FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > New Brexit poll
New Brexit poll
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Indicates that the majority of people would vote to rejoin the EU. Sensible or plain mad???" Totally sensible, in my view. We’ve gained nothing by leaving. And lost much. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Rejoining under the old terms, yes. New terms, would be a serious consideration. " Unfortunately we won't get the same terms as before so highly unlikely that we would rejoin however; a customs union and various agreements to bring us closer would be almost as good. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’d rather we had a rerun of the 2024 general election. Bye bye Labour." 4 years left. Tick tock | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Indicates that the majority of people would vote to rejoin the EU. Sensible or plain mad???" Rejoining wouldn't magically fix all the problems caused by Brexit. What they should do, is the opposite of last time, run some analysis to see what impacts rejoining would have. So people can make an informed decision. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Rejoining under the old terms, yes. New terms, would be a serious consideration. Unfortunately we won't get the same terms as before so highly unlikely that we would rejoin however; a customs union and various agreements to bring us closer would be almost as good." which of the previous terms are you talking about? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What they should do, is the opposite of last time, run some analysis to see what impacts rejoining would have. So people can make an informed decision." They did the analysis last time. It's just that the groups that did it had already decided what result they wanted, and they only presented the results that favoured their pre-determined position. Sadly, we don't have a trusted independent group that can present the full case, and counter the inevitable misinformation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What they should do, is the opposite of last time, run some analysis to see what impacts rejoining would have. So people can make an informed decision. They did the analysis last time. It's just that the groups that did it had already decided what result they wanted, and they only presented the results that favoured their pre-determined position. Sadly, we don't have a trusted independent group that can present the full case, and counter the inevitable misinformation." True, people were told what would happen if they voted leave, and then voted leave anyway. But what I'm getting at, and I know it would never happen, is the second part of your reply. "...a trusted independent group that can present the full case, and counter the inevitable misinformation." I never said I was being realistic  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There should never have been a referendum. Voters fed misinformation and too thick to consider and comprehend the possible negative outcomes. Reap what you sow. " There should have been a referendum, but with a supermajority required, such as 2/3 vote. This should be standard to change core constitutional or societal changes from the status quo. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There should never have been a referendum. Voters fed misinformation and too thick to consider and comprehend the possible negative outcomes. Reap what you sow. There should have been a referendum, but with a supermajority required, such as 2/3 vote. This should be standard to change core constitutional or societal changes from the status quo." So if 65% were to want to change something, you think it still shouldn’t be changed? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There should never have been a referendum. Voters fed misinformation and too thick to consider and comprehend the possible negative outcomes. Reap what you sow. There should have been a referendum, but with a supermajority required, such as 2/3 vote. This should be standard to change core constitutional or societal changes from the status quo." So we haven't actually left then. Just go on the last results | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There should never have been a referendum. Voters fed misinformation and too thick to consider and comprehend the possible negative outcomes. Reap what you sow. There should have been a referendum, but with a supermajority required, such as 2/3 vote. This should be standard to change core constitutional or societal changes from the status quo. So if 65% were to want to change something, you think it still shouldn’t be changed? " Whatever the agreed percentage, then yes. Fractional percentages near 50% means that we could end up voting in and out every few years. This should be standard for all major constitutional issues. Status quo remains until a substantial majority want to change. Even 55% would better. And yes, this should equally apply to an "in" referendum if held today. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Indicates that the majority of people would vote to rejoin the EU. Sensible or plain mad???" Or inevitable? Not exactly been a success has it.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Where is the political drive to exploit the benefits of leaving? We have had nothing but infighting and half hearted attempts at flowering up a speech or 2, and then letting it fizzle out. Leaving the EU wasn’t exactly graceful either. We had years to prepare, and what we ended up with was a rushed (you can't make it up), compromised deal that left gaps in trade, services, Northern Ireland, and regulations. " Do you have an example of one of the "benefits" that could be exploited. Nearly 10 years on from the start of this debacle, and no one has been able to pin down what any of these "benefits" could be. