Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.electronics.design > #454222 > unrolled thread

EU Boss Juncker threatens to break up US

Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design

Contents

  EU Boss Juncker threatens to break up US Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-03-30 12:50 +0000
    Re: EU Boss Juncker threatens to break up US Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-03-30 14:15 +0100
      Re: EU Boss Juncker threatens to break up US John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-30 08:23 -0700
        Re: EU Boss Juncker threatens to break up US Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-03-30 15:35 +0000
        Re: EU Boss Juncker threatens to break up US Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-03-30 17:07 +0100
          Re: EU Boss Juncker threatens to break up US John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-30 12:33 -0700
            Re: EU Boss Juncker threatens to break up US Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-03-30 21:04 +0000
              Re: EU Boss Juncker threatens to break up US John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-30 15:19 -0700
                Re: EU Boss Juncker threatens to break up US bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-03-30 18:01 -0700
                Re: EU Boss Juncker threatens to break up US Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-03-31 20:22 +0000
                  Re: EU Boss Juncker threatens to break up US bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-03-31 16:45 -0700
                Re: EU Boss Juncker threatens to break up US "Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> - 2017-04-01 15:56 -0400
                  Re: EU Boss Juncker threatens to break up US bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-04-01 19:09 -0700
                  Re: EU Boss Juncker threatens to break up US Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-04-02 02:39 +0000
              Re: EU Boss Juncker threatens to break up US bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-03-30 17:50 -0700
            Re: EU Boss Juncker threatens to break up US krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-30 20:55 -0400
              Re: EU Boss Juncker threatens to break up US bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-03-30 19:13 -0700
            Re: EU Boss Juncker threatens to break up US Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-03-31 10:08 +0100
              Re: EU Boss Juncker threatens to break up US John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-31 07:45 -0700
                Re: EU Boss Juncker threatens to break up US Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-03-31 20:38 +0000
                Re: EU Boss Juncker threatens to break up US Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-03-31 22:45 +0100
                  Re: EU Boss Juncker threatens to break up US John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-31 20:20 -0700
                    Re: EU Boss Juncker threatens to break up US bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-04-01 00:11 -0700
                    Re: EU Boss Juncker threatens to break up US Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-04-01 09:13 +0100
                    Re: EU Boss Juncker threatens to break up US Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-04-01 07:03 -0700
                Re: EU Boss Juncker threatens to break up US bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-03-31 18:35 -0700
          Re: EU Boss Juncker threatens to break up US F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-01 01:09 +1000
        Re: EU Boss Juncker threatens to break up US Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-03-30 09:24 -0700
          Re: EU Boss Juncker threatens to break up US Chris <cbx@noreply.com> - 2017-03-30 18:18 +0000
            Re: EU Boss Juncker threatens to break up US Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-03-30 12:32 -0700
          Re: EU Boss Juncker threatens to break up US John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> - 2017-03-30 11:52 -0700
            Re: EU Boss Juncker threatens to break up US krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-30 21:05 -0400
              Re: EU Boss Juncker threatens to break up US John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> - 2017-03-30 18:36 -0700
    Re: EU Boss Juncker threatens to break up US bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-03-30 06:18 -0700
      Re: EU Boss Juncker threatens to break up US Jeff Layman <jmlayman@invalid.invalid> - 2017-03-31 08:01 +0100
        Re: EU Boss Juncker threatens to break up US bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-03-31 01:47 -0700
          Re: EU Boss Juncker threatens to break up US Jeff Layman <jmlayman@invalid.invalid> - 2017-03-31 11:49 +0100
        Re: EU Boss Juncker threatens to break up US Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-03-31 20:46 +0000
          Re: EU Boss Juncker threatens to break up US bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-03-31 18:51 -0700
            Re: EU Boss Juncker threatens to break up US Jeff Layman <jmlayman@invalid.invalid> - 2017-04-01 08:18 +0100
              Re: EU Boss Juncker threatens to break up US Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-04-01 09:22 +0100
                Re: EU Boss Juncker threatens to break up US Jeff Layman <jmlayman@invalid.invalid> - 2017-04-01 11:30 +0100
                  Re: EU Boss Juncker threatens to break up US Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-04-01 12:13 +0100
                  Re: EU Boss Juncker threatens to break up US Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-04-01 15:11 +0000
                    Re: EU Boss Juncker threatens to break up US bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-04-01 19:13 -0700
              Re: EU Boss Juncker threatens to break up US bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-04-01 04:50 -0700
                Re: EU Boss Juncker threatens to break up US JM <dontreplytothis173@gmail.com> - 2017-04-01 16:19 +0100
                  Re: EU Boss Juncker threatens to break up US bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-04-01 19:31 -0700
    Re: EU Boss Juncker threatens to break up US bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-03-30 11:50 -0400
      Re: EU Boss Juncker threatens to break up US Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-03-30 17:08 +0100
        Re: EU Boss Juncker threatens to break up US JM <dontreplytothis173@gmail.com> - 2017-03-30 19:37 +0100
          Re: EU Boss Juncker threatens to break up US Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-03-31 10:10 +0100
            Re: EU Boss Juncker threatens to break up US John Devereux <john@devereux.me.uk> - 2017-03-31 12:08 +0100
      Re: EU Boss Juncker threatens to break up US John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-30 12:36 -0700
        Re: EU Boss Juncker threatens to break up US bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-03-30 19:34 -0700

