More post brexit referendum good news!!!!

[Lancasterclaret]

I think its daft to assume with all the stuff going on in the world that there won't be significant changes to the EU.

I doubt immensely its going to go the way Farage keeps telling us it does, and in a way his **** spreading of the dangers of well, everything actually could end up doing more damage to his cause.

[Paul Waine]

I'm not fully informed about Norway's relationship with the EU, but I don't think we can copy it. Before I go on, I've not read this anywhere, so I might be missing something.

It has been suggested on here that we don't have to have high import tariffs if we want to keep imports cheap. And no - we don't. I responded by saying if our exports are taxed by other countries, but we fail to tax imports (to keep consumer prices low), our already desperate current account balance would balloon and a balance of payments crisis would inevitably follow. Therefore we have no realistic option but to impose import tariffs that at least match export tariffs imposed by others.

But unlike the UK, Norway does have this option. For 20 years Norway has run a vast, twin current account and budget surplus (via oil and hydroelectricity exports). This has resulted in an enormous sovereign wealth fund. They can impose low or zero import tariffs without risking a balance of payments crisis. It appears to me they very much are in a position not to tax imports if they don't want to. We can't.

As such, I can appreciate how the 'Norway Option' suits Norway, but I can't see how the same option would work for us. (If someone is able to correct me on this, I'd be delighted to be informed.)

Hi iibyw,

Population of Norway, less than 5.5 million; UK population 65 million. Size of Norway's oil and gas production relative to UK's oil and gas production - we'd need stats side-by-side for nearly 30 years, but quick assumption "about the same." (Hydropower export is generally a recent development - but, in a climate change world, exportable hydropower can be worth the investment in transmission cables). So, a country with a population that is less than a tenth of UK's population has more chance of building a very large sovereign wealth fund - especially when it's producing oil and gas that almost all the rest of the world wants to buy. (It's cold and hilly in Norway - and the country is very long: the distance from Oslo to the north of Norway is further than from Oslo to Rome).

Norway held a referendum on joining EU in 1994 - the electorate voted "no, thanks." The politicians were generally in favour of joining, hence they built the relationship that they've had for past 20 odd years.

Norway and Sweden were united through most of the 19th century - and separated (after a referendum in Norway) in the years before WWI. I'm not sure if the history with Sweden is in part the reason for the free movement of citizens between Norway and Sweden, i.e. pre-dating Sweden joining the EU.

Tariffs are all about putting up the cost of imports so that locally manufactured equivalent goods (and maybe services) are not disadvantaged by being higher priced. So, the aim of tariffs is to sell more locally manufactured goods locally and buy fewer imports. A simple model would have equal tariffs on all imports in order to defend local products. You are right that this would increase the price of imports, but the trade off for the local population is usually seen that jobs are worth more than being able to buy lower priced imports (not least because you won't have the money if you aren't employed...). But, if/when a country puts tariffs on imports the other countries will respond by putting tariffs on that country's exports. In a more complex model, it may be that countries aren't competing directly in exporting the same products to the same countries.

Re Balance of Payment: Bank of England economists have published a report today that suggests that the UK current account deficit is being funded by British residents cashing in UK overseas investments - and, despite the suggestion of Mark Carney the UK isn't dependent on foreign investment to fund current account at present time. (I saw this reported in The Times - I'm not regularly linked to BoE publications).

Interesting reading: bankunderground.co.uk/tag/current-account-deficit/

A prince not a pauper: the truth behind the UK’s current account deficit
Stephen Burgess and Rachana Shanbhogue

[CrosspoolClarets]

And in return for a "Norway type" deal, do you imagine that we would accept the principle of "free movement of people" as they do?
Can't see a Norway type arrangement in which we have to contribute a significant amount of money each week, and yet still accept freedom of movement going down very well in some circles.
The argument that we are in some way superior to other countries and can therefore expect a better deal simply doesn't wash with me - though I would be happy to be wrong.

I think I answered this in #1344 rather than my later post you quoted. I don’t want Norway. I want better, Norway with more control.

We are far superior. Money talks. We are multiples of the size of any of these EFTA/EEA countries. The economies of many nations depend on a good deal with us (Netherlands, Ireland etc). I think the EU will take our sweetener (£40bn) and give us a deal. They will accept we face migration challenges - we are running out of space, we don’t need 350,000 new migrants per annum. The EU just wants to move on with integration, get Brexit out of the way, without a financial hit.

