On 18/05/2026 14:40, Jethro wrote:
On Mon, 18 May 2026 12:39:16 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
Boris, when he was elected, was handed what was effectively a done deal, >>> one that was done half-heartedly and inadequately by Remainers.
your point being ?
The whole schtick about voting for Brexit was it was a risk free
investment. Nothing could *possibly* go wrong. Anyone who dared suggest
any possible ways it could go wrong were shouted down and eventually
ignored.
That's nonsense that no-one was espousing.-a Of course it could go wrong; that's stunningly obvious.-a However, with the right management, it could have gone rather better than it did.
It's all an irrelevance anyway. As was pointed out after the vote, you
don't get a second chance.
And that applies to Remainers who want another go, does it?
The Falklands War required support from the EU who maintained sanctions against Argentina, and militarily from the USA and Chile.
On 18/05/2026 12:36, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/05/2026 10:11, Jethro wrote:
Every single hypothetical possibility of problems was shot down as
"project fear".
No. as far as I (and many) are concerned Brexiteers had their chance.
And
they would be the very first constitutency to admit you don't get a
second chance. That was made *very* clear.
How does that apply to Remainers wanting another referendum?-a Should
they be given a second chance?
Shouldn't the nation be given a second chance to remedy the blunder that
was Brexit?
At least 55% of the electorate would now be in favour of rejoining the EU.
But I suppose you might say that if you marry someone it must be a once
in a generation decision and it would be wrong to change your mind.
The placing of a cross on a ballot paper is even more sacred. In fact it must also be *wrong* for a political party to change its leader without first asking for the nation's consent.
In other words, past glories were valid when the balance of power was
very different, when we had the most powerful navy in the world, and unfortunately the electorate in the UK might now be unaware that we
cannot now fight wars or even battles without allies to help. Putin certainly does not pay attention to any threats from our government and regards us as a laughing stock.
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:n70ce9F1hodU3@mid.individual.net...
I think it's quite reasonable to suppose that committed Brexiteers would have
made a better job of negotiating our leaving agreement than Remainers whose >> hearts were not really in it.
Oh really ?
So you really think that truly intransigent Brexiteers,
totally unapologetic in their stated view of the EU as
little more than a bunch of devious money grabbing foreigners,
are likely to secure a better deal than are Remainers ?
On 18/05/2026 14:24, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in
No figures available for Agincourt but for Battle of Britain pilots
quote:
Poland 145-146 [1][2][3]
New Zealand 127-135 [2][4]
Canada 112 [2]
Czechoslovakia 84-88 [2][5]
Belgium 28-30 [2][5]
Australia 26-32 [2][5]
South Africa 22-25 [2][5]
Free France 13-14 [2][5]
Republic of Ireland 10 [2]
United States 9-11 [2][5]
Southern Rhodesia 3-4 [2][5]
Barbados 1 [2]
Jamaica 1 [2]
Newfoundland 1 [2]
Northern Rhodesia 1
unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-British_personnel_in_the_RAF_during_the_Battle_of_Britain
Did you miss the bit immediately above those figures that said:
"Most of these squadrons and personnel were still in training and/or
were not involved in fighter operations during the Battle of Britain, although No. 1 Squadron RCAF took part in operations from August 1940"?
On 18/05/2026 14:24, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:n70dv2F1hodU4@mid.individual.net...
On 18/05/2026 11:45, The Todal wrote:
We have been trading on past glories for too long - Agincourt, Waterloo, >>>> the
Battle of Britain, the Normandy Landings. Our people like to believe that >>>> we
won our victories without allies, because our people were superior. Our >>>> government is scared to disillusion the electorate.
Of course. Scarcely a day goes by without all of those being mentioned and >>> our medals being polished.
Anyway, Agincourt and the Battle of Britain *were* won without allies.
No figures available for Agincourt but for Battle of Britain pilots
quote:
Poland 145-146 [1][2][3]
New Zealand 127-135 [2][4]
Canada 112 [2]
Czechoslovakia 84-88 [2][5]
Belgium 28-30 [2][5]
Australia 26-32 [2][5]
South Africa 22-25 [2][5]
Free France 13-14 [2][5]
Republic of Ireland 10 [2]
United States 9-11 [2][5]
Southern Rhodesia 3-4 [2][5]
Barbados 1 [2]
Jamaica 1 [2]
Newfoundland 1 [2]
Northern Rhodesia 1
unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-British_personnel_in_the_RAF_during_the_Battle_of_Britain
Did you miss the bit immediately above those figures that said:
"Most of these squadrons and personnel were still in training and/or were not involved in fighter operations during the Battle of Britain, although No. 1 Squadron RCAF took part in operations from August 1940"?
As were Trafalgar, the Spanish Armada and the Falklands if
you want more history.
The weather was our greatest ally in respect of the Spanish Armada.
No matter. We saw them off.
Trafalgar was complicated
Is that your way of conceding the point?
while Britain's victory of professional soldiers, over vastly
inferior Argentinean conscripts was achieved with the aid of
intelligence>> from the French in respect of the Exocets they'd
sold to the Argies, and>> from the US in respect of Argie
intentions.
But we were the only ones with boots on the ground and
ships on the sea.
On 18/05/2026 15:32, The Todal wrote:
On 18/05/2026 12:36, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/05/2026 10:11, Jethro wrote:
Every single hypothetical possibility of problems was shot down as
"project fear".
No. as far as I (and many) are concerned Brexiteers had their chance.
And
they would be the very first constitutency to admit you don't get a
second chance. That was made *very* clear.
How does that apply to Remainers wanting another referendum? Should
they be given a second chance?
Shouldn't the nation be given a second chance to remedy the blunder that
was Brexit?
Oh, if we want to after a generation since this was stated to be a once
in a generation thing. So, after 2046, and we still want to then, yes
of course.
But it's a hugely disruptive thing joining or leaving the EU, which is
why it should only be a once in a generation thing.
At least 55% of the electorate would now be in favour of rejoining the EU.
So you say.
Still not enough, for example, for a 60:40 supermajority, is it?
Is that why you refuse to answer my questions about another referendum?
But I suppose you might say that if you marry someone it must be a once
in a generation decision and it would be wrong to change your mind.
It used to be for life.
In several countries, it still is.
Decisions having far-reaching consequences should not be undertaken
lightly, nor be simply reversible on a whim.
The placing of a cross on a ballot paper is even more sacred. In fact it
must also be *wrong* for a political party to change its leader without
first asking for the nation's consent.
That's purely a constitutional matter. And under our constitution,
which does not require it or even allow for direct election by the
people, it isn't wrong at all.
On 18/05/2026 15:01, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:n70ce9F1hodU3@mid.individual.net...
I think it's quite reasonable to suppose that committed Brexiteers would >>> have
made a better job of negotiating our leaving agreement than Remainers whose >>> hearts were not really in it.
Oh really ?
So you really think that truly intransigent Brexiteers,
totally unapologetic in their stated view of the EU as
little more than a bunch of devious money grabbing foreigners,
are likely to secure a better deal than are Remainers ?
People who actually believe in what they're doing always do a better job in my
experience.
On 18/05/2026 15:22, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/05/2026 14:40, Jethro wrote:
On Mon, 18 May 2026 12:39:16 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
Boris, when he was elected, was handed what was effectively a done
deal,
one that was done half-heartedly and inadequately by Remainers.
your point being ?
The whole schtick about voting for Brexit was it was a risk free
investment. Nothing could *possibly* go wrong. Anyone who dared suggest
any possible ways it could go wrong were shouted down and eventually
ignored.
That's nonsense that no-one was espousing.-a Of course it could go
wrong; that's stunningly obvious.-a However, with the right management,
it could have gone rather better than it did.
There was nobody offering what you believe to be "the right management". Just various blowhards like Nigel Farage declaring that a no-deal Brexit would be absolutely fine. Farage would say we can very easily rely on
WTO terms which he seemed to believe would be a way of punishing the EU
for failing to bend to our will.
Our economists and business leaders
were very worried that leaving without a deal would have an appalling
impact on our economy.
It's all an irrelevance anyway. As was pointed out after the vote, you
don't get a second chance.
And that applies to Remainers who want another go, does it?
You keep saying Remainers. There is no longer an option of "Remaining"
in the EU. What we now have in the nation is a majority of Re-joiners. Remaining in our splendid isolation as our economy tanks, is the fool's option.
On 18/05/2026 15:32, The Todal wrote:
On 18/05/2026 12:36, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/05/2026 10:11, Jethro wrote:
Every single hypothetical possibility of problems was shot down as
"project fear".
No. as far as I (and many) are concerned Brexiteers had their
chance. And
they would be the very first constitutency to admit you don't get a
second chance. That was made *very* clear.
How does that apply to Remainers wanting another referendum?-a Should
they be given a second chance?
Shouldn't the nation be given a second chance to remedy the blunder
that was Brexit?
Oh, if we want to after a generation since this was stated to be a once
in a generation thing.-a So, after 2046, and we still want to then, yes
of course.
On 18/05/2026 15:45, The Todal wrote:
In other words, past glories were valid when the balance of power was
very different, when we had the most powerful navy in the world, and
unfortunately the electorate in the UK might now be unaware that we
cannot now fight wars or even battles without allies to help. Putin
certainly does not pay attention to any threats from our government
and regards us as a laughing stock.
How's his 3-day conquest of Ukraine going?
On 18/05/2026 16:33, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/05/2026 15:32, The Todal wrote:
On 18/05/2026 12:36, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/05/2026 10:11, Jethro wrote:
Every single hypothetical possibility of problems was shot down as
"project fear".
No. as far as I (and many) are concerned Brexiteers had their
chance. And
they would be the very first constitutency to admit you don't get a
second chance. That was made *very* clear.
How does that apply to Remainers wanting another referendum?-a Should >>>> they be given a second chance?
Shouldn't the nation be given a second chance to remedy the blunder
that was Brexit?
Oh, if we want to after a generation since this was stated to be a
once in a generation thing.-a So, after 2046, and we still want to
then, yes of course.
You always rely on this mantra of "once in a generation".
The leaflet issued by the Government said:
"The EU referendum is a once in a generation decision. The Government believes it is in you and your familyrCOs best interests that the UK
remains in the European Union"
The "once in a generation" slogan was not in any decision by the House
of Commons. It was not a cross-party commitment. If you believe we
should rely on it, logically you should also rely on the assurance that
it is in our best interests to remain in the EU.
Do you always believe the slogans you find in advertisements? Does
Persil always wash whiter?
On 18/05/2026 20:10, The Todal wrote:
On 18/05/2026 16:33, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/05/2026 15:32, The Todal wrote:
On 18/05/2026 12:36, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/05/2026 10:11, Jethro wrote:
Every single hypothetical possibility of problems was shot down as >>>>>> "project fear".
No. as far as I (and many) are concerned Brexiteers had their
chance. And
they would be the very first constitutency to admit you don't get a >>>>>> second chance. That was made *very* clear.
How does that apply to Remainers wanting another referendum? Should >>>>> they be given a second chance?
Shouldn't the nation be given a second chance to remedy the blunder
that was Brexit?
Oh, if we want to after a generation since this was stated to be a
once in a generation thing. So, after 2046, and we still want to
then, yes of course.
You always rely on this mantra of "once in a generation".
The leaflet issued by the Government said:
"The EU referendum is a once in a generation decision. The Government
believes it is in you and your familyrCOs best interests that the UK
remains in the European Union"
The "once in a generation" slogan was not in any decision by the House
of Commons. It was not a cross-party commitment. If you believe we
should rely on it, logically you should also rely on the assurance that
it is in our best interests to remain in the EU.
Do you always believe the slogans you find in advertisements? Does
Persil always wash whiter?
That Government leaflet is here: https://tinyurl.com/ydtnu5wc
I'm sure most voters won't have read it with any close attention. Or
they will have preferred some of the lies from the Leave side.
Not only do the predictions about leaving seem to have been proved
accurate, there is also this, which presumably you yourself believe as
part and parcel of what you were told by the government:
quote
The UK is not part of the EUrCOs border-free zone rCo we control our own borders which gives us the right to check everyone, including EU
nationals, arriving from continental Europe.
The Government has negotiated a deal that will make our benefits system
less of a draw for EU citizens. In future, new EU migrants will not have
full access to certain benefits until they have worked here for up to
four years. The Government will have greater powers to take action where there is abuse of our immigration system
[What's not to like about that?]
On Mon, 18 May 2026 08:43:45 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-05-18, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
On 17 May 2026 at 22:51:22 BST, Norman Wells wrote:
As reported in many news outlets. Good idea - a way of assessing how >>>>>>> popular such a policy might be, without committing to it as a Labour >>>>>>> Party policy.
Who can possibly assess that whatever the leadership or by-election >>>>>> result? Will any majority be a ringing endorsement? Will any sort of >>>>>> defeat put it, and Burnham, permanently back in the hutch?
It gets a conversation going, among all the parties, in the Press, maybe >>>>> in our pubs.
It was only yesterday, if you did at all, that you stopped talking
about it. It's been an absolutely continuous whinge for the last ten
years.
Most of the 'whinging' seems to have been about how Brexit was 'done
wrong'. I've never fully understood that - what does the UK need to do
to make Brexit satisfactory?
Remainers seem to be quite stoical in the main - in the sense that they
haven't changed their minds, but accept the decision to leave.
Accept as in "it is a thing that happened", sure. Accept as in
"it is a thing that cannot be undone", absolutely not ;-)
I think Streeting's position is fine - nothing wrong with having a
conversation about the wisdom of Brexit.
That's not even the conversation. Absolutely everybody with any sense
knows it's a disaster that must be reversed, and it's just a matter of >>"when" not "if"
You presume that rejoining is an option. I suspect that there would be
a lot of opposition in the EU to Britain rejoining.
I see a lot of discussion about what Britain may or may not have lost
due to Brexit; I haven't seen any suggestions as to how the EU has
suffered any significant harm.
On 17/05/2026 22:40, TTman wrote:
On 17/05/2026 14:49, The Todal wrote:
As reported in many news outlets. Good idea - a way of assessing how
popular such a policy might be, without committing to it as a Labour
Party policy.
Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage were the architects of our Brexit
self- harm, and it seems ironic that Farage still seems popular among
many of the working class people who have suffered most from the
results of Brexit.
Without wanting to embark on the usual tedious debate about whether
the Referendum must be forever hailed as a once in a lifetime
decision that can never be reversed, is it likely that Streeting can
win the Labour Party leadership on the back of his policy, and can
Burnham win the by- election by committing to the same policy or will
he be too cowardly to put his head over the parapet? Lisa Nandy is
evidently scared of losing her Wigan seat at the next election but
the closest she has come to giving an opinion is to say that
Streeting's stance is "a bit odd".
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/burnham-streeting-
brexit- eu-starmer-labour-live-updates-b2978091.html
And what if Reform win the bye-election.. I see that as a must win
goal for Farage...
This is quite amusing, from the Times:
Andy BurnhamrCOs allies have accused Wes Streeting of trying to derail the mayorrCOs campaign for No 10 by reopening LabourrCOs Brexit battles and playing into the hands of Reform UK.
unquote
Yes, that might have been Streeting's strategy. Burnham will be forced
to state his Brexit policy and antagonise one demographic or the other,
and will probably lose the by-election leaving the way clear for
Streeting to win. And then maybe to forget about the EU for a year or two.
On 18/05/2026 16:21, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/05/2026 15:45, The Todal wrote:
In other words, past glories were valid when the balance of power was
very different, when we had the most powerful navy in the world, and
unfortunately the electorate in the UK might now be unaware that we
cannot now fight wars or even battles without allies to help. Putin
certainly does not pay attention to any threats from our government
and regards us as a laughing stock.
How's his 3-day conquest of Ukraine going?
You haven't really been following the news, have you?
Putin has grabbed parts of Ukraine including Crimea and the Donbas. It
is unlikely that he can be forced to return those territories to Ukraine.
It was never his intention to conquer all of Ukraine
or all of Europe,
and we need to reject some of the propaganda that we are bombarded with.
Putin seems to have achieved rather more from his attacks on Ukraine
than Trump and Netanyahu (who have spent many billions of dollars more
than Putin) have achieved in Iran.
On 18/05/2026 20:10, The Todal wrote:
On 18/05/2026 16:33, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/05/2026 15:32, The Todal wrote:
On 18/05/2026 12:36, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/05/2026 10:11, Jethro wrote:
Every single hypothetical possibility of problems was shot down as >>>>>> "project fear".
No. as far as I (and many) are concerned Brexiteers had their
chance. And
they would be the very first constitutency to admit you don't get a >>>>>> second chance. That was made *very* clear.
How does that apply to Remainers wanting another referendum?
Should they be given a second chance?
Shouldn't the nation be given a second chance to remedy the blunder
that was Brexit?
Oh, if we want to after a generation since this was stated to be a
once in a generation thing.-a So, after 2046, and we still want to
then, yes of course.
You always rely on this mantra of "once in a generation".
The leaflet issued by the Government said:
"The EU referendum is a once in a generation decision. The Government
believes it is in you and your familyrCOs best interests that the UK
remains in the European Union"
The "once in a generation" slogan was not in any decision by the House
of Commons. It was not a cross-party commitment. If you believe we
should rely on it, logically you should also rely on the assurance
that it is in our best interests to remain in the EU.
Do you always believe the slogans you find in advertisements? Does
Persil always wash whiter?
That Government leaflet is here: https://tinyurl.com/ydtnu5wc
I'm sure most voters won't have read it with any close attention. Or
they will have preferred some of the lies from the Leave side.
Not only do the predictions about leaving seem to have been proved
accurate, there is also this, which presumably you yourself believe as
part and parcel of what you were told by the government:
quote
The UK is not part of the EUrCOs border-free zone rCo we control our own borders which gives us the right to check everyone, including EU
nationals, arriving from continental Europe.
The Government has negotiated a deal that will make our benefits system
less of a draw for EU citizens. In future, new EU migrants will not have full access to certain benefits until they have worked here for up to
four years. The Government will have greater powers to take action where there is abuse of our immigration system
[What's not to like about that?]
On 2026-05-18, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 18 May 2026 08:43:45 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
That's not even the conversation. Absolutely everybody with any sense
knows it's a disaster that must be reversed, and it's just a matter of
"when" not "if"
You presume that rejoining is an option. I suspect that there would be
a lot of opposition in the EU to Britain rejoining.
Obviously we couldn't rejoin on terms entirely of our own choosing.
Some people throw around the Euro, loss of the rebate, the Schengen
area, etc as obstacles to rejoining, but although they are probably
right that the EU would insist on the Euro and no rebate (but wrong
about Schengen, given we have no land border with the Schengen area),
I don't see that as an obstacle to rejoining. Obviously I couldn't confidently predict that some countries wouldn't try to cause
difficulties, e.g. Spain over Gibraltar, but my guess is that it
would be doable.
On 18 May 2026 at 16:33:44 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 18/05/2026 15:32, The Todal wrote:
On 18/05/2026 12:36, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/05/2026 10:11, Jethro wrote:
Every single hypothetical possibility of problems was shot down as
"project fear".
No. as far as I (and many) are concerned Brexiteers had their chance. >>>>> And
they would be the very first constitutency to admit you don't get a
second chance. That was made *very* clear.
How does that apply to Remainers wanting another referendum? Should
they be given a second chance?
Shouldn't the nation be given a second chance to remedy the blunder that >>> was Brexit?
Oh, if we want to after a generation since this was stated to be a once
in a generation thing. So, after 2046, and we still want to then, yes
of course.
But it's a hugely disruptive thing joining or leaving the EU, which is
why it should only be a once in a generation thing.
At least 55% of the electorate would now be in favour of rejoining the EU. >>So you say.
Still not enough, for example, for a 60:40 supermajority, is it?
Is that why you refuse to answer my questions about another referendum?
But I suppose you might say that if you marry someone it must be a once
in a generation decision and it would be wrong to change your mind.
It used to be for life.
In several countries, it still is.
Decisions having far-reaching consequences should not be undertaken
lightly, nor be simply reversible on a whim.
The placing of a cross on a ballot paper is even more sacred. In fact it >>> must also be *wrong* for a political party to change its leader without
first asking for the nation's consent.
That's purely a constitutional matter. And under our constitution,
which does not require it or even allow for direct election by the
people, it isn't wrong at all.
Under our constitution it is not wrong at all to EU membership referenda every
week if we want to. People can nonetheless invent their own reasons why we shouldn't. Just like a appointing unelected Prime Ministers.
A good leadership candidate would come up with a vision. A scheme not
only for the UK rejoining the EU, but a scheme for an improved EU. We
can't just go back to the way it was. The other EU countries will want assurances the UK won't leave again. I would advocate for a proper
union, a proper federation, a single state with central government.
On 18/05/2026 16:33, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/05/2026 15:32, The Todal wrote:
Shouldn't the nation be given a second chance to remedy the blunder
that was Brexit?
Oh, if we want to after a generation since this was stated to be a
once in a generation thing.-a So, after 2046, and we still want to
then, yes of course.
You always rely on this mantra of "once in a generation".
The leaflet issued by the Government said:
"The EU referendum is a once in a generation decision. The Government believes it is in you and your familyrCOs best interests that the UK
remains in the European Union"
The "once in a generation" slogan was not in any decision by the House
of Commons. It was not a cross-party commitment. If you believe we
should rely on it, logically you should also rely on the assurance that
it is in our best interests to remain in the EU.
Do you always believe the slogans you find in advertisements? Does
Persil always wash whiter?
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:n70pveF36jkU7@mid.individual.net...
On 18/05/2026 15:01, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:n70ce9F1hodU3@mid.individual.net...
I think it's quite reasonable to suppose that committed Brexiteers would >>>> have
made a better job of negotiating our leaving agreement than Remainers whose
hearts were not really in it.
Oh really ?
So you really think that truly intransigent Brexiteers,
totally unapologetic in their stated view of the EU as
little more than a bunch of devious money grabbing foreigners,
are likely to secure a better deal than are Remainers ?
People who actually believe in what they're doing always do a better job in my
experience.
Remainers hoping to minimise the damage inflicted on the British
economy by deluded Brexiteers, would also believe most strongly
in what they were doing.
And what's more, their belief would be grounded in actual reality;
not based on delusions concerning the Uk's actual bargaining position
in respect of these supposedly "devious money grabbing foreigners".
On 18/05/2026 20:10, The Todal wrote:
On 18/05/2026 16:33, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/05/2026 15:32, The Todal wrote:
Shouldn't the nation be given a second chance to remedy the blunder
that was Brexit?
Oh, if we want to after a generation since this was stated to be a
once in a generation thing.-a So, after 2046, and we still want to
then, yes of course.
You always rely on this mantra of "once in a generation".
The leaflet issued by the Government said:
"The EU referendum is a once in a generation decision. The Government
believes it is in you and your familyrCOs best interests that the UK
remains in the European Union"
The "once in a generation" slogan was not in any decision by the House
of Commons. It was not a cross-party commitment. If you believe we
should rely on it, logically you should also rely on the assurance
that it is in our best interests to remain in the EU.
Do you always believe the slogans you find in advertisements? Does
Persil always wash whiter?
The one about once in a generation was a promise, a definite one from
the government on which we were entitled to rely.-a The one about it
being in our best interests to remain was just a belief, an opinion,
with which we were free to disagree.-a There is a difference.
On 18/05/2026 22:21, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/05/2026 20:10, The Todal wrote:
On 18/05/2026 16:33, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/05/2026 15:32, The Todal wrote:
Shouldn't the nation be given a second chance to remedy the blunder >>>>> that was Brexit?
Oh, if we want to after a generation since this was stated to be a
once in a generation thing.-a So, after 2046, and we still want to
then, yes of course.
You always rely on this mantra of "once in a generation".
The leaflet issued by the Government said:
"The EU referendum is a once in a generation decision. The Government
believes it is in you and your familyrCOs best interests that the UK
remains in the European Union"
The "once in a generation" slogan was not in any decision by the House
of Commons. It was not a cross-party commitment. If you believe we
should rely on it, logically you should also rely on the assurance
that it is in our best interests to remain in the EU.
