post-Brexit RoW trade.

Post by pamela
Those promised mega trade deals we have yet to strike with places
like India, Thailand and Brazil are going to have a lot to
compensate for.

It's not as if the RoW will suddenly be opened up to us. We
already trade with a lot of it. While some business may be indeed
be brand new, a lot may simply be IN ADDITION to that which we're
already mutually enjoying.

There is no proof of that because there are no new trade deals yet.
Those people who have managed trade negoatiations say it takes many
years and the UK will be in too weak to demand terms highly
favourable to itself.

Brexit was always a long term option.

[Fredxx]

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Fredxx

Post by pamela

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by pamela

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Norman Wells
Which we're still paying because we're members of the
EU.

Yes - you're right. There's no chance of any EU payments
being diverted to the NHS until we've stopped paying our EU
subs.
Also, I can't imagine what the final cost of leaving the EU
will end up being. It must be mounting up second-by-second
(a lot of paper clips and staples will certainly be being
consumed). Almost certainly we'll have to wait until we've
recovered from settling all the bills incurred en route.

Dont forget the extra £40 billion (maybe more) on top of
everything else.

The £40 billion will be a proverbial drop-in-the-ocean
compared with what it's presently costing us (only nobody's
counting at the moment),

Yes, that's th einfinite cost over infinite time argument. It
doesn't stack up. We have enjoyed some of the greatest
propserity in our nation's history in the last few decades after
joining the Common Market when previously we had been the sick
man of Europe. Where is our miracle new growth going to come from
that wasn't available in the Sick Man years?

Not everyone has prospered. You only need look at the average age
of a first time buyer.

Nowhere to build houses and people keep having children, I suppose
you could argue migration worsens the problem, but it is not the main
cause.

It has created the problem, where central and local government stop new
housing developments or require substantial incentives to pass them.

Even infilling has now been given the red-light.

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Fredxx
It is certainly a 'sick' decade for many.

Post by pamela

Post by Ian Jackson
plus what it's going to keep on costing us before we eventually
start to break even doing all that lucrative post-Brexit RoW
trade.

Post by pamela
Those promised mega trade deals we have yet to strike with
places like India, Thailand and Brazil are going to have a
lot to compensate for.

It's not as if the RoW will suddenly be opened up to us. We
already trade with a lot of it. While some business may be
indeed be brand new, a lot may simply be IN ADDITION to that
which we're already mutually enjoying.

There is no proof of that because there are no new trade deals
yet. Those people who have managed trade negoatiations say it
takes many years and the UK will be in too weak to demand terms
highly favourable to itself.

Brexit was always a long term option.

[tim...]

Post by Fredxx

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Fredxx

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by pamela

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Norman Wells
Which we're still paying because we're members of the
EU.

Yes - you're right. There's no chance of any EU payments
being diverted to the NHS until we've stopped paying our EU
subs.
Also, I can't imagine what the final cost of leaving the EU
will end up being. It must be mounting up second-by-second
(a lot of paper clips and staples will certainly be being
consumed). Almost certainly we'll have to wait until we've
recovered from settling all the bills incurred en route.

Dont forget the extra £40 billion (maybe more) on top of everything
else.

The £40 billion will be a proverbial drop-in-the-ocean
compared with what it's presently costing us (only nobody's
counting at the moment),

Yes, that's th einfinite cost over infinite time argument. It doesn't
stack up. We have enjoyed some of the greatest
propserity in our nation's history in the last few decades after
joining the Common Market when previously we had been the sick
man of Europe. Where is our miracle new growth going to come from
that wasn't available in the Sick Man years?

Not everyone has prospered. You only need look at the average age
of a first time buyer.

Nowhere to build houses and people keep having children, I suppose
you could argue migration worsens the problem, but it is not the main
cause.

It has created the problem, where central and local government stop new
housing developments or require substantial incentives to pass them.

I think it perfectly correct that the building of new houses should come
will a bill from government for the provision of extra services that build
out will create.

But IMHO that money should come from a surcharge on the windfall profit from
planning permission granted to the land. Not from the owner of the new
house.

Post by Fredxx
Even infilling has now been given the red-light.

what does that mean (by my understanding it always was encouraged)

tim

[JNugent]

Post by tim...

Post by Fredxx

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Fredxx

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by pamela

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Norman Wells
Which we're still paying because we're members of the
EU.

Yes - you're right. There's no chance of any EU payments
being diverted to the NHS until we've stopped paying our EU
subs.
Also, I can't imagine what the final cost of leaving the EU
will end up being. It must be mounting up second-by-second
(a lot of paper clips and staples will certainly be being
consumed). Almost certainly we'll have to wait until we've
recovered from settling all the bills incurred en route.

Dont forget the extra £40 billion (maybe more) on top of
everything else.

The £40 billion will be a proverbial drop-in-the-ocean
compared with what it's presently costing us (only nobody's
counting at the moment),

Yes, that's th einfinite cost over infinite time argument.  It
doesn't stack up.  We have enjoyed some of the greatest
propserity in our nation's history in the last few decades after
joining the Common Market when previously we had been the sick
man of Europe. Where is our miracle new growth going to come from
that wasn't available in the Sick Man years?

Not everyone has prospered. You only need look at the average age
of a first time buyer.

Nowhere to build houses and people keep having children, I suppose
you could argue migration worsens the problem, but it is not the main
cause.

It has created the problem, where central and local government stop
new housing developments or require substantial incentives to pass them.

I think it perfectly correct that the building of new houses should come
will a bill from government for the provision of extra services that
build out will create.

What have services like electricity, water, storm run-off, sewerage,
data and telephony got to do with the government?

The only direct public sector provision is the roads, and even then, new
streets built by developers are handed over to ("adopted by") the local
authority, FOC. Other services may need to have their pattern of
provision changed - education, health, etc, but demand for these is not
changed in quantum by new building. It are simply moved from place to place.

Post by tim...
But IMHO that money should come from a surcharge on the windfall profit
from planning permission granted to the land.  Not from the owner of the
new house.

All money paid to anyone for anything connected with the building of a
new house is paid by the owner or other occupant of the new house. There
is nowhere else for the money to come from.

Post by tim...

Post by Fredxx
Even infilling has now been given the red-light.

what does that mean (by my understanding it always was encouraged)
tim

[tim...]

Post by tim...

Post by Fredxx

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Fredxx

Post by pamela

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by pamela

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Norman Wells
Which we're still paying because we're members of the
EU.