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Where is the political drive to exploit the benefits of leaving? We have had nothing but infighting and half hearted attempts at flowering up a speech or 2, and then letting it fizzle out. Leaving the EU wasn’t exactly graceful either. We had years to prepare, and what we ended up with was a rushed (you can't make it up), compromised deal that left gaps in trade, services, Northern Ireland, and regulations. Do you have an example of one of the "benefits" that could be exploited. Nearly 10 years on from the start of this debacle, and no one has been able to pin down what any of these "benefits" could be." There are potential benefits in many areas, they need to be worked through, and like every major change, there should be a benefits realisation exercise. That has not happened. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There should never have been a referendum. Voters fed misinformation and too thick to consider and comprehend the possible negative outcomes. Reap what you sow. There should have been a referendum, but with a supermajority required, such as 2/3 vote. This should be standard to change core constitutional or societal changes from the status quo. So if 65% were to want to change something, you think it still shouldn’t be changed? Whatever the agreed percentage, then yes. Fractional percentages near 50% means that we could end up voting in and out every few years. This should be standard for all major constitutional issues. Status quo remains until a substantial majority want to change. Even 55% would better. And yes, this should equally apply to an "in" referendum if held today." Yes I wasn’t thinking of any referendum topic, just the 2/3 majority you mentioned. 65% is a massive majority but it’s not 2/3. Doing something only 1/3 of the population wants seems a bit stupid to me. How about we have a referendum on what percentage of votes future referendums need? Would you be happy if only 65% voted to change it to 2/3 so it was left as it is? I’m being a little tongue in cheek obviously, but I’m a big believer in referendums. I don’t think we have enough of them but I don’t think we should do more of them in their current format either. I think for example that changing the voting age to 16 is something that should go to a referendum. People who are against referendums always spout that people are ill informed, or even too stupid to understand the issues. These are the same people who vote in general elections. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Indicates that the majority of people would vote to rejoin the EU. Sensible or plain mad??? Or inevitable? Not exactly been a success has it.." For those who orchestrated brexit it's been a partial success. Transferred wealth and power from ordinary people to those at the top. Created opportunities for disaster capitalism. Got rid of the main barriers to removing environmental protections, workers rights, food safety standards etc. Hasn't as of yet allowed the US to buy into the produce or healthcare sectors. Hasn't been as ruinous to the economy as some hoped (the no-deal brexit peeps) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Where is the political drive to exploit the benefits of leaving? We have had nothing but infighting and half hearted attempts at flowering up a speech or 2, and then letting it fizzle out. Leaving the EU wasn’t exactly graceful either. We had years to prepare, and what we ended up with was a rushed (you can't make it up), compromised deal that left gaps in trade, services, Northern Ireland, and regulations. Do you have an example of one of the "benefits" that could be exploited. Nearly 10 years on from the start of this debacle, and no one has been able to pin down what any of these "benefits" could be. There are potential benefits in many areas, they need to be worked through, and like every major change, there should be a benefits realisation exercise. That has not happened. " There should maybe have thought about trying to identify any benefits before telling people to vote Leave. Radical idea. Still, maybe in the next ten years someone will find one somewhere down the back of the sofa. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We had years to prepare, and what we ended up with was a rushed (you can't make it up), compromised deal that left gaps in trade, services, Northern Ireland, and regulations." Many of us remember that photo of David Davis grinning at the camera with no notes in front of him with Michel Barnier and his team the other side of the table with large piles of paperwork. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Where is the political drive to exploit the benefits of leaving? We have had nothing but infighting and half hearted attempts at flowering up a speech or 2, and then letting it fizzle out. Leaving the EU wasn’t exactly graceful either. We had years to prepare, and what we ended up with was a rushed (you can't make it up), compromised deal that left gaps in trade, services, Northern Ireland, and regulations. Do you have an example of one of the "benefits" that could be exploited. Nearly 10 years on from the start of this debacle, and no one has been able to pin down what any of these "benefits" could be. There are potential benefits in many areas, they need to be