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#454575

On 01/04/17 08:18, Jeff Layman wrote:
> On 01/04/17 02:51, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
>
>> If anybody is to blame for Brexit it would be Nigel Farage and Boris
>> Johnson, both of whom lied through their teeth to bring it about.
>> Jeane-Claude Junker never had the political power to change the EU
>> enough to make Brexit perceptibly more or less attractive, least of
>> all to the kind of ignorant half-wits who thought that Brexit was
>> ever a good idea.
>
> You're insulting over half the UK population who voted on the matter. Let's be
> clear -  /both/ sides lied; they were expressing political views. Anyone who
> expects any politician to tell the truth is living in cloud-cuckoo land.

Indeed, but some lies were more egregious and self-serving
than others.

Disgracefully there is an argument that some of the
leading Brexiteers weren't /lying/. Classic example
is David Davies (now minister for Brexit) who - until
/two months/ before the referendum - believed the UK
could negotiate trade deals with individual EU countries.
That would be illegal, of course.

The depth of leading Brexiteers' ignorance was
breathtaking. Tenth-rate, some of them.


> Brexit is not a good idea. On a scale of 1 to 20, it scores 2. The problem is
> that remaining in the EU scores 1. The EU has been voting itself more and more
> power for the past 20 years, and although needing reform, and talking about it
> (http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-eu-future-idUKKBN1684X0) does little about it.
>
> Just to return to the original point about who has power in the EU setup, the
> diagram at the bottom of the page here explains it clearly:
> www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39217959
>
> Note the position of the "European Parliament (Directly elected)". The only
> democratically elected body in the EU, directly answerable to the half billion
> of so of its population, appears quite a way down in the pecking order.

Oh, but in modern countries it is more subtle
than that! Take the UK: in such an org chart
the  sovereign is at the top and parliament
underneath.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#454579

On 01/04/17 09:22, Tom Gardner wrote:
> On 01/04/17 08:18, Jeff Layman wrote:
>> On 01/04/17 02:51, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

>> You're insulting over half the UK population who voted on the matter. Let's be
>> clear -  /both/ sides lied; they were expressing political views. Anyone who
>> expects any politician to tell the truth is living in cloud-cuckoo land.
>
> Indeed, but some lies were more egregious and self-serving
> than others.

Certainly, but does that make them worse or not? I've always considered 
half-truths to be more dangerous than blatant lies, as there is a 
nagging feeling that they /might/ be right.

> Disgracefully there is an argument that some of the
> leading Brexiteers weren't /lying/. Classic example
> is David Davies (now minister for Brexit) who - until
> /two months/ before the referendum - believed the UK
> could negotiate trade deals with individual EU countries.
> That would be illegal, of course.

Hmm, it may be semantics, but is such a /negotiation/ illegal? Its 
/implementation/ would be, but what about just discussing it and not 
"signing on the dotted line"? If simply discussing it isn't, how long 
will it be before BMW and Mercedes executives call on Merkel (Frau 
Merkel, meine Aktienoptionen sind gefährdet)?

> The depth of leading Brexiteers' ignorance was
> breathtaking. Tenth-rate, some of them.

Not so different to Cameron believing he could get a deal on immigration 
prior to the referendum.

>> Brexit is not a good idea. On a scale of 1 to 20, it scores 2. The problem is
>> that remaining in the EU scores 1. The EU has been voting itself more and more
>> power for the past 20 years, and although needing reform, and talking about it
>> (http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-eu-future-idUKKBN1684X0) does little about it.
>>
>> Just to return to the original point about who has power in the EU setup, the
>> diagram at the bottom of the page here explains it clearly:
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39217959
>>
>> Note the position of the "European Parliament (Directly elected)". The only
>> democratically elected body in the EU, directly answerable to the half billion
>> of so of its population, appears quite a way down in the pecking order.
>
> Oh, but in modern countries it is more subtle
> than that! Take the UK: in such an org chart
> the  sovereign is at the top and parliament
> underneath.