Do you always believe the slogans you find in advertisements? Does
Persil always wash whiter?
The one about once in a generation was a promise, a definite one from
the government on which we were entitled to rely.-a The one about it
being in our best interests to remain was just a belief, an opinion,
with which we were free to disagree.-a There is a difference.
The one about once in a generation wasn't a promise,it was just a
belief, an opinion, with which we are free to disagree.
There is nobody you can sue if you believe it to be a binding promise,
just as there is nobody you can sue if the incoming government pledges
not to increase taxes and then when in office, increases taxes.
On 18/05/2026 16:21, Norman Wells wrote:
How's his 3-day conquest of Ukraine going?
You haven't really been following the news, have you?
Putin has grabbed parts of Ukraine including Crimea and the Donbas. It
is unlikely that he can be forced to return those territories to Ukraine.
It was never his intention to conquer all of Ukraine or all of Europe
and we need to reject some of the propaganda that we are bombarded with.
Putin seems to have achieved rather more from his attacks on Ukraine
than Trump and Netanyahu (who have spent many billions of dollars more
than Putin) have achieved in Iran.
On 18/05/2026 22:21, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/05/2026 20:10, The Todal wrote:
On 18/05/2026 16:33, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/05/2026 15:32, The Todal wrote:
Shouldn't the nation be given a second chance to remedy the blunder >>>>> that was Brexit?
Oh, if we want to after a generation since this was stated to be a
once in a generation thing.-a So, after 2046, and we still want to
then, yes of course.
You always rely on this mantra of "once in a generation".
The leaflet issued by the Government said:
"The EU referendum is a once in a generation decision. The Government
believes it is in you and your familyrCOs best interests that the UK
remains in the European Union"
The "once in a generation" slogan was not in any decision by the
House of Commons. It was not a cross-party commitment. If you believe
we should rely on it, logically you should also rely on the assurance
that it is in our best interests to remain in the EU.
Do you always believe the slogans you find in advertisements? Does
Persil always wash whiter?
The one about once in a generation was a promise, a definite one from
the government on which we were entitled to rely.-a The one about it
being in our best interests to remain was just a belief, an opinion,
with which we were free to disagree.-a There is a difference.
The one about once in a generation wasn't a promise,it was just a
belief, an opinion, with which we are free to disagree.
I suggest you read again what you quoted.-a It was a stated fact.-a And it was emphasised in the rest of the-a pamphlet where it was called 'a big decision, one that will affect you, your family and your children for decades to come'.
Not just next week, not next year, but for decades, at least a generation.
On 18/05/2026 20:47, Pancho wrote:
A good leadership candidate would come up with a vision. A scheme not
only for the UK rejoining the EU, but a scheme for an improved EU. We
can't just go back to the way it was. The other EU countries will want
assurances the UK won't leave again. I would advocate for a proper
union, a proper federation, a single state with central government.
Do you think a referendum on that would be won?
On 2026-05-18, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 18/05/2026 22:21, Norman Wells wrote:
The one about once in a generation was a promise, a definite one from
the government on which we were entitled to rely.-a The one about it
being in our best interests to remain was just a belief, an opinion,
with which we were free to disagree.-a There is a difference.
The one about once in a generation wasn't a promise,it was just a
belief, an opinion, with which we are free to disagree.
There is nobody you can sue if you believe it to be a binding promise,
just as there is nobody you can sue if the incoming government pledges
not to increase taxes and then when in office, increases taxes.
The very concept of it being a "definite promise" is nonsensical.
No parliament may bind its successor - let alone some random leaflet.
On 18/05/2026 20:10, The Todal wrote:
[quoted text muted]
[quoted text muted]
The one about once in a generation was a promise, a definite one from
the government on which we were entitled to rely.
A good leadership candidate would come up with a vision. A scheme not
only for the UK rejoining the EU, but a scheme for an improved EU. We
can't just go back to the way it was. The other EU countries will want assurances the UK won't leave again.
I would advocate for a proper
union, a proper federation, a single state with central government.
On 2026-05-18, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 18/05/2026 22:21, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/05/2026 20:10, The Todal wrote:
On 18/05/2026 16:33, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/05/2026 15:32, The Todal wrote:
Shouldn't the nation be given a second chance to remedy the blunder >>>>>> that was Brexit?
Oh, if we want to after a generation since this was stated to be a
once in a generation thing.-a So, after 2046, and we still want to
then, yes of course.
You always rely on this mantra of "once in a generation".
The leaflet issued by the Government said:
"The EU referendum is a once in a generation decision. The Government
believes it is in you and your familyrCOs best interests that the UK
remains in the European Union"
The "once in a generation" slogan was not in any decision by the
House of Commons. It was not a cross-party commitment. If you believe
we should rely on it, logically you should also rely on the assurance
that it is in our best interests to remain in the EU.
Do you always believe the slogans you find in advertisements? Does
Persil always wash whiter?
The one about once in a generation was a promise, a definite one from
the government on which we were entitled to rely.-a The one about it
being in our best interests to remain was just a belief, an opinion,
with which we were free to disagree.-a There is a difference.
The one about once in a generation wasn't a promise,it was just a
belief, an opinion, with which we are free to disagree.
There is nobody you can sue if you believe it to be a binding promise,
just as there is nobody you can sue if the incoming government pledges
not to increase taxes and then when in office, increases taxes.
The very concept of it being a "definite promise" is nonsensical.
No parliament may bind its successor - let alone some random leaflet.
On 18/05/2026 19:11, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:n70pveF36jkU7@mid.individual.net...
On 18/05/2026 15:01, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:n70ce9F1hodU3@mid.individual.net...
I think it's quite reasonable to suppose that committed Brexiteers would >>>>> have
made a better job of negotiating our leaving agreement than Remainers >>>>> whose
hearts were not really in it.
Oh really ?
So you really think that truly intransigent Brexiteers,
totally unapologetic in their stated view of the EU as
little more than a bunch of devious money grabbing foreigners,
are likely to secure a better deal than are Remainers ?
People who actually believe in what they're doing always do a better job in >>> my
experience.
Remainers hoping to minimise the damage inflicted on the British
economy by deluded Brexiteers, would also believe most strongly
in what they were doing.
And what's more, their belief would be grounded in actual reality;
not based on delusions concerning the Uk's actual bargaining position
in respect of these supposedly "devious money grabbing foreigners".
So, did they actually achieve that?
If so, why are they constantly whingeing about it?
You don't seem to be up to speed on the steps that Nordic countries are taking to defend themselves, which are extensive and multinational, e.g. a Swedish command group is being set up in one of the Baltic countries to command international forces defending their borders. Land mines, tank
traps, plans to move populations across borders and many other measures
both military and civilian are being set up.
On 18/05/2026 23:39, The Todal wrote:
On 18/05/2026 22:21, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/05/2026 20:10, The Todal wrote:
On 18/05/2026 16:33, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/05/2026 15:32, The Todal wrote:
Shouldn't the nation be given a second chance to remedy the
blunder that was Brexit?
Oh, if we want to after a generation since this was stated to be a
once in a generation thing.-a So, after 2046, and we still want to
then, yes of course.
You always rely on this mantra of "once in a generation".
The leaflet issued by the Government said:
"The EU referendum is a once in a generation decision. The Government
believes it is in you and your familyrCOs best interests that the UK
remains in the European Union"
The "once in a generation" slogan was not in any decision by the
House of Commons. It was not a cross-party commitment. If you
believe we should rely on it, logically you should also rely on the
assurance that it is in our best interests to remain in the EU.
Do you always believe the slogans you find in advertisements? Does
Persil always wash whiter?
The one about once in a generation was a promise, a definite one from
the government on which we were entitled to rely.-a The one about it
being in our best interests to remain was just a belief, an opinion,
with which we were free to disagree.-a There is a difference.
The one about once in a generation wasn't a promise,it was just a
belief, an opinion, with which we are free to disagree.
I suggest you read again what you quoted.-a It was a stated fact.-a And it was emphasised in the rest of the-a pamphlet where it was called 'a big decision, one that will affect you, your family and your children for decades to come'.
Not just next week, not next year, but for decades, at least a generation.
That was the basis on which we all voted.-a If you didn't personally, too bad, you had it all explained to you in the clearest possible language.
On Mon, 18 May 2026 22:21:22 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/05/2026 20:10, The Todal wrote:
[quoted text muted]
[quoted text muted]
The one about once in a generation was a promise, a definite one from
the government on which we were entitled to rely.
The elephant in the room here is a lack of a working definition for "generation".
I see no reason why a "generation" need be anymore than 16 years. *I will leave it as an exercise for the less dim to work out why.
Now we have a satisfactory definition of generation, a new referendum in 2032, if suggested, seems fair.
And of course Scotland gets a new IndyRef in 2030.
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 18/05/2026 16:21, Norman Wells wrote:
[rCa]
How's his 3-day conquest of Ukraine going?
You haven't really been following the news, have you?
Putin has grabbed parts of Ukraine including Crimea and the Donbas. It
is unlikely that he can be forced to return those territories to Ukraine.
Only in the last few days have Ukrainian forces re-taken a village in the Kharkiv region.
ItrCOs 4km from the border with Russia.
It was never his intention to conquer all of Ukraine or all of Europe
And you know this how?
You donrCOt seem to be up to speed on the steps that Nordic countries are taking to defend themselves, which are extensive and multinational, e.g. a Swedish command group is being set up in one of the Baltic countries to command international forces defending their borders. Land mines, tank
traps, plans to move populations across borders and many other measures
both military and civilian are being set up.
and we need to reject some of the propaganda that we are bombarded with.
Putin seems to have achieved rather more from his attacks on Ukraine
than Trump and Netanyahu (who have spent many billions of dollars more
than Putin) have achieved in Iran.
Trump and Netanyahu havenrCOt lost 1.5million men.
The Ukrainian objective is to kill 50,000 Russian troops per month.
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
A good leadership candidate would come up with a vision. A scheme not
only for the UK rejoining the EU, but a scheme for an improved EU. We
can't just go back to the way it was. The other EU countries will want
assurances the UK won't leave again.
And what will the UK gain for tying itself forever to the EU? Or at least until it implodes?
I would advocate for a proper
union, a proper federation, a single state with central government.
How did the Soviet Union work out as a model?
On 18 May 2026 at 16:33:44 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 18/05/2026 15:32, The Todal wrote:
On 18/05/2026 12:36, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/05/2026 10:11, Jethro wrote:
Every single hypothetical possibility of problems was shot down as
"project fear".
No. as far as I (and many) are concerned Brexiteers had their chance. >>>>> And
they would be the very first constitutency to admit you don't get a
second chance. That was made *very* clear.
How does that apply to Remainers wanting another referendum? Should
they be given a second chance?
Shouldn't the nation be given a second chance to remedy the blunder that >>> was Brexit?
Oh, if we want to after a generation since this was stated to be a once
in a generation thing. So, after 2046, and we still want to then, yes
of course.
But it's a hugely disruptive thing joining or leaving the EU, which is
why it should only be a once in a generation thing.
At least 55% of the electorate would now be in favour of rejoining the EU. >>So you say.
Still not enough, for example, for a 60:40 supermajority, is it?
Is that why you refuse to answer my questions about another referendum?
But I suppose you might say that if you marry someone it must be a once
in a generation decision and it would be wrong to change your mind.
It used to be for life.
In several countries, it still is.
Decisions having far-reaching consequences should not be undertaken
lightly, nor be simply reversible on a whim.
The placing of a cross on a ballot paper is even more sacred. In fact it >>> must also be *wrong* for a political party to change its leader without
first asking for the nation's consent.
That's purely a constitutional matter. And under our constitution,
which does not require it or even allow for direct election by the
people, it isn't wrong at all.
Under our constitution it is not wrong at all to EU membership referenda every
week if we want to. People can nonetheless invent their own reasons why we shouldn't. Just like a appointing unelected Prime Ministers.
On Mon, 18 May 2026 22:21:22 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/05/2026 20:10, The Todal wrote:
[quoted text muted]
[quoted text muted]
The one about once in a generation was a promise, a definite one from
the government on which we were entitled to rely.
The elephant in the room here is a lack of a working definition for "generation".
I see no reason why a "generation" need be anymore than 16 years. *I will leave it as an exercise for the less dim to work out why.
Now we have a satisfactory definition of generation, a new referendum in 2032, if suggested, seems fair.
And of course Scotland gets a new IndyRef in 2030.
The Falklands War required support from the EU who maintained sanctions against Argentina, and militarily from the USA and Chile. To quote Mrs Thatcher: Pinochet was this country's staunch, true friend in our time
of need when Argentina seized the Falkland Islands. I know - I was Prime Minister at the time. On President Pinochet's express instructions, and
at great risk, Chile provided enormously valuable assistance. I cannot
reveal the details, but let me mention just one incident. During the Falklands War the Chilean airforce was commanded by the father of
Senator Evelyn Matthei, here with us this evening. He gave us early
warning of Chilean air attacks which allowed the task force to take
defensive action. /unquote
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:n71drtF6ta8U1@mid.individual.net...
On 18/05/2026 19:11, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:n70pveF36jkU7@mid.individual.net...
On 18/05/2026 15:01, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:n70ce9F1hodU3@mid.individual.net...
I think it's quite reasonable to suppose that committed Brexiteers would >>>>>> have
made a better job of negotiating our leaving agreement than Remainers >>>>>> whose
hearts were not really in it.
Oh really ?
So you really think that truly intransigent Brexiteers,
totally unapologetic in their stated view of the EU as
little more than a bunch of devious money grabbing foreigners,
are likely to secure a better deal than are Remainers ?
People who actually believe in what they're doing always do a better job in
my
experience.
Remainers hoping to minimise the damage inflicted on the British
economy by deluded Brexiteers, would also believe most strongly
in what they were doing.
And what's more, their belief would be grounded in actual reality;
not based on delusions concerning the Uk's actual bargaining position
in respect of these supposedly "devious money grabbing foreigners".
So, did they actually achieve that?
If so, why are they constantly whingeing about it?
But they didn't get the chance, did they ?.
As has already been explained to you more than once,
Britain's chief negotiators, David Davis, to be followed by
David Frost, both regarded the EU as little more than a bunch
of devious money-grabbing foreigners, And had no hesitation
in saying so.
On 2026-05-18, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 18 May 2026 08:43:45 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-05-18, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
On 17 May 2026 at 22:51:22 BST, Norman Wells wrote:
As reported in many news outlets. Good idea - a way of assessing how >>>>>>>> popular such a policy might be, without committing to it as a Labour >>>>>>>> Party policy.
Who can possibly assess that whatever the leadership or by-election >>>>>>> result? Will any majority be a ringing endorsement? Will any sort of >>>>>>> defeat put it, and Burnham, permanently back in the hutch?
It gets a conversation going, among all the parties, in the Press, maybe >>>>>> in our pubs.
It was only yesterday, if you did at all, that you stopped talking
about it. It's been an absolutely continuous whinge for the last ten >>>>> years.
Most of the 'whinging' seems to have been about how Brexit was 'done
wrong'. I've never fully understood that - what does the UK need to do >>>> to make Brexit satisfactory?
Remainers seem to be quite stoical in the main - in the sense that they >>>> haven't changed their minds, but accept the decision to leave.
Accept as in "it is a thing that happened", sure. Accept as in
"it is a thing that cannot be undone", absolutely not ;-)
I think Streeting's position is fine - nothing wrong with having a
conversation about the wisdom of Brexit.
That's not even the conversation. Absolutely everybody with any sense >>>knows it's a disaster that must be reversed, and it's just a matter of >>>"when" not "if"
You presume that rejoining is an option. I suspect that there would be
a lot of opposition in the EU to Britain rejoining.
Obviously we couldn't rejoin on terms entirely of our own choosing.
Some people throw around the Euro, loss of the rebate, the Schengen
area, etc as obstacles to rejoining, but although they are probably
right that the EU would insist on the Euro and no rebate (but wrong
about Schengen, given we have no land border with the Schengen area),
I don't see that as an obstacle to rejoining. Obviously I couldn't >confidently predict that some countries wouldn't try to cause
difficulties, e.g. Spain over Gibraltar, but my guess is that it
would be doable.
I see a lot of discussion about what Britain may or may not have lost
due to Brexit; I haven't seen any suggestions as to how the EU has
suffered any significant harm.
You're presumably living in the UK and not specifically seeking out such >information in the foreign press.
On 2026-05-18, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 18/05/2026 08:36, Norman Wells wrote:
We shouldn't of course be starting from where we are, with a bad leaving >>> agreement negotiated by Remainers. All we can do now is chip away at
it, against intransigent opposition from the EU displaying antagonistic
attitudes I personally find distasteful and wouldn't want to be allied
with.
That's always the most ridiculous of arguments. That the gang of
dimwits, Boris, Gove, Farage etc, who know nothing whatsoever about
economics or trade or treaties but know how to write persuasive
newspaper columns, could have used their negligible skills to get us a
better leaving agreement, overruling the experts, and given us a pot of
gold at the end of the rainbow.
Not to mention, it was Boris Johnson who "negotiated" the "deal".
Suggesting that the leaders of the Leavers was actually a Remainer
is fairytale conspiracy nonsense of the highest order.
It's all the fault of Remainers like Theresa May who were determined
to sabotage Brexit, right?
The only thing May sabotaged, with her "red lines", was the will of
the people - who certainly didn't vote for the "Hard Brexit" that was
forced undemocratically upon an unwilling country.
On 5/19/26 08:18, Norman Wells wrote:
I suggest you read again what you quoted.-a It was a stated fact.-a And
it was emphasised in the rest of the-a pamphlet where it was called 'a
big decision, one that will affect you, your family and your children
for decades to come'.
Not just next week, not next year, but for decades, at least a
generation.
The problem is new information becomes available, events happen. Plans
need to change.
On 5/18/26 22:42, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/05/2026 20:47, Pancho wrote:
A good leadership candidate would come up with a vision. A scheme not
only for the UK rejoining the EU, but a scheme for an improved EU. We
can't just go back to the way it was. The other EU countries will
want assurances the UK won't leave again. I would advocate for a
proper union, a proper federation, a single state with central
government.
Do you think a referendum on that would be won?
I think it entirely possible that it would,
Russia has historically been willing to sacrifice huge numbers of men,
in all the wars that it has fought. Their sacrifice in defeating the
Nazis was far greater than ours.
On 18/05/2026 01:18 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-18, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 18/05/2026 08:36, Norman Wells wrote:
We shouldn't of course be starting from where we are, with a bad
leaving
agreement negotiated by Remainers.-a All we can do now is chip away at >>>> it, against intransigent opposition from the EU displaying antagonistic >>>> attitudes I personally find distasteful and wouldn't want to be allied >>>> with.
That's always the most ridiculous of arguments. That the gang of
dimwits, Boris, Gove, Farage etc, who know nothing whatsoever about
economics or trade or treaties but know how to write persuasive
newspaper columns, could have used their negligible skills to get us a
better leaving agreement, overruling the experts, and given us a pot of
gold at the end of the rainbow.
Not to mention, it was Boris Johnson who "negotiated" the "deal".
Suggesting that the leaders of the Leavers was actually a Remainer
is fairytale conspiracy nonsense of the highest order.
It's all the fault of Remainers like Theresa May who were determined
to sabotage Brexit, right?
The only thing May sabotaged, with her "red lines", was the will of
the people - who certainly didn't vote for the "Hard Brexit" that was
forced undemocratically upon an unwilling country.
So what DID they vote for?
On 19/05/2026 09:21, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:n71drtF6ta8U1@mid.individual.net...
On 18/05/2026 19:11, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:n70pveF36jkU7@mid.individual.net...
On 18/05/2026 15:01, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:n70ce9F1hodU3@mid.individual.net...
I think it's quite reasonable to suppose that committed
Brexiteers would
have
made a better job of negotiating our leaving agreement than
Remainers
whose
hearts were not really in it.
Oh really ?
So you really think that truly intransigent Brexiteers,
totally unapologetic in their stated view of the EU as
little more than a bunch of devious money grabbing foreigners,
are likely to secure a better deal than are Remainers ?
People who actually believe in what they're doing always do a
better job in
my
experience.
Remainers hoping to minimise the damage inflicted on the British
economy by deluded Brexiteers, would also believe most strongly
in what they were doing.
And what's more, their belief would be grounded in actual reality;
not based on delusions concerning the Uk's actual bargaining position
in respect of these supposedly "devious money grabbing foreigners".
So, did they actually achieve that?
If so, why are they constantly whingeing about it?
But they didn't get the chance, did they ?.
As has already been explained to you more than once,
Britain's chief negotiators, David Davis, to be followed by
David Frost, both regarded the EU as little more than a bunch
of devious money-grabbing foreigners, And had no hesitation
in saying so.
Were they wrong then?
On 18/05/2026 03:45 PM, The Todal wrote:
[ ... ]
The Falklands War required support from the EU who maintained sanctions
against Argentina, and militarily from the USA and Chile. To quote Mrs
Thatcher: Pinochet was this country's staunch, true friend in our time
of need when Argentina seized the Falkland Islands. I know - I was Prime
Minister at the time. On President Pinochet's express instructions, and
at great risk, Chile provided enormously valuable assistance. I cannot
reveal the details, but let me mention just one incident. During the
Falklands War the Chilean airforce was commanded by the father of
Senator Evelyn Matthei, here with us this evening. He gave us early
warning of Chilean air attacks which allowed the task force to take
defensive action. /unquote
*Chilean* air attacks? Against whom?
On 19/05/2026 09:18, Pancho wrote:
On 5/19/26 08:18, Norman Wells wrote:
I suggest you read again what you quoted.-a It was a stated fact.-a And >>> it was emphasised in the rest of the-a pamphlet where it was called 'a
big decision, one that will affect you, your family and your children
for decades to come'.
Not just next week, not next year, but for decades, at least a
generation.
The problem is new information becomes available, events happen. Plans
need to change.
Nothing fundamental or unforeseeable has changed since 2016.-a All we
have is a bit of buyer's remorse.-a 2046 is quite soon enough to consider
a radical reversal.
On 19/05/2026 10:43, Jethro wrote:
Now we have a satisfactory definition of generation, a new referendum in
2032, if suggested, seems fair.
And of course Scotland gets a new IndyRef in 2030.
We don't need any more referendums. They are a very bad way of making decisions.
On 19/05/2026 08:18, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/05/2026 23:39, The Todal wrote:
The one about once in a generation wasn't a promise,it was just a
belief, an opinion, with which we are free to disagree.
I suggest you read again what you quoted.-a It was a stated fact.-a And
it was emphasised in the rest of the-apamphlet where it was called 'a
big decision, one that will affect you, your family and your children
for decades to come'.
Not just next week, not next year, but for decades, at least a
generation.
That was the basis on which we all voted.-a If you didn't personally,
too bad, you had it all explained to you in the clearest possible
language.
It cannot have been a "stated fact", it can only have been an opinion.
There is no objective evidence to support the proposition that a vote on Brexit must be a once in a generation decision.
But if you really are obsessed with the notion that there was a promise
(by the anonymous author of a government leaflet) that it would be a
once in a generation decision, you might then look at definitions of "generation".
It would be irrational to measure a generation on the basis that any
unborn children must be grown up before the decision is reconsidered.
AI helpfully offers this:-a Quote
Family/Biology: Typically 25 to 30 yearsrCothis measures the average span
of time between a person's birth and the birth of their first child.
Sociology: Usually about 15 years. This is the span used to define named cultural groups like Millennials (1981rCo1996) and Gen Z (1997rCo2012).
Unquote
So, if one settles rather randomly on 15 years, we've now had 10 years
and we should be preparing for a new decision.
As to whether the decision would require another referendum - no, of
course it doesn't. Referndums are a bad way of making any decision.
Opinion polls would be quite sufficient.
On 19/05/2026 13:17, The Todal wrote:
On 19/05/2026 10:43, Jethro wrote:
Now we have a satisfactory definition of generation, a new referendum in >>> 2032, if suggested, seems fair.
And of course Scotland gets a new IndyRef in 2030.
We don't need any more referendums. They are a very bad way of making
decisions.
Only if you don't like what they decide.