I accept it is optimistic. But the signs are it will work.

[Lancasterclaret]

Its got a damn sight more chance of working if you ignore the federalist equivalents of Nigel Farage for starters.

This has to be taken as a rational decision. If you try to think about it in terms like "we are too full" or "the EU just wants to move on with integration" then you'll make bad decisions that will have negative effects.

We need immigration, and we need the EU as trading partners and allies first and foremost, this has to be the priority at all times as we move forward.

YOu only have to look at the bile splurged by Banks and Farage in the last 24 hours to understand what happens when you lose sight of what is most important.

[If it be your will]

(Edit - response to Paul Waine:)

Ok. Got all that. You are assuming, though, that if we impose tariffs on imports, it is likely others will impose tariffs on our exports. And yes, I expect so.

But that's not the problem I'm talking about, I'm talking about it being completely the other way round. I'm assuming our exports will have tariffs imposed by others, if we leave the EU. As an individual country outside the EU, we then have a decision as to whether we impose tariffs on imports in return. There is a suggestion that we can just say 'well we won't!' But that won't work because this will have the effect of making our exports more expensive to others, imports no more expensive, and no tax collected by us on either imports or exports. The trade deficit will get even worse than it already is, and we will go bankrupt (UK sales of foreign assets are finite, and will be no more than delaying the inevitable).

Then Crosspoolclaret said that Norway do have very low import duties (generally 3-6% - I've looked it up and he's quite correct) so why can't we? Well the answer is that Norway can afford do that only because they have a large budget and trade surplus (mainly due to large oil exports). As a country with neither, we can't copy that. If our exports (to the EU/world/wherever) have tariffs imposed by others, we simply have no option but to do the same to our imports.

[If it be your will]

I think I answered this in #1344 rather than my later post you quoted. I don’t want Norway. I want better, Norway with more control.

We are far superior. Money talks. We are multiples of the size of any of these EFTA/EEA countries. The economies of many nations depend on a good deal with us (Netherlands, Ireland etc). I think the EU will take our sweetener (£40bn) and give us a deal. They will accept we face migration challenges - we are running out of space, we don’t need 350,000 new migrants per annum. The EU just wants to move on with integration, get Brexit out of the way, without a financial hit.

I accept it is optimistic. But the signs are it will work.

Yes and no. Far superior commercially, politically, militarily and all the rest, but definitely not financially. Where we are close to bankruptcy (hyperbole) on every measure, Norway have money coming out of their ears (hyperbole mkII). Switzerland too, are far more solvent than we are.

Edit - at over $1 trillion, Norway's sovereign wealth fund alone could almost pay off our entire national debt. They can afford to forgo import tariffs to help their consumers. We can't.

[CrosspoolClarets]

Of course we need migration Lancaster - but not necessarily low quality migration to this degree. Identity matters, as per the excellent research I put on here the other day, it isn’t all about the economy. Far from it. The rest of us though, don’t want to be poorer.

IIBYW - The EU exports around €45bn to Norway amd about €350bn to us (from memory).

If at a rough guess you suggest that €15,000 supports one full or part time job, that is 3 million jobs in the EU being funded by Norway, and about 25 million jobs being funded by the UK.

It isn’t about whether we are wealthier (we are not, per person), it is about whether they need us more. I will say again, 25 million jobs. Even just naffing us off is costly - I was in Tesco yesterday and thought about buying a bottle of Moet for Christmas. I thought “sod them” and bought a Chapeldown instead.

No, a mutual deal,will happen. The EU face massive problems in the next decade, the last thing they need is a recession at the same time.

[If it be your will]

Jees Paul Waine, that link of yours (bankunderground.co.uk/tag/current-account-deficit/) is terrifying! It's basically saying we're in no immediate danger of a balance of payments crisis because the UK has a lot of family silverware abroad we can sell off if need be. And we are selling indeed selling it off.

So we're okay for at least a few years, but our kids should start to worry! (And we still definitely can't start widening the trade deficit by not taxing imports)

[If it be your will]

Of course we need migration Lancaster - but not necessarily low quality migration to this degree. Identity matters, as per the excellent research I put on here the other day, it isn’t all about the economy. Far from it. The rest of us though, don’t want to be poorer.