Yes - you're right. There's no chance of any EU payments
being diverted to the NHS until we've stopped paying our EU
subs.
Also, I can't imagine what the final cost of leaving the EU
will end up being. It must be mounting up second-by-second
(a lot of paper clips and staples will certainly be being
consumed). Almost certainly we'll have to wait until we've
recovered from settling all the bills incurred en route.

Dont forget the extra £40 billion (maybe more) on top of everything
else.

The £40 billion will be a proverbial drop-in-the-ocean
compared with what it's presently costing us (only nobody's
counting at the moment),

Yes, that's th einfinite cost over infinite time argument. It
doesn't stack up. We have enjoyed some of the greatest
propserity in our nation's history in the last few decades after
joining the Common Market when previously we had been the sick
man of Europe. Where is our miracle new growth going to come from
that wasn't available in the Sick Man years?

Not everyone has prospered. You only need look at the average age
of a first time buyer.

Nowhere to build houses and people keep having children, I suppose
you could argue migration worsens the problem, but it is not the main
cause.

It has created the problem, where central and local government stop new
housing developments or require substantial incentives to pass them.

I think it perfectly correct that the building of new houses should come
will a bill from government for the provision of extra services that
build out will create.

What have services like electricity, water, storm run-off, sewerage, data
and telephony got to do with the government?

I was taking about education and health, and social housing, and welfare
provision etc

The only direct public sector provision is the roads, and even then, new
streets built by developers are handed over to ("adopted by") the local
authority, FOC. Other services may need to have their pattern of provision
changed - education, health, etc, but demand for these is not changed in
quantum by new building. It are simply moved from place to place.

but not all of the increased population has moved into new build house

some just "over occupy" current housing

Post by tim...
But IMHO that money should come from a surcharge on the windfall profit
from planning permission granted to the land. Not from the owner of the
new house.

All money paid to anyone for anything connected with the building of a new
house is paid by the owner or other occupant of the new house. There is
nowhere else for the money to come from.

There's a very large windfall profit on getting PP. That windfall will just
be smaller.

the market wont pay more so that the current owner can keep his profit the
same after tax, he'll just have to accept 800,000 per acre instead of 1
million per acre.

[JNugent]

Post by tim...

Post by JNugent

Post by tim...

Post by Fredxx

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Fredxx

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by pamela

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Norman Wells
Which we're still paying because we're members of the EU.

Yes - you're right. There's no chance of any EU payments
being diverted to the NHS until we've stopped paying our EU
subs.
Also, I can't imagine what the final cost of leaving the EU
will end up being. It must be mounting up second-by-second
(a lot of paper clips and staples will certainly be being
consumed). Almost certainly we'll have to wait until we've
recovered from settling all the bills incurred en route.

Dont forget the extra £40 billion (maybe more) on top of
everything else.

The £40 billion will be a proverbial drop-in-the-ocean
compared with what it's presently costing us (only nobody's
counting at the moment),

Yes, that's th einfinite cost over infinite time argument.  It
doesn't stack up.  We have enjoyed some of the greatest
propserity in our nation's history in the last few decades after
joining the Common Market when previously we had been the sick
man of Europe. Where is our miracle new growth going to come from
that wasn't available in the Sick Man years?

Not everyone has prospered. You only need look at the average age
of a first time buyer.

Nowhere to build houses and people keep having children, I suppose
you could argue migration worsens the problem, but it is not the main
cause.

It has created the problem, where central and local government stop
new housing developments or require substantial incentives to pass them.

I think it perfectly correct that the building of new houses should
come will a bill from government for the provision of extra services
that build out will create.

What have services like electricity, water, storm run-off, sewerage,
data and telephony got to do with the government?

I was taking about education and health, and social housing, and welfare
provision etc

But those are demanded by people, not by bricks and asphalt. The people
are simply moving from one place to another, and not increasing in
number as a result of doing so.

In any case, your "social housing" doesn't fit there.There is no extra
need for social housig just because a number of for-sale houses have
been built. The waiting list does not get longer just because an old
filling station is demolished and six semis for sale built on its site.

Post by tim...

Post by JNugent
The only direct public sector provision is the roads, and even then,
new streets built by developers are handed over to ("adopted by") the
local authority, FOC. Other services may need to have their pattern of
provision changed - education, health, etc, but demand for these is
not changed in quantum by new building. It are simply moved from place
to place.

but not all of the increased population has moved into new build house

So what?

Building the housing satisfies some of the demand. It does not stoke it
up so that more social housing is then somehow needed. Your conclusion
on social housing sounds suspiciously like a hobby-horse - a foregone
conclusion, obviously lacking in any credible mechanism.

Post by tim...
some just "over occupy" current housing

Again, so what? How does moving some of them out into owner-occupied new
housing create more social (ie, subsidised) housing demand? What's the
alleged connection?

Post by tim...

Post by JNugent

Post by tim...
But IMHO that money should come from a surcharge on the windfall
profit from planning permission granted to the land.  Not from the
owner of the new house.

All money paid to anyone for anything connected with the building of a
new house is paid by the owner or other occupant of the new house.
There is nowhere else for the money to come from.

There's a very large windfall profit on getting PP.  That windfall will
just be smaller.

It cannot be. It will either put the price up or switch off the supply
of land (or more probably a combination of both).

Post by tim...
the market wont pay more so that the current owner can keep his profit
the same after tax, he'll just have to accept 800,000 per acre instead
of 1 million per acre.

New buyers ("the market", as you call them) will pay what it takes as
long as it can be afforded. Rapid rises in price are brought about by
buyers being prepared to go to the limit of what they can afford.

[tim...]

Post by JNugent

Post by tim...

Post by JNugent

Post by tim...

Post by Fredxx

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Fredxx

Post by pamela

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by pamela

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Norman Wells
Which we're still paying because we're members of the EU.

Yes - you're right. There's no chance of any EU payments
being diverted to the NHS until we've stopped paying our EU
subs.
Also, I can't imagine what the final cost of leaving the EU
will end up being. It must be mounting up second-by-second
(a lot of paper clips and staples will certainly be being
consumed). Almost certainly we'll have to wait until we've
recovered from settling all the bills incurred en route.

Dont forget the extra £40 billion (maybe more) on top of
everything else.