But they are in fact the purest form of democracy.-a The people are
asked, the people decide.
Fortunately, you don't get to decide that it should be 2046. With luck, nobody will ever hold a referendum on any topic ever again.
On 19/05/2026 14:26, The Todal wrote:
Fortunately, you don't get to decide that it should be 2046. With luck,
nobody will ever hold a referendum on any topic ever again.
Would you still think that if the referendum result had been in favour
of remaining?
As to whether the decision would require another referendum - no, of
course it doesn't. Referndums are a bad way of making any decision.
Opinion polls would be quite sufficient.
On 19/05/2026 13:10, The Todal wrote:
As to whether the decision would require another referendum - no, of
course it doesn't. Referndums are a bad way of making any decision.
Opinion polls would be quite sufficient.
I thought that you were in favour of the jury system. Isn't a jury
verdict nothing more than a referendum on some specific, albeit limited, facts?
On 19/05/2026 13:10, The Todal wrote:
On 19/05/2026 08:18, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/05/2026 23:39, The Todal wrote:
The one about once in a generation wasn't a promise,it was just a
belief, an opinion, with which we are free to disagree.
I suggest you read again what you quoted.-a It was a stated fact.-a And >>> it was emphasised in the rest of the-apamphlet where it was called 'a
big decision, one that will affect you, your family and your children
for decades to come'.
Not just next week, not next year, but for decades, at least a
generation.
That was the basis on which we all voted.-a If you didn't personally,
too bad, you had it all explained to you in the clearest possible
language.
It cannot have been a "stated fact", it can only have been an opinion.
It was not an opinion.-a There was no 'we think' or 'we consider it advisable' or any hint that it was debatable in it.-a It was a very straightforward statement that 'The EU referendum is a once in a
generation decision'.-a And that was accepted by all, not being opposed
or even queried by anyone at the time.
There is no objective evidence to support the proposition that a vote
on Brexit must be a once in a generation decision.
No, but it *should* be.-a That was the basis on which we were encouraged
to vote and did.
But if you really are obsessed with the notion that there was a
promise (by the anonymous author of a government leaflet) that it
would be a once in a generation decision, you might then look at
definitions of "generation".
Which I have elsewhere.-a The average age of first time mothers in the UK
is 29.6 years.-a That is a breeding cycle.-a That is the best
interpretation of what a generation is.
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message news:n72jriFcjvvU1@mid.individual.net...
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
I would advocate for a proper
union, a proper federation, a single state with central government.
How did the Soviet Union work out as a model?
The Soviet Union were never able to match the military threat posed by
the Federal United States of America
simply because they never enjoyed the undoubted benefits of genocide,
land theft, slavery, and an extensive coastline on the World's two
major oceans. As did the latter.
On 18/05/2026 23:34, Spike wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 18/05/2026 16:21, Norman Wells wrote:
[rCa]
Only in the last few days have Ukrainian forces re-taken a village in theHow's his 3-day conquest of Ukraine going?
You haven't really been following the news, have you?
Putin has grabbed parts of Ukraine including Crimea and the Donbas. It
is unlikely that he can be forced to return those territories to Ukraine. >>
Kharkiv region.
ItrCOs 4km from the border with Russia.
At a cost of huge numbers of Ukrainian men, who have been forced to join
the army and are not allowed to flee with their womenfolk. And the
victory is likely to be only temporary
It was never his intention to conquer all of Ukraine or all of Europe
And you know this how?
It is necessary to pay attention to what the Russians say, and what the political background is. Russia was at risk from a Ukraine that aimed to join NATO and the EU and be a threat to Russia on its doorstep.
You donrCOt seem to be up to speed on the steps that Nordic countries are
taking to defend themselves, which are extensive and multinational, e.g. a >> Swedish command group is being set up in one of the Baltic countries to
command international forces defending their borders. Land mines, tank
traps, plans to move populations across borders and many other measures
both military and civilian are being set up.
That's what governments do, to reassure their populace.
and we need to reject some of the propaganda that we are bombarded with.
Putin seems to have achieved rather more from his attacks on Ukraine
than Trump and Netanyahu (who have spent many billions of dollars more
than Putin) have achieved in Iran.
Trump and Netanyahu havenrCOt lost 1.5million men.
Russia has historically been willing to sacrifice huge numbers of men,
in all the wars that it has fought. Their sacrifice in defeating the
Nazis was far greater than ours.
--The Ukrainian objective is to kill 50,000 Russian troops per month.
You might want to watch The Zero Line on BBC Iplayer. Russian commanders ruthlessly execute their own troops if those troops are disloyal or
disobey orders. It isn't like our own Army. Russian troops are expected
to die for their country and that may be why they behave savagely to captured Ukrainian soldiers or civilians. It is unrealistic to expect
Putin to respond to protests from parents and family members. Or to
expect Netanyahu to do so, in Israel.
On Mon, 18 May 2026 21:06:45 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-05-18, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
You presume that rejoining is an option. I suspect that there would be
a lot of opposition in the EU to Britain rejoining.
Obviously we couldn't rejoin on terms entirely of our own choosing.
Some people throw around the Euro, loss of the rebate, the Schengen
area, etc as obstacles to rejoining, but although they are probably
right that the EU would insist on the Euro and no rebate (but wrong
about Schengen, given we have no land border with the Schengen area),
I don't see that as an obstacle to rejoining. Obviously I couldn't >>confidently predict that some countries wouldn't try to cause
difficulties, e.g. Spain over Gibraltar, but my guess is that it
would be doable.
I don't think specific issues like those that would be the problem,
more of a general feeling that Britain was never wholeheartedly a
member of the EU and there would be no guarantee that it wouldn't
change its mind yet again in another few years.
I see a lot of discussion about what Britain may or may not have lost
due to Brexit; I haven't seen any suggestions as to how the EU has
suffered any significant harm.
You're presumably living in the UK and not specifically seeking out such >>information in the foreign press.
No, I live in Ireland (South) so still in the EU and keeping up with
EU affairs. In what way do you think the EU has suffered from Brexit
and what benefit would it gain from letting Britain rejoin?
On 19/05/2026 13:10, The Todal wrote:
As to whether the decision would require another referendum - no, of
course it doesn't. Referndums are a bad way of making any decision.
Opinion polls would be quite sufficient.
I thought that you were in favour of the jury system. Isn't a jury
verdict nothing more than a referendum on some specific, albeit limited, facts?
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:Russia was invaded by the Nazis who systematically raided towns and
Russia has historically been willing to sacrifice huge numbers of men,
in all the wars that it has fought. Their sacrifice in defeating the
Nazis was far greater than ours.
We fought by employing our brains, hence the difference.
On 19/05/2026 13:17, The Todal wrote:
On 19/05/2026 10:43, Jethro wrote:
Now we have a satisfactory definition of generation, a new referendum in >>> 2032, if suggested, seems fair.
And of course Scotland gets a new IndyRef in 2030.
We don't need any more referendums. They are a very bad way of making
decisions.
Only if you don't like what they decide.
But they are in fact the purest form of democracy. The people are
asked, the people decide.
On 19/05/2026 15:09, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 19/05/2026 13:10, The Todal wrote:
As to whether the decision would require another referendum - no, of
course it doesn't. Referndums are a bad way of making any decision.
Opinion polls would be quite sufficient.
I thought that you were in favour of the jury system. Isn't a jury
verdict nothing more than a referendum on some specific, albeit limited,
facts?
A jury gives a true verdict according to the evidence, and is cautioned against discussing any facts and matters that are on social media or in discussions with friends.
A referendum is nothing like that. There are no lawyers accurately
summing up their case and no judge giving advice about how to assess the evidence. There are just advertisements, reckless statements and
promises, fearmongering by both sides, politicians using the debate to advance their own political ambitions.
On 19/05/2026 14:26, The Todal wrote:
Fortunately, you don't get to decide that it should be 2046. With luck,
nobody will ever hold a referendum on any topic ever again.
Would you still think that if the referendum result had been in favour
of remaining?
It is necessary to pay attention to what the Russians say, and what the
political background is. Russia was at risk from a Ukraine that aimed to
join NATO and the EU and be a threat to Russia on its doorstep.
Russia was only at a self-perceived risk from Ukraine, doubtless generated for internal political reasons. Their way of dealing with the situation has not worked out well for them.
On 19/05/2026 13:10, The Todal wrote:
As to whether the decision would require another referendum - no, of
course it doesn't. Referndums are a bad way of making any decision.
Opinion polls would be quite sufficient.
I thought that you were in favour of the jury system.
Isn't a jury verdict nothing more than a referendum on some specific,
albeit limited, facts?
On 19/05/2026 13:32, JNugent wrote:
On 18/05/2026 03:45 PM, The Todal wrote:
[ ... ]
The Falklands War required support from the EU who maintained
sanctions against Argentina, and militarily from the USA and
Chile. To quote Mrs Thatcher: Pinochet was this country's staunch,
true friend in our time of need when Argentina seized the Falkland
Islands. I know - I was Prime Minister at the time. On President
Pinochet's express instructions, and at great risk, Chile provided
enormously valuable assistance. I cannot reveal the details, but
let me mention just one incident. During the Falklands War the
Chilean airforce was commanded by the father of Senator Evelyn
Matthei, here with us this evening. He gave us early warning of
Chilean air attacks which allowed the task force to take defensive
action. /unquote
*Chilean* air attacks? Against whom?
Maybe Maggie's dementia was beginning to show by then. She must have
meant Argentinian. Of course Donald Trump frequently gets the names
of nations and leaders wrong, but that doesn't detract from his
reputation as the best deal-maker and the most intelligent President
ever.
On 2026-05-19, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 19/05/2026 13:10, The Todal wrote:
As to whether the decision would require another referendum - no, of
course it doesn't. Referndums are a bad way of making any decision.
Opinion polls would be quite sufficient.
I thought that you were in favour of the jury system.
I think you haven't been paying attention.
Isn't a jury verdict nothing more than a referendum on some specific,
albeit limited, facts?
Only in the sense that a cup of water is a specific, limited lake.
On 19/05/2026 14:37, Norman Wells wrote:
On 19/05/2026 13:17, The Todal wrote:
On 19/05/2026 10:43, Jethro wrote:
Now we have a satisfactory definition of generation, a new
referendum in
2032, if suggested, seems fair.
And of course Scotland gets a new IndyRef in 2030.
We don't need any more referendums. They are a very bad way of making
decisions.
Only if you don't like what they decide.
But they are in fact the purest form of democracy.-a The people are
asked, the people decide.
After being misled by devious politicians and campaigners. You have
probably forgotten that the Leave campaign told us that Turkey was all
set to join the EU and that their 76 million population would all have
the right to come and live in the UK if they wanted to. I know one
family member who found this the most persuasive reason to vote Leave.
https://politicaladvertising.co.uk/2016/05/24/vote-leaves-new-poster- uses-turkey-as-a-bogeyman/
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
A good leadership candidate would come up with a vision. A scheme not
only for the UK rejoining the EU, but a scheme for an improved EU. We
can't just go back to the way it was. The other EU countries will want
assurances the UK won't leave again.
And what will the UK gain for tying itself forever to the EU? Or at least until it implodes?
I would advocate for a proper
union, a proper federation, a single state with central government.
How did the Soviet Union work out as a model?
Here are some statistics. 33.5 million people voted, a turnout of 72.2%.
75% of voters aged 18-24 voted Remain, and 40% of voters over 65 voted Leave.
So as the old fogeys gradually die off, the young people should now be
given a chance to rectify the blunder of Brexit.
And as the old fogeys
move to care homes and discover that Brexit has reduced the number of
care staff, maybe they should be asked if they now regret how they voted.
We know of course that Scotland and Northern Ireland overwhelmingly
voted to Remain. That in itself is a good reason to re-run the
referendum
for those who (unlike me) believe that a referendum is--
necessary if we are to re-join.
On 19/05/2026 15:03, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 19/05/2026 14:26, The Todal wrote:
Fortunately, you don't get to decide that it should be 2046. With luck,
nobody will ever hold a referendum on any topic ever again.
Would you still think that if the referendum result had been in favour
of remaining?
Yes. I would have distrusted the decision to remain just as much as I distrust the decision to leave.
It's really the equivalent of tossing a coin - asking a huge number of people to make a decision based on what propaganda they personally find
the most attractive.
On 19/05/2026 14:06, Norman Wells wrote:
On 19/05/2026 09:18, Pancho wrote:
On 5/19/26 08:18, Norman Wells wrote:
I suggest you read again what you quoted.-a It was a stated fact.
And it was emphasised in the rest of the-a pamphlet where it was
called 'a big decision, one that will affect you, your family and
your children for decades to come'.
Not just next week, not next year, but for decades, at least a
generation.
The problem is new information becomes available, events happen.
Plans need to change.
Nothing fundamental or unforeseeable has changed since 2016.-a All we
have is a bit of buyer's remorse.-a 2046 is quite soon enough to
consider a radical reversal.
We've seen all the disadvantages to our society, our economy and our influence in the world. And none of the supposed advantages.
Fortunately, you don't get to decide that it should be 2046. With luck, nobody will ever hold a referendum on any topic ever again. Except
perhaps on Scottish independence.
Perhaps there should be a Scottish
referendum on the question "should Scotland hold a referendum, yes or no?"
On 19/05/2026 09:18, Pancho wrote:
On 5/19/26 08:18, Norman Wells wrote:
I suggest you read again what you quoted.-a It was a stated fact.-a And >>> it was emphasised in the rest of the-a pamphlet where it was called 'a
big decision, one that will affect you, your family and your children
for decades to come'.
Not just next week, not next year, but for decades, at least a
generation.
The problem is new information becomes available, events happen. Plans
need to change.
Nothing fundamental or unforeseeable has changed since 2016.-a All we
have is a bit of buyer's remorse.-a 2046 is quite soon enough to consider
a radical reversal.
On 19/05/2026 13:28, JNugent wrote:
On 18/05/2026 01:18 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-18, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 18/05/2026 08:36, Norman Wells wrote:
We shouldn't of course be starting from where we are, with a bad
leaving
agreement negotiated by Remainers.-a All we can do now is chip away at >>>>> it, against intransigent opposition from the EU displaying antagonistic >>>>> attitudes I personally find distasteful and wouldn't want to be allied >>>>> with.
That's always the most ridiculous of arguments. That the gang of
dimwits, Boris, Gove, Farage etc, who know nothing whatsoever about
economics or trade or treaties but know how to write persuasive
newspaper columns, could have used their negligible skills to get us a >>>> better leaving agreement, overruling the experts, and given us a pot of >>>> gold at the end of the rainbow.
Not to mention, it was Boris Johnson who "negotiated" the "deal".
Suggesting that the leaders of the Leavers was actually a Remainer
is fairytale conspiracy nonsense of the highest order.
It's all the fault of Remainers like Theresa May who were determined
to sabotage Brexit, right?
The only thing May sabotaged, with her "red lines", was the will of
the people - who certainly didn't vote for the "Hard Brexit" that was
forced undemocratically upon an unwilling country.
So what DID they vote for?
To leave the EU, but not with any specific time period in mind because
no time limit was ever specified. The Leave leaflets said that of course
we wouldn't leave until we had made a very good leaving agreement.
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n72jriFcjvvU1@mid.individual.net...
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
[.]
I would advocate for a proper
union, a proper federation, a single state with central government.
How did the Soviet Union work out as a model?
The Soviet Union were never able to match the military threat posed by
the Federal United States of America
simply because they never enjoyed the undoubted benefits of genocide,
land theft, slavery, and an extensive coastline on the World's two
major oceans. As did the latter.
You jest, surely. The Soviet Union slaughtered kulaks by the ten thousand, and stole their land*. 200,000 Tartars were either murdered or forced into cattle trucks to be displaced thousands of kilometres from their homes.
There are plenty of similar examples.
The world has changed hugely. The unipolar US dominated world order is collapsing. International rules and agreements count for little. I
foresaw that this might happen, but I wasn't certain. I think a lot of people didn't foresee it.
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message news:n738r9FefgU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n72jriFcjvvU1@mid.individual.net...
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
[.]
I would advocate for a proper
union, a proper federation, a single state with central government.
How did the Soviet Union work out as a model?
The Soviet Union were never able to match the military threat posed by
the Federal United States of America
simply because they never enjoyed the undoubted benefits of genocide,
land theft, slavery, and an extensive coastline on the World's two
major oceans. As did the latter.
You jest, surely. The Soviet Union slaughtered kulaks by the ten thousand, >> and stole their land*. 200,000 Tartars were either murdered or forced into >> cattle trucks to be displaced thousands of kilometres from their homes.
There are plenty of similar examples.
So that's 220,000 Kulaks and Tartars as against between 2.5 and 8 million native Americans
Which by my calculation leaves you between 2..28 million and 7.78 million short.
Which is certainly going to require rather a "lot" of these "similar" examples
Between 11 times and 36 times as many, in fact
bb
* The kulaks were rich farmers who exploited the serfs; who actually
*worked the land*. Once the kulaks were removed the serfs enjoyed
better conditions on the collective farms which replaced them.
And please, please, not the Ukranian Famine. Kulaks in the
Ukraine slaughtered their cattle burned their crops, and hoarded
grain, in the face of collectivisation. So when later there were bad
harvests and they still had to meet their quotas to feed Soviet Industrialisation, they were still suspected of hoarding grain.
On 19/05/2026 15:02, Spike wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Russia has historically been willing to sacrifice huge numbers of men,
in all the wars that it has fought. Their sacrifice in defeating the
Nazis was far greater than ours.
We fought by employing our brains, hence the difference.
Russia was invaded by the Nazis who systematically raided towns and villages, burning and shooting the inhabitants, imprisoning soldiers in appalling conditions.
I'm afraid that "our brains" would not have saved us if the Nazis had invaded mainland Britain. Our brains would have been splattered against
our homes.
Pancho wrote:
The world has changed hugely. The unipolar US dominated world order is
collapsing. International rules and agreements count for little. I
foresaw that this might happen, but I wasn't certain. I think a lot of
people didn't foresee it.
Is it impossible that similar upheaval leads to the collapse of the EU,
just as we pay to rejoin?
On 18/05/2026 15:57, The Todal wrote:
On 18/05/2026 15:22, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/05/2026 14:40, Jethro wrote:
On Mon, 18 May 2026 12:39:16 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
Boris, when he was elected, was handed what was effectively a done
deal,
one that was done half-heartedly and inadequately by Remainers.
your point being ?
The whole schtick about voting for Brexit was it was a risk free
investment. Nothing could *possibly* go wrong. Anyone who dared suggest >>>> any possible ways it could go wrong were shouted down and eventually
ignored.
That's nonsense that no-one was espousing.-a Of course it could go
wrong; that's stunningly obvious.-a However, with the right
management, it could have gone rather better than it did.
There was nobody offering what you believe to be "the right
management". Just various blowhards like Nigel Farage declaring that a
no-deal Brexit would be absolutely fine. Farage would say we can very
easily rely on WTO terms which he seemed to believe would be a way of
punishing the EU for failing to bend to our will.
Largely of course that's exactly what we are doing and have always done.
-aIt's a fact of life.-a But it wasn't as a way of punishing the EU, just reality.
Our economists and business leaders were very worried that leaving
without a deal would have an appalling impact on our economy.
Then they should obviously have made that argument a bit more persuasively.-a Then perhaps enough people would have voted to remain in
the EU.-a But they didn't.-a They made their own bed.
On 18/05/2026 22:06, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-18, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 18 May 2026 08:43:45 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
That's not even the conversation. Absolutely everybody with any sense
knows it's a disaster that must be reversed, and it's just a matter of >>>> "when" not "if"
You presume that rejoining is an option. I suspect that there would be
a lot of opposition in the EU to Britain rejoining.
Obviously we couldn't rejoin on terms entirely of our own choosing.
Some people throw around the Euro, loss of the rebate, the Schengen
area, etc as obstacles to rejoining, but although they are probably
right that the EU would insist on the Euro and no rebate (but wrong
about Schengen, given we have no land border with the Schengen area),
No, it's actually a legal requirement that any new member of the EU has
to sign up to Schengen.-a So, we'd have to.-a Having no land borders is no excuse.-a We'd have to join the Euro too.
On 20/05/2026 08:12, Andy Burns wrote:
Pancho wrote:
The world has changed hugely. The unipolar US dominated world order is
collapsing. International rules and agreements count for little. I
foresaw that this might happen, but I wasn't certain. I think a lot of
people didn't foresee it.
Is it impossible that similar upheaval leads to the collapse of the EU,
just as we pay to rejoin?
The Daily Wail has been saying that it's just around the corner since
Brexit reared its head. I /think/ it's similar to, but perhaps slightly
more likely, than fusion becoming a reliable source of energy. BICBW...
On 20/05/2026 09:19, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 20/05/2026 08:12, Andy Burns wrote:When the EU raises it's ugly head again, I always recall what Dornberger
Pancho wrote:
The world has changed hugely. The unipolar US dominated world order is >>>> collapsing. International rules and agreements count for little. I
foresaw that this might happen, but I wasn't certain. I think a lot of >>>> people didn't foresee it.
Is it impossible that similar upheaval leads to the collapse of the EU,
just as we pay to rejoin?
The Daily Wail has been saying that it's just around the corner since
Brexit reared its head. I /think/ it's similar to, but perhaps slightly
more likely, than fusion becoming a reliable source of energy. BICBW...
(The commandant of Peenemunde) wrote when he questioned Himmler as to
the ultimate goal of the war. Himmler replied to the effect that the
whole purpose was to form a united Europe (with Germany in charge of
course), to set against the rest of the world. Just goes to show what
can be achieved without recourse to war!
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n738r9FefgU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n72jriFcjvvU1@mid.individual.net...
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
[.]
I would advocate for a proper
union, a proper federation, a single state with central government.
How did the Soviet Union work out as a model?
The Soviet Union were never able to match the military threat posed by >>>> the Federal United States of America
simply because they never enjoyed the undoubted benefits of genocide,
land theft, slavery, and an extensive coastline on the World's two
major oceans. As did the latter.
You jest, surely. The Soviet Union slaughtered kulaks by the ten thousand, >>> and stole their land*. 200,000 Tartars were either murdered or forced into >>> cattle trucks to be displaced thousands of kilometres from their homes.
There are plenty of similar examples.
So that's 220,000 Kulaks and Tartars as against between 2.5 and 8 million
native Americans
Which by my calculation leaves you between 2..28 million and 7.78 million
short.
Which is certainly going to require rather a "lot" of these "similar"
examples
Between 11 times and 36 times as many, in fact
Perhaps you should have done just a little homework.
I'll leave you to add up the millions mentioned in this list:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_the_Soviet_Union>
It should more than make up your calculated shortfall.
On 19/05/2026 14:26, The Todal wrote:
On 19/05/2026 14:06, Norman Wells wrote:
On 19/05/2026 09:18, Pancho wrote:
On 5/19/26 08:18, Norman Wells wrote:
I suggest you read again what you quoted. It was a stated fact.
And it was emphasised in the rest of the pamphlet where it was
called 'a big decision, one that will affect you, your family and
your children for decades to come'.
Not just next week, not next year, but for decades, at least a
generation.
The problem is new information becomes available, events happen.
Plans need to change.
Nothing fundamental or unforeseeable has changed since 2016. All we
have is a bit of buyer's remorse. 2046 is quite soon enough to
consider a radical reversal.
We've seen all the disadvantages to our society, our economy and our
influence in the world. And none of the supposed advantages.
Fortunately, you don't get to decide that it should be 2046. With
luck, nobody will ever hold a referendum on any topic ever again.
Except perhaps on Scottish independence.
Why the exception? Is it a matter of principle or isn't it?
Perhaps there should be a Scottish referendum on the question "should
Scotland hold a referendum, yes or no?"
There's a good argument for saying there should be a UK-wide referendum
on Scottish independence since it's a constitutional matter affecting
the whole of the UK, not just Scotland. Then, even if the Scots vote to remain, we could have the satisfaction of ejecting them anyway.
Pancho wrote:
The world has changed hugely. The unipolar US dominated world order is
collapsing. International rules and agreements count for little. I
foresaw that this might happen, but I wasn't certain. I think a lot of
people didn't foresee it.