Well, I suppose that "Royal Assent" is part of the process. It's over 
300 years since it was refused, and the Queen is much too savvy to 
exercise such power. But He Who Would Come Next? I'm not so sure...

-- 

Jeff

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#454581

On 01/04/17 11:30, Jeff Layman wrote:
> On 01/04/17 09:22, Tom Gardner wrote:
>> On 01/04/17 08:18, Jeff Layman wrote:
>>> On 01/04/17 02:51, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
>
>>> You're insulting over half the UK population who voted on the matter. Let's be
>>> clear -  /both/ sides lied; they were expressing political views. Anyone who
>>> expects any politician to tell the truth is living in cloud-cuckoo land.
>>
>> Indeed, but some lies were more egregious and self-serving
>> than others.
>
> Certainly, but does that make them worse or not? I've always considered
> half-truths to be more dangerous than blatant lies, as there is a nagging
> feeling that they /might/ be right.
>
>> Disgracefully there is an argument that some of the
>> leading Brexiteers weren't /lying/. Classic example
>> is David Davies (now minister for Brexit) who - until
>> /two months/ before the referendum - believed the UK
>> could negotiate trade deals with individual EU countries.
>> That would be illegal, of course.
>
> Hmm, it may be semantics, but is such a /negotiation/ illegal? Its
> /implementation/ would be, but what about just discussing it and not "signing on
> the dotted line"? If simply discussing it isn't, how long will it be before BMW
> and Mercedes executives call on Merkel (Frau Merkel, meine Aktienoptionen sind
> gefährdet)?

ISTR even negotiation is illegal, but don't quote me on that!
More importantly, who on earth waste time negotiating something
that would be illegal.

Most importantly, the depth of the vociferous Brexiteers'
ignorance is gobsmacking.


>> The depth of leading Brexiteers' ignorance was
>> breathtaking. Tenth-rate, some of them.
>
> Not so different to Cameron believing he could get a deal on immigration prior
> to the referendum.

When I was young and there were Ripping Yarns of
Empire-building Derring-do, there was often a backplot
where someone had cocked up so badly that they /entered/
a room with a loaded revolver and a bottle of whisky.

Cameron ought to Do The Decent Thing.

As for Farrage, Spinks, Carswell, I'd stake them out
over an anthill, and keep them supplied with drinking water.


>>> Brexit is not a good idea. On a scale of 1 to 20, it scores 2. The problem is
>>> that remaining in the EU scores 1. The EU has been voting itself more and more
>>> power for the past 20 years, and although needing reform, and talking about it
>>> (http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-eu-future-idUKKBN1684X0) does little about it.
>>>
>>> Just to return to the original point about who has power in the EU setup, the
>>> diagram at the bottom of the page here explains it clearly:
>>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39217959
>>>
>>> Note the position of the "European Parliament (Directly elected)". The only
>>> democratically elected body in the EU, directly answerable to the half billion
>>> of so of its population, appears quite a way down in the pecking order.
>>
>> Oh, but in modern countries it is more subtle
>> than that! Take the UK: in such an org chart
>> the  sovereign is at the top and parliament
>> underneath.
>
> Well, I suppose that "Royal Assent" is part of the process. It's over 300 years
> since it was refused, and the Queen is much too savvy to exercise such power.
> But He Who Would Come Next? I'm not so sure...

... too savvy to /overtly/ exercise such power ...

As for speaker-with-flowers[1], he probably won't be there
for too long. I doubt he could do more damage than the
Brexiteers.

[1] with apologies to Larry Niven :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#454604

Some idiot wrote:

>> The depth of leading Brexiteers' ignorance was breathtaking.
>> Tenth-rate, some of them.