The £40 billion will be a proverbial drop-in-the-ocean
compared with what it's presently costing us (only nobody's
counting at the moment),

Yes, that's th einfinite cost over infinite time argument. It
doesn't stack up. We have enjoyed some of the greatest
propserity in our nation's history in the last few decades after
joining the Common Market when previously we had been the sick
man of Europe. Where is our miracle new growth going to come from
that wasn't available in the Sick Man years?

Not everyone has prospered. You only need look at the average age
of a first time buyer.

Nowhere to build houses and people keep having children, I suppose
you could argue migration worsens the problem, but it is not the main
cause.

It has created the problem, where central and local government stop
new housing developments or require substantial incentives to pass them.

I think it perfectly correct that the building of new houses should
come will a bill from government for the provision of extra services
that build out will create.

What have services like electricity, water, storm run-off, sewerage,
data and telephony got to do with the government?

I was taking about education and health, and social housing, and welfare
provision etc

But those are demanded by people,

yep

increased immigration

it is the subject we are talking about

tim

[tim...]

Post by Fredxx

Post by pamela

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by pamela

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Norman Wells
Which we're still paying because we're members of the EU.

Yes - you're right. There's no chance of any EU payments being
diverted to the NHS until we've stopped paying our EU subs.
Also, I can't imagine what the final cost of leaving the EU will
end up being. It must be mounting up second-by-second (a lot of
paper clips and staples will certainly be being consumed).
Almost certainly we'll have to wait until we've recovered from
settling all the bills incurred en route.

Dont forget the extra £40 billion (maybe more) on top of
everything else.

The £40 billion will be a proverbial drop-in-the-ocean compared
with what it's presently costing us (only nobody's counting at the
moment),

Yes, that's th einfinite cost over infinite time argument. It
doesn't stack up. We have enjoyed some of the greatest propserity
in our nation's history in the last few decades after joining the
Common Market when previously we had been the sick man of Europe.
Where is our miracle new growth going to come from that wasn't
available in the Sick Man years?

Not everyone has prospered. You only need look at the average age of a
first time buyer.
It is certainly a 'sick' decade for many.

Yes.

I'd really like to know why "the students" as a group, think that staying is
best for them

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/12/one-million-students-call-vote-brexit-deal

or perhaps they are just taking the "liberal" view that it is right to share
our prosperity with the poorer Poles, even if it makes many Brits poorer
(including some of that set of students).

tim

[R. Mark Clayton]

Post by tim...

Post by Fredxx

Post by pamela

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by pamela

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Norman Wells
Which we're still paying because we're members of the EU.

Yes - you're right. There's no chance of any EU payments being
diverted to the NHS until we've stopped paying our EU subs.
Also, I can't imagine what the final cost of leaving the EU will
end up being. It must be mounting up second-by-second (a lot of
paper clips and staples will certainly be being consumed).
Almost certainly we'll have to wait until we've recovered from
settling all the bills incurred en route.

Dont forget the extra £40 billion (maybe more) on top of
everything else.

The £40 billion will be a proverbial drop-in-the-ocean compared
with what it's presently costing us (only nobody's counting at the
moment),

Yes, that's th einfinite cost over infinite time argument. It
doesn't stack up. We have enjoyed some of the greatest propserity
in our nation's history in the last few decades after joining the
Common Market when previously we had been the sick man of Europe.
Where is our miracle new growth going to come from that wasn't
available in the Sick Man years?

Not everyone has prospered. You only need look at the average age of a
first time buyer.
It is certainly a 'sick' decade for many.

Yes.
I'd really like to know why "the students" as a group, think that staying is
best for them
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/12/one-million-students-call-vote-brexit-deal

Dunno - I have not been a student for decades. Freedom of movement seems to be quite a high priority for them.

Post by tim...
or perhaps they are just taking the "liberal" view that it is right to share
our prosperity with the poorer Poles, even if it makes many Brits poorer
(including some of that set of students).

Free trade and movement increase prosperity for all.

Post by tim...
tim

[Fredxx]

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by tim...

Post by Fredxx

Post by pamela

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by pamela

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Norman Wells
Which we're still paying because we're members of the EU.

Yes - you're right. There's no chance of any EU payments being
diverted to the NHS until we've stopped paying our EU subs.
Also, I can't imagine what the final cost of leaving the EU will
end up being. It must be mounting up second-by-second (a lot of
paper clips and staples will certainly be being consumed).
Almost certainly we'll have to wait until we've recovered from
settling all the bills incurred en route.

Dont forget the extra £40 billion (maybe more) on top of
everything else.

The £40 billion will be a proverbial drop-in-the-ocean compared
with what it's presently costing us (only nobody's counting at the
moment),

Yes, that's th einfinite cost over infinite time argument. It
doesn't stack up. We have enjoyed some of the greatest propserity
in our nation's history in the last few decades after joining the
Common Market when previously we had been the sick man of Europe.
Where is our miracle new growth going to come from that wasn't
available in the Sick Man years?

Not everyone has prospered. You only need look at the average age of a
first time buyer.
It is certainly a 'sick' decade for many.

Yes.
I'd really like to know why "the students" as a group, think that staying is
best for them
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/12/one-million-students-call-vote-brexit-deal

Dunno - I have not been a student for decades. Freedom of movement seems to be quite a high priority for them.

Post by tim...
or perhaps they are just taking the "liberal" view that it is right to share
our prosperity with the poorer Poles, even if it makes many Brits poorer
(including some of that set of students).

Free trade and movement increase prosperity for all.

No it doesn't. Next you'll be advocating free movement from China where
£1/Hr is a modest rate of pay.

You don't seem to care for the average working person.

You don't work, do you?

[tim...]

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by tim...

Post by Fredxx

Post by pamela

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by pamela

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Norman Wells
Which we're still paying because we're members of the EU.

Yes - you're right. There's no chance of any EU payments being
diverted to the NHS until we've stopped paying our EU subs.
Also, I can't imagine what the final cost of leaving the EU will
end up being. It must be mounting up second-by-second (a lot of
paper clips and staples will certainly be being consumed).
Almost certainly we'll have to wait until we've recovered from
settling all the bills incurred en route.

Dont forget the extra £40 billion (maybe more) on top of
everything else.

The £40 billion will be a proverbial drop-in-the-ocean compared
with what it's presently costing us (only nobody's counting at the
moment),

Yes, that's th einfinite cost over infinite time argument. It
doesn't stack up. We have enjoyed some of the greatest propserity
in our nation's history in the last few decades after joining the
Common Market when previously we had been the sick man of Europe.
Where is our miracle new growth going to come from that wasn't
available in the Sick Man years?