Is it impossible that similar upheaval leads to the collapse of the EU,
just as we pay to rejoin?
On 19/05/2026 13:28, JNugent wrote:
On 18/05/2026 01:18 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-18, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 18/05/2026 08:36, Norman Wells wrote:
We shouldn't of course be starting from where we are, with a bad
leaving
agreement negotiated by Remainers. All we can do now is chip away at >>>>> it, against intransigent opposition from the EU displaying
antagonistic
attitudes I personally find distasteful and wouldn't want to be allied >>>>> with.
That's always the most ridiculous of arguments. That the gang of
dimwits, Boris, Gove, Farage etc, who know nothing whatsoever about
economics or trade or treaties but know how to write persuasive
newspaper columns, could have used their negligible skills to get us a >>>> better leaving agreement, overruling the experts, and given us a pot of >>>> gold at the end of the rainbow.
Not to mention, it was Boris Johnson who "negotiated" the "deal".
Suggesting that the leaders of the Leavers was actually a Remainer
is fairytale conspiracy nonsense of the highest order.
It's all the fault of Remainers like Theresa May who were determined
to sabotage Brexit, right?
The only thing May sabotaged, with her "red lines", was the will of
the people - who certainly didn't vote for the "Hard Brexit" that was
forced undemocratically upon an unwilling country.
So what DID they vote for?
To leave the EU, but not with any specific time period in mind because
no time limit was ever specified. The Leave leaflets said that of course
we wouldn't leave until we had made a very good leaving agreement.
On 19/05/2026 13:32, JNugent wrote:
On 18/05/2026 03:45 PM, The Todal wrote:Maybe Maggie's dementia was beginning to show by then. She must have
[ ... ]
The Falklands War required support from the EU who maintained sanctions
against Argentina, and militarily from the USA and Chile. To quote Mrs
Thatcher: Pinochet was this country's staunch, true friend in our time
of need when Argentina seized the Falkland Islands. I know - I was Prime >>> Minister at the time. On President Pinochet's express instructions, and
at great risk, Chile provided enormously valuable assistance. I cannot
reveal the details, but let me mention just one incident. During the
Falklands War the Chilean airforce was commanded by the father of
Senator Evelyn Matthei, here with us this evening. He gave us early
warning of Chilean air attacks which allowed the task force to take
defensive action. /unquote
*Chilean* air attacks? Against whom?
meant Argentinian.
Of course Donald Trump frequently gets the names of
nations and leaders wrong, but that doesn't detract from his reputation
as the best deal-maker and the most intelligent President ever.
We don't need any more referendums. They are a very bad way of making decisions. A cowardly way for politicians to spread the blame and avoid taking responsibility. Consider what would happen if we had some more referendums, such as:
a) Should the NHS continue to be free at the point of use, or only free
for those on benefits?
b) Should we leave NATO now that America seems to be lukewarm about
honouring its obligations? Think how much money we might save.
c) Should we double our expenditure for our armed services and their
ships and tanks, and finance it by increasing taxes?
d) Should petrol driven cars cease to be sold new, from 2040, and all
new cars after that be electric cars?
You could have a valid answer from the electorate for any of these, but
it would be based on selfish considerations - how much is it likely to
cost me personally, how much money might I personally save?
On 20 May 2026 at 14:34:09 BST, ""Les. Hayward"" <les@nospam.invalid> wrote:
On 20/05/2026 09:19, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 20/05/2026 08:12, Andy Burns wrote:When the EU raises it's ugly head again, I always recall what Dornberger
Pancho wrote:
The world has changed hugely. The unipolar US dominated world order is >>>>> collapsing. International rules and agreements count for little. I
foresaw that this might happen, but I wasn't certain. I think a lot of >>>>> people didn't foresee it.
Is it impossible that similar upheaval leads to the collapse of the EU, >>>> just as we pay to rejoin?
The Daily Wail has been saying that it's just around the corner since
Brexit reared its head. I /think/ it's similar to, but perhaps slightly
more likely, than fusion becoming a reliable source of energy. BICBW...
(The commandant of Peenemunde) wrote when he questioned Himmler as to
the ultimate goal of the war. Himmler replied to the effect that the
whole purpose was to form a united Europe (with Germany in charge of
course), to set against the rest of the world. Just goes to show what
can be achieved without recourse to war!
Given that Germany is only one of the countries in charge I am not sure that everyone would regard that as a bad thing, in an uncertain world.
On 20/05/2026 15:07, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 20 May 2026 at 14:34:09 BST, ""Les. Hayward"" <les@nospam.invalid> wrote: >>Oh, I am not decrying Germany one bit. They produce damned good wine for
On 20/05/2026 09:19, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 20/05/2026 08:12, Andy Burns wrote:When the EU raises it's ugly head again, I always recall what Dornberger >>> (The commandant of Peenemunde) wrote when he questioned Himmler as to
Pancho wrote:
The world has changed hugely. The unipolar US dominated world order is >>>>>> collapsing. International rules and agreements count for little. I >>>>>> foresaw that this might happen, but I wasn't certain. I think a lot of >>>>>> people didn't foresee it.
Is it impossible that similar upheaval leads to the collapse of the EU, >>>>> just as we pay to rejoin?
The Daily Wail has been saying that it's just around the corner since
Brexit reared its head. I /think/ it's similar to, but perhaps slightly >>>> more likely, than fusion becoming a reliable source of energy. BICBW... >>>>
the ultimate goal of the war. Himmler replied to the effect that the
whole purpose was to form a united Europe (with Germany in charge of
course), to set against the rest of the world. Just goes to show what
can be achieved without recourse to war!
Given that Germany is only one of the countries in charge I am not sure that >> everyone would regard that as a bad thing, in an uncertain world.
a start, but the scenario which Himmler desired HAS taken place. If just
one nation did run the thing it might actually make more sense!
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message news:n746pgF50vdU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n738r9FefgU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n72jriFcjvvU1@mid.individual.net...
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
[.]
I would advocate for a properHow did the Soviet Union work out as a model?
union, a proper federation, a single state with central government. >>>>
The Soviet Union were never able to match the military threat posed by >>>>> the Federal United States of America
simply because they never enjoyed the undoubted benefits of genocide, >>>>> land theft, slavery, and an extensive coastline on the World's two
major oceans. As did the latter.
You jest, surely. The Soviet Union slaughtered kulaks by the ten thousand, >>>> and stole their land*. 200,000 Tartars were either murdered or forced into >>>> cattle trucks to be displaced thousands of kilometres from their homes. >>>> There are plenty of similar examples.
So that's 220,000 Kulaks and Tartars as against between 2.5 and 8 million >>> native Americans
Which by my calculation leaves you between 2..28 million and 7.78 million >>> short.
Which is certainly going to require rather a "lot" of these "similar"
examples
Between 11 times and 36 times as many, in fact
Perhaps you should have done just a little homework.
I'll leave you to add up the millions mentioned in this list:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_the_Soviet_Union>
It should more than make up your calculated shortfall.
quote
First two
Execution of the Romanov family 1918, July 16-17 Yekaterinburg 11
Explosion in Leontievsky Lane 1919, September 25 12
So that makes 23, so far.
Many of the rest were famines; many resulting from the earlier
deliberate sabotaging of Soviet agriculture, by the Kulaks
in response to collectivisation.
But famines just the same. Just like the Irish Potato Famine of
1845-52, (British) for which admittedly Tony Bliar has apologised.
And the Bengal Famine of 1943 (again British) For which he probably
hasn't apologised. Not according to a word search on Wikipedia anyway
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943
However all these cases were either accidental or the result of
incompetence. Unlike deliberately killing off of all the buffalo
and other atrocities meted out to the native Americans in their
own land.
bb
On 19/05/2026 01:17 PM, The Todal wrote:
You could have a valid answer from the electorate for any of these, but
it would be based on selfish considerations - how much is it likely to
cost me personally, how much money might I personally save?
Most unlikely. In the cases of the NHS and defence (including NATO membership), people are not stupid. They would take a lot more into
account then just the likely (or unlikely) reductions in taxes (which
would not materialise anyway).
How many would vote for general withdrawal of NHS services against the background of only a small proportion of the population being adequately covered for health and treatment?
And as for the idea that anyone except those on benefits would vote for
the NHS to be free only to people on benefits...
Would YOU vote for it?
On 2026-05-19, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 19/05/2026 13:28, JNugent wrote:
On 18/05/2026 01:18 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-18, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 18/05/2026 08:36, Norman Wells wrote:
We shouldn't of course be starting from where we are, with a bad
leaving
agreement negotiated by Remainers.-a All we can do now is chip away at >>>>>> it, against intransigent opposition from the EU displaying antagonistic >>>>>> attitudes I personally find distasteful and wouldn't want to be allied >>>>>> with.
That's always the most ridiculous of arguments. That the gang of
dimwits, Boris, Gove, Farage etc, who know nothing whatsoever about
economics or trade or treaties but know how to write persuasive
newspaper columns, could have used their negligible skills to get us a >>>>> better leaving agreement, overruling the experts, and given us a pot of >>>>> gold at the end of the rainbow.
Not to mention, it was Boris Johnson who "negotiated" the "deal".
Suggesting that the leaders of the Leavers was actually a Remainer
is fairytale conspiracy nonsense of the highest order.
It's all the fault of Remainers like Theresa May who were determined >>>>> to sabotage Brexit, right?
The only thing May sabotaged, with her "red lines", was the will of
the people - who certainly didn't vote for the "Hard Brexit" that was
forced undemocratically upon an unwilling country.
So what DID they vote for?
To leave the EU, but not with any specific time period in mind because
no time limit was ever specified. The Leave leaflets said that of course
we wouldn't leave until we had made a very good leaving agreement.
And of course "leave the EU" was completely undefined. The only thing
it definitely entails is "not be a member of the EU any more". We were
told before the referendum that "Levae" would mean a situation like
that of Norway, or Switzerland, where we would still be part of some
of the related agreements like the single market or customs union.
But mysteriously, after the referendum, "Leave" was retrospectively
redefined to mean completely abandoning any and all agreements or organisations that might have an "E" in their name - even though this
was the only thing the referendum result could not possibly mean!
Does the fact that Himmler desired it make it a bad thing?
On 19/05/2026 16:31, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-19, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 19/05/2026 13:10, The Todal wrote:
As to whether the decision would require another referendum - no, of
course it doesn't. Referndums are a bad way of making any decision.
Opinion polls would be quite sufficient.
I thought that you were in favour of the jury system.
I think you haven't been paying attention.
To what? You'll have to be more specific with your criticism.
Isn't a jury verdict nothing more than a referendum on some specific,
albeit limited, facts?
Only in the sense that a cup of water is a specific, limited lake.
Both are water differing only in amount, as are a jury for a trial
decision and a full-population referendum on a national matter.
On 18/05/2026 14:45, Jethro wrote:
On Mon, 18 May 2026 12:36:44 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/05/2026 10:11, Jethro wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Were we? Who said that?
Are you suggesting it *wasn't* said ? And that the vote to Leave
addressed the possibile differect ways Brexit could play out ?
The referendum was a simple binary choice, Leave or Remain. Nothing
more or less.
Let's be clear. My assertion is that the vote to leave the EU was made in
ignorance of the possible outcomes.
We had a full 100 days of campaigning and endless debate about it before
the referendum took place. Those who thought it was awful and would go >wrong had ample time to make their case. But they failed to persuade
the people.
Not my fault. Not the fault of any Brexiteer.
You can agree, or disagree. When we know which side you fall on, we can
progress.
So: Did the Leave campaign fail to explain the potential pitfalls of
leaving the EU ?
It was rather for Remainers to do that I think. And they clearly failed
to do that adequately.
On 19/05/2026 16:25, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-19, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 19/05/2026 13:28, JNugent wrote:
On 18/05/2026 01:18 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-18, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 18/05/2026 08:36, Norman Wells wrote:
We shouldn't of course be starting from where we are, with a bad >>>>>>> leaving
agreement negotiated by Remainers. All we can do now is chip away at >>>>>>> it, against intransigent opposition from the EU displaying antagonistic >>>>>>> attitudes I personally find distasteful and wouldn't want to be allied >>>>>>> with.
That's always the most ridiculous of arguments. That the gang of
dimwits, Boris, Gove, Farage etc, who know nothing whatsoever about >>>>>> economics or trade or treaties but know how to write persuasive
newspaper columns, could have used their negligible skills to get us a >>>>>> better leaving agreement, overruling the experts, and given us a pot of >>>>>> gold at the end of the rainbow.
Not to mention, it was Boris Johnson who "negotiated" the "deal".
Suggesting that the leaders of the Leavers was actually a Remainer
is fairytale conspiracy nonsense of the highest order.
It's all the fault of Remainers like Theresa May who were determined >>>>>> to sabotage Brexit, right?
The only thing May sabotaged, with her "red lines", was the will of
the people - who certainly didn't vote for the "Hard Brexit" that was >>>>> forced undemocratically upon an unwilling country.
So what DID they vote for?
To leave the EU, but not with any specific time period in mind because
no time limit was ever specified. The Leave leaflets said that of course >>> we wouldn't leave until we had made a very good leaving agreement.
And of course "leave the EU" was completely undefined. The only thing
it definitely entails is "not be a member of the EU any more". We were
told before the referendum that "Levae" would mean a situation like
that of Norway, or Switzerland, where we would still be part of some
of the related agreements like the single market or customs union.
But mysteriously, after the referendum, "Leave" was retrospectively
redefined to mean completely abandoning any and all agreements or
organisations that might have an "E" in their name - even though this
was the only thing the referendum result could not possibly mean!
We want our volts back! (We have 240v not 230v)
On 19/05/2026 16:25, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-19, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 19/05/2026 13:28, JNugent wrote:
On 18/05/2026 01:18 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-18, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 18/05/2026 08:36, Norman Wells wrote:
We shouldn't of course be starting from where we are, with a bad >>>>>>> leaving
agreement negotiated by Remainers.-a All we can do now is chip away at >>>>>>> it, against intransigent opposition from the EU displaying antagonistic >>>>>>> attitudes I personally find distasteful and wouldn't want to be allied >>>>>>> with.
That's always the most ridiculous of arguments. That the gang of
dimwits, Boris, Gove, Farage etc, who know nothing whatsoever about >>>>>> economics or trade or treaties but know how to write persuasive
newspaper columns, could have used their negligible skills to get us a >>>>>> better leaving agreement, overruling the experts, and given us a pot of >>>>>> gold at the end of the rainbow.
Not to mention, it was Boris Johnson who "negotiated" the "deal".
Suggesting that the leaders of the Leavers was actually a Remainer
is fairytale conspiracy nonsense of the highest order.
It's all the fault of Remainers like Theresa May who were determined >>>>>> to sabotage Brexit, right?
The only thing May sabotaged, with her "red lines", was the will of
the people - who certainly didn't vote for the "Hard Brexit" that was >>>>> forced undemocratically upon an unwilling country.
So what DID they vote for?
To leave the EU, but not with any specific time period in mind because
no time limit was ever specified. The Leave leaflets said that of course >>> we wouldn't leave until we had made a very good leaving agreement.
And of course "leave the EU" was completely undefined. The only thing
it definitely entails is "not be a member of the EU any more". We were
told before the referendum that "Levae" would mean a situation like
that of Norway, or Switzerland, where we would still be part of some
of the related agreements like the single market or customs union.
But mysteriously, after the referendum, "Leave" was retrospectively
redefined to mean completely abandoning any and all agreements or
organisations that might have an "E" in their name - even though this
was the only thing the referendum result could not possibly mean!
We want our volts back! (We have 240v not 230v)
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n746pgF50vdU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n738r9FefgU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n72jriFcjvvU1@mid.individual.net...
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
[.]
I would advocate for a properHow did the Soviet Union work out as a model?
union, a proper federation, a single state with central government. >>>>>
I'm sure the millions who died or were killed in the atrocities referenced
in the link and which you have now childishly ignored will graciously overlook your sidelining of their fate - which was intended to suggest your original comments had verisimilitude.
On 19/05/2026 02:22 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 19/05/2026 13:28, JNugent wrote:
On 18/05/2026 01:18 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-18, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 18/05/2026 08:36, Norman Wells wrote:
We shouldn't of course be starting from where we are, with a bad
leaving
agreement negotiated by Remainers.-a All we can do now is chip away at >>>>>> it, against intransigent opposition from the EU displaying
antagonistic
attitudes I personally find distasteful and wouldn't want to be
allied
with.
That's always the most ridiculous of arguments. That the gang of
dimwits, Boris, Gove, Farage etc, who know nothing whatsoever about
economics or trade or treaties but know how to write persuasive
newspaper columns, could have used their negligible skills to get us a >>>>> better leaving agreement, overruling the experts, and given us a
pot of
gold at the end of the rainbow.
Not to mention, it was Boris Johnson who "negotiated" the "deal".
Suggesting that the leaders of the Leavers was actually a Remainer
is fairytale conspiracy nonsense of the highest order.
It's all the fault of Remainers like Theresa May who were determined >>>>> to sabotage Brexit, right?
The only thing May sabotaged, with her "red lines", was the will of
the people - who certainly didn't vote for the "Hard Brexit" that was
forced undemocratically upon an unwilling country.
So what DID they vote for?
To leave the EU, but not with any specific time period in mind because
no time limit was ever specified. The Leave leaflets said that of course
we wouldn't leave until we had made a very good leaving agreement.
Any idea why the Opposition (and shamefully, some Conservative MPs)
carried out a campaign of rejecting every proffered agreement, leaving
the government with little choice to go for the agreement eventually adopted?
Pancho wrote:
The world has changed hugely. The unipolar US dominated world order is
collapsing. International rules and agreements count for little. I
foresaw that this might happen, but I wasn't certain. I think a lot of
people didn't foresee it.
Is it impossible that similar upheaval leads to the collapse of the EU,
just as we pay to rejoin?
On 5/20/26 08:12, Andy Burns wrote:
Pancho wrote:
The world has changed hugely. The unipolar US dominated world order
is collapsing. International rules and agreements count for little. I
foresaw that this might happen, but I wasn't certain. I think a lot
of people didn't foresee it.
Is it impossible that similar upheaval leads to the collapse of the
EU, just as we pay to rejoin?
The best laid plans of mice and men...
We deal with what is likely to happen. We use economics and such like to predict how potential political scenarios may play out. We try to
position ourselves as best we can.
There seems to be a growing consensus that globalisation, dependency on foreign powers leaves us exposed. Mark Carney admitted the rules based
world order was always a fiction and even that fiction has disappeared, ruptured, in the face of great power rivalry. International dependency becomes a weakness that the great powers may use to subordinate you.
So yes, the EU is crap, has many problems, and it may fall apart.
Political union may-a be unachievable. However, membership of a full integrated political EU, is the best hope that I can see. The best bet
we have.
What alternative do you see for economic prosperity and security?
On 20/05/2026 11:14, JNugent wrote:
Any idea why the Opposition (and shamefully, some Conservative MPs)
carried out a campaign of rejecting every proffered agreement, leaving
the government with little choice to go for the agreement eventually
adopted?
Every proffered agreement was unsatisfactory and deserved to be
rejected. Any idea why the rabid Leave supporters, having demanded that
our Parliament should take back all control from Brussels
had such
contempt for our MPs and their opinions that they regarded the debates
as unnecessary and the work of saboteurs?
On 2026-05-19, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 18 May 2026 21:06:45 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-05-18, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
You presume that rejoining is an option. I suspect that there would be >>>> a lot of opposition in the EU to Britain rejoining.
Obviously we couldn't rejoin on terms entirely of our own choosing.
Some people throw around the Euro, loss of the rebate, the Schengen
area, etc as obstacles to rejoining, but although they are probably
right that the EU would insist on the Euro and no rebate (but wrong
about Schengen, given we have no land border with the Schengen area),
I don't see that as an obstacle to rejoining. Obviously I couldn't >>>confidently predict that some countries wouldn't try to cause >>>difficulties, e.g. Spain over Gibraltar, but my guess is that it
would be doable.
I don't think specific issues like those that would be the problem,
more of a general feeling that Britain was never wholeheartedly a
member of the EU and there would be no guarantee that it wouldn't
change its mind yet again in another few years.
Of course you are right that if they thought we weren't wholehearted
about rejoining that they would be likely to consider the downsides to
be greater than the upsides. That's why I addressed that already in
another post - I said that we would need another referendum to rejoin,
(and with a winning margin of more than 3.8%) or a government elected
with a large majority after making a manifesto commitment to rejoin.
On 20/05/2026 11:14, JNugent wrote:
On 19/05/2026 02:22 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 19/05/2026 13:28, JNugent wrote:
On 18/05/2026 01:18 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-18, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 18/05/2026 08:36, Norman Wells wrote:
We shouldn't of course be starting from where we are, with a bad >>>>>>> leaving
agreement negotiated by Remainers.-a All we can do now is chip away at >>>>>>> it, against intransigent opposition from the EU displaying
antagonistic
attitudes I personally find distasteful and wouldn't want to be >>>>>>> allied
with.
That's always the most ridiculous of arguments. That the gang of
dimwits, Boris, Gove, Farage etc, who know nothing whatsoever about >>>>>> economics or trade or treaties but know how to write persuasive
newspaper columns, could have used their negligible skills to get us a >>>>>> better leaving agreement, overruling the experts, and given us a
pot of
gold at the end of the rainbow.
Not to mention, it was Boris Johnson who "negotiated" the "deal".
Suggesting that the leaders of the Leavers was actually a Remainer
is fairytale conspiracy nonsense of the highest order.
It's all the fault of Remainers like Theresa May who were determined >>>>>> to sabotage Brexit, right?
The only thing May sabotaged, with her "red lines", was the will of
the people - who certainly didn't vote for the "Hard Brexit" that was >>>>> forced undemocratically upon an unwilling country.
So what DID they vote for?
To leave the EU, but not with any specific time period in mind because
no time limit was ever specified. The Leave leaflets said that of course >>> we wouldn't leave until we had made a very good leaving agreement.
Any idea why the Opposition (and shamefully, some Conservative MPs)
carried out a campaign of rejecting every proffered agreement, leaving
the government with little choice to go for the agreement eventually
adopted?
Every proffered agreement was unsatisfactory and deserved to be
rejected. Any idea why the rabid Leave supporters, having demanded that
our Parliament should take back all control from Brussels, had such
contempt for our MPs and their opinions that they regarded the debates
as unnecessary and the work of saboteurs?
There's a good argument for saying there should be a UK-wide referendum
on Scottish independence since it's a constitutional matter affecting
the whole of the UK, not just Scotland. Then, even if the Scots vote to >remain, we could have the satisfaction of ejecting them anyway.
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message news:n76532Fe916U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n746pgF50vdU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n738r9FefgU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n72jriFcjvvU1@mid.individual.net...
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
[.]
I would advocate for a properHow did the Soviet Union work out as a model?
union, a proper federation, a single state with central government. >>>>>>
snip
I'm sure the millions who died or were killed in the atrocities referenced >> in the link and which you have now childishly ignored will graciously
overlook your sidelining of their fate - which was intended to suggest your >> original comments had verisimilitude.
While you chose to ignore the fact that the Soviet Union didn't have extensive coastlines on two major oceans; didn't have 200 years
in which to take advantage of slave labour, but had to play catch-up, starting from scratch within 10 years.
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Here are some statistics. 33.5 million people voted, a turnout of 72.2%.
75% of voters aged 18-24 voted Remain, and 40% of voters over 65 voted
Leave.
So as the old fogeys gradually die off, the young people should now be
given a chance to rectify the blunder of Brexit.
Unfortunately for that line of thinking, the old fogeys that voted for
Brexit were the young voters who voted to remain in the EEC some 40 years >previously.
So after benefitting from the EU largesse for that length of time, together >with open borders, and a Customs Union, and all the money we could throw at >French farmers, the newly old fogeys told the EU to go forth and multiply. >Perhaps a surfeit of wine from the lake and butter from the mountain rotted >their brains?
Do you see any reason why people wonrCOt become old fogeys this time?
