Tory party members happy to destroy the UK to get Brexit

[JohntheBike]

Not in your case it's not .... you're just dull

Next.....

well, judging by the number of positive notifications I get about posts that I make here and in another place, you could be wrong. I have a loyal band of supporters for my position over IR35 for example. Those negative notifications, which are vastly outnumbered, come from one poster who is in a majority of one.

dull can mean uninspiring. But if anyone speaks about a subject or engages in various activities, however inspiring to avid supporters, which someone else is not interested in, then that person would class the speaker as dull. I think golf and that silly game with the round ball, are dull. The last time I found Formula 1 inspiring was when Fangio, Nuvolari and Hawthorne were racing.

dull can mean lacking in educational ability. You don't know what qualifications I have, so should not be able to comment.

dull can mean acting in a stupid way. That might be the opinion of an observer. However, having had a great deal of exposure to the autism arena is recent years, most people are on the autistic scale somewhere and many characteristics "traits" have their roots in autism. So in some ways your behaviour could be described as autistic.

dull could be applied to someone who continually criticises someone else for whatever reasons, as usually people rarely change their opinions, except MP's that is.

Over the many years that I've lived, I've developed a knack of pi**ing off those that annoy me to the extent that they back off and keep quiet. I'm quite skilled at it now.

[Whorty]

being "dull" a you put it, is relative.

Not in your case it's not .... you're just dull

Next.....

[WTFH]

As a brexiter, I was disappointed to see Rory go out.

I think he was also the least worst option for non-brexiters.

[unixman]

As a brexiter, I was disappointed to see Rory go out.

[JohntheBike]

If you don't want to be abused, stop being a dull chunt.

being "dull" a you put it, is relative. There are probably many things that you know about that I don't, but the reverse is also true. I'm reasonably well informed about BSA and Triumph motorcycles and automotive issues generally. Are you? So you might be a dullard in my opinion in relation to some issues. Just because someone isn't quite so well informed about any subject than others might be, and thus might not be able to debate an issue as intensely as others might do, doesn't mean that they are dullards. And just because a person's opinion seem to be contrary to your own, then that also doesn't mean to say they are a dullard.

I have two dentist friends, one who is an antediluvian protagonist, and the other believes that smart TV's and Alexa devices are being used to eavesdrop on the populace in much the same way as described by Orwell in 1984. Are they dullards?

Some autistic children, my grandson possibly, have skills that you are unlikely to be able to match, yet could be classed as dullards. An IQ factor isn't a measure of intelligence in my opinion.

[Old Greg]

Well, let me put it this way. There are those who will claim that all the improvements in all aspects of the UK's existence that have occurred since joining the EU are to be attributed to membership of the EU. There will also be those that claim that any detrimental affects that they feel that the UK has suffered since joining the EU are also attributed to the EU.

Let me give you one example of the first situation.

The dualling of the A465 from Neath to Abergavenny has been partially funded by the EU. EU supporters claim that this shows the benefit to Wales of EU membership. However, they fail to realise that the whole plan had been drawn up well before the UK had joined the EU, and the very first stage from Neath to Aberdulais was completed roughly at the same time that the UK joined the EU. So work had started some time earlier.

My father in law had been the deputy engineer of the local council in Neath and he stated that the route of the M4 through the Neath area had been pencilled in during the 1930's. It wasn't until the 1990's that it was completed. So many of the major infrastructure plans had been drawn up well prior to the UK joining the EU and would have to have been costed. So how much of the membership fees of the EU would have been allocated to these projects if we hadn't joined, remains to be seen.

For the second situation,
Some in Wales are blaming the demise of many of our industries on membership of the EU. Yes, some have been transferred to EU countries, but Ford's recent announcement to close the Bridgend engine plant is based purely on cost. The Mexican engine plant is already geared up to produce the engines and at much lower cost. Ford moved the production of UK market Fiestas to Valencia in Spain for the same reason. I'll come back to this later.

However, it's interesting to note that although Wales has apparently been a major beneficiary of EU membership, the majority of people in Wales voted to leave.

I don't believe that many believed the propaganda put out by both sides. Those that I've discussed the issues with had a wide variety of reasons for voting the way they did.