Not everyone has prospered. You only need look at the average age of a
first time buyer.
It is certainly a 'sick' decade for many.

Yes.
I'd really like to know why "the students" as a group, think that staying is
best for them
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/12/one-million-students-call-vote-brexit-deal

Dunno - I have not been a student for decades. Freedom of movement seems
to be quite a high priority for them.

I don't believe that, for well qualified graduates, European work
opportunities will cease for Brits (except those directly working for the
EU).

Though as I have pointed out before, even whilst still in the EU they have
already become noticeably harder to obtain because of the competition from
the millions of Easter Europeans who will work for less.

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by tim...
or perhaps they are just taking the "liberal" view that it is right to share
our prosperity with the poorer Poles, even if it makes many Brits poorer
(including some of that set of students).

Free trade and movement increase prosperity for all.

I'll give you the first part, but the second part you are making up.

and as for the first part we have every intention of continuing free trade
with the EU. We were never going to put up any barriers to that.


tim

[Ophelia]

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells

Post by R. Mark Clayton
Did the Leave campaign lie and cheat? Who would have thought it.
PS NHS is still waiting for its cheque for £33.6 Billion unpaid so far...

Just two questions for you. Where was that money supposed to come from?

Gross money paid to the EU.

Which we're still paying because we're members of the EU.

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells
And when's the earliest it could possibly become available?

Never.

Then it can't be available now, and it can't be 'unpaid', can it?

==

lol

[tim...]

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by tim...

Post by pensive hamster
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-leave-eu-fined-70000-electoral-law-arron-banks-referendum-a8346176.html
11 May 2018
'Police are examining evidence that the chief executive of a key
organisation that pushed for Brexit committed criminal offences
during 2016 referendum campaign.
'It comes after the Electoral Commission fined Leave.EU – the
group backed by Nigel Farage and funded by Arron Banks – the
maximum £70,000 for multiple breaches of electoral rules.
'The group failed to include at least £77,380 in its spending return
following the national vote, meaning it exceeding the legal spending
limits ahead of the referendum, in which the country backed leaving
the European Union.
'... Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Mr Banks called
the Commission’s findings a “joke”, and vowed to fight them in the
courts and claimed the Commission was trying strip the referendum
result of credibility.

he was on DP later and made the credible point that his "forensic"
accountant had shown that they are wrong and as such he intended to
challenge the fine in court.
without being bitchy at all
tim

Did the Leave campaign lie and cheat? Who would have thought it.

this was purely about how they declared the amount of money that they spent

and Remain lied and cheated just as much

Post by R. Mark Clayton
PS NHS is still waiting for its cheque for £33.6 Billion unpaid so far...

No, that wasn't the promise at all

tim

[Norman Wells]

Post by tim...

Did the Leave campaign lie and cheat?  Who would have thought it.

this was purely about how they declared the amount of money that they spent
and Remain lied and cheated just as much

PS NHS is still waiting for its cheque for £33.6 Billion unpaid so far...

No, that wasn't the promise at all

You don't really expect thicko Remainers to understand that, do you?

[MM]

Post by tim...
and Remain lied and cheated just as much

Has the Electoral Commission also fined remain groups, then?

MM

[Norman Wells]

Post by MM

Post by tim...
and Remain lied and cheated just as much

Has the Electoral Commission also fined remain groups, then?

How much influence on the result do you think a pretty trivial overspend
of £70,000 by not even the official Leave campaign group had?

How does its influence compare with the spend of £9,000,000 on the
government's own pro-Remain propaganda leaflet shoved through every
letterbox in the land?

There's a bit of cant and hypocrisy going on here.

[R. Mark Clayton]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by MM

Post by tim...
and Remain lied and cheated just as much

Has the Electoral Commission also fined remain groups, then?

How much influence on the result do you think a pretty trivial overspend
of £70,000 by not even the official Leave campaign group had?

No idea, but if they can afford to overspend £70k and allegedly conceal it then they can afford a £70k fine.

Post by Norman Wells
How does its influence compare with the spend of £9,000,000 on the
government's own pro-Remain propaganda leaflet shoved through every
letterbox in the land?

There was no restriction on what any group could spend before the official campaign started. Once it had the government spent £0.

Post by Norman Wells
There's a bit of cant and hypocrisy going on here.

[Norman Wells]

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells

Post by MM

Post by tim...
and Remain lied and cheated just as much

Has the Electoral Commission also fined remain groups, then?

How much influence on the result do you think a pretty trivial overspend
of £70,000 by not even the official Leave campaign group had?

No idea, but if they can afford to overspend £70k and allegedly conceal it then they can afford a £70k fine.

Post by Norman Wells
How does its influence compare with the spend of £9,000,000 on the
government's own pro-Remain propaganda leaflet shoved through every
letterbox in the land?

There was no restriction on what any group could spend before the official campaign started.

How very convenient!

Get your massive expenditure in early, then write the rules so it isn't
included.

There's no cant and hypocrisy at all in that, is there? Oh no.

[R. Mark Clayton]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells

Post by MM

Post by tim...
and Remain lied and cheated just as much

Has the Electoral Commission also fined remain groups, then?

How much influence on the result do you think a pretty trivial overspend
of £70,000 by not even the official Leave campaign group had?

No idea, but if they can afford to overspend £70k and allegedly conceal it then they can afford a £70k fine.

Post by Norman Wells
How does its influence compare with the spend of £9,000,000 on the
government's own pro-Remain propaganda leaflet shoved through every
letterbox in the land?

There was no restriction on what any group could spend before the official campaign started.

How very convenient!
Get your massive expenditure in early, then write the rules so it isn't
included.
There's no cant and hypocrisy at all in that, is there? Oh no.

That is generally the rule for elections (RPOA 1948), although now there are fixed term parliaments the Electoral Commission has brought in "regulated periods".

[Norman Wells]

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells

Post by MM

Post by tim...
and Remain lied and cheated just as much

Has the Electoral Commission also fined remain groups, then?

How much influence on the result do you think a pretty trivial overspend
of £70,000 by not even the official Leave campaign group had?

No idea, but if they can afford to overspend £70k and allegedly conceal it then they can afford a £70k fine.

Post by Norman Wells
How does its influence compare with the spend of £9,000,000 on the
government's own pro-Remain propaganda leaflet shoved through every
letterbox in the land?