IIBYW - The EU exports around €45bn to Norway amd about €350bn to us (from memory).

If at a rough guess you suggest that €15,000 supports one full or part time job, that is 3 million jobs in the EU being funded by Norway, and about 25 million jobs being funded by the UK.

It isn’t about whether we are wealthier (we are not, per person), it is about whether they need us more. I will say again, 25 million jobs. Even just ******* us off is costly - I was in Tesco yesterday and thought about buying a bottle of Moet for Christmas. I thought “sod them” and bought a Chapeldown instead.

No, a mutual deal,will happen. The EU face massive problems in the next decade, the last thing they need is a recession at the same time.

Yes, yes. In terms of job losses within the EU, our leaving is potentially far more serious than if Norway cleared off. I don't dispute that one bit (the EU clearing off from us would be even more serious to us than that, however). But that's not what I'm on about. All I'm saying is the Norway option of actively choosing not to tax imports is simply not an option for the UK. If our exports are taxed, we must do the same to imports. Norway's 'free lunch' in this equation is their oil exports, which we no longer have.

(It's a separate matter, but using your rationale, if 25 million EU jobs are at stake, about 19 million UK jobs are equally at stake - two-thirds of our workforce! Essentially what you're saying is "Well, EU, you could absolutely ruin us, but you'd be somewhat scarred too, you know?" That, effectively, is our negotiating position. It always was. We'd better play that hand well, and definitely not overplay it, as many seem tempted to do.)

[Lancasterclaret]

Of course we need migration Lancaster - but not necessarily low quality migration to this degree.

The farmers would completely disagree with that Crosspool. And before the usual suspects come up with "well, they should pay more then". bear in mind that cost increase will be replicated when you buy the produce. I'm not skint, and when I'm shopping I try to buy British if at all possible but sometimes its too expensive for what it is, and that will only get worse if this reality is ignored.

It isn’t about whether we are wealthier (we are not, per person), it is about whether they need us more.

I'd argue that if we take that position, which essentially is the position taken straight after the referendum then it doesn't help anybody.

The EU face massive problems in the next decade, the last thing they need is a recession at the same time.

Agree on the recession bit, but those "massive problems" will affect us as well, so lets stop pretending it won't. Problems just don't disappear when we leave, and anyone who says differently is basically lying or has no clue about the global economy or the global political situation.

No, a mutual deal,will happen

I quite agree with that now, but I don't see what we've gained judging by what I've read in the last 24 hours. The most interesting bit was said by Michael Gove today

"By the time of the next election, EU law and any new treaty with the EU will cease to have primacy or direct effect in UK law," said Mr Gove.
"If the British people dislike the arrangement that we have negotiated with the EU, the agreement will allow a future government to diverge."

That is pretty open to interpretation as where we can go and give the Government a lot of wiggle room, a hell of a lot.

[nil_desperandum]

It strikes me that Gove is as good as saying that the people can vote again.

[Paul Waine]

It strikes me that Gove is as good as saying that the people can vote again.

Hi nil_d, yes, that's how general elections work. We have to have them every 5 years and perhaps sooner as we saw earlier this year. At the GE there are choices between at least two parties who could form a gov't. Plus the leadership of those parties can change. However, given where we will be by then, it's hard to see any political party saying "vote for me, and we will stay in the EU." Plus, the EU may also say "that's not going to happen."

If Gove still harbours ambitions of leading the Conservatives, I'd also say it's more likely "that's not going to happen."

[Lancasterclaret]

Four years with a minority govt?

Not sure it will last that long, and unless you are reading a different text of the document to me, nothing has changed yet and there is a very long way to go before anything does.

[taio]

If the minority governement doesnt last the full term then the electorate can make a choice over the direction of the approach to Brexit, which is Gove's point irrespective of the timing of the next election.

[nil_desperandum]

Hi nil_d, yes, that's how general elections work. ."

No need for sarcasm Paul. The point is that General Elections aren't usually, and shouldn't be, about single issues.
If Gove thinks that we should be allowed a vote on the final deal, then the logical route would be a referendum on that single issue.

[taio]

No need for sarcasm Paul. The point is that General Elections aren't usually, and shouldn't be, about single issues.
If Gove thinks that we should be allowed a vote on the final deal, then the logical route would be a referendum on that single issue.