It's a very emotive issue.

However, just a little history.

When De Gaulle was alive, he continuously vetoed our attempts to join the Common Market, as it was then called. Some commentators of my age group now believe this was related to the large discrepancy in our costs compared with France particularly. I was only interested in motor bikes and girls in the 1960's and had little political interest, so can only look at the issues from a historical point of view. The relative cost of living in France was roughly the same as here, except that their average salaries were substantially higher than ours and so were their costs. Travelling on the continent was always more expensive than here, even in Spain. I keep saying that the cost of a Jaguar MK2 in the 1960's was the same as an imported Renault tin can. Some claim that our products were inferior quality to EU offerings, but I counter that with the example of Dacias today. They sell well because they are cheap.

I saw the discrepancy whilst touring Holland in the early 1970's. We met up with a family and one member also worked in IT and although our roles were different, he was a programmer and I was an operations manager, his salary was more than twice what mine was. However, his costs of living were also much higher.

So if we had joined in the 60's with our level of prices and costs, then the French particularly, because of their proximity, would have flooded over here buying up our goods, to the detriment of the French position. Much the same as we buy Chinese goods now and many flock to France for cigs and wine.

So in order to bring our wages/salaries and costs up to roughly the same level as the EU, our HMG introduced decimalisation of our currency. Many were enthusiastic, including myself, but failed to realise that the minimum increase in price would be 2.4 times more than previously. This led to rapid inflation, about 29% at its height. As things began to stabilise, coincidentally, we then joined the EU.

We were sold the idea that joining the "Common Market" would be good for trade and living standards. We had already signed up to EFTA. However, there was no mention of the controlling aspect of the EU. This was kept from us, although the government was fully aware of the long terms plans for the EU. If the populace had been fully informed of these plans, some commentators claim that the UK would not have voted to join the EU.

So even if you believe that the conclusions and opinions are suspect, the economic facts of 1960's life in the UK are hard to counter.

Prior to joining the EU, we had purchase tax, which was only levied on luxury goods. If you wanted to buy a hammer or anything consumable, there was no tax on these items. However, when the UK joined the EU, VAT was introduced. Thus putting up prices on every day commodities. However, income tax was 33% in those days and only 20% now as we know. It could be argued that VAT is better, because it allows a certain level of choice. However, with it being more widely applied, this is questionable.

So, what I'm trying to convey is that as far as Brexit is concerned, there is a wide variety of viewpoints and my judgement is that most people will have voted in an emotive way and not necessarily based on any economic understanding of the consequences. I guess many wouldn't have considered the Irish situation. Also remember that a large percentage of people didn't vote at all, so Brexit is of no concern to them and they may believe that their lives and fortunes might not change however the remainder might have voted.

I hope I've answered your questions, and I'd welcome a reply and further debate devoid of any abusive statements.

If you don't want to be abused, stop being a dull chunt.

[JohntheBike]

I asked the question, I didn't say you had said it. I was trying to find out what you thought - in your opinion were things cheaper because we were not in the EU?

It's not a trick question, it's not an accusation, it's not big words, it's asking you to state your opinion.

Well, let me put it this way. There are those who will claim that all the improvements in all aspects of the UK's existence that have occurred since joining the EU are to be attributed to membership of the EU. There will also be those that claim that any detrimental affects that they feel that the UK has suffered since joining the EU are also attributed to the EU.

Let me give you one example of the first situation.

The dualling of the A465 from Neath to Abergavenny has been partially funded by the EU. EU supporters claim that this shows the benefit to Wales of EU membership. However, they fail to realise that the whole plan had been drawn up well before the UK had joined the EU, and the very first stage from Neath to Aberdulais was completed roughly at the same time that the UK joined the EU. So work had started some time earlier.

My father in law had been the deputy engineer of the local council in Neath and he stated that the route of the M4 through the Neath area had been pencilled in during the 1930's. It wasn't until the 1990's that it was completed. So many of the major infrastructure plans had been drawn up well prior to the UK joining the EU and would have to have been costed. So how much of the membership fees of the EU would have been allocated to these projects if we hadn't joined, remains to be seen.