There was no restriction on what any group could spend before the official campaign started.

How very convenient!
Get your massive expenditure in early, then write the rules so it isn't
included.
There's no cant and hypocrisy at all in that, is there? Oh no.

That is generally the rule for elections (RPOA 1948), although now there are fixed term parliaments the Electoral Commission has brought in "regulated periods".

This was not a normal election though. This was a single issue
referendum, and moreover the pro-Remain propaganda was disreputably
incorporated in the government official leaflet setting out all the
ground rules for the referendum. It was clearly expenditure for the
purpose of influencing the result one way and, for fairness, the Leave
campaign should have been allowed similar expenditure. The £70,000
extra spent by leave.eu is loose change in comparison to the £9 million
the government alone spent.

The majority in the referendum for Leave was 1,269,501. I'm sure it
would have been much higher if the playing field had been level. Don't
you agree?

[MM]

Post by Norman Wells
This was not a normal election though.

It wasn't remotely any kind of election.

MM

[JNugent]

Post by MM

Post by Norman Wells
This was not a normal election though.

It wasn't remotely any kind of election.

The referendum was an election. All referenda are elections. The word
"elect", at base, simply means "choose" and "election" means "choice".
Referenda involve choices.

The word does not necessarily refer to the process of selecting a
political or other representative (although that is the most
commonly-used sense of the word). It also has a function (and distinct
meaning) within certain minority Christian doctrines.

Hence elective surgery, electing to do, or not do, this or that, etc.

So saying that a referendum wasn't remotely an election could not be
more incorrect.

<https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/election>

I hope that helps you.

See what I mean about your vocabulary?

[MM]

Post by JNugent

Post by MM

Post by Norman Wells
This was not a normal election though.

It wasn't remotely any kind of election.

The referendum was an election. All referenda are elections. The word
"elect", at base, simply means "choose" and "election" means "choice".
Referenda involve choices.
The word does not necessarily refer to the process of selecting a
political or other representative (although that is the most
commonly-used sense of the word). It also has a function (and distinct
meaning) within certain minority Christian doctrines.
Hence elective surgery, electing to do, or not do, this or that, etc.
So saying that a referendum wasn't remotely an election could not be
more incorrect.
<https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/election>
I hope that helps you.
See what I mean about your vocabulary?

The referendum was not remotely any kind of election. No one stood for
election. And no one got elected!

MM

[JNugent]

Post by MM

Post by JNugent

Post by MM

Post by Norman Wells
This was not a normal election though.

It wasn't remotely any kind of election.

The referendum was an election. All referenda are elections. The word
"elect", at base, simply means "choose" and "election" means "choice".
Referenda involve choices.
The word does not necessarily refer to the process of selecting a
political or other representative (although that is the most
commonly-used sense of the word). It also has a function (and distinct
meaning) within certain minority Christian doctrines.
Hence elective surgery, electing to do, or not do, this or that, etc.
So saying that a referendum wasn't remotely an election could not be
more incorrect.
<https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/election>
I hope that helps you.
See what I mean about your vocabulary?

The referendum was not remotely any kind of election. No one stood for
election. And no one got elected!

The English language and the meaning of English words are very clearly
not your long suit, are they?

Even after you have had the meaning of a word explained to you, you
still can't and don't understand.

But we knew that already.

[MM]

Post by JNugent

Post by MM

Post by JNugent

Post by MM

Post by Norman Wells
This was not a normal election though.

It wasn't remotely any kind of election.

The referendum was an election. All referenda are elections. The word
"elect", at base, simply means "choose" and "election" means "choice".
Referenda involve choices.
The word does not necessarily refer to the process of selecting a
political or other representative (although that is the most
commonly-used sense of the word). It also has a function (and distinct
meaning) within certain minority Christian doctrines.
Hence elective surgery, electing to do, or not do, this or that, etc.
So saying that a referendum wasn't remotely an election could not be
more incorrect.
<https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/election>
I hope that helps you.
See what I mean about your vocabulary?

The referendum was not remotely any kind of election. No one stood for
election. And no one got elected!

The English language and the meaning of English words are very clearly
not your long suit, are they?
Even after you have had the meaning of a word explained to you, you
still can't and don't understand.
But we knew that already.

Then tell me who stood for election and who got elected.

MM

[Norman Wells]

Post by MM
Then tell me who stood for election and who got elected.

1. Remain and Leave
2. Leave.

[MM]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by MM
Then tell me who stood for election and who got elected.

1. Remain and Leave

What political parties were these alleged candidates standing for?

Post by Norman Wells
2. Leave.

Which political party won this alleged election?

MM

[Norman Wells]

Post by MM

Post by Norman Wells

Post by MM
Then tell me who stood for election and who got elected.

1. Remain and Leave

What political parties were these alleged candidates standing for?

Remain and Leave.

Post by MM

Post by Norman Wells
2. Leave.

Which political party won this alleged election?

Leave.

[JNugent]

Post by MM

Post by JNugent

Post by MM

Post by JNugent

Post by MM

Post by Norman Wells
This was not a normal election though.

It wasn't remotely any kind of election.

The referendum was an election. All referenda are elections. The word
"elect", at base, simply means "choose" and "election" means "choice".
Referenda involve choices.
The word does not necessarily refer to the process of selecting a
political or other representative (although that is the most
commonly-used sense of the word). It also has a function (and distinct
meaning) within certain minority Christian doctrines.
Hence elective surgery, electing to do, or not do, this or that, etc.
So saying that a referendum wasn't remotely an election could not be
more incorrect.
<https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/election>
I hope that helps you.
See what I mean about your vocabulary?

The referendum was not remotely any kind of election. No one stood for
election. And no one got elected!

The English language and the meaning of English words are very clearly
not your long suit, are they?
Even after you have had the meaning of a word explained to you, you
still can't and don't understand.
But we knew that already.

Then tell me who stood for election and who got elected.

Your problem, as already remarked, is that you don't understand the full
meaning of the word "elect" and its derivatives.

[MM]

Post by JNugent
Your problem, as already remarked, is that you don't understand the full
meaning of the word "elect" and its derivatives.

I fully understand the meaning of local and general elections in which
candidates stand for election.

I estimate that 95% of the general public fully understand it in that
way as well.

Now, what snake oil are you trying to sell us?

MM

[JNugent]

Post by MM

Post by JNugent
Your problem, as already remarked, is that you don't understand the full
meaning of the word "elect" and its derivatives.