Well, seeing this drunk clown Junker falling about making an arse of 
himself on the eve of the Referendum didn't exactly boost the Remain 
side's appeal: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPgiI46FCDU

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#454700

On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 2:14:58 AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> Some idiot wrote:
> 
> >> The depth of leading Brexiteers' ignorance was breathtaking.
> >> Tenth-rate, some of them.
> 
> Well, seeing this drunk clown Junker falling about making an arse of 
> himself on the eve of the Referendum didn't exactly boost the Remain 
> side's appeal: 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPgiI46FCDU

Bring back the tired and emotional Lord George Brown. The UK isn't short of politicians who like to drink.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#454584

On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 6:18:53 PM UTC+11, Jeff Layman wrote:
> On 01/04/17 02:51, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
> 
> > If anybody is to blame for Brexit it would be Nigel Farage and Boris
> > Johnson, both of whom lied through their teeth to bring it about.
> > Jeane-Claude Junker never had the political power to change the EU
> > enough to make Brexit perceptibly more or less attractive, least of
> > all to the kind of ignorant half-wits who thought that Brexit was
> > ever a good idea.
> 
> You're insulting over half the UK population who voted on the matter. 

Quite intentionally. They voted as gullible idiots.

> Let's be clear -  /both/ sides lied; they were expressing political 
> views. Anyone who expects any politician to tell the truth is living in 
> cloud-cuckoo land.

Perhaps. But the Brexiteers told bigger lies. Farage bailed out as soon as he had thrown his brick through the plate glass window while Boris Johnson tempered his ambitions enough to become Foreign Secretary. 
 
> Brexit is not a good idea. On a scale of 1 to 20, it scores 2. The 
> problem is that remaining in the EU scores 1. The EU has been voting 
> itself more and more power for the past 20 years, and although needing 
> reform, and talking about it 
> (http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-eu-future-idUKKBN1684X0) does little 
> about it.

Of course the EU is becoming more powerful. It's a way station on the route to a European federal government. The national governments aren't enthusiastic about giving up any power, but the EU needs to become better federated if it is going to serve any useful purpose. The UK is indulging in the delusion that it can stay outside that incipient federation. Wales and Scotland are better aware that that kind of resistance is futile. You may not like the EU, but you are going to like your situation outside it a whole lot less.
 
> Just to return to the original point about who has power in the EU 
> setup, the diagram at the bottom of the page here explains it clearly:
> www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39217959

It's an organisation tree with arrows. The real power doesn't pay any attention to the arrow.

Try to find something equivalent for the US - you won't find the Koch brothers shown anywhere, but that isn't evidence that they lack political power.
 
> Note the position of the "European Parliament (Directly elected)". The 
> only democratically elected body in the EU, directly answerable to the 
> half billion of so of its population, appears quite a way down in the 
> pecking order.

So what. It doesn't do anything much. Putting it in a position of actual power is several steps further down the road.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#454607

On 01/04/2017 12:50, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
> On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 6:18:53 PM UTC+11, Jeff Layman wrote:
>> On 01/04/17 02:51, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
>>
>>> If anybody is to blame for Brexit it would be Nigel Farage and Boris
>>> Johnson, both of whom lied through their teeth to bring it about.
>>> Jeane-Claude Junker never had the political power to change the EU
>>> enough to make Brexit perceptibly more or less attractive, least of
>>> all to the kind of ignorant half-wits who thought that Brexit was
>>> ever a good idea.
>>
>> You're insulting over half the UK population who voted on the matter.
>
> Quite intentionally. They voted as gullible idiots.
>
>> Let's be clear -  /both/ sides lied; they were expressing political
>> views. Anyone who expects any politician to tell the truth is living in
>> cloud-cuckoo land.
>
> Perhaps. But the Brexiteers told bigger lies. Farage bailed out as soon as he had thrown his brick through the plate glass window while Boris Johnson tempered his ambitions enough to become Foreign Secretary.
>
>> Brexit is not a good idea. On a scale of 1 to 20, it scores 2. The
>> problem is that remaining in the EU scores 1. The EU has been voting
>> itself more and more power for the past 20 years, and although needing
>> reform, and talking about it
>> (http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-eu-future-idUKKBN1684X0) does little
>> about it.
>
> Of course the EU is becoming more powerful. It's a way station on the route to a European federal government. The national governments aren't enthusiastic about giving up any power, but the EU needs to become better federated if it is going to serve any useful purpose. The UK is indulging in the delusion that it can stay outside that incipient federation. Wales and Scotland are better aware that that kind of resistance is futile. You may not like the EU, but you are going to like your situation outside it a whole lot less.
>

Wales voted to leave the EU.  I can assure you that the prime reason for 
Scotland's vote to remain was continued access to the single market.

In the forthcoming referendum on whether Scotland should end the UK I 
suspect that the post independence position postulated will be 
membership of EFTA/EEA (with a currency not tied to the English pound).