For the second situation,
Some in Wales are blaming the demise of many of our industries on membership of the EU. Yes, some have been transferred to EU countries, but Ford's recent announcement to close the Bridgend engine plant is based purely on cost. The Mexican engine plant is already geared up to produce the engines and at much lower cost. Ford moved the production of UK market Fiestas to Valencia in Spain for the same reason. I'll come back to this later.

However, it's interesting to note that although Wales has apparently been a major beneficiary of EU membership, the majority of people in Wales voted to leave.

I don't believe that many believed the propaganda put out by both sides. Those that I've discussed the issues with had a wide variety of reasons for voting the way they did.

It's a very emotive issue.

However, just a little history.

When De Gaulle was alive, he continuously vetoed our attempts to join the Common Market, as it was then called. Some commentators of my age group now believe this was related to the large discrepancy in our costs compared with France particularly. I was only interested in motor bikes and girls in the 1960's and had little political interest, so can only look at the issues from a historical point of view. The relative cost of living in France was roughly the same as here, except that their average salaries were substantially higher than ours and so were their costs. Travelling on the continent was always more expensive than here, even in Spain. I keep saying that the cost of a Jaguar MK2 in the 1960's was the same as an imported Renault tin can. Some claim that our products were inferior quality to EU offerings, but I counter that with the example of Dacias today. They sell well because they are cheap.

I saw the discrepancy whilst touring Holland in the early 1970's. We met up with a family and one member also worked in IT and although our roles were different, he was a programmer and I was an operations manager, his salary was more than twice what mine was. However, his costs of living were also much higher.

So if we had joined in the 60's with our level of prices and costs, then the French particularly, because of their proximity, would have flooded over here buying up our goods, to the detriment of the French position. Much the same as we buy Chinese goods now and many flock to France for cigs and wine.

So in order to bring our wages/salaries and costs up to roughly the same level as the EU, our HMG introduced decimalisation of our currency. Many were enthusiastic, including myself, but failed to realise that the minimum increase in price would be 2.4 times more than previously. This led to rapid inflation, about 29% at its height. As things began to stabilise, coincidentally, we then joined the EU.

We were sold the idea that joining the "Common Market" would be good for trade and living standards. We had already signed up to EFTA. However, there was no mention of the controlling aspect of the EU. This was kept from us, although the government was fully aware of the long terms plans for the EU. If the populace had been fully informed of these plans, some commentators claim that the UK would not have voted to join the EU.

So even if you believe that the conclusions and opinions are suspect, the economic facts of 1960's life in the UK are hard to counter.

Prior to joining the EU, we had purchase tax, which was only levied on luxury goods. If you wanted to buy a hammer or anything consumable, there was no tax on these items. However, when the UK joined the EU, VAT was introduced. Thus putting up prices on every day commodities. However, income tax was 33% in those days and only 20% now as we know. It could be argued that VAT is better, because it allows a certain level of choice. However, with it being more widely applied, this is questionable.

So, what I'm trying to convey is that as far as Brexit is concerned, there is a wide variety of viewpoints and my judgement is that most people will have voted in an emotive way and not necessarily based on any economic understanding of the consequences. I guess many wouldn't have considered the Irish situation. Also remember that a large percentage of people didn't vote at all, so Brexit is of no concern to them and they may believe that their lives and fortunes might not change however the remainder might have voted.

I hope I've answered your questions, and I'd welcome a reply and further debate devoid of any abusive statements.

[WTFH]

Shocking to consider but there might be multiple factors....

Oh, I think there are.

The poster in question has stated in his posts that things were better before we were in the EU.
I am simply asking if he is saying that he believes they were better because we were not in the EU, or is he just using "pre-EU" in the same way as he could have said "before 1970", that it's not do do with joining the EU, but to do with other factors.

[WordIsBond]

In your opinion were they cheaper because we were not in the EU?

Shocking to consider but there might be multiple factors....

[WTFH]

In your opinion were they cheaper because we were not in the EU?

I didn't say that.

I asked the question, I didn't say you had said it. I was trying to find out what you thought - in your opinion were things cheaper because we were not in the EU?

It's not a trick question, it's not an accusation, it's not big words, it's asking you to state your opinion.