I fully understand the meaning of local and general elections in which
candidates stand for election.
I estimate that 95% of the general public fully understand it in that
way as well.
Now, what snake oil are you trying to sell us?

The English language in all its glory and variegation.

You do not and will never properly understand it.

You "think" that the word "election" only has one narrow meaning, for
instance.

[Fredxx]

Post by MM

Post by JNugent

Post by MM

Post by JNugent

Post by MM

Post by Norman Wells
This was not a normal election though.

It wasn't remotely any kind of election.

The referendum was an election. All referenda are elections. The word
"elect", at base, simply means "choose" and "election" means "choice".
Referenda involve choices.
The word does not necessarily refer to the process of selecting a
political or other representative (although that is the most
commonly-used sense of the word). It also has a function (and distinct
meaning) within certain minority Christian doctrines.
Hence elective surgery, electing to do, or not do, this or that, etc.
So saying that a referendum wasn't remotely an election could not be
more incorrect.
<https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/election>
I hope that helps you.
See what I mean about your vocabulary?

The referendum was not remotely any kind of election. No one stood for
election. And no one got elected!

The English language and the meaning of English words are very clearly
not your long suit, are they?
Even after you have had the meaning of a word explained to you, you
still can't and don't understand.
But we knew that already.

Then tell me who stood for election and who got elected.

You're not coming across as being very bright.

[MM]

Post by Fredxx

Post by MM

Post by JNugent

Post by MM

Post by JNugent

Post by MM

Post by Norman Wells
This was not a normal election though.

It wasn't remotely any kind of election.

The referendum was an election. All referenda are elections. The word
"elect", at base, simply means "choose" and "election" means "choice".
Referenda involve choices.
The word does not necessarily refer to the process of selecting a
political or other representative (although that is the most
commonly-used sense of the word). It also has a function (and distinct
meaning) within certain minority Christian doctrines.
Hence elective surgery, electing to do, or not do, this or that, etc.
So saying that a referendum wasn't remotely an election could not be
more incorrect.
<https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/election>
I hope that helps you.
See what I mean about your vocabulary?

The referendum was not remotely any kind of election. No one stood for
election. And no one got elected!

The English language and the meaning of English words are very clearly
not your long suit, are they?
Even after you have had the meaning of a word explained to you, you
still can't and don't understand.
But we knew that already.

Then tell me who stood for election and who got elected.

You're not coming across as being very bright.

Okay, so YOU have a go at answering the question. Who stood for
election and who got elected?

MM

[MM]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells

Post by MM

Post by tim...
and Remain lied and cheated just as much

Has the Electoral Commission also fined remain groups, then?

How much influence on the result do you think a pretty trivial overspend
of £70,000 by not even the official Leave campaign group had?

No idea, but if they can afford to overspend £70k and allegedly conceal it then they can afford a £70k fine.

Post by Norman Wells
How does its influence compare with the spend of £9,000,000 on the
government's own pro-Remain propaganda leaflet shoved through every
letterbox in the land?

There was no restriction on what any group could spend before the official campaign started.

How very convenient!
Get your massive expenditure in early, then write the rules so it isn't
included.
There's no cant and hypocrisy at all in that, is there? Oh no.

Correct. If the rules are followed, there's no problem. Otherwise you
get fined 70 grand. Simples.

MM

[Yellow]

On Sat, 12 May 2018 01:57:30 -0700 (PDT), R. Mark Clayton

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells

Post by MM

Post by tim...
and Remain lied and cheated just as much

Has the Electoral Commission also fined remain groups, then?

How much influence on the result do you think a pretty trivial overspend
of £70,000 by not even the official Leave campaign group had?

No idea, but if they can afford to overspend £70k and allegedly conceal it then they can afford a £70k fine.

Post by Norman Wells
How does its influence compare with the spend of £9,000,000 on the
government's own pro-Remain propaganda leaflet shoved through every
letterbox in the land?

There was no restriction on what any group could spend before the official campaign started. Once it had the government spent £0.

How is that any kind of excuse for spending that sort of public money on
a political campaign?

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells
There's a bit of cant and hypocrisy going on here.

[Ian Jackson]

Post by Norman Wells
How much influence on the result do you think a pretty trivial
overspend of £70,000 by not even the official Leave campaign group had?

As I've said, it probably didn't make much difference. The £70k
overspend was probably just a waste of money. Once people had been told
that £350M per week could go to the NHS, they would have needed no
further convincing that they wanted to vote for Brexit.

[MM]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by MM

Post by tim...
and Remain lied and cheated just as much

Has the Electoral Commission also fined remain groups, then?

How much influence on the result do you think a pretty trivial overspend
of £70,000 by not even the official Leave campaign group had?
How does its influence compare with the spend of £9,000,000 on the
government's own pro-Remain propaganda leaflet shoved through every
letterbox in the land?
There's a bit of cant and hypocrisy going on here.

Yeah, 70 grand's worth.

MM

[Fredxx]

Post by MM

Post by tim...
and Remain lied and cheated just as much

Has the Electoral Commission also fined remain groups, then?

Yes. Nasty, insincere lot aren't they?

[MM]

Post by MM

Post by tim...
and Remain lied and cheated just as much

Has the Electoral Commission also fined remain groups, then?

Yes.

Cite?

MM

[tim...]

Post by MM

Post by tim...
and Remain lied and cheated just as much

Has the Electoral Commission also fined remain groups, then?

yes they did

but as I have already said

these fines are for accounting irregularities

they are not for any other aspect of the actual campaign

[Ian Jackson]

Post by R. Mark Clayton
Did the Leave campaign lie and cheat? Who would have thought it.

To be honest, even if Leave.EU WERE rather over-enthusiastic, I don't
think it would have influenced the vote much more than if they played
strictly in accordance with the rules. In the end, they were probably
pushing at an open door, and their extra efforts were not really
required.

Following those five MPs in strong North East Leave constituencies
declaring that they feared for the industries and prosperity in their
areas, and that we should have a vote on the Brexit deal, members of the
public - when interviewed by the BBC local news - to a man and woman
still immediately insisted that we should leave.

[tim...]

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by R. Mark Clayton
Did the Leave campaign lie and cheat? Who would have thought it.