Let me introduce you to Hamish (the Lion)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/mvcd8ww3brslxdr/img331.jpg?dl=0

>> Just to return to the original point about who has power in the EU
>> setup, the diagram at the bottom of the page here explains it clearly:
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39217959
>
> It's an organisation tree with arrows. The real power doesn't pay any attention to the arrow.
>
> Try to find something equivalent for the US - you won't find the Koch brothers shown anywhere, but that isn't evidence that they lack political power.
>
>> Note the position of the "European Parliament (Directly elected)". The
>> only democratically elected body in the EU, directly answerable to the
>> half billion of so of its population, appears quite a way down in the
>> pecking order.
>
> So what. It doesn't do anything much. Putting it in a position of actual power is several steps further down the road.
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#454703

On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 2:19:13 AM UTC+11, JM wrote:
> On 01/04/2017 12:50, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 6:18:53 PM UTC+11, Jeff Layman wrote:
> >> On 01/04/17 02:51, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
> >>
> >>> If anybody is to blame for Brexit it would be Nigel Farage and Boris
> >>> Johnson, both of whom lied through their teeth to bring it about.
> >>> Jeane-Claude Junker never had the political power to change the EU
> >>> enough to make Brexit perceptibly more or less attractive, least of
> >>> all to the kind of ignorant half-wits who thought that Brexit was
> >>> ever a good idea.
> >>
> >> You're insulting over half the UK population who voted on the matter.
> >
> > Quite intentionally. They voted as gullible idiots.
> >
> >> Let's be clear -  /both/ sides lied; they were expressing political
> >> views. Anyone who expects any politician to tell the truth is living in
> >> cloud-cuckoo land.
> >
> > Perhaps. But the Brexiteers told bigger lies. Farage bailed out as soon as he had thrown his brick through the plate glass window while Boris Johnson tempered his ambitions enough to become Foreign Secretary.
> >
> >> Brexit is not a good idea. On a scale of 1 to 20, it scores 2. The
> >> problem is that remaining in the EU scores 1. The EU has been voting
> >> itself more and more power for the past 20 years, and although needing
> >> reform, and talking about it
> >> (http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-eu-future-idUKKBN1684X0) does little
> >> about it.
> >
> > Of course the EU is becoming more powerful. It's a way station on the route to a European federal government. The national governments aren't enthusiastic about giving up any power, but the EU needs to become better federated if it is going to serve any useful purpose. The UK is indulging in the delusion that it can stay outside that incipient federation. Wales and Scotland are better aware that that kind of resistance is futile. You may not like the EU, but you are going to like your situation outside it a whole lot less.
> >
> 
> Wales voted to leave the EU.

71% of the population bothered to vote, and of those that voted 52.5% voted to leave and 47.5% voted to stay. Five out of 22 local authority areas voted to stay in.

It wasn't exactly overwhelming. I'd confused Wales with Northern Ireland, which voted to Remain by a similar margin.

> I can assure you that the prime reason for 
> Scotland's vote to remain was continued access to the single market.

That is the raison d'etre of the EU. The fact that the UK as a whole failed to realise that this is important is yet another reminder that the UK education system has failed a lot of UK citizens. Scotland has long tradition of having better schools than the rest of the UK - sadly Northern Ireland doesn't, which makes that a dubious explanation.

> In the forthcoming referendum on whether Scotland should end the UK I 
> suspect that the post independence position postulated will be 
> membership of EFTA/EEA (with a currency not tied to the English pound).

With Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway, who like the European Union, but not enough to become full members. If I remember rightly, Norway has too much oil, Iceland has too many failed banks and Liechtenstein is too much of a tax-haven.

Scotland does have a lot of oil, so it might fly.

> Let me introduce you to Hamish (the Lion)
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/mvcd8ww3brslxdr/img331.jpg?dl=0

Seems perfectly sensible to me. The Scots weren't foolish enough to share the English enthusiasm for Brexit (such as it was), and they may well have enough sense to avoid the consequences.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#454238

On 03/30/2017 08:50 AM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> This drunken pipsqueak (who Bill Sloman adores) must be even more
> inebriated than usual (if that's even possible).
>
> http://tinyurl.com/n3lbtm2
>

How much money is the EU going to pay Ohio and Texas to break away from 
the country governed by the administration those states just elected?

Sounds like they either ran a snarky joke through the French-to-bullshit 
translator, or European newsreaders are just as ignorant about America 
as Americans are ignorant about Europe. Or both.