And as the old fogeys
move to care homes and discover that Brexit has reduced the number of
care staff, maybe they should be asked if they now regret how they voted.
Presumably in your scenario Remain voters donrCOt live long enough to get to >a care home?
We know of course that Scotland and Northern Ireland overwhelmingly
voted to Remain. That in itself is a good reason to re-run the
referendum
Is it?
for those who (unlike me) believe that a referendum is
necessary if we are to re-join.
On 2026-05-19, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 19/05/2026 16:31, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-19, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 19/05/2026 13:10, The Todal wrote:
As to whether the decision would require another referendum - no, of >>>>> course it doesn't. Referndums are a bad way of making any decision.
Opinion polls would be quite sufficient.
I thought that you were in favour of the jury system.
I think you haven't been paying attention.
To what? You'll have to be more specific with your criticism.
To Todal's opinions about juries. Which was already specific and
obvious, because it's the sentence I was replying to.
Isn't a jury verdict nothing more than a referendum on some specific,
albeit limited, facts?
Only in the sense that a cup of water is a specific, limited lake.
Both are water differing only in amount, as are a jury for a trial
decision and a full-population referendum on a national matter.
Thank you for proving my point.
On 20/05/2026 23:07, The Todal wrote:
On 20/05/2026 11:14, JNugent wrote:
Any idea why the Opposition (and shamefully, some Conservative MPs)
carried out a campaign of rejecting every proffered agreement,
leaving the government with little choice to go for the agreement
eventually adopted?
Every proffered agreement was unsatisfactory and deserved to be
rejected. Any idea why the rabid Leave supporters, having demanded
that our Parliament should take back all control from Brussels
... to do the will of the people freely expressed in the referendum
had such contempt for our MPs and their opinions that they regarded
the debates as unnecessary and the work of saboteurs?
Because most MPs, shamefully for a democracy, did not want to do the
will of the people.-a They thought they knew better.-a Rather than be the servants of the people, they sought to impose their contrary will on them.
It was their contempt of the people not the other way round.
You have correctly pointed out else-thread that no parliament may bind
its successor so why should the EU trust a particular elected
majority?
I think the EU would need a whole lot of convincing before they would
even consider letting Britain back in.
On Tue, 19 May 2026 16:45:45 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
[...]
There's a good argument for saying there should be a UK-wide referendum
on Scottish independence since it's a constitutional matter affecting
the whole of the UK, not just Scotland. Then, even if the Scots vote to
remain, we could have the satisfaction of ejecting them anyway.
Would you apply the same argument to Northern Ireland remaining part
of the UK rather than the decision being left to those living there?
I rather imagine that if a UK-wide referendum on that had been held inThey might, but they'd have to suck it up and perhaps learn to live in
the past (maybe even today), the Unionists in NI would have found
themselves in a rather lonely place.
On 21/05/2026 08:51, Norman Wells wrote:
On 20/05/2026 23:07, The Todal wrote:
On 20/05/2026 11:14, JNugent wrote:
Any idea why the Opposition (and shamefully, some Conservative MPs)
carried out a campaign of rejecting every proffered agreement,
leaving the government with little choice to go for the agreement
eventually adopted?
Every proffered agreement was unsatisfactory and deserved to be
rejected. Any idea why the rabid Leave supporters, having demanded
that our Parliament should take back all control from Brussels
... to do the will of the people freely expressed in the referendum
had such contempt for our MPs and their opinions that they regarded
the debates as unnecessary and the work of saboteurs?
Because most MPs, shamefully for a democracy, did not want to do the
will of the people.-a They thought they knew better.-a Rather than be
the servants of the people, they sought to impose their contrary will
on them.
Of course. In the opinion of Mr Gammon and his mate, Mr Gumby. And all
their drinking mates from the pub.
If there is a deal on the table, let the noisiest demonstrators with
their Union Flags tell the Commons what it must do, right?
I think we should have taken back control from the Leave mob, but unfortunately it didn't work out that way. Politicians are scared of the voters.
It was their contempt of the people not the other way round.
That sounds good in your head. And in the pages of the Daily Mail. The politicians and judges are all "traitors" if they don't do as we say.
On Tue, 19 May 2026 14:16:33 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-05-19, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 18 May 2026 21:06:45 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-05-18, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
You presume that rejoining is an option. I suspect that there would be >>>>> a lot of opposition in the EU to Britain rejoining.
Obviously we couldn't rejoin on terms entirely of our own choosing. >>>>Some people throw around the Euro, loss of the rebate, the Schengen >>>>area, etc as obstacles to rejoining, but although they are probably >>>>right that the EU would insist on the Euro and no rebate (but wrong >>>>about Schengen, given we have no land border with the Schengen area),
I don't see that as an obstacle to rejoining. Obviously I couldn't >>>>confidently predict that some countries wouldn't try to cause >>>>difficulties, e.g. Spain over Gibraltar, but my guess is that it
would be doable.
I don't think specific issues like those that would be the problem,
more of a general feeling that Britain was never wholeheartedly a
member of the EU and there would be no guarantee that it wouldn't
change its mind yet again in another few years.
Of course you are right that if they thought we weren't wholehearted
about rejoining that they would be likely to consider the downsides to
be greater than the upsides. That's why I addressed that already in
another post - I said that we would need another referendum to rejoin,
(and with a winning margin of more than 3.8%) or a government elected
with a large majority after making a manifesto commitment to rejoin.
You have correctly pointed out else-thread that no parliament may bind
its successor so why should the EU trust a particular elected
majority?
On 20/05/2026 23:48, Pancho wrote:
On 5/20/26 08:12, Andy Burns wrote:
Pancho wrote:
The world has changed hugely. The unipolar US dominated world order
is collapsing. International rules and agreements count for little.
I foresaw that this might happen, but I wasn't certain. I think a
lot of people didn't foresee it.
Is it impossible that similar upheaval leads to the collapse of the
EU, just as we pay to rejoin?
The best laid plans of mice and men...
We deal with what is likely to happen. We use economics and such like
to predict how potential political scenarios may play out. We try to
position ourselves as best we can.
There seems to be a growing consensus that globalisation, dependency
on foreign powers leaves us exposed. Mark Carney admitted the rules
based world order was always a fiction and even that fiction has
disappeared, ruptured, in the face of great power rivalry.
International dependency becomes a weakness that the great powers may
use to subordinate you.
So yes, the EU is crap, has many problems, and it may fall apart.
Political union may-a be unachievable. However, membership of a full
integrated political EU, is the best hope that I can see. The best bet
we have.
What alternative do you see for economic prosperity and security?
The UK's is still the fifth (or sixth) largest economy in the world, yet
we have little in the way of natural resources, and just 1% of the
world's population.
I'd say we're pretty prosperous and punch well above our weight.
Only Germany of all the countries in the EU has a larger economy.
Membership is not therefore a guarantee of anything.
On 21/05/2026 12:16, The Todal wrote:
On 21/05/2026 08:51, Norman Wells wrote:
On 20/05/2026 23:07, The Todal wrote:
On 20/05/2026 11:14, JNugent wrote:
Any idea why the Opposition (and shamefully, some Conservative MPs) >>>>> carried out a campaign of rejecting every proffered agreement,
leaving the government with little choice to go for the agreement
eventually adopted?
Every proffered agreement was unsatisfactory and deserved to be
rejected. Any idea why the rabid Leave supporters, having demanded
that our Parliament should take back all control from Brussels
... to do the will of the people freely expressed in the referendum
had such contempt for our MPs and their opinions that they regarded
the debates as unnecessary and the work of saboteurs?
Because most MPs, shamefully for a democracy, did not want to do the
will of the people.-a They thought they knew better.-a Rather than be
the servants of the people, they sought to impose their contrary will
on them.
Of course. In the opinion of Mr Gammon and his mate, Mr Gumby. And all
their drinking mates from the pub.
If there is a deal on the table, let the noisiest demonstrators with
their Union Flags tell the Commons what it must do, right?
The people told them what to do.-a Very clearly.
I think we should have taken back control from the Leave mob, but
unfortunately it didn't work out that way. Politicians are scared of
the voters.
Rightly so.-a The people are the masters in a democracy, not politicians.
It was their contempt of the people not the other way round.
That sounds good in your head. And in the pages of the Daily Mail. The
politicians and judges are all "traitors" if they don't do as we say.
'We' being 'the people', who had been asked a binary question on a constitutional issue in a fair vote, and given a clear steer.
No-one should seek to negate or override it.
Another factor is travel. Back in 1990, I had to fly regularly from NI
to the UK and my average return fare after careful manipulation was
around -u100 which would be the equivalent of -u263 nowadays; my
tytpical fare nowadays is typically a quarter to a third of that.
Young people nowadays can and do travel far more than any previous
generation and not just for a two week package in the sun.
Add to that the fact that today's you people are used to mixed culture
and far more accepting of it than we old fogeys were when we were
young. I recently rewatched the 1960s movie "Guess Who's Coming to
Dinner" where the daughter of a well-off white couple [1] who regard themselves as liberal struggle to cope with finding out their
daughter's fianc|- is black. I remember the extensive discussion among
myself and my teenage peers about how we felt about inter-racial relationships and how our parents would react to it. The movie now
seems incredibly dated - such relationships generally wouldn't even
lead to a raised eyebrow nowadays, at least among young people.
On 21/05/2026 10:58, Martin Harran wrote:
Another factor is travel. Back in 1990, I had to fly regularly from NI
to the UK and my average return fare after careful manipulation was
Ferry not working?
around -u100 which would be the equivalent of -u263 nowadays; my
tytpical fare nowadays is typically a quarter to a third of that.
Young people nowadays can and do travel far more than any previous
generation and not just for a two week package in the sun.
Young Brits are travelling less, old Brits more: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/national-travel-survey-2024/nts-2024-trips-by-purpose-age-mode-and-sex
On 5/20/26 08:12, Andy Burns wrote:
Pancho wrote:
The world has changed hugely. The unipolar US dominated world order
is collapsing. International rules and agreements count for little. I
foresaw that this might happen, but I wasn't certain. I think a lot
of people didn't foresee it.
Is it impossible that similar upheaval leads to the collapse of the
EU, just as we pay to rejoin?
The best laid plans of mice and men...
We deal with what is likely to happen. We use economics and such like to predict how potential political scenarios may play out. We try to
position ourselves as best we can.
There seems to be a growing consensus that globalisation, dependency on foreign powers leaves us exposed. Mark Carney admitted the rules based
world order was always a fiction and even that fiction has disappeared, ruptured, in the face of great power rivalry. International dependency becomes a weakness that the great powers may use to subordinate you.
So yes, the EU is crap, has many problems, and it may fall apart.
Political union may-a be unachievable. However, membership of a full integrated political EU, is the best hope that I can see. The best bet
we have.
On 21/05/2026 12:50, Norman Wells wrote:
On 21/05/2026 12:16, The Todal wrote:
I think we should have taken back control from the Leave mob, but
unfortunately it didn't work out that way. Politicians are scared of
the voters.
Rightly so.-a The people are the masters in a democracy, not politicians.
I'm one of the people, so I am the master and they should do as I say, whether or not I've actually said it yet.
It was their contempt of the people not the other way round.
That sounds good in your head. And in the pages of the Daily Mail.
The politicians and judges are all "traitors" if they don't do as we
say.
'We' being 'the people', who had been asked a binary question on a
constitutional issue in a fair vote, and given a clear steer.
No-one should seek to negate or override it.
Quite so - the noisy Leave suppporters should not have been allowed to override the decisions of our Parliament
On 20/05/2026 23:48, Pancho wrote:
On 5/20/26 08:12, Andy Burns wrote:
Pancho wrote:The best laid plans of mice and men...
The world has changed hugely. The unipolar US dominated world order
is collapsing. International rules and agreements count for little. I
foresaw that this might happen, but I wasn't certain. I think a lot
of people didn't foresee it.
Is it impossible that similar upheaval leads to the collapse of the
EU, just as we pay to rejoin?
We deal with what is likely to happen. We use economics and such like
to predict how potential political scenarios may play out. We try to
position ourselves as best we can.
There seems to be a growing consensus that globalisation, dependency on
foreign powers leaves us exposed. Mark Carney admitted the rules based
world order was always a fiction and even that fiction has disappeared,
ruptured, in the face of great power rivalry. International dependency
becomes a weakness that the great powers may use to subordinate you.
So yes, the EU is crap, has many problems, and it may fall apart.
Political union may-a be unachievable. However, membership of a full
integrated political EU, is the best hope that I can see. The best bet
we have.
You mean a federation like the US and Australia?
That works because they were both founded by one people (the British, it
so happens), so have common values originally (modulo various indigenous inhabitants and immigrants).
On 2026-05-21, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 21/05/2026 10:58, Martin Harran wrote:
Another factor is travel. Back in 1990, I had to fly regularly from NI
to the UK and my average return fare after careful manipulation was
Ferry not working?
The ferry doesn't work very well unless you're going from/to Liverpool
or environs.
around -u100 which would be the equivalent of -u263 nowadays; my
tytpical fare nowadays is typically a quarter to a third of that.
Young people nowadays can and do travel far more than any previous
generation and not just for a two week package in the sun.
Young Brits are travelling less, old Brits more:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/national-travel-survey-2024/nts-2024-trips-by-purpose-age-mode-and-sex
My guess would be that is due to "young Brits" having no money,
because "old Brits" have taken it all.
On 19 May 2026 14:56:28 GMT, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Here are some statistics. 33.5 million people voted, a turnout of 72.2%. >>> 75% of voters aged 18-24 voted Remain, and 40% of voters over 65 voted
Leave.
So as the old fogeys gradually die off, the young people should now be
given a chance to rectify the blunder of Brexit.
Unfortunately for that line of thinking, the old fogeys that voted for
Brexit were the young voters who voted to remain in the EEC some 40 years
previously.
So after benefitting from the EU largesse for that length of time, together >> with open borders, and a Customs Union, and all the money we could throw at >> French farmers, the newly old fogeys told the EU to go forth and multiply. >> Perhaps a surfeit of wine from the lake and butter from the mountain rotted >> their brains?
Do you see any reason why people wonrCOt become old fogeys this time?
Because young people nowadays have grown up in a totally different environment to that in which today's old fogeys grew up.
One factor is education; in 1980, only about 15% of 18-year-olds
remained in full-time education after age 18; by 2017, that had
surpassed 50%.
Another factor is travel. Back in 1990, I had to fly regularly from NI
to the UK and my average return fare after careful manipulation was
around -u100 which would be the equivalent of -u263 nowadays; my
tytpical fare nowadays is typically a quarter to a third of that.
Young people nowadays can and do travel far more than any previous
generation and not just for a two week package in the sun.
Add to that the fact that today's you people are used to mixed culture
and far more accepting of it than we old fogeys were when we were
young. I recently rewatched the 1960s movie "Guess Who's Coming to
Dinner" where the daughter of a well-off white couple [1] who regard themselves as liberal struggle to cope with finding out their
daughter's fianc|- is black. I remember the extensive discussion among
myself and my teenage peers about how we felt about inter-racial relationships and how our parents would react to it. The movie now
seems incredibly dated - such relationships generally wouldn't even
lead to a raised eyebrow nowadays, at least among young people.
[1] Played by that wonderful couple Spencer Tracy and Katherine--
Hepburn in Tracy's last role.
And as the old fogeys
move to care homes and discover that Brexit has reduced the number of
care staff, maybe they should be asked if they now regret how they voted.
Presumably in your scenario Remain voters donrCOt live long enough to get to >> a care home?
We know of course that Scotland and Northern Ireland overwhelmingly
voted to Remain. That in itself is a good reason to re-run the
referendum
Is it?
for those who (unlike me) believe that a referendum is
necessary if we are to re-join.
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n76532Fe916U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n746pgF50vdU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n738r9FefgU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n72jriFcjvvU1@mid.individual.net...
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
[.]
I would advocate for a properHow did the Soviet Union work out as a model?
union, a proper federation, a single state with central government. >>>>>>>
snip
I'm sure the millions who died or were killed in the atrocities referenced >>> in the link and which you have now childishly ignored will graciously
overlook your sidelining of their fate - which was intended to suggest your >>> original comments had verisimilitude.
While you chose to ignore the fact that the Soviet Union didn't have
extensive coastlines on two major oceans; didn't have 200 years
in which to take advantage of slave labour, but had to play catch-up,
starting from scratch within 10 years.
<rest snipped>
You appear to have yet again ignored the massacres that were internal to
the Soviet Union, the numbers involved being such as to negate the
dismissive position you held on the matter, in favour of an irrelevant history lesson that included two items both labelled as (a).
On 2026-05-20, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 19/05/2026 16:25, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-19, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 19/05/2026 13:28, JNugent wrote:
On 18/05/2026 01:18 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-18, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 18/05/2026 08:36, Norman Wells wrote:
We shouldn't of course be starting from where we are, with a bad >>>>>>>> leaving
agreement negotiated by Remainers.-a All we can do now is chip away at >>>>>>>> it, against intransigent opposition from the EU displaying antagonistic
attitudes I personally find distasteful and wouldn't want to be allied >>>>>>>> with.
That's always the most ridiculous of arguments. That the gang of >>>>>>> dimwits, Boris, Gove, Farage etc, who know nothing whatsoever about >>>>>>> economics or trade or treaties but know how to write persuasive
newspaper columns, could have used their negligible skills to get us a >>>>>>> better leaving agreement, overruling the experts, and given us a pot of >>>>>>> gold at the end of the rainbow.
Not to mention, it was Boris Johnson who "negotiated" the "deal".
Suggesting that the leaders of the Leavers was actually a Remainer >>>>>> is fairytale conspiracy nonsense of the highest order.
It's all the fault of Remainers like Theresa May who were determined >>>>>>> to sabotage Brexit, right?
The only thing May sabotaged, with her "red lines", was the will of >>>>>> the people - who certainly didn't vote for the "Hard Brexit" that was >>>>>> forced undemocratically upon an unwilling country.
So what DID they vote for?
To leave the EU, but not with any specific time period in mind because >>>> no time limit was ever specified. The Leave leaflets said that of course >>>> we wouldn't leave until we had made a very good leaving agreement.
And of course "leave the EU" was completely undefined. The only thing
it definitely entails is "not be a member of the EU any more". We were
told before the referendum that "Levae" would mean a situation like
that of Norway, or Switzerland, where we would still be part of some
of the related agreements like the single market or customs union.
But mysteriously, after the referendum, "Leave" was retrospectively
redefined to mean completely abandoning any and all agreements or
organisations that might have an "E" in their name - even though this
was the only thing the referendum result could not possibly mean!
We want our volts back! (We have 240v not 230v)
I assume you already know the volts "changed" from 240 +/- 10% to
230 +10%/-6%, meaning we didn't have to actually do anything to our
real voltage? ;-)
On 20 May 2026 at 17:52:18 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 19/05/2026 16:25, Jon Ribbens wrote:
And of course "leave the EU" was completely undefined. The only thing
it definitely entails is "not be a member of the EU any more". We were
told before the referendum that "Levae" would mean a situation like
that of Norway, or Switzerland, where we would still be part of some
of the related agreements like the single market or customs union.
But mysteriously, after the referendum, "Leave" was retrospectively
redefined to mean completely abandoning any and all agreements or
organisations that might have an "E" in their name - even though this
was the only thing the referendum result could not possibly mean!
We want our volts back! (We have 240v not 230v)
So, in return for a purely cosmetic alteration in labelling we should give up the concession from all the EU countries that grants us the economies of scale
both for buying and selling goods which are standardised to meet our voltage range as well as theirs; rather than *all* mains electrical goods having to be
made with a British spec different from the EU spec? That would be foolish.
Pancho wrote:
The world has changed hugely. The unipolar US dominated world order is
collapsing. International rules and agreements count for little. I
foresaw that this might happen, but I wasn't certain. I think a lot of
people didn't foresee it.
Is it impossible that similar upheaval leads to the collapse of the EU,
just as we pay to rejoin?
On 20/05/2026 22:09, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-20, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 19/05/2026 16:25, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-19, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 19/05/2026 13:28, JNugent wrote:
On 18/05/2026 01:18 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-18, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 18/05/2026 08:36, Norman Wells wrote:
We shouldn't of course be starting from where we are, with a bad >>>>>>>>> leaving
agreement negotiated by Remainers. All we can do now is chip away at >>>>>>>>> it, against intransigent opposition from the EU displaying antagonistic
attitudes I personally find distasteful and wouldn't want to be allied
with.
That's always the most ridiculous of arguments. That the gang of >>>>>>>> dimwits, Boris, Gove, Farage etc, who know nothing whatsoever about >>>>>>>> economics or trade or treaties but know how to write persuasive >>>>>>>> newspaper columns, could have used their negligible skills to get us a >>>>>>>> better leaving agreement, overruling the experts, and given us a pot of
gold at the end of the rainbow.
Not to mention, it was Boris Johnson who "negotiated" the "deal". >>>>>>> Suggesting that the leaders of the Leavers was actually a Remainer >>>>>>> is fairytale conspiracy nonsense of the highest order.
It's all the fault of Remainers like Theresa May who were determined >>>>>>>> to sabotage Brexit, right?
The only thing May sabotaged, with her "red lines", was the will of >>>>>>> the people - who certainly didn't vote for the "Hard Brexit" that was >>>>>>> forced undemocratically upon an unwilling country.
So what DID they vote for?
To leave the EU, but not with any specific time period in mind because >>>>> no time limit was ever specified. The Leave leaflets said that of course >>>>> we wouldn't leave until we had made a very good leaving agreement.
And of course "leave the EU" was completely undefined. The only thing
it definitely entails is "not be a member of the EU any more". We were >>>> told before the referendum that "Levae" would mean a situation like
that of Norway, or Switzerland, where we would still be part of some
of the related agreements like the single market or customs union.
But mysteriously, after the referendum, "Leave" was retrospectively
redefined to mean completely abandoning any and all agreements or
organisations that might have an "E" in their name - even though this
was the only thing the referendum result could not possibly mean!
We want our volts back! (We have 240v not 230v)
I assume you already know the volts "changed" from 240 +/- 10% to
230 +10%/-6%, meaning we didn't have to actually do anything to our
real voltage? ;-)
Of course. It was completely pointless.
On 20/05/2026 11:10, JNugent wrote:
On 19/05/2026 01:17 PM, The Todal wrote:
You could have a valid answer from the electorate for any of these, but
it would be based on selfish considerations - how much is it likely to
cost me personally, how much money might I personally save?
Most unlikely. In the cases of the NHS and defence (including NATO
membership), people are not stupid. They would take a lot more into
account then just the likely (or unlikely) reductions in taxes (which
would not materialise anyway).
How many would vote for general withdrawal of NHS services against the
background of only a small proportion of the population being
adequately covered for health and treatment?
And as for the idea that anyone except those on benefits would vote
for the NHS to be free only to people on benefits...
Would YOU vote for it?
Quite possibly actually.
You see, people are very defensive of the NHS because they get free
treatment whenever they need it and that's very nice. Very few, though,
are aware of the actual cost because they aren't called upon to pay individual bills or even insurance premiums that would bring it home.
They therefore think without thinking that it's good value and sacrosanct.
However, it only comes at a price, and that price is actually pre3tty
hefty.
Before I work it out below, just estimate in your head what you think
average NHS spending might be per person per year in the UK, and
consider too, for the purposes of comparison, roughly how much you think
the NHS services you personally have received over a number of years
will have cost on average per year. Keep those figures in your head.
Now for the facts.
Government spending on the NHS is -u280 billion a year. That equates to about -u3500 per person per year.
Is that not rather in excess of what you thought? Is it not rather in
excess of what you think the average yearly spend on you personally has
been?
Of course, all of the expenditure has to come from taxes. Given that
not everyone here is a taxpayer, there being only about 39 million such generous souls in the UK, each one of those is contributing about -u7200
on average every year.
Are you getting good value for that?
On 20/05/2026 11:14, JNugent wrote:
On 19/05/2026 02:22 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 19/05/2026 13:28, JNugent wrote:
On 18/05/2026 01:18 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
The only thing May sabotaged, with her "red lines", was the will of
the people - who certainly didn't vote for the "Hard Brexit" that was >>>>> forced undemocratically upon an unwilling country.