To be honest, even if Leave.EU WERE rather over-enthusiastic, I don't
think it would have influenced the vote much more than if they played
strictly in accordance with the rules. In the end, they were probably
pushing at an open door, and their extra efforts were not really required.
Following those five MPs in strong North East Leave constituencies
declaring that they feared for the industries and prosperity in their
areas, and that we should have a vote on the Brexit deal, members of the
public - when interviewed by the BBC local news - to a man and woman
still immediately insisted that we should leave.

I'm glad that you have told me that

cos one of the bigoted campaigners tried to claim that the MPs change of
mind was because people on the ground had changed their mind

tim

[GB]

Post by tim...

Post by pensive hamster
'... Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Mr Banks called
the Commission’s findings a “joke”, and vowed to fight them in the
courts and claimed the Commission was trying strip the referendum
result of credibility.

he was on DP later and made the credible point that his "forensic"
accountant had shown that they are wrong and as such he intended to
challenge the fine in court.
without being bitchy at all

It seems pretty odd for Mr Banks to claim "the Commission was trying
[to] strip the referendum result of credibility". The Commission's job
is to check the rules are being complied with. Mr Banks can reasonably
claim that the Commission is wrong in their assessment, and for all I
know he may be right.

But, for him to attribute a false motive for them going about the job
they have been given says a lot about his mental state and even more
about the gullibility he attributes to the public. As far as I know, he
has not a single shred of evidence for his allegation.

Post by tim...
tim

[Yellow]

Post by GB

Post by tim...

'... Speaking on BBC Radio 4?s Today programme, Mr Banks called
the Commission?s findings a ?joke?, and vowed to fight them in the
courts and claimed the Commission was trying strip the referendum
result of credibility.

he was on DP later and made the credible point that his "forensic"
accountant had shown that they are wrong and as such he intended to
challenge the fine in court.
without being bitchy at all

It seems pretty odd for Mr Banks to claim "the Commission was trying
[to] strip the referendum result of credibility". The Commission's job
is to check the rules are being complied with. Mr Banks can reasonably
claim that the Commission is wrong in their assessment, and for all I
know he may be right.

His claim on DP was that the person in charge of the Commission is
politically biased as he is a staunch remainer and has made comments
along the lines that leaving the EU is stupid.

Post by GB
But, for him to attribute a false motive for them going about the job
they have been given says a lot about his mental state and even more
about the gullibility he attributes to the public. As far as I know, he
has not a single shred of evidence for his allegation.

Again referring to his DP interview, he argued that they had prepared a
monster document refuting the Commission's charges against them but that
the Commission took just 3 days to dismiss it out of hand and to come
back with exactly the same charges.

As Tim has already said, the refuting seems to centre on leave.EU taking
legal advice before they submitting the accounts and they therefore
claim they were in fact strictly within the law.

Will be interesting if Banks, on reflection, does as he says and takes
it to court.

[GB]

Post by Yellow
Again referring to his DP interview, he argued that they had prepared a
monster document refuting the Commission's charges against them but that
the Commission took just 3 days to dismiss it out of hand and to come
back with exactly the same charges.

So, the Commission didn't think much of his arguments... Does that mean
they are biased or his arguments are crap? He is saying that 3 whole
days can't possibly have been enough to consider the documents he
submitted? It makes me think that there are really only two possibilities:

a) His documents were crap, and it only took a short time for the
Commission to work that out, or

b) They are so utterly biased that they didn't even seriously consider
his submission.

Post by Yellow
As Tim has already said, the refuting seems to centre on leave.EU taking
legal advice before they submitting the accounts and they therefore
claim they were in fact strictly within the law.

Or, their legal advice was complete crap? Or the Commission thinks it's
crap? Either way, that could explain why the Commission didn't need long
to think about it.

Post by Yellow
Will be interesting if Banks, on reflection, does as he says and takes
it to court.

I agree. If you are interested in betting, I'd give 5:1 on the
commission being right.

[GB]

Post by GB
b) They are so utterly biased that they didn't even seriously consider
his submission.

Sorry, I mean they the commission ...

[Yellow]

Post by GB

Post by Yellow
Again referring to his DP interview, he argued that they had prepared a
monster document refuting the Commission's charges against them but that
the Commission took just 3 days to dismiss it out of hand and to come
back with exactly the same charges.

So, the Commission didn't think much of his arguments... Does that mean
they are biased or his arguments are crap? He is saying that 3 whole
days can't possibly have been enough to consider the documents he
a) His documents were crap, and it only took a short time for the
Commission to work that out, or
b) They are so utterly biased that they didn't even seriously consider
his submission.

I do not know any more than you do and was just reporting what Banks
said.

Post by GB

Post by Yellow
As Tim has already said, the refuting seems to centre on leave.EU taking
legal advice before they submitting the accounts and they therefore
claim they were in fact strictly within the law.

Or, their legal advice was complete crap? Or the Commission thinks it's
crap? Either way, that could explain why the Commission didn't need long
to think about it.

Again, I just reported what Banks said when interviewed and he was very
calm and very earnest but clearly quite upset but not in a "they caught
me out" kind of way but instead came across as someone who thought the
had done what he needed to do.

But he might just be a good actor.

Post by GB

Post by Yellow
Will be interesting if Banks, on reflection, does as he says and takes
it to court.

I agree. If you are interested in betting, I'd give 5:1 on the
commission being right.

I am happy just to sit back and watch the passing parade.

[tim...]

Post by GB

Post by Yellow
Again referring to his DP interview, he argued that they had prepared a
monster document refuting the Commission's charges against them but that
the Commission took just 3 days to dismiss it out of hand and to come
back with exactly the same charges.

So, the Commission didn't think much of his arguments... Does that mean
they are biased or his arguments are crap? He is saying that 3 whole days
can't possibly have been enough to consider the documents he submitted? It
a) His documents were crap, and it only took a short time for the
Commission to work that out, or
b) They are so utterly biased that they didn't even seriously consider his
submission.

they don't need to be biased to do that

they just need to be lazy

tim

[Fredxx]

Post by Yellow

Post by GB

Post by tim...

'... Speaking on BBC Radio 4?s Today programme, Mr Banks called
the Commission?s findings a ?joke?, and vowed to fight them in the
courts and claimed the Commission was trying strip the referendum
result of credibility.

he was on DP later and made the credible point that his "forensic"
accountant had shown that they are wrong and as such he intended to
challenge the fine in court.
without being bitchy at all

It seems pretty odd for Mr Banks to claim "the Commission was trying
[to] strip the referendum result of credibility". The Commission's job
is to check the rules are being complied with. Mr Banks can reasonably
claim that the Commission is wrong in their assessment, and for all I
know he may be right.