I agree GE shouldnt be about a single issue. But to be fair you said a while ago that Brexit is bigger than the second world war and the country is totally divided. If that's the case, which I don't believe to be true, the entire focus of the next GE should be on Brexit if it happens prior to 2022.

[Paul Waine]

No need for sarcasm Paul. The point is that General Elections aren't usually, and shouldn't be, about single issues.
If Gove thinks that we should be allowed a vote on the final deal, then the logical route would be a referendum on that single issue.

Hi nil_d, apologies, I didn't mean my comments to appear sarcastic. More, justing saying Gove is not really saying anything. I don't think he's saying there will be a public vote before brexit is complete. I don't think he is saying that there could be another referendum.

Again, apologies. Perhaps I did "hit the keyboard" a little too quickly....

[nil_desperandum]

I agree GE shouldnt be about a single issue. But to be fair you said a while ago that Brexit is bigger than the second world war and the country is totally divided. If that's the case, which I don't believe to be true, the entire focus of the next GE should be on Brexit if it happens prior to 2022.

I don't think I said that taio, but I stand to be corrected.
I think I said it was bigger "in many respects". Anyway, if I didn't write that, that is what I intended to say.
My underlying point being that whilst the war was arguably the biggest crisis this country has ever faced, as a nation we were united, and we had strong allies in the Russians and the USA. The country has to unite behind something.
The first problem with brexit is that, like the English Civil War, families and friends are divided, (quite bitterly in some cases), and it's hard to see an end to it any time soon. The other problem is that the government is paralysed by it at present, and we are stagnating,(or indeed regressing).
I don't believe you should have a GE based on a single issue. You're theoretically electing a party for 5 years. Why should I vote for a party whose policies I don't support in general, simply because their view is nearest to mine on Brexit?

[If it be your will]

The farmers would completely disagree with that Crosspool. And before the usual suspects come up with "well, they should pay more then". bear in mind that cost increase will be replicated when you buy the produce. .

It's off topic, but I couldn't help but pick up on this, because it cements the idea "Inflation always hits the poorest hardest".

If a 6-pack of tomatoes costs £1, let's take a guess that 20p of that represents the price of labour to plant, pick and pack them. Let's say the tomato picker/planter/packer is on £6/hour. For each hour of his labour he can therefore buy 6 packs of tomatoes.

Now let's say his salary doubled. The price of tomatoes is now £1.20 (tomato inflation rate = 20%). But now for each hour of the picker's labour (at £12/h), he can buy 10 packets of tomatoes. He's a winner.

Equally, if the price of land, fuel, fertiliser etc. represented in the price of tomatoes went up, thus causing the 'tomato inflation', the labourer would be worse of.

Whether inflation is good or bad, or hits the poorest hardest or least, entirely depends on what the cause of the inflation was. (I'm in the "Well, they should pay them more then" camp!)

[nil_desperandum]

Very relevant to this discussion:
David Davis today;

Asked if Britain would have to carry on paying some money in, he said: "Norway pays money in, they do it actually on a voluntary basis... there may have to be payments, that's to be negotiated."

So our chief negotiator pretty much admits that there will be a price for a trade deal with the EU. (This of course - in addition to the approx. 40 billion divorce bill).
This is pretty much what most "remainers" predicted, but I can't see many "leavers" being happy at the prospect. I thought that the EU owed us?

[UpTheBeehole]

The Rand Corporation:

Leaving the EU with no deal and operating under World Trade Organization (WTO) rules would lead to the greatest economic loss for the UK, reducing GDP by nearly 5 per cent, or $140 billion, 10 years after Brexit, compared with EU membership ...

Other trade scenarios could be better for the UK than WTO rules but still lead to economic losses compared with EU membership. These include ‘hard Brexit’ scenarios, such as a UK-EU free trade agreement (net UK GDP decline of 1.9 per cent 10 years after Brexit), UK-US free trade agreement (2.5 per cent decline) or UK-EU transitional zero-tariff agreement (2.1 per cent decline), and ‘soft Brexit’ scenarios, such as the Norway option (1.7 per cent decline), Switzerland option (2.4 per cent decline) or remaining part of the Customs Union (1.8 per cent decline).

The loss to the EU of a no-deal Brexit are calculated to be relatively minor, set at 0.7% of GDP over 10 years.