So what DID they vote for?
To leave the EU, but not with any specific time period in mind because
no time limit was ever specified. The Leave leaflets said that of course >>> we wouldn't leave until we had made a very good leaving agreement.
Any idea why the Opposition (and shamefully, some Conservative MPs)
carried out a campaign of rejecting every proffered agreement, leaving
the government with little choice to go for the agreement eventually
adopted?
Every proffered agreement was unsatisfactory and deserved to be
rejected. Any idea why the rabid Leave supporters, having demanded that
our Parliament should take back all control from Brussels, had such
contempt for our MPs and their opinions that they regarded the debates
as unnecessary and the work of saboteurs?
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
[...]
There's a good argument for saying there should be a UK-wide referendum
on Scottish independence since it's a constitutional matter affecting
the whole of the UK, not just Scotland. Then, even if the Scots vote to
remain, we could have the satisfaction of ejecting them anyway.
Would you apply the same argument to Northern Ireland remaining part
of the UK rather than the decision being left to those living there?
I rather imagine that if a UK-wide referendum on that had been held in
the past (maybe even today), the Unionists in NI would have found
themselves in a rather lonely place.
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message news:n781pmFnab1U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n76532Fe916U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n746pgF50vdU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n738r9FefgU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n72jriFcjvvU1@mid.individual.net...
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
[.]
I would advocate for a properHow did the Soviet Union work out as a model?
union, a proper federation, a single state with central government. >>>>>>>>
snip
I'm sure the millions who died or were killed in the atrocities referenced >>>> in the link and which you have now childishly ignored will graciously
overlook your sidelining of their fate - which was intended to suggest your
original comments had verisimilitude.
While you chose to ignore the fact that the Soviet Union didn't have
extensive coastlines on two major oceans; didn't have 200 years
in which to take advantage of slave labour, but had to play catch-up,
starting from scratch within 10 years.
<rest snipped>
You appear to have yet again ignored the massacres that were internal to
the Soviet Union, the numbers involved being such as to negate the
dismissive position you held on the matter, in favour of an irrelevant
history lesson that included two items both labelled as (a).
The first group starting with an a) were all the countries or states including
Great Britain who opposed the Bolsheviks in the Russian Civil War
starting in 1917
The second group also starting with an a) were their internal
opponents.
As you would know, if you bothered to check the link.
The lies and propaganda started right there in 1917, and continue to
this day.
Which is why unless you resort to using a VPN, as a British Citizen
*you're note allowed to look at Russian Websites. They're *blocked*
by the British Government to prevent you from being able to
decide for yourself,
On 21/05/2026 13:23, The Todal wrote:
On 21/05/2026 12:50, Norman Wells wrote:
On 21/05/2026 12:16, The Todal wrote:
I'm one of the people, so I am the master and they should do as I say,I think we should have taken back control from the Leave mob, but
unfortunately it didn't work out that way. Politicians are scared of
the voters.
Rightly so.-a The people are the masters in a democracy, not politicians. >>
whether or not I've actually said it yet.
When you can demonstrate that what you want is actually the will of the majority of the people, then you can be a master. Until then, you can't.
It was their contempt of the people not the other way round.
That sounds good in your head. And in the pages of the Daily Mail.
The politicians and judges are all "traitors" if they don't do as we
say.
'We' being 'the people', who had been asked a binary question on a
constitutional issue in a fair vote, and given a clear steer.
No-one should seek to negate or override it.
Quite so - the noisy Leave suppporters should not have been allowed to
override the decisions of our Parliament
Parliament is subsidiary to the people, not the other way round.
If there is a deal on the table, let the noisiest demonstrators with
their Union Flags tell the Commons what it must do, right?
The people told them what to do. Very clearly.
On 20/05/2026 05:27 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 20/05/2026 11:10, JNugent wrote:
On 19/05/2026 01:17 PM, The Todal wrote:
How many would vote for general withdrawal of NHS services against the
background of only a small proportion of the population being
adequately covered for health and treatment?
And as for the idea that anyone except those on benefits would vote
for the NHS to be free only to people on benefits...
Would YOU vote for it?
Quite possibly actually.
You see, people are very defensive of the NHS because they get free
treatment whenever they need it and that's very nice.-a Very few, though,
are aware of the actual cost because they aren't called upon to pay
individual bills or even insurance premiums that would bring it home.
They therefore think without thinking that it's good value and
sacrosanct.
However, it only comes at a price, and that price is actually pre3tty
hefty.
Before I work it out below, just estimate in your head what you think
average NHS spending might be per person per year in the UK, and
consider too, for the purposes of comparison, roughly how much you think
the NHS services you personally have received over a number of years
will have cost on average per year.-a Keep those figures in your head.
You are addressing a different issue from that which I had just answered.
The question was whether a voter could/would be happy to vote for withdrawing FAPOU NHS services from members of the general public and
only providing them (free of charge) to persons on benefit (a term which
in context, can only be sensibly interpreted as meaning means-tested benefits such as Universal Credit, Housing benefot, Pension Credit, etc).
The answer, I suggest, and this no matter where the voter stands within
the socio-economic strata, is, and can only be, "No"
This for several separate but important reasons.
Now for the facts.
Government spending on the NHS is -u280 billion a year.-a That equates to
about -u3500 per person per year.
Is that not rather in excess of what you thought?-a Is it not rather in
excess of what you think the average yearly spend on you personally has
been?
I don't think so. But again, you are addressing an issue not raised
either by me or any PP.
On 21/05/2026 10:58, Martin Harran wrote:
Another factor is travel. Back in 1990, I had to fly regularly from NI
to the UK and my average return fare after careful manipulation was
Ferry not working?
around -u100 which would be the equivalent of -u263 nowadays; my
tytpical fare nowadays is typically a quarter to a third of that.
Young people nowadays can and do travel far more than any previous
generation and not just for a two week package in the sun.
Young Brits are travelling less, old Brits more:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/national-travel-survey-2024/nts-2024-trips-by-purpose-age-mode-and-sex
Add to that the fact that today's you people are used to mixed culture
and far more accepting of it than we old fogeys were when we were
young. I recently rewatched the 1960s movie "Guess Who's Coming to
Dinner" where the daughter of a well-off white couple [1] who regard
themselves as liberal struggle to cope with finding out their
daughter's fianc|- is black. I remember the extensive discussion among
myself and my teenage peers about how we felt about inter-racial
relationships and how our parents would react to it. The movie now
seems incredibly dated - such relationships generally wouldn't even
lead to a raised eyebrow nowadays, at least among young people.
Guess Who 2005 ?
On 21/05/2026 02:32 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n781pmFnab1U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n76532Fe916U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n746pgF50vdU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n738r9FefgU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n72jriFcjvvU1@mid.individual.net...
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
[.]
I would advocate for a proper
union, a proper federation, a single state with central government.
How did the Soviet Union work out as a model?
snip
I'm sure the millions who died or were killed in the atrocities referenced
in the link and which you have now childishly ignored will graciously >>>>> overlook your sidelining of their fate - which was intended to suggest your
original comments had verisimilitude.
While you chose to ignore the fact that the Soviet Union didn't have
extensive coastlines on two major oceans; didn't have 200 years
in which to take advantage of slave labour, but had to play catch-up,
starting from scratch within 10 years.
<rest snipped>
You appear to have yet again ignored the massacres that were internal to >>> the Soviet Union, the numbers involved being such as to negate the
dismissive position you held on the matter, in favour of an irrelevant
history lesson that included two items both labelled as (a).
The first group starting with an a) were all the countries or states including
Great Britain who opposed the Bolsheviks in the Russian Civil War
starting in 1917
The second group also starting with an a) were their internal
opponents.
As you would know, if you bothered to check the link.
The lies and propaganda started right there in 1917, and continue to
this day.
Which is why unless you resort to using a VPN, as a British Citizen
*you're note allowed to look at Russian Websites. They're *blocked*
by the British Government to prevent you from being able to
decide for yourself,
Really? I don't have a VPN, but:
<https://dzen.ru/>
Please confirm whether or not you were able to gain access to it.
Then there's the main news website: <https://tass.ru/>
On 21/05/2026 02:32 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n781pmFnab1U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n76532Fe916U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n746pgF50vdU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n738r9FefgU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n72jriFcjvvU1@mid.individual.net...
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
[.]
I would advocate for a proper
union, a proper federation, a single state with central government.
How did the Soviet Union work out as a model?
snip
I'm sure the millions who died or were killed in the atrocities referenced
in the link and which you have now childishly ignored will graciously >>>>> overlook your sidelining of their fate - which was intended to suggest your
original comments had verisimilitude.
While you chose to ignore the fact that the Soviet Union didn't have
extensive coastlines on two major oceans; didn't have 200 years
in which to take advantage of slave labour, but had to play catch-up,
starting from scratch within 10 years.
<rest snipped>
You appear to have yet again ignored the massacres that were internal to >>> the Soviet Union, the numbers involved being such as to negate the
dismissive position you held on the matter, in favour of an irrelevant
history lesson that included two items both labelled as (a).
The first group starting with an a) were all the countries or states including
Great Britain who opposed the Bolsheviks in the Russian Civil War
starting in 1917
The second group also starting with an a) were their internal
opponents.
As you would know, if you bothered to check the link.
The lies and propaganda started right there in 1917, and continue to
this day.
Which is why unless you resort to using a VPN, as a British Citizen
*you're note allowed to look at Russian Websites. They're *blocked*
by the British Government to prevent you from being able to
decide for yourself,
Really? I don't have a VPN, but:
<https://dzen.ru/>
Please confirm whether or not you were able to gain access to it.
Then there's the main news website: <https://tass.ru/>
On 21/05/2026 02:32 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n781pmFnab1U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n76532Fe916U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n746pgF50vdU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n738r9FefgU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n72jriFcjvvU1@mid.individual.net...
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
[.]
I would advocate for a proper
union, a proper federation, a single state with central government.
How did the Soviet Union work out as a model?
snip
I'm sure the millions who died or were killed in the atrocities referenced
in the link and which you have now childishly ignored will graciously >>>>> overlook your sidelining of their fate - which was intended to suggest >>>>> your
original comments had verisimilitude.
While you chose to ignore the fact that the Soviet Union didn't have
extensive coastlines on two major oceans; didn't have 200 years
in which to take advantage of slave labour, but had to play catch-up,
starting from scratch within 10 years.
<rest snipped>
You appear to have yet again ignored the massacres that were internal to >>> the Soviet Union, the numbers involved being such as to negate the
dismissive position you held on the matter, in favour of an irrelevant
history lesson that included two items both labelled as (a).
The first group starting with an a) were all the countries or states
including
Great Britain who opposed the Bolsheviks in the Russian Civil War
starting in 1917
The second group also starting with an a) were their internal
opponents.
As you would know, if you bothered to check the link.
The lies and propaganda started right there in 1917, and continue to
this day.
Which is why unless you resort to using a VPN, as a British Citizen
*you're note allowed to look at Russian Websites. They're *blocked*
by the British Government to prevent you from being able to
decide for yourself,
Really? I don't have a VPN, but:
<https://dzen.ru/>
Please confirm whether or not you were able to gain access to it.
Then there's the main news website: <https://tass.ru/>
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message news:n781pmFnab1U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n76532Fe916U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n746pgF50vdU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n738r9FefgU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n72jriFcjvvU1@mid.individual.net...
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
[.]
I would advocate for a properHow did the Soviet Union work out as a model?
union, a proper federation, a single state with central government. >>>>>>>>
snip
I'm sure the millions who died or were killed in the atrocities referenced >>>> in the link and which you have now childishly ignored will graciously
overlook your sidelining of their fate - which was intended to suggest your
original comments had verisimilitude.
While you chose to ignore the fact that the Soviet Union didn't have
extensive coastlines on two major oceans; didn't have 200 years
in which to take advantage of slave labour, but had to play catch-up,
starting from scratch within 10 years.
<rest snipped>
You appear to have yet again ignored the massacres that were internal to
the Soviet Union, the numbers involved being such as to negate the
dismissive position you held on the matter, in favour of an irrelevant
history lesson that included two items both labelled as (a).
The first group starting with an a) were all the countries or states including
Great Britain who opposed the Bolsheviks in the Russian Civil War
starting in 1917
The second group also starting with an a) were their internal
opponents.
As you would know, if you bothered to check the link.
The lies and propaganda started right there in 1917, and continue to
this day.
Which is why unless you resort to using a VPN, as a British Citizen
*you're note allowed to look at Russian Websites. They're *blocked*
by the British Government to prevent you from being able to
decide for yourself,
Of course when Valadimir Putin did this it, was all over the BBC
how the poor Russians were being kept from the truth.
But it somehow doesn't apply to citizens of the UK. We're happy to
happily lap up whatever morsels of propoganda that we're offered.,
I notice little Zelensky has got himself back in the news after a
few weeks, with some announcement of other*. Presumably he's been
on his holidays.
bb
* Although not about any forthcoming elections unfortunately
On 20/05/2026 08:12, Andy Burns wrote:
Pancho wrote:
The world has changed hugely. The unipolar US dominated world order
is collapsing. International rules and agreements count for little. I
foresaw that this might happen, but I wasn't certain. I think a lot
of people didn't foresee it.
Is it impossible that similar upheaval leads to the collapse of the
EU, just as we pay to rejoin?
Quite likely. It's neither a federation nor a free association of independent states. It's undemocratic (MEPs have little actual power)
and single countries can boycott policies, e.g. Hungary. The bigger it
gets the more unmanageable.
On 21/05/2026 02:32 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n781pmFnab1U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n76532Fe916U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n746pgF50vdU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n738r9FefgU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n72jriFcjvvU1@mid.individual.net...
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
[.]
I would advocate for a proper
union, a proper federation, a single state with central government.
How did the Soviet Union work out as a model?
snip
I'm sure the millions who died or were killed in the atrocities referenced
in the link and which you have now childishly ignored will graciously >>>>> overlook your sidelining of their fate - which was intended to suggest >>>>> your
original comments had verisimilitude.
While you chose to ignore the fact that the Soviet Union didn't have
extensive coastlines on two major oceans; didn't have 200 years
in which to take advantage of slave labour, but had to play catch-up,
starting from scratch within 10 years.
<rest snipped>
You appear to have yet again ignored the massacres that were internal to >>> the Soviet Union, the numbers involved being such as to negate the
dismissive position you held on the matter, in favour of an irrelevant
history lesson that included two items both labelled as (a).
The first group starting with an a) were all the countries or states
including
Great Britain who opposed the Bolsheviks in the Russian Civil War
starting in 1917
The second group also starting with an a) were their internal
opponents.
As you would know, if you bothered to check the link.
The lies and propaganda started right there in 1917, and continue to
this day.
Which is why unless you resort to using a VPN, as a British Citizen
*you're note allowed to look at Russian Websites. They're *blocked*
by the British Government to prevent you from being able to
decide for yourself,
Really? I don't have a VPN, but:
<https://dzen.ru/>
Please confirm whether or not you were able to gain access to it.
Then there's the main news website: <https://tass.ru/>
On 21/05/2026 22:57, JNugent wrote:
On 20/05/2026 05:27 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 20/05/2026 11:10, JNugent wrote:
On 19/05/2026 01:17 PM, The Todal wrote:
How many would vote for general withdrawal of NHS services against the >>>> background of only a small proportion of the population being
adequately covered for health and treatment?
And as for the idea that anyone except those on benefits would vote
for the NHS to be free only to people on benefits...
Would YOU vote for it?
Quite possibly actually.
You see, people are very defensive of the NHS because they get free
treatment whenever they need it and that's very nice. Very few, though, >>> are aware of the actual cost because they aren't called upon to pay
individual bills or even insurance premiums that would bring it home.
They therefore think without thinking that it's good value and
sacrosanct.
However, it only comes at a price, and that price is actually pre3tty
hefty.
Before I work it out below, just estimate in your head what you think
average NHS spending might be per person per year in the UK, and
consider too, for the purposes of comparison, roughly how much you think >>> the NHS services you personally have received over a number of years
will have cost on average per year. Keep those figures in your head.
You are addressing a different issue from that which I had just answered.
The question was whether a voter could/would be happy to vote for
withdrawing FAPOU NHS services from members of the general public and
only providing them (free of charge) to persons on benefit (a term
which in context, can only be sensibly interpreted as meaning
means-tested benefits such as Universal Credit, Housing benefot,
Pension Credit, etc).
The answer, I suggest, and this no matter where the voter stands
within the socio-economic strata, is, and can only be, "No"
Well, no, because the point I was making was that the tax imposed on individual taxpayers could be reduced by up to -u7200 a year (if every service for everyone had to be paid personally at the point of use) but
still by several thousands of pounds a year even if taxpayers agreed to provide FAPOU services for benefit recipients. Give taxpayers that
choice and the answer to your question is not at all clear.
This for several separate but important reasons.
Now for the facts.
Government spending on the NHS is -u280 billion a year. That equates to >>> about -u3500 per person per year.
Is that not rather in excess of what you thought? Is it not rather in
excess of what you think the average yearly spend on you personally has
been?
I don't think so. But again, you are addressing an issue not raised
either by me or any PP.
Taxation is an inextricable part of what you were considering.
On 21/05/2026 23:12, JNugent wrote:
On 21/05/2026 02:32 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n781pmFnab1U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n76532Fe916U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n746pgF50vdU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n738r9FefgU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n72jriFcjvvU1@mid.individual.net...
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
[.]
I would advocate for a proper
union, a proper federation, a single state with central >>>>>>>>>>>>> government.
How did the Soviet Union work out as a model?
snip
I'm sure the millions who died or were killed in the atrocities
referenced
in the link and which you have now childishly ignored will graciously >>>>>> overlook your sidelining of their fate - which was intended to
suggest your
original comments had verisimilitude.
While you chose to ignore the fact that the Soviet Union didn't have >>>>> extensive coastlines on two major oceans; didn't have 200 years
in which to take advantage of slave labour, but had to play catch-up, >>>>> starting from scratch within 10 years.
<rest snipped>
You appear to have yet again ignored the massacres that were
internal to
the Soviet Union, the numbers involved being such as to negate the
dismissive position you held on the matter, in favour of an irrelevant >>>> history lesson that included two items both labelled as (a).
The first group starting with an a) were all the countries or states
including
Great Britain who opposed the Bolsheviks in the Russian Civil War
starting in 1917
The second group also starting with an a) were their internal
opponents.
As you would know, if you bothered to check the link.
The lies and propaganda started right there in 1917, and continue to
this day.
Which is why unless you resort to using a VPN, as a British Citizen
*you're note allowed to look at Russian Websites. They're *blocked*
by the British Government to prevent you from being able to
decide for yourself,
Really? I don't have a VPN, but:
<https://dzen.ru/>
Please confirm whether or not you were able to gain access to it.
Then there's the main news website: <https://tass.ru/>
But how do you know that a Russian and a Brit would see the same thing
if they went to either of those websites?
For ages it's been possible to
stop certain regional IP addresses from accessing pages, perhaps due to licensing agreement (eg the BBC), or legal requirements such as the "18
years old" requirement in the UK (eg Imgur).
You'd only know if it was possible to compare the pages side-by-side
using those different IP addresses.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:n79eapFu3bmU1@mid.individual.net...
On 21/05/2026 02:32 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n781pmFnab1U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n76532Fe916U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n746pgF50vdU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n738r9FefgU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n72jriFcjvvU1@mid.individual.net...
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
[.]
I would advocate for a proper
union, a proper federation, a single state with central government.
How did the Soviet Union work out as a model?
snip
I'm sure the millions who died or were killed in the atrocities referenced
in the link and which you have now childishly ignored will graciously >>>>>> overlook your sidelining of their fate - which was intended to suggest >>>>>> your
original comments had verisimilitude.
While you chose to ignore the fact that the Soviet Union didn't have >>>>> extensive coastlines on two major oceans; didn't have 200 years
in which to take advantage of slave labour, but had to play catch-up, >>>>> starting from scratch within 10 years.
<rest snipped>
You appear to have yet again ignored the massacres that were internal to >>>> the Soviet Union, the numbers involved being such as to negate the
dismissive position you held on the matter, in favour of an irrelevant >>>> history lesson that included two items both labelled as (a).
The first group starting with an a) were all the countries or states
including
Great Britain who opposed the Bolsheviks in the Russian Civil War
starting in 1917
The second group also starting with an a) were their internal
opponents.
As you would know, if you bothered to check the link.
The lies and propaganda started right there in 1917, and continue to
this day.
Which is why unless you resort to using a VPN, as a British Citizen
*you're note allowed to look at Russian Websites. They're *blocked*
by the British Government to prevent you from being able to
decide for yourself,
Really? I don't have a VPN, but:
<https://dzen.ru/>
Please confirm whether or not you were able to gain access to it.
Then there's the main news website: <https://tass.ru/>
Those sites are exclusively in Russian.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:n79eapFu3bmU1@mid.individual.net...
On 21/05/2026 02:32 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n781pmFnab1U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n76532Fe916U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n746pgF50vdU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n738r9FefgU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n72jriFcjvvU1@mid.individual.net...
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
[.]
I would advocate for a proper
union, a proper federation, a single state with central government.
How did the Soviet Union work out as a model?
snip
I'm sure the millions who died or were killed in the atrocities referenced
in the link and which you have now childishly ignored will graciously >>>>>> overlook your sidelining of their fate - which was intended to suggest >>>>>> your
original comments had verisimilitude.
While you chose to ignore the fact that the Soviet Union didn't have >>>>> extensive coastlines on two major oceans; didn't have 200 years
in which to take advantage of slave labour, but had to play catch-up, >>>>> starting from scratch within 10 years.
<rest snipped>
You appear to have yet again ignored the massacres that were internal to >>>> the Soviet Union, the numbers involved being such as to negate the
dismissive position you held on the matter, in favour of an irrelevant >>>> history lesson that included two items both labelled as (a).
The first group starting with an a) were all the countries or states
including
Great Britain who opposed the Bolsheviks in the Russian Civil War
starting in 1917
The second group also starting with an a) were their internal
opponents.
As you would know, if you bothered to check the link.
The lies and propaganda started right there in 1917, and continue to
this day.
Which is why unless you resort to using a VPN, as a British Citizen
*you're note allowed to look at Russian Websites. They're *blocked*
by the British Government to prevent you from being able to
decide for yourself,
Really? I don't have a VPN, but:
<https://dzen.ru/>
Please confirm whether or not you were able to gain access to it.
Then there's the main news website: <https://tass.ru/>
That's in Russian
But following a bit of Googling, this one works far better as
it's in English
https://tass.com/world
So thanks for the steer.
And fill your boots !
The truth will out !
On 21/05/2026 13:23, The Todal wrote:
On 21/05/2026 12:50, Norman Wells wrote:
On 21/05/2026 12:16, The Todal wrote:
I'm one of the people, so I am the master and they should do as I say,I think we should have taken back control from the Leave mob, but
unfortunately it didn't work out that way. Politicians are scared of
the voters.
Rightly so.-a The people are the masters in a democracy, not politicians. >>
whether or not I've actually said it yet.
When you can demonstrate that what you want is actually the will of the majority of the people, then you can be a master.-a Until then, you can't.
On 21 May 2026 at 14:44:56 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 20/05/2026 22:09, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-20, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 19/05/2026 16:25, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-19, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 19/05/2026 13:28, JNugent wrote:
On 18/05/2026 01:18 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-18, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 18/05/2026 08:36, Norman Wells wrote:
We shouldn't of course be starting from where we are, with a bad >>>>>>>>>> leaving
agreement negotiated by Remainers. All we can do now is chip away at
it, against intransigent opposition from the EU displaying antagonistic
attitudes I personally find distasteful and wouldn't want to be allied
with.
That's always the most ridiculous of arguments. That the gang of >>>>>>>>> dimwits, Boris, Gove, Farage etc, who know nothing whatsoever about >>>>>>>>> economics or trade or treaties but know how to write persuasive >>>>>>>>> newspaper columns, could have used their negligible skills to get us a
better leaving agreement, overruling the experts, and given us a pot of
gold at the end of the rainbow.