Oh well. Who give a shit what a bunch of eurotrash think about anything, 
anyway.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#454242

On 30/03/17 16:50, bitrex wrote:
> Oh well. Who give a shit what a bunch of eurotrash think about anything, anyway.

Don't worry about it! Most of the stuff in the Sexpress is
gossip or gormless alt-news.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#454254

On 30/03/2017 17:08, Tom Gardner wrote:
> On 30/03/17 16:50, bitrex wrote:
>> Oh well. Who give a shit what a bunch of eurotrash think about
>> anything, anyway.
>
> Don't worry about it! Most of the stuff in the Sexpress is
> gossip or gormless alt-news.
>

I used to read the Express, but now read Viz. http://viz.co.uk/

The quality of reporting is much better.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#454376

On 30/03/17 19:37, JM wrote:
> On 30/03/2017 17:08, Tom Gardner wrote:
>> On 30/03/17 16:50, bitrex wrote:
>>> Oh well. Who give a shit what a bunch of eurotrash think about
>>> anything, anyway.
>>
>> Don't worry about it! Most of the stuff in the Sexpress is
>> gossip or gormless alt-news.
>>
>
> I used to read the Express, but now read Viz. http://viz.co.uk/
>
> The quality of reporting is much better.

He he :)

Viz started /just/ too late for me to have become
interested, so I can't comment.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#454394

Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:

> On 30/03/17 19:37, JM wrote:
>> On 30/03/2017 17:08, Tom Gardner wrote:
>>> On 30/03/17 16:50, bitrex wrote:
>>>> Oh well. Who give a shit what a bunch of eurotrash think about
>>>> anything, anyway.
>>>
>>> Don't worry about it! Most of the stuff in the Sexpress is
>>> gossip or gormless alt-news.
>>>
>>
>> I used to read the Express, but now read Viz. http://viz.co.uk/
>>
>> The quality of reporting is much better.
>
> He he :)
>
> Viz started /just/ too late for me to have become
> interested, so I can't comment.

We used to get that at my old employer, ~25 years ago.

It looks like it's still funny, great stuff :)


-- 

John Devereux

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#454260

On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 11:50:50 -0400, bitrex
<bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:

>On 03/30/2017 08:50 AM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> This drunken pipsqueak (who Bill Sloman adores) must be even more
>> inebriated than usual (if that's even possible).
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/n3lbtm2
>>
>
>How much money is the EU going to pay Ohio and Texas to break away from 
>the country governed by the administration those states just elected?
>
>Sounds like they either ran a snarky joke through the French-to-bullshit 
>translator, or European newsreaders are just as ignorant about America 
>as Americans are ignorant about Europe. Or both.

Yeah, the audience was convulsed with laughter.

Speaking of ignorance, that idiot Juncker doesn't realize that there
is no Article 50 in the US Constitution.


-- 

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing   precision measurement 

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#454325

On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 6:37:03 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 11:50:50 -0400, bitrex
> <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
> >On 03/30/2017 08:50 AM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> This drunken pipsqueak must be even more
> >> inebriated than usual (if that's even possible).
> >>
> >> http://tinyurl.com/n3lbtm2
> >>
> >
> >How much money is the EU going to pay Ohio and Texas to break away from 
> >the country governed by the administration those states just elected?

The US just elected Trump as president, despite the fact that 3 million more Americans voted for Clinton than for Trump. US elections don't always produce outcomes that sit well with the population as a whole. The Republicans have a long history of imposing excessively stringent voter-identication rules that stop many more Democrats from voting than Republicans, and Trump's lies were effective in persuading dumb Democrats to vote against their best interests.

It has now become obvious that Trump hasn't got any intention of doing anything significant to reduce unemployment in Ohio, and the electorate should have woken up to this. I can't see Jean-Claude Juncker as a second Jefferson Davis, but then again I couldn't see Donald Trump as a second George Washington either.

> >Sounds like they either ran a snarky joke through the French-to-bullshit 
> >translator, or European newsreaders are just as ignorant about America 
> >as Americans are ignorant about Europe. Or both.
> 
> Yeah, the audience was convulsed with laughter.
> 
> Speaking of ignorance, that idiot Juncker doesn't realize that there
> is no Article 50 in the US Constitution.

That didn't stop the Confederate States from trying to break away in 1861, and it took four years for the Northern States to persuade them that it wasn't a good idea.

Most European have heard of the American Civil War, and - unlike John Larkin - do understand what it implies.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design

csiph-web