[randomclaret2]

The Rand corporation ?

[Lancasterclaret]

Big US economic think tank.

To be honest the last three/four days since the deal haven't been great for TeamUK, whichever side you support.

[randomclaret2]

Ah, yet another " think tank " .

[randomclaret2]

Is a big think tank better than a small one.?...Presumably its 2 students sat in a room as opposed to 1 .

[RocketLawnChair]

If all that’s true then why even bother their arses negotiating with us?

[Lancasterclaret]

I know we've had enough of experts, but that attitude is just silly. You'll be amazed what you learn if you actually listened to a few more experts and a lot less demagogues.

[aggi]

Is a big think tank better than a small one.?...Presumably its 2 students sat in a room as opposed to 1 .

They employ about 2,000 people from what I remember. Although I thought most of their work was for the US military so not sure what perspective they'd have on Brexit.

[nil_desperandum]

Is a big think tank better than a small one.?...Presumably its 2 students sat in a room as opposed to 1 .

I think that you underestimate the importance, size and influence of the Rand Corporation.
Why not do some research? But just to give some indication of its size and scope. It's not 2 students. It has 1,700 analysts working for it.
"RAND Corporation ("Research and Development") is an American nonprofit global policy think tank created in 1948 by Douglas Aircraft Company to offer research and analysis to the United States Armed Forces. It is financed by the U.S. government and private endowment, corporations, universities and private individuals. The company has grown to assist other governments, international organizations, private companies and foundations, with a host of defense and non-defense issues, including healthcare. RAND aims for interdisciplinary and quantitative problem solving by translating theoretical concepts from formal economics and the physical sciences into novel applications in other areas, using applied science and operations research."
I hasten to add that it doesn't necessarily mean that they are right, but neither should they be dismissed. It's a very credible organisation.

[Cryssys]

Ah, yet another " think tank " .

As has been pointed out before everything is just predictions at this stage, and that includes the benefits that leave supporters claim that Brexit will bring. Nothing has been agreed so the outcome is still an unknown.

The Rand organisation are a well established and respected company based in the US and have no political agenda with regard to Brexit. They are also another organisation that are sceptical about Brexit and believe that the overall impact on the UK economy will be negative. It's not proof but there is a growing body of evidence that the UK will be economically worse off outside of the EU.

[Cryssys]

Ah, yet another " think tank " .

And yet many people felt confident enough to vote leave based on the unfounded predictions and promises (subsequently broken ) made by Michael Gove, Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage.

[JohnMcGreal]

David Davis once again forgetting that his counterparts across the channel are perfectly capable of reading and listening to his comments:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... erhofstadt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[If it be your will]

If all that’s true then why even bother their arses negotiating with us?

It isn't obviously apparent their arses have been too put out so far.

"Are you going to do exactly as we ask?"
"Okay, come back when you are."
"That's better."

[RingoMcCartney]

More predictions!? Brilliant! I'll put them in the file, with the rest of 'em marked, "the sky will definately fall in!"

BRING OUT YER DEAD.....BRING OUT YER DEAD.....

[UpTheBeehole]

definately

*Definitely

[Cryssys]

More predictions!? Brilliant! I'll put them in the file, with the rest of 'em marked, "the sky will definately fall in!"

BRING OUT YER DEAD.....BRING OUT YER DEAD.....

And do you have anything other than predictions to back up your support for Brexit? I'd be delighted to hear how you justify your position...

P.S. Thank you Ringo, "BRING OUT YER DEAD.....BRING OUT YER DEAD" gives me a line in Ringo Bingo. Just need "pathetic" and "remoaner" for a full house.

[Cryssys]

And do you have anything other than predictions to back up your support for Brexit? I'd be delighted to hear how you justify your position....

Ringo?

You still there Ringo?

[RingoMcCartney]

And do you have anything other than predictions to back up your support for Brexit? I'd be delighted to hear how you justify your position...

P.S. Thank you Ringo, "BRING OUT YER DEAD.....BRING OUT YER DEAD" gives me a line in Ringo Bingo. Just need "pathetic" and "remoaner" for a full house.

I don't need to "justify" my position. To you or any body else. Get over yourself.

I've had a considerable number of years of watching the UK decline while being a member of the European Union.