His claim on DP was that the person in charge of the Commission is
politically biased as he is a staunch remainer and has made comments
along the lines that leaving the EU is stupid.

Post by GB
But, for him to attribute a false motive for them going about the job
they have been given says a lot about his mental state and even more
about the gullibility he attributes to the public. As far as I know, he
has not a single shred of evidence for his allegation.

Again referring to his DP interview, he argued that they had prepared a
monster document refuting the Commission's charges against them but that
the Commission took just 3 days to dismiss it out of hand and to come
back with exactly the same charges.

To me, the very fact he produced so many documents that it should take
more than 3 days to go through, I would find the argument immediately
suspect. Death by BS.

Post by Yellow
As Tim has already said, the refuting seems to centre on leave.EU taking
legal advice before they submitting the accounts and they therefore
claim they were in fact strictly within the law.

3 days of argument?

Post by Yellow
Will be interesting if Banks, on reflection, does as he says and takes
it to court.

Quite.

[harry]

Post by pensive hamster
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-leave-eu-fined-70000-electoral-law-arron-banks-referendum-a8346176.html
11 May 2018
'Police are examining evidence that the chief executive of a key
organisation that pushed for Brexit committed criminal offences
during 2016 referendum campaign.
'It comes after the Electoral Commission fined Leave.EU – the
group backed by Nigel Farage and funded by Arron Banks – the
maximum £70,000 for multiple breaches of electoral rules.
'The group failed to include at least £77,380 in its spending return
following the national vote, meaning it exceeding the legal spending
limits ahead of the referendum, in which the country backed leaving
the European Union.
'... Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Mr Banks called
the Commission’s findings a “joke”, and vowed to fight them in the
courts and claimed the Commission was trying strip the referendum
result of credibility.
'He said: “The entire Commission is composed of former MPs,
Liberal MPs, the SNP, former Labour leaders of councils – all sorts
of people that believe in Remain.
'... A statement from Leave.EU built on the theme, branding the
Commission “a ‘Blairite Swamp Creation’ packed full of
establishment ‘Remoaners’ that couldn’t quite make it to the House
of Lords, but managed to get their noses in the trough via
appointment to public bodies like the Electoral Commission”.
Handbags at dawn?

I wonder if they considered the £7,000,000 cost of the leaflet the government had shoved through all our doors?

[JNugent]

Post by harry

Post by pensive hamster
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-leave-eu-fined-70000-electoral-law-arron-banks-referendum-a8346176.html
11 May 2018
'Police are examining evidence that the chief executive of a key
organisation that pushed for Brexit committed criminal offences
during 2016 referendum campaign.
'It comes after the Electoral Commission fined Leave.EU – the
group backed by Nigel Farage and funded by Arron Banks – the
maximum £70,000 for multiple breaches of electoral rules.
'The group failed to include at least £77,380 in its spending return
following the national vote, meaning it exceeding the legal spending
limits ahead of the referendum, in which the country backed leaving
the European Union.
'... Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Mr Banks called
the Commission’s findings a “joke”, and vowed to fight them in the
courts and claimed the Commission was trying strip the referendum
result of credibility.
'He said: “The entire Commission is composed of former MPs,
Liberal MPs, the SNP, former Labour leaders of councils – all sorts
of people that believe in Remain.
'... A statement from Leave.EU built on the theme, branding the
Commission “a ‘Blairite Swamp Creation’ packed full of
establishment ‘Remoaners’ that couldn’t quite make it to the House
of Lords, but managed to get their noses in the trough via
appointment to public bodies like the Electoral Commission”.
Handbags at dawn?

I wonder if they considered the £7,000,000 cost of the leaflet the government had shoved through all our doors?

The whole issue of limiting campaigning spending is nonsense.

It wouldn't matter how much Labour or the unions spent in a GE, I would
not vote Labour. Similarly, no amount of TV coverage, etc, would make me
vote UKIP or LibDem (though a certain sort of situation in some places
might make me vote LD).

I am reminded of a book published in the 1970s which I saw in the
university library. It had a lengthy and intriguing title which ran
something like:

"If you had a child to educate and the money to pay for it, would you
neglect that child's education? And if you wouldn't, what makes you
think that anyone else would?".

[Sorry if that's not verbatim, which it probably isn't. But it's close
and correctly conveys the gist.]

I wouldn't be influenced by campaign spending by those I regard as
opponents. What makes anybody think that anyone else would be?

[Norman Wells]

Post by JNugent
I wouldn't be influenced by campaign spending by those I regard as
opponents. What makes anybody think that anyone else would be?

Facts can't change your mind then?

[JNugent]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent
I wouldn't be influenced by campaign spending by those I regard as
opponents. What makes anybody think that anyone else would be?

Facts can't change your mind then?

Propaganda from opponents can't.

That is a very different proposition from fact.

[Fredxx]

Post by JNugent

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent
I wouldn't be influenced by campaign spending by those I regard as
opponents. What makes anybody think that anyone else would be?

Facts can't change your mind then?

Propaganda from opponents can't.
That is a very different proposition from fact.

You may a very myopic outlook. I thought that was more a Remoaner trait.

[pensive hamster]

On Saturday, 12 May 2018 16:35:10 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
[...]

Post by JNugent
I wouldn't be influenced by campaign spending by those I regard as
opponents. What makes anybody think that anyone else would be?

You'll have to ask the people who spend money on referendum
or election campaigns. Presumably they are targeting the
floating or swing voters.

[Norman Wells]

Post by pensive hamster
[...]

Post by JNugent
I wouldn't be influenced by campaign spending by those I regard as
opponents. What makes anybody think that anyone else would be?

You'll have to ask the people who spend money on referendum
or election campaigns. Presumably they are targeting the
floating or swing voters.

And giving them the facts, which may influence some with open minds who
like the facts before they decide.

[pensive hamster]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by pensive hamster
[...]

Post by JNugent
I wouldn't be influenced by campaign spending by those I regard as
opponents. What makes anybody think that anyone else would be?

You'll have to ask the people who spend money on referendum
or election campaigns. Presumably they are targeting the
floating or swing voters.

And giving them the facts, which may influence some with open minds who
like the facts before they decide.

I can't offhand recall any actual facts provided by either side
in the referendum campaign, it seemed to be all opinions,
projections and innaccurate statistics.

Perhaps you can recall some actual genuine facts provided
by Leave or Remain?