Not to mention, it was Boris Johnson who "negotiated" the "deal". >>>>>>>> Suggesting that the leaders of the Leavers was actually a Remainer >>>>>>>> is fairytale conspiracy nonsense of the highest order.
It's all the fault of Remainers like Theresa May who were determined >>>>>>>>> to sabotage Brexit, right?
The only thing May sabotaged, with her "red lines", was the will of >>>>>>>> the people - who certainly didn't vote for the "Hard Brexit" that was >>>>>>>> forced undemocratically upon an unwilling country.
So what DID they vote for?
To leave the EU, but not with any specific time period in mind because >>>>>> no time limit was ever specified. The Leave leaflets said that of course >>>>>> we wouldn't leave until we had made a very good leaving agreement.
And of course "leave the EU" was completely undefined. The only thing >>>>> it definitely entails is "not be a member of the EU any more". We were >>>>> told before the referendum that "Levae" would mean a situation like
that of Norway, or Switzerland, where we would still be part of some >>>>> of the related agreements like the single market or customs union.
But mysteriously, after the referendum, "Leave" was retrospectively
redefined to mean completely abandoning any and all agreements or
organisations that might have an "E" in their name - even though this >>>>> was the only thing the referendum result could not possibly mean!
We want our volts back! (We have 240v not 230v)
I assume you already know the volts "changed" from 240 +/- 10% to
230 +10%/-6%, meaning we didn't have to actually do anything to our
real voltage? ;-)
Of course. It was completely pointless.
Just because you cannot see the point does not mean there wasn't one.
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n781pmFnab1U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n76532Fe916U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n746pgF50vdU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n738r9FefgU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n72jriFcjvvU1@mid.individual.net...
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
[.]
I would advocate for a proper
union, a proper federation, a single state with central government.
How did the Soviet Union work out as a model?
snip
I'm sure the millions who died or were killed in the atrocities referenced
in the link and which you have now childishly ignored will graciously >>>>> overlook your sidelining of their fate - which was intended to suggest >>>>> your
original comments had verisimilitude.
While you chose to ignore the fact that the Soviet Union didn't have
extensive coastlines on two major oceans; didn't have 200 years
in which to take advantage of slave labour, but had to play catch-up,
starting from scratch within 10 years.
<rest snipped>
You appear to have yet again ignored the massacres that were internal to >>> the Soviet Union, the numbers involved being such as to negate the
dismissive position you held on the matter, in favour of an irrelevant
history lesson that included two items both labelled as (a).
The first group starting with an a) were all the countries or states
including
Great Britain who opposed the Bolsheviks in the Russian Civil War
starting in 1917
The second group also starting with an a) were their internal
opponents.
As you would know, if you bothered to check the link.
The lies and propaganda started right there in 1917, and continue to
this day.
Which is why unless you resort to using a VPN, as a British Citizen
*you're note allowed to look at Russian Websites. They're *blocked*
by the British Government to prevent you from being able to
decide for yourself,
Of course when Valadimir Putin did this it, was all over the BBC
how the poor Russians were being kept from the truth.
But it somehow doesn't apply to citizens of the UK. We're happy to
happily lap up whatever morsels of propoganda that we're offered.,
I notice little Zelensky has got himself back in the news after a
few weeks, with some announcement of other*. Presumably he's been
on his holidays.
bb
* Although not about any forthcoming elections unfortunately
I wonder if you would take the trouble to respond to the request to acknowledge the millions of people within the Soviet Union who died as a result of massacres, in total more than the group you mentioned.
I realise this would go against your original assertion,
but I did supply a
link showing such information,
which you either sneeringly dismissed or
deflected onto irrelevant matters such as the geography of the Soviet
Union.
Perhaps it is time you acknowledged that you are likely to have been wrong.
On 21/05/2026 14:22, Norman Wells wrote:
On 21/05/2026 13:23, The Todal wrote:
On 21/05/2026 12:50, Norman Wells wrote:
On 21/05/2026 12:16, The Todal wrote:
I think we should have taken back control from the Leave mob, but
unfortunately it didn't work out that way. Politicians are scared
of the voters.
Rightly so.-a The people are the masters in a democracy, not
politicians.
I'm one of the people, so I am the master and they should do as I
say, whether or not I've actually said it yet.
When you can demonstrate that what you want is actually the will of
the majority of the people, then you can be a master.-a Until then, you
can't.
Since nobody can demonstrate that their particular opinions represent
the will of the majority,
that's why Parliamentary Democracy should be
respected as the sole arbiter of the will of the electorate.
On 22/05/2026 20:26, The Todal wrote:
On 21/05/2026 14:22, Norman Wells wrote:
On 21/05/2026 13:23, The Todal wrote:Since nobody can demonstrate that their particular opinions
On 21/05/2026 12:50, Norman Wells wrote:
On 21/05/2026 12:16, The Todal wrote:
I think we should have taken back control from the Leave mob, but >>>>>>unfortunately it didn't work out that way. Politicians are scared >>>>>>of the voters.
Rightly so.a The people are the masters in a democracy, not >>>>>politicians.
I'm one of the people, so I am the master and they should do as I >>>>say, whether or not I've actually said it yet.
When you can demonstrate that what you want is actually the will of
the majority of the people, then you can be a master.a Until then,
you can't.
represent the will of the majority,
What do you think a referendum does?
that's why Parliamentary Democracy should be respected as the sole >>arbiter of the will of the electorate.
A referendum is a purer way.
On 22/05/2026 08:53 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n79eapFu3bmU1@mid.individual.net...
On 21/05/2026 02:32 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n781pmFnab1U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n76532Fe916U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n746pgF50vdU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n738r9FefgU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n72jriFcjvvU1@mid.individual.net...
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
[.]
I would advocate for a proper
union, a proper federation, a single state with central >>>>>>>>>>>>>> government.
How did the Soviet Union work out as a model?
snip
I'm sure the millions who died or were killed in the atrocities >>>>>>> referenced
in the link and which you have now childishly ignored will graciously >>>>>>> overlook your sidelining of their fate - which was intended to suggest >>>>>>> your
original comments had verisimilitude.
While you chose to ignore the fact that the Soviet Union didn't have >>>>>> extensive coastlines on two major oceans; didn't have 200 years
in which to take advantage of slave labour, but had to play catch-up, >>>>>> starting from scratch within 10 years.
<rest snipped>
You appear to have yet again ignored the massacres that were internal to >>>>> the Soviet Union, the numbers involved being such as to negate the
dismissive position you held on the matter, in favour of an irrelevant >>>>> history lesson that included two items both labelled as (a).
The first group starting with an a) were all the countries or states
including
Great Britain who opposed the Bolsheviks in the Russian Civil War
starting in 1917
The second group also starting with an a) were their internal
opponents.
As you would know, if you bothered to check the link.
The lies and propaganda started right there in 1917, and continue to
this day.
Which is why unless you resort to using a VPN, as a British Citizen
*you're note allowed to look at Russian Websites. They're *blocked*
by the British Government to prevent you from being able to
decide for yourself,
Really? I don't have a VPN, but:
<https://dzen.ru/>
Please confirm whether or not you were able to gain access to it.
Then there's the main news website: <https://tass.ru/>
Those sites are exclusively in Russian.
What else did you expect?
Is the BBC new site available in Russian?
How do the cited URLs sort with your claim that "...as a British Citizen *you're note allowed to look at Russian Websites. They're *blocked* by the British Government..."?
On 22/05/2026 20:26, The Todal wrote:
On 21/05/2026 14:22, Norman Wells wrote:
On 21/05/2026 13:23, The Todal wrote:
On 21/05/2026 12:50, Norman Wells wrote:
On 21/05/2026 12:16, The Todal wrote:
I think we should have taken back control from the Leave mob, but >>>>>> unfortunately it didn't work out that way. Politicians are scared >>>>>> of the voters.
Rightly so.-a The people are the masters in a democracy, not
politicians.
I'm one of the people, so I am the master and they should do as I
say, whether or not I've actually said it yet.
When you can demonstrate that what you want is actually the will of
the majority of the people, then you can be a master.-a Until then,
you can't.
Since nobody can demonstrate that their particular opinions represent
the will of the majority,
What do you think a referendum does?
that's why Parliamentary Democracy should be respected as the sole
arbiter of the will of the electorate.
A referendum is a purer way.
In message <n7buaoF6iedU1@mid.individual.net>, Norman Wells
<hex@unseen.ac.am> writes
On 22/05/2026 20:26, The Todal wrote:Even the absolutely purist of democratic decisions is no guarantee that
On 21/05/2026 14:22, Norman Wells wrote:
On 21/05/2026 13:23, The Todal wrote:Since nobody can demonstrate that their particular opinions
On 21/05/2026 12:50, Norman Wells wrote:
On 21/05/2026 12:16, The Todal wrote:
I think we should have taken back control from the Leave mob, but >>>>>>>unfortunately it didn't work out that way. Politicians are scared >>>>>>>of the voters.
Rightly so.-a The people are the masters in a democracy, not >>>>>>politicians.
I'm one of the people, so I am the master and they should do as I >>>>>say, whether or not I've actually said it yet.
When you can demonstrate that what you want is actually the will of >>>>the majority of the people, then you can be a master.-a Until then, >>>>you can't.
represent the will of the majority,
What do you think a referendum does?
that's why Parliamentary Democracy should be respected as the sole >>>arbiter of the will of the electorate.
A referendum is a purer way.
it will turn out to have been a good decision.
On 22/05/2026 21:57, Norman Wells wrote:
On 22/05/2026 20:26, The Todal wrote:
On 21/05/2026 14:22, Norman Wells wrote:
On 21/05/2026 13:23, The Todal wrote:
On 21/05/2026 12:50, Norman Wells wrote:
On 21/05/2026 12:16, The Todal wrote:
I think we should have taken back control from the Leave mob, but >>>>>>> unfortunately it didn't work out that way. Politicians are scared >>>>>>> of the voters.
Rightly so.-a The people are the masters in a democracy, not
politicians.
I'm one of the people, so I am the master and they should do as I
say, whether or not I've actually said it yet.
When you can demonstrate that what you want is actually the will of
the majority of the people, then you can be a master.-a Until then,
you can't.
Since nobody can demonstrate that their particular opinions represent
the will of the majority,
What do you think a referendum does?
We've been through this countless times - I don't know what you are
finding so difficult to understand.
The referendum says that we must leave the EU but does not stipulate a
time scale. So if the government said that they planned to leave in 10 years, it would still comply with the wish of the electorate.
Aspects such as whether we remain in the single market or agree to free movement of people between the UK and the EU were never specified and remained open to debate.
that's why Parliamentary Democracy should be respected as the sole
arbiter of the will of the electorate.
A referendum is a purer way.
Obviously not, since the referendum did not itself take us out of the EU
and it was necessary to pass further legislation in Parliament.
On 2026-05-22, Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
In message <n7buaoF6iedU1@mid.individual.net>, Norman Wells
<hex@unseen.ac.am> writes
On 22/05/2026 20:26, The Todal wrote:Even the absolutely purist of democratic decisions is no guarantee that
On 21/05/2026 14:22, Norman Wells wrote:
On 21/05/2026 13:23, The Todal wrote:Since nobody can demonstrate that their particular opinions
On 21/05/2026 12:50, Norman Wells wrote:
On 21/05/2026 12:16, The Todal wrote:
I think we should have taken back control from the Leave mob, but >>>>>>>> unfortunately it didn't work out that way. Politicians are scared >>>>>>>> of the voters.
Rightly so.-a The people are the masters in a democracy, not
politicians.
I'm one of the people, so I am the master and they should do as I
say, whether or not I've actually said it yet.
When you can demonstrate that what you want is actually the will of
the majority of the people, then you can be a master.-a Until then,
you can't.
represent the will of the majority,
What do you think a referendum does?
that's why Parliamentary Democracy should be respected as the sole
arbiter of the will of the electorate.
A referendum is a purer way.
it will turn out to have been a good decision.
There's nothing that can guarantee a decision will be good. But either
you put only occasional questions to a referendum, in which case the
numerous missing details must be filled in by elected politicians
- which Norman is apparently against
- or you must hold a great many
referendums regarding every little decision - which Norman also seems
to be against.
And the latter has the additional disadvantage that
the entire populace cannot possibly spend the time required to learn
all the information required to make an informed decision about every
little thing the government has to do.
On 22/05/2026 23:32, The Todal wrote:And there's the nub of the debate. You believe you have insight into the legitimate expectations of the people. Based on the newspapers you have
On 22/05/2026 21:57, Norman Wells wrote:
On 22/05/2026 20:26, The Todal wrote:
On 21/05/2026 14:22, Norman Wells wrote:
On 21/05/2026 13:23, The Todal wrote:
On 21/05/2026 12:50, Norman Wells wrote:
On 21/05/2026 12:16, The Todal wrote:
I think we should have taken back control from the Leave mob, >>>>>>>> but unfortunately it didn't work out that way. Politicians are >>>>>>>> scared of the voters.
Rightly so.-a The people are the masters in a democracy, not
politicians.
I'm one of the people, so I am the master and they should do as I >>>>>> say, whether or not I've actually said it yet.
When you can demonstrate that what you want is actually the will of >>>>> the majority of the people, then you can be a master.-a Until then, >>>>> you can't.
Since nobody can demonstrate that their particular opinions
represent the will of the majority,
What do you think a referendum does?
We've been through this countless times - I don't know what you are
finding so difficult to understand.
I was talking about referendums in general, not just the one that
obsesses you.
The referendum says that we must leave the EU but does not stipulate a
time scale. So if the government said that they planned to leave in 10
years, it would still comply with the wish of the electorate.
Only pedantically, not in any good faith, and not in any way meeting the legitimate expectations of the people.
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message news:n7ag9mF4hrgU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n781pmFnab1U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n76532Fe916U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n746pgF50vdU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n738r9FefgU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n72jriFcjvvU1@mid.individual.net...
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
[.]
I would advocate for a proper
union, a proper federation, a single state with central government.
How did the Soviet Union work out as a model?
snip
I'm sure the millions who died or were killed in the atrocities referenced
in the link and which you have now childishly ignored will graciously >>>>>> overlook your sidelining of their fate - which was intended to suggest >>>>>> your
original comments had verisimilitude.
While you chose to ignore the fact that the Soviet Union didn't have >>>>> extensive coastlines on two major oceans; didn't have 200 years
in which to take advantage of slave labour, but had to play catch-up, >>>>> starting from scratch within 10 years.
<rest snipped>
You appear to have yet again ignored the massacres that were internal to >>>> the Soviet Union, the numbers involved being such as to negate the
dismissive position you held on the matter, in favour of an irrelevant >>>> history lesson that included two items both labelled as (a).
The first group starting with an a) were all the countries or states
including
Great Britain who opposed the Bolsheviks in the Russian Civil War
starting in 1917
The second group also starting with an a) were their internal
opponents.
As you would know, if you bothered to check the link.
The lies and propaganda started right there in 1917, and continue to
this day.
Which is why unless you resort to using a VPN, as a British Citizen
*you're note allowed to look at Russian Websites. They're *blocked*
by the British Government to prevent you from being able to
decide for yourself,
Of course when Valadimir Putin did this it, was all over the BBC
how the poor Russians were being kept from the truth.
But it somehow doesn't apply to citizens of the UK. We're happy to
happily lap up whatever morsels of propoganda that we're offered.,
I notice little Zelensky has got himself back in the news after a
few weeks, with some announcement of other*. Presumably he's been
on his holidays.
bb
* Although not about any forthcoming elections unfortunately
I wonder if you would take the trouble to respond to the request to
acknowledge the millions of people within the Soviet Union who died as a
result of massacres, in total more than the group you mentioned.
Millions of people died in the Soviet Union for all sorts of reasons
Anyone who claimed that none of them died as a result of massacres
would be clearly mistaken. Such as these for instance, from the link
which you so kindly supplied
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_the_Soviet_Union
quote:
Massacre of Korean civilians by Japanese soldiers
:unquote
quote:
23,600 Hungarian and Ukrainian Jews were murdered by the German Police Battalion 320 along with Friedrich Jeckeln's Einsatzgruppen, Hungarian soldiers, and the Ukrainian Auxiliary Police[71]
:unquote
quote:
Over 7,000 Soviet civilians and POWs, and members of the Taganrog resistance movement were massacred by the German army, with the assistance of non-German divisions, during their occupation of Taganrog
:unquote
quote:
About 3,000-5,000 Jews were killed near the town of Dzyatlava by a German death
squad aided by the Lithuanian and the Belarusian Auxiliary Police battalions[73]
:unquote
quote:
Extermination of a whole village in Belarus by Nazi Germany
:unquote
I realise this would go against your original assertion,
which was ?
but I did supply a
link showing such information,
Indeed. See above
which you either sneeringly dismissed or
deflected onto irrelevant matters such as the geography of the Soviet
Union.
Wherever did I refer to the "geography" of the Soviet Union ?
You appera to be getting confused again; and possibly mixing me up with somebody else
Perhaps it is time you acknowledged that you are likely to have been wrong.
Wrong in what way, exactly ?
bb
On 22/05/2026 08:25 AM, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 21/05/2026 23:12, JNugent wrote:
On 21/05/2026 02:32 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n781pmFnab1U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n76532Fe916U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n746pgF50vdU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n738r9FefgU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n72jriFcjvvU1@mid.individual.net...
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
[.]
I would advocate for a proper
union, a proper federation, a single state with central >>>>>>>>>>>>>> government.
How did the Soviet Union work out as a model?
snip
I'm sure the millions who died or were killed in the atrocities
referenced
in the link and which you have now childishly ignored will graciously >>>>>>> overlook your sidelining of their fate - which was intended to
suggest your
original comments had verisimilitude.
While you chose to ignore the fact that the Soviet Union didn't have >>>>>> extensive coastlines on two major oceans; didn't have 200 years
in which to take advantage of slave labour, but had to play catch-up, >>>>>> starting from scratch within 10 years.
<rest snipped>
You appear to have yet again ignored the massacres that were
internal to
the Soviet Union, the numbers involved being such as to negate the
dismissive position you held on the matter, in favour of an irrelevant >>>>> history lesson that included two items both labelled as (a).
The first group starting with an a) were all the countries or states
including
Great Britain who opposed the Bolsheviks in the Russian Civil War
starting in 1917
The second group also starting with an a) were their internal
opponents.
As you would know, if you bothered to check the link.
The lies and propaganda started right there in 1917, and continue to
this day.
Which is why unless you resort to using a VPN, as a British Citizen
*you're note allowed to look at Russian Websites. They're *blocked*
by the British Government to prevent you from being able to
decide for yourself,
Really? I don't have a VPN, but:
<https://dzen.ru/>
Please confirm whether or not you were able to gain access to it.
Then there's the main news website: <https://tass.ru/>
But how do you know that a Russian and a Brit would see the same thing
if they went to either of those websites?
How do you know, and/or why do you suspect, anything else?
For ages it's been possible to
stop certain regional IP addresses from accessing pages, perhaps due to
licensing agreement (eg the BBC), or legal requirements such as the "18
years old" requirement in the UK (eg Imgur).
You'd only know if it was possible to compare the pages side-by-side
using those different IP addresses.
And if there were any reason to suspect it.
On 22/05/2026 12:28, JNugent wrote:
On 22/05/2026 08:25 AM, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 21/05/2026 23:12, JNugent wrote:
On 21/05/2026 02:32 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n781pmFnab1U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Which is why unless you resort to using a VPN, as a British Citizen
*you're note allowed to look at Russian Websites. They're *blocked*
by the British Government to prevent you from being able to
decide for yourself,
Really? I don't have a VPN, but:
<https://dzen.ru/>
Please confirm whether or not you were able to gain access to it.
Then there's the main news website: <https://tass.ru/>
But how do you know that a Russian and a Brit would see the same thing
if they went to either of those websites?
How do you know, and/or why do you suspect, anything else?
See my previous post (or below) concerning what those outside the UK see on the BBC news website and those inside the UK see on the Imgur website. All
I'm saying is that it's technically feasible for the "same" website to show different things to different viewers depending on the IP address.
On 23/05/2026 12:47, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 22/05/2026 12:28, JNugent wrote:
On 22/05/2026 08:25 AM, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 21/05/2026 23:12, JNugent wrote:
On 21/05/2026 02:32 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n781pmFnab1U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Which is why unless you resort to using a VPN, as a British Citizen >>>>>> *you're note allowed to look at Russian Websites. They're *blocked* >>>>>> by the British Government to prevent you from being able to
decide for yourself,
Really? I don't have a VPN, but:
<https://dzen.ru/>
Please confirm whether or not you were able to gain access to it.
Then there's the main news website: <https://tass.ru/>
But how do you know that a Russian and a Brit would see the same thing >>>> if they went to either of those websites?
How do you know, and/or why do you suspect, anything else?
See my previous post (or below) concerning what those outside the UK see on >> the BBC news website and those inside the UK see on the Imgur website. All
IME bbc.co.uk/news redirects to bbc.com if something thinks you are
outside the UK; and bbc.com/news redirects for bbc.co.uk inside the UK.
I'm saying is that it's technically feasible for the "same" website to show >> different things to different viewers depending on the IP address.
Well, obviously, and AI sites will even make up different answers with
the same IP address.
But what Russian web sites are British citizens not allowed to look at ?
On 23/05/2026 07:43, Norman Wells wrote:
On 22/05/2026 23:32, The Todal wrote:And there's the nub of the debate. You believe you have insight into the legitimate expectations of the people.
On 22/05/2026 21:57, Norman Wells wrote:
On 22/05/2026 20:26, The Todal wrote:
On 21/05/2026 14:22, Norman Wells wrote:
On 21/05/2026 13:23, The Todal wrote:
On 21/05/2026 12:50, Norman Wells wrote:
On 21/05/2026 12:16, The Todal wrote:
I think we should have taken back control from the Leave mob, >>>>>>>>> but unfortunately it didn't work out that way. Politicians are >>>>>>>>> scared of the voters.
Rightly so.-a The people are the masters in a democracy, not
politicians.
I'm one of the people, so I am the master and they should do as I >>>>>>> say, whether or not I've actually said it yet.
When you can demonstrate that what you want is actually the will
of the majority of the people, then you can be a master.-a Until
then, you can't.
Since nobody can demonstrate that their particular opinions
represent the will of the majority,
What do you think a referendum does?
We've been through this countless times - I don't know what you are
finding so difficult to understand.
I was talking about referendums in general, not just the one that
obsesses you.
The referendum says that we must leave the EU but does not stipulate
a time scale. So if the government said that they planned to leave in
10 years, it would still comply with the wish of the electorate.
Only pedantically, not in any good faith, and not in any way meeting
the legitimate expectations of the people.
Based on the newspapers you have
read, the politicians you have listened to, the people who have spoken
to you at work or at home.
None of which tells you what "the people" were demanding or expecting.
It is much more likely that the legitimate expectations of the people
would be that their leaders would do their very best, for however long
it took, to ensure that Brexit would not result in a loss of jobs, loss
of income, reduction in the nation's growth, higher taxes.
I realise this would go against your original assertion,
which was ?
If you have forgotten what it is you were discussing, I feel the best
course of action would be my drawing a veil of charity over the unfortunate episode, as bringing you back to your point each time you deflect away from it is becoming tedious both for myself and anyone else who might have followed events thus far.
but I did supply a
link showing such information,
Indeed. See above
which you either sneeringly dismissed or
deflected onto irrelevant matters such as the geography of the Soviet
Union.
Wherever did I refer to the "geography" of the Soviet Union ?
You appera to be getting confused again; and possibly mixing me up with
somebody else
Wrong in what way, exactly ?
Perhaps it is time you acknowledged that you are likely to have been wrong. >>
bb
On 23 May 2026 at 16:04:17 BST, "Nick Finnigan" <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 23/05/2026 12:47, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 22/05/2026 12:28, JNugent wrote:IME bbc.co.uk/news redirects to bbc.com if something thinks you are
On 22/05/2026 08:25 AM, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 21/05/2026 23:12, JNugent wrote:
On 21/05/2026 02:32 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n781pmFnab1U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Which is why unless you resort to using a VPN, as a British Citizen >>>>>>> *you're note allowed to look at Russian Websites. They're *blocked* >>>>>>> by the British Government to prevent you from being able to
decide for yourself,
Really? I don't have a VPN, but:
<https://dzen.ru/>
Please confirm whether or not you were able to gain access to it.
Then there's the main news website: <https://tass.ru/>
But how do you know that a Russian and a Brit would see the same thing >>>>> if they went to either of those websites?
How do you know, and/or why do you suspect, anything else?
See my previous post (or below) concerning what those outside the UK see on >>> the BBC news website and those inside the UK see on the Imgur website. All >>
outside the UK; and bbc.com/news redirects for bbc.co.uk inside the UK.
I'm saying is that it's technically feasible for the "same" website to show >>> different things to different viewers depending on the IP address.
Well, obviously, and AI sites will even make up different answers with
the same IP address.
But what Russian web sites are British citizens not allowed to look at ?
www.rt.com
Though, to be honest, it is not really that well hidden.
On 5/23/26 17:24, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 May 2026 at 16:04:17 BST, "Nick Finnigan" <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 23/05/2026 12:47, Jeff Layman wrote:www.rt.com
On 22/05/2026 12:28, JNugent wrote:IME bbc.co.uk/news redirects to bbc.com if something thinks you are
On 22/05/2026 08:25 AM, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 21/05/2026 23:12, JNugent wrote:
On 21/05/2026 02:32 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n781pmFnab1U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Which is why unless you resort to using a VPN, as a British Citizen >>>>>>>> *you're note allowed to look at Russian Websites. They're *blocked* >>>>>>>> by the British Government to prevent you from being able to
decide for yourself,
Really? I don't have a VPN, but:
<https://dzen.ru/>
Please confirm whether or not you were able to gain access to it. >>>>>>>
Then there's the main news website: <https://tass.ru/>
But how do you know that a Russian and a Brit would see the same thing >>>>>> if they went to either of those websites?
How do you know, and/or why do you suspect, anything else?
See my previous post (or below) concerning what those outside the UK see on
the BBC news website and those inside the UK see on the Imgur website. All >>>
outside the UK; and bbc.com/news redirects for bbc.co.uk inside the UK.
I'm saying is that it's technically feasible for the "same" website to show
different things to different viewers depending on the IP address.
Well, obviously, and AI sites will even make up different answers with >>> the same IP address.
But what Russian web sites are British citizens not allowed to look at ? >>
Though, to be honest, it is not really that well hidden.
RT is blocked by major ISPs, effectively blocked for most users. Anyone
who wants to get around it can, but they are probably not the
demographic the government is trying to influence.
Our MSM is biased. Alternative and foreign media is censored.
Whistleblowers are persecuted. It is surprising that this would be a revelation to anyone.
On 23 May 2026 at 16:04:17 BST, "Nick Finnigan" <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
But what Russian web sites are British citizens not allowed to look at ?
www.rt.com
Though, to be honest, it is not really that well hidden.
And there's the nub of the debate. You believe you have insight into the
legitimate expectations of the people.
It's not hard. Boris's slogan was 'Get Brexit Done'. He was clearly frustrated by the lack of proper progress caused by those determined to derail it, and he won by a very convincing margin in the 2019 general election, showing very clearly how that chimed with mood of the people.
Based on the newspapers you have
read, the politicians you have listened to, the people who have spoken
to you at work or at home.
No, it's based on ascertainable facts and sound deduction.
On 23/05/2026 17:24, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 May 2026 at 16:04:17 BST, "Nick Finnigan" <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:I can navigate to it, Google and DuckDuckGo/Bing include it in responses. How is it hidden?
www.rt.com
But what Russian web sites are British citizens not allowed to look at ? >>
Though, to be honest, it is not really that well hidden.
On 5/23/26 17:24, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 May 2026 at 16:04:17 BST, "Nick Finnigan" <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 23/05/2026 12:47, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 22/05/2026 12:28, JNugent wrote:
On 22/05/2026 08:25 AM, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 21/05/2026 23:12, JNugent wrote:
On 21/05/2026 02:32 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n781pmFnab1U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Which is why unless you resort to using a VPN, as a British Citizen >>>>>>>> *you're note allowed to look at Russian Websites. They're *blocked* >>>>>>>> by the British Government to prevent you from being able to
decide for yourself,
Really? I don't have a VPN, but:
<https://dzen.ru/>
Please confirm whether or not you were able to gain access to it. >>>>>>>
Then there's the main news website: <https://tass.ru/>
But how do you know that a Russian and a Brit would see the same
thing
if they went to either of those websites?
How do you know, and/or why do you suspect, anything else?
See my previous post (or below) concerning what those outside the UK
see on
the BBC news website and those inside the UK see on the Imgur
website. All
-a-a IME bbc.co.uk/news redirects to bbc.com if something thinks you are >>> outside the UK; and bbc.com/news redirects for bbc.co.uk inside the UK.
I'm saying is that it's technically feasible for the "same" website
to show
different things to different viewers depending on the IP address.
-a-a Well, obviously, and AI sites will even make up different answers
with
the same IP address.
-a-a But what Russian web sites are British citizens not allowed to
look at ?
www.rt.com
Though, to be honest, it is not really that well hidden.
RT is blocked by major ISPs, effectively blocked for most users. Anyone
who wants to get around it can, but they are probably not the
demographic the government is trying to influence.
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message news:n7dkt2FjkilU1@mid.individual.net...
snip
I realise this would go against your original assertion,
which was ?
If you have forgotten what it is you were discussing, I feel the best
course of action would be my drawing a veil of charity over the unfortunate >> episode, as bringing you back to your point each time you deflect away from >> it is becoming tedious both for myself and anyone else who might have
followed events thus far.
You are the one claiming I made this "assertion"; just as you are the one claiming I made reference to, and I quote. "the geography of the Soviet Union".
For the avoidance of doubt, anyone conducting a word search of this
thread can confirm for themselves that the first instance of the word "geography", occurred in your post.
You are clearly confused; and are possibly mixing me up with another
poster who did make some assertion or other; and did indeed mention
"the geography of the Soviet Union"; but in another thread.
Which admittedly, anyone in a similar condition to your own could
quite possibly find tedious. So that in order to save yourself
from further distress, possibly you would be better advised to
steer clear of the more complicated topics; for the time being
at least
You know it makes sense.
bb
but I did supply a
link showing such information,
Indeed. See above
which you either sneeringly dismissed or
deflected onto irrelevant matters such as the geography of the Soviet
Union.
Wherever did I refer to the "geography" of the Soviet Union ?
You appera to be getting confused again; and possibly mixing me up with
somebody else
Perhaps it is time you acknowledged that you are likely to have been wrong.
Wrong in what way, exactly ?
On 22/05/2026 12:28, JNugent wrote:
On 22/05/2026 08:25 AM, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 21/05/2026 23:12, JNugent wrote:
On 21/05/2026 02:32 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n781pmFnab1U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n76532Fe916U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n746pgF50vdU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n738r9FefgU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n72jriFcjvvU1@mid.individual.net...
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
[.]
I would advocate for a proper
union, a proper federation, a single state with central >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> government.
How did the Soviet Union work out as a model?
snip
I'm sure the millions who died or were killed in the atrocities >>>>>>>> referenced
in the link and which you have now childishly ignored will
graciously
overlook your sidelining of their fate - which was intended to >>>>>>>> suggest your
original comments had verisimilitude.
While you chose to ignore the fact that the Soviet Union didn't
have
extensive coastlines on two major oceans; didn't have 200 years
in which to take advantage of slave labour, but had to play
catch-up,
starting from scratch within 10 years.
<rest snipped>
You appear to have yet again ignored the massacres that were
internal to
the Soviet Union, the numbers involved being such as to negate the >>>>>> dismissive position you held on the matter, in favour of an
irrelevant
history lesson that included two items both labelled as (a).
The first group starting with an a) were all the countries or states >>>>> including
Great Britain who opposed the Bolsheviks in the Russian Civil War
starting in 1917
The second group also starting with an a) were their internal
opponents.
As you would know, if you bothered to check the link.
The lies and propaganda started right there in 1917, and continue to >>>>> this day.
Which is why unless you resort to using a VPN, as a British Citizen
*you're note allowed to look at Russian Websites. They're *blocked*
by the British Government to prevent you from being able to
decide for yourself,
Really? I don't have a VPN, but:
<https://dzen.ru/>
Please confirm whether or not you were able to gain access to it.
Then there's the main news website: <https://tass.ru/>
But how do you know that a Russian and a Brit would see the same thing
if they went to either of those websites?
How do you know, and/or why do you suspect, anything else?
See my previous post (or below) concerning what those outside the UK see
on the BBC news website and those inside the UK see on the Imgur
website. All I'm saying is that it's technically feasible for the "same" website to show different things to different viewers depending on the
IP address. I suspect that you couldn't know if there was a difference
unless you could control, and specify, your IP address, and compare the websites side-by-side.
For ages it's been possible to
stop certain regional IP addresses from accessing pages, perhaps due to
licensing agreement (eg the BBC), or legal requirements such as the "18
years old" requirement in the UK (eg Imgur).
You'd only know if it was possible to compare the pages side-by-side
using those different IP addresses.
And if there were any reason to suspect it.
We're talking about politically-biased news websites. That's reason
enough to suspect that there /could/ be something suspicious going on.
On 5/23/26 17:24, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 May 2026 at 16:04:17 BST, "Nick Finnigan" <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 23/05/2026 12:47, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 22/05/2026 12:28, JNugent wrote:
On 22/05/2026 08:25 AM, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 21/05/2026 23:12, JNugent wrote:
On 21/05/2026 02:32 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n781pmFnab1U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Which is why unless you resort to using a VPN, as a British Citizen >>>>>>>> *you're note allowed to look at Russian Websites. They're *blocked* >>>>>>>> by the British Government to prevent you from being able to
decide for yourself,
Really? I don't have a VPN, but:
<https://dzen.ru/>
Please confirm whether or not you were able to gain access to it. >>>>>>>
Then there's the main news website: <https://tass.ru/>
But how do you know that a Russian and a Brit would see the same
thing
if they went to either of those websites?
How do you know, and/or why do you suspect, anything else?
See my previous post (or below) concerning what those outside the UK
see on
the BBC news website and those inside the UK see on the Imgur
website. All
IME bbc.co.uk/news redirects to bbc.com if something thinks you are
outside the UK; and bbc.com/news redirects for bbc.co.uk inside the UK.
I'm saying is that it's technically feasible for the "same" website
to show
different things to different viewers depending on the IP address.
Well, obviously, and AI sites will even make up different answers
with
the same IP address.
But what Russian web sites are British citizens not allowed to
look at ?
www.rt.com
Though, to be honest, it is not really that well hidden.
RT is blocked by major ISPs, effectively blocked for most users.
Anyone
who wants to get around it can, but they are probably not the
demographic the government is trying to influence.
Our MSM is biased. Alternative and foreign media is censored.
Whistleblowers are persecuted. It is surprising that this would be a revelation to anyone.
On 23 May 2026 at 21:02:23 BST, "Nick Finnigan" <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 23/05/2026 17:24, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 May 2026 at 16:04:17 BST, "Nick Finnigan" <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote: >>>>I can navigate to it, Google and DuckDuckGo/Bing include it in responses. >> How is it hidden?
But what Russian web sites are British citizens not allowed to look at ?
www.rt.com
Though, to be honest, it is not really that well hidden.
Most people using a mobile phone or their ISPs automatic connection settings won't find it when they click on a link, but will get a "not found" or similar
error.
On 24/05/2026 10:44, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 May 2026 at 21:02:23 BST, "Nick Finnigan" <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 23/05/2026 17:24, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 May 2026 at 16:04:17 BST, "Nick Finnigan" <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>I can navigate to it, Google and DuckDuckGo/Bing include it in responses.
But what Russian web sites are British citizens not allowed to look at ?
www.rt.com
Though, to be honest, it is not really that well hidden.
How is it hidden?
Most people using a mobile phone or their ISPs automatic connection settings >> won't find it when they click on a link, but will get a "not found" or similar
error.
O2 wifi in Sainsburys gave 'Connection Refused', but my ISP's automatic connection settings, EE wifi and O2 4G data reached it.
Smells like a commerical decision somewhere to me.
On 23 May 2026 at 18:05:59 BST, "Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 5/23/26 17:24, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 May 2026 at 16:04:17 BST, "Nick Finnigan" <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote: >>>
On 23/05/2026 12:47, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 22/05/2026 12:28, JNugent wrote:
On 22/05/2026 08:25 AM, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 21/05/2026 23:12, JNugent wrote:
On 21/05/2026 02:32 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n781pmFnab1U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Which is why unless you resort to using a VPN, as a British Citizen >>>>>>>>> *you're note allowed to look at Russian Websites. They're *blocked* >>>>>>>>> by the British Government to prevent you from being able to
decide for yourself,
Really? I don't have a VPN, but:
<https://dzen.ru/>
Please confirm whether or not you were able to gain access to it. >>>>>>>>
Then there's the main news website: <https://tass.ru/>
But how do you know that a Russian and a Brit would see the same thing >>>>>>> if they went to either of those websites?
How do you know, and/or why do you suspect, anything else?
See my previous post (or below) concerning what those outside the UK see on
the BBC news website and those inside the UK see on the Imgur website. All
IME bbc.co.uk/news redirects to bbc.com if something thinks you are >>>> outside the UK; and bbc.com/news redirects for bbc.co.uk inside the UK. >>>>
I'm saying is that it's technically feasible for the "same" website to show
different things to different viewers depending on the IP address.
Well, obviously, and AI sites will even make up different answers with >>>> the same IP address.
But what Russian web sites are British citizens not allowed to look at ?
www.rt.com
Though, to be honest, it is not really that well hidden.
RT is blocked by major ISPs, effectively blocked for most users. Anyone
who wants to get around it can, but they are probably not the
demographic the government is trying to influence.
Our MSM is biased. Alternative and foreign media is censored.
Whistleblowers are persecuted. It is surprising that this would be a
revelation to anyone.
We used to be so self-righteous about "despotic regimes" blocking our propaganda broadcasts, too!
On 24/05/2026 10:44, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 May 2026 at 21:02:23 BST, "Nick Finnigan" <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 23/05/2026 17:24, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 May 2026 at 16:04:17 BST, "Nick Finnigan" <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>I can navigate to it, Google and DuckDuckGo/Bing include it in
But what Russian web sites are British citizens not allowed to
look at ?
www.rt.com
Though, to be honest, it is not really that well hidden.
responses.
How is it hidden?
Most people using a mobile phone or their ISPs automatic connection
settings won't find it when they click on a link, but will get a "not
found" or similar error.
O2 wifi in Sainsburys gave 'Connection Refused', but my ISP's automatic connection settings, EE wifi and O2 4G data reached it.
Smells like a commerical decision somewhere to me.
On 24/05/2026 10:44, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 May 2026 at 21:02:23 BST, "Nick Finnigan" <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 23/05/2026 17:24, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 May 2026 at 16:04:17 BST, "Nick Finnigan" <nix@genie.co.uk>-a-a I can navigate to it, Google and DuckDuckGo/Bing include it in
wrote:
-a-a-a But what Russian web sites are British citizens not allowed to >>>>> look at ?
www.rt.com
Though, to be honest, it is not really that well hidden.
responses.
How is it hidden?
Most people using a mobile phone or their ISPs automatic connection
settings
won't find it when they click on a link, but will get a "not found" or
similar
error.
-aO2 wifi in Sainsburys gave 'Connection Refused', but my ISP's
automatic connection settings, EE wifi and O2 4G data reached it.
-aSmells like a commerical decision somewhere to me.
On 24/05/2026 18:47, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 24/05/2026 10:44, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 May 2026 at 21:02:23 BST, "Nick Finnigan" <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote: >>>> On 23/05/2026 17:24, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 May 2026 at 16:04:17 BST, "Nick Finnigan" <nix@genie.co.uk>-a-a I can navigate to it, Google and DuckDuckGo/Bing include it in
wrote:
-a-a-a But what Russian web sites are British citizens not allowed to >>>>>> look at ?
www.rt.com
Though, to be honest, it is not really that well hidden.
responses.
How is it hidden?
Most people using a mobile phone or their ISPs automatic connection
settings
won't find it when they click on a link, but will get a "not found" or
similar
error.
-aO2 wifi in Sainsburys gave 'Connection Refused', but my ISP's
automatic connection settings, EE wifi and O2 4G data reached it.
-aSmells like a commerical decision somewhere to me.
DNS issues ISTM.
mike@uhura:~$ nslookup www.rt.com
Server: 127.0.0.53
Address: 127.0.0.53#53
** server can't find www.rt.com: NXDOMAIN
mike@uhura:~$ nslookup www.rt.com 8.8.8.8
Server: 8.8.8.8
Address: 8.8.8.8#53
Non-authoritative answer:
www.rt.com canonical name = en.wpc.rt.com.
Name: en.wpc.rt.com
Address: 91.215.41.4
So my ISP (Zen) doesn't provide an entry, google does.
This stupid and oppressive law appears, on the face of it, to require
every "person who provides an internet access service" (whatever that
means) to individually go and find (somehow) every website or other
service provided by anyone on the sanctions list and then (somehow)
block them from being accessed, or else be prosecuted as a criminal.
On 2026-05-24, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 24/05/2026 10:44, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 May 2026 at 21:02:23 BST, "Nick Finnigan" <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote: >>>> On 23/05/2026 17:24, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 May 2026 at 16:04:17 BST, "Nick Finnigan" <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>I can navigate to it, Google and DuckDuckGo/Bing include it in
But what Russian web sites are British citizens not allowed to >>>>>> look at ?
www.rt.com
Though, to be honest, it is not really that well hidden.
responses.
How is it hidden?
Most people using a mobile phone or their ISPs automatic connection
settings won't find it when they click on a link, but will get a "not
found" or similar error.
O2 wifi in Sainsburys gave 'Connection Refused', but my ISP's automatic >> connection settings, EE wifi and O2 4G data reached it.
Smells like a commerical decision somewhere to me.
rt.com is indeed legally blocked, because "TV-Novosti" is sanctioned,
which is the company that owns the Russia Today brand, and there is a
law, the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which says:
"54A. (2) A person who provides an internet access service must
take reasonable steps to prevent a user of the service in the
United Kingdom from accessing, by means of that service, an
internet service provided by a designated person."
This stupid and oppressive law appears, on the face of it, to require
every "person who provides an internet access service" (whatever that
means) to individually go and find (somehow) every website or other
service provided by anyone on the sanctions list and then (somehow)
block them from being accessed, or else be prosecuted as a criminal.
This thread has amply demonstrated quite how stupid this law is, in
that it seems nobody here has encountered any noticeable difficulty
in accessing rt.com, despite this presumably meaning that everyone who
works for the entire UK ISP industry are despicable criminals who should
all be jailed immediately.
So, in summary:
Bad news: the previous Tory government was oppressive and evil.
Good news: they were also indescribably incompetent.
Bad news: the new Labour government is, in some ways, even more
oppressive and evil.
Bad news: they are also probably marginally less incompetent.
On 24/05/2026 19:59, Jon Ribbens wrote:
This stupid and oppressive law appears, on the face of it, to require
every "person who provides an internet access service" (whatever that
means) to individually go and find (somehow) every website or other
service provided by anyone on the sanctions list and then (somehow)
block them from being accessed, or else be prosecuted as a criminal.
I only see an offence if they don't give information to OFCOM; monetary penalty for not taking reasonable steps.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/477/made
(Thanks for the pointers).
On 5/24/26 19:59, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-24, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 24/05/2026 10:44, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 May 2026 at 21:02:23 BST, "Nick Finnigan" <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote: >>>>> On 23/05/2026 17:24, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 May 2026 at 16:04:17 BST, "Nick Finnigan" <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>> But what Russian web sites are British citizens not allowed to >>>>>>> look at ?I can navigate to it, Google and DuckDuckGo/Bing include it in
www.rt.com
Though, to be honest, it is not really that well hidden.
responses.
How is it hidden?
Most people using a mobile phone or their ISPs automatic connection
settings won't find it when they click on a link, but will get a "not
found" or similar error.
O2 wifi in Sainsburys gave 'Connection Refused', but my ISP's automatic >>> connection settings, EE wifi and O2 4G data reached it.
Smells like a commerical decision somewhere to me.
rt.com is indeed legally blocked, because "TV-Novosti" is sanctioned,
which is the company that owns the Russia Today brand, and there is a
law, the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which says:
"54A. (2) A person who provides an internet access service must
take reasonable steps to prevent a user of the service in the
United Kingdom from accessing, by means of that service, an
internet service provided by a designated person."
This stupid and oppressive law appears, on the face of it, to require
every "person who provides an internet access service" (whatever that
means) to individually go and find (somehow) every website or other
service provided by anyone on the sanctions list and then (somehow)
block them from being accessed, or else be prosecuted as a criminal.
This thread has amply demonstrated quite how stupid this law is, in
that it seems nobody here has encountered any noticeable difficulty
in accessing rt.com, despite this presumably meaning that everyone who
works for the entire UK ISP industry are despicable criminals who should
all be jailed immediately.
So, in summary:
Bad news: the previous Tory government was oppressive and evil.
Good news: they were also indescribably incompetent.
Bad news: the new Labour government is, in some ways, even more
oppressive and evil.
Bad news: they are also probably marginally less incompetent.
I do not accept your assumption about the purpose of censorship with
respect to propaganda,
or that there is much difference between modern Tory or Labour
manifestations of the establishment.
I don't know why people in the UK hate Russia.
I don't know why the establishment want us to hate Russia. However,
the propaganda works.
On 23/05/2026 18:05, Pancho wrote:
RT is blocked by major ISPs, effectively blocked for most users.
Anyone who wants to get around it can, but they are probably not the
demographic the government is trying to influence.
Oddly, I could get it yesterday, but not today. (BT fibre)
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n7dkt2FjkilU1@mid.individual.net...
snip
I realise this would go against your original assertion,
which was ?
If you have forgotten what it is you were discussing, I feel the best
course of action would be my drawing a veil of charity over the unfortunate >>> episode, as bringing you back to your point each time you deflect away from >>> it is becoming tedious both for myself and anyone else who might have
followed events thus far.
You are the one claiming I made this "assertion"; just as you are the one
claiming I made reference to, and I quote. "the geography of the Soviet
Union".
Quote from billy bookcase, this thread, 19 May 2026 at 13:06:
The Soviet Union were never able to match the military threat posed by
the Federal United States of America
simply because they never enjoyed the undoubted benefits of genocide, land theft, slavery, and an extensive coastline on the World's two major oceans. As did the latter.
Unquote
For the avoidance of doubt, anyone conducting a word search of this
thread can confirm for themselves that the first instance of the word
"geography", occurred in your post.
<groan> 'not having an extensive coastline on the World's two major oceans' is a part of geography. Didn't you study the subject at school?
You are clearly confused; and are possibly mixing me up with another
poster who did make some assertion or other; and did indeed mention
"the geography of the Soviet Union"; but in another thread.
Your repeated assertion has now been trashed.
Which admittedly, anyone in a similar condition to your own could
quite possibly find tedious. So that in order to save yourself
from further distress, possibly you would be better advised to
steer clear of the more complicated topics; for the time being
at least
You know it makes sense.
bb
but I did supply a
link showing such information,
Indeed. See above
which you either sneeringly dismissed or
deflected onto irrelevant matters such as the geography of the Soviet >>>>> Union.
Wherever did I refer to the "geography" of the Soviet Union ?
See above quote from one of your posts.
You appera to be getting confused again; and possibly mixing me up with >>>> somebody else
Perhaps it is time you acknowledged that you are likely to have been >>>>> wrong.
Wrong in what way, exactly ?
I rest my case.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 69 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 26:08:52 |
| Calls: | 899 |
| Files: | 1,320 |
| D/L today: |
3 files (12,347K bytes) |
| Messages: | 282,214 |