It's that EXPERIENCE on which I chose to vote Leave in the biggest expression of democracy the UK has ever seen. Not PREDICTIONS. And certainly not being gullible enough to swallow the lies of Remoaners.

[Lancasterclaret]

I've had a considerable number of years of watching the UK decline while being a member of the European Union.

You are going to need some facts to back that up, or it doesn't count.

Its only your opinion after all.

[Cryssys]

I don't need to "justify" my position. To you or any body else. Get over yourself.

I've had a considerable number of years of watching the UK decline while being a member of the European Union.

It's that EXPERIENCE on which I chose to vote Leave in the biggest expression of democracy the UK has ever seen. Not PREDICTIONS. And certainly not being gullible enough to swallow the lies of Remoaners.

Ok, so your perfectly happy to deride the opinions of others and demand that they produce evidence and facts to support them yet when it comes to your position all you have to go on is your "experience." Have you considered that the UK's decline would have been worse had we not been in the EU?

P.S. In what sense was the referendum the biggest expression of democracy that the UK has ever seen? Turn out was 72.2% and there have been many general elections where the turnout was in excess of this. Don't let the facts get in the way of your opinions/experience though.

P.P.S. By the way, thanks for "remoaners". Just need "Pathetic" now for a Ringo Bingo Full House.

[RingoMcCartney]

You are going to need some facts to back that up, or it doesn't count.

Its only your opinion after all.

I'm afraid it definately did count. It counted when my vote joined 17.4 million others.

And Yes! It's only my opinion. Martin p claimed had evidence that ending free movement of people will not help stop exploitation and people trafficking. As yet he's still to post it.

It was me who simply said he, like me, had an opinion. Stop trying to rewrite history lancs. You Remoaners eh!

[UpTheBeehole]

definately

You definitely can't spell 'definitely' can you?

[Lancasterclaret]

I just wish you'd made your decision based on facts, rather than what appears to be the Force to be perfectly honest Ringo.

[RingoMcCartney]

Ok so your perfectly happy to deride the opinions of others and demand that they produce evidence and facts to support them yet when it comes to your position all you have to go on is your "experience." Have you considered that the UK's decline would have been worse had we not been in the EU?

P.S. In what sense was the referendum the biggest expression of democracy that the UK has ever seen? Turn out was 72.2% and there have been many general elections where the turnout was in excess of this. Don't let the facts get in the way of your opinions/experience though.

P.P.S. By the way, thanks for "remoaners". Just need "Pathetic" now for a Ringo Bingo Full House.

I only ask that when a fellow poster claims he has evidence that ending free movement of people won't help to stop exploitation and people trafficking, then simply post it on here. He like other Remoaners, should put up or shut up. I simply said we BOTH only had opinions. But no. He claimed he had evidence. Still waitimg.

In what way was it the biggest expression of democracy? Show me another UK wide popular vote where one side got 17.4 million votes. Come on facts man!!!

[RingoMcCartney]

I just wish you'd made your decision based on facts, rather than what appears to be the Force to be perfectly honest Ringo.

I wish you'd accept democracy.

It's kind of eating away at you.

[RingoMcCartney]

You definitely can't spell 'definitely' can you?

Oh look it's the foul mouthed toddler! The UTC adult baby that puberty permanently by-passed!

[Cryssys]

Show me another UK wide popular vote where one side got 17.4 million votes. Come on facts man!!!

That's not what you said though is it Ringo? You said "I chose to vote Leave in the biggest expression of democracy the UK has ever seen."

The facts are as follows; turn out for the Brexit referendum was 72.2%, turn out for the general election in 1950 was 83.9%. Which makes the latter the biggest expression of democracy the UK has ever seen.

You lose, get over it.

P.S. Any chance of "pathetic"

[RingoMcCartney]

That's not what you said though is it Ringo? You said "I chose to vote Leave in the biggest expression of democracy the UK has ever seen."

The facts are as follows; turn out for the Brexit referendum was 72.2%, turn out for the general election in 1950 was 83.9%. Which makes the latter the biggest expression of democracy the UK has ever seen.

You lose, get over it.

P.S. Any chance of "pathetic"

Desparate! Simply desparate!

[UpTheBeehole]

Desparate! Simply desparate!

*Desperate

[Cryssys]

Desparate! Simply desparate!

You asked for facts Ringo and the facts prove your statement to be incorrect. I fail to see anything desperate in that.