OT: things going as expected.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42861496
When are any brexshiteers predictions going to be true?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 29/01/2018 20:14, dennis@home wrote:

Probably about the same time as operation fear predictions becoming true.
--
mailto : news admac myzen co uk

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

The difference is one is simply what *might* happen over time if we stayed in the EU versus what will / could / might happen if we make such a change to the status quo.
The point of leaving is that things *will* change.
If we don't leave, there is nothing to say that anything will change at all (and certainly not quickly).
If we do leave there is still no way anyone can predict which things *will* change and of those things that do, by how much.
The worrying thing is those who seemed very happy to vote leave yet didn't have even the slightest clue what exactly they would get at the end (which is completely different to what they [1] *hoped* they might get).
Cheers, T i m
[1] When there is no agreement what so ever exactly what 'they' wanted either. eg. Some may only agree that leaving the EU would be worth doing *IF* certain criteria were met whilst other would run headlong over the cliff irrespective, 'certain', they have a better grasp of the whole thing than the majority of the electorate?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 29/01/2018 22:09, T i m wrote:

Staying would not have resulted in a status quo. The EU is changing all of the time and not necessarily for the benefit of the UK.
--
mailto : news admac myzen co uk

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Of course it would, subject to your qualifying period.

Of course (as you would hope it would etc).

But the EU isn't there 'for the UK', it's there for all it's members (something fundamental the Brexiteers simply don't seem to be able to get).
So, can you guarantee that the outcome of leaving *will* be better than the outcome of not using, and if so, over what periods?
If it was such a 'good thing', why isn't everone behind it (or even better than 1/3rd of the electorate)?
The answer (to save you trying to fabricate even more bogus pro Brexit propaganda) is that the whole Brexit thing was a question few were asking and even now, *no one* can even start to predict the full consequences of.
What most sensible people see Brexit as us jumping out of a perfectly good aeroplane before there is any real world indication it's going to crash and using unknown and untested parachutes made and packed by someone else.
Most people would only be pushed to jump when the outcome of not was *guaranteed* to be worse,
Cheers, T i m
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 29/01/18 23:04, T i m wrote:
And if we reverse the premise and say:
Remaining in the EU:

So essentially, that's a non argument.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

As seen by someone with a low EQ?
What is it the Brexiteers don't get with how 'real people' vote on things and what the votes actually mean?
We were (are) in the EU (apparently the average persons DNA in the UK is 60% European).
So the question (irrespective of how some took it), was actually 'hands up who wants to leave the EU'.
Those who want change, those who want out, those who are on a crusade are 'more likely' to bother to vote than those who are not 'looking' to change the status quo or actually want out of the EU (or CBA to vote).
You don't normally 'vote' *for* something you don't want or (don't) want to change.
So, (fact), only 1/3rd of the electorate voted *for* leaving the EU and it was (morally) wholly incumbent on *them* to agree in sufficient numbers to justify that decision. Exactly as Firage wanted of course (if it was to go to Remain).
Cheers, T i m
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 30/01/18 00:40, T i m wrote:

Ooh - ad hominem: is that really the best you can manage, says the one accusing *me* of having a low EQ...

Fact: Everyone knew exactly what the Referendum meant, even if not the precise path of how a BREXIT vote would be implemented.
At worst, it was "Status Quo" vs "Leave, for some definition of leave".
Everyone knew BEXITers would be out in force, so anyone who cared to remain had the opportunity and civil duty to vote accordingly.
If they couldn't be bothered, well, that's not my fault, is it?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, 30 January 2018 11:26:51 UTC, Tim Watts wrote:

or the precise path of staying in the EU

I don't get how anyone could really believe that staying in the EU would be status quo. If the fact that the EU now wants to raise an army doesn't give any clues, I dunno, something's really not working up there.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 30/01/2018 12:03, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

Don't talk rubbish, the UK wants the EU to have an army, they want them to share the costs of replacing NATO. Leaving the EU will not stop the UK being part of an EU army, we will just have less say in how its done. Some brexshiteers are really naive.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, 30 January 2018 12:54:06 UTC, dennis@home wrote:

Where did you get that idea ?

We are one of the few EU countries to have our own nuclear deterrant.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 30/01/2018 13:03, whisky-dave wrote:

Try reading past history.

Stupid boy, if we use it we are dead. Either because we have been nuked or we will be nuked.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, 30 January 2018 13:09:49 UTC, dennis@home wrote:

m
Why not link to this past history then, show the evidence.
Are canada and the USA to be part of the EU too.

So what differnce will the EU make, without USA or canada ?
Having an EU army will just create more bureaucrats and wasted money and re sourses, all it'll do is create jobs for the boys, or perhaps girls if they actually want equality to be achived which I think is very unlikely at tha t level. Lok where the vast majoroty of descrimination exists it's not amonst cleane rs but high up in board rooms and above £100K PA.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

On lease from the US?
BTW, just who does it deter?
--
*Lottery: A tax on people who are bad at math.

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, 30 January 2018 14:01:18 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

who or what will an EU army deter and where will the money come from ?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 30 Jan 2018 13:55:10 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"

No-one. Hopefully, there's no-one insane enough to use Nuclear weapons since their use would result in the end of humanity and most life on earth.
--
<insert witty sig here>

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 03/02/18 15:30, Mark wrote:

Utter and complete tosh bandied about by soviet agitators in the cold war and inccorporated into hollywood and Left spin ever since.
If say India and Pakistan exchanged all their nuclear weapons, it would ultimately be beneficial to both in terms of population loss: Rdaiatiomn would be gine in a few years and the land released would be avuialable fior 'green field' devbelopmentr much as Hiroshima and Nagasaki were re-developed post war.
--
To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Says it all. Turnip thinks a nuclear war could be beneficial.
--
*A plateau is a high form of flattery*

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 04/02/2018 00:26, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Its quite possible he has suffered some sort of brain damage due to his claimed illness. Something like his heart going into AF for a few minutes could result in clots causing damage. He should get checked out.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 04 Feb 2018 10:52:55 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

How did you get yours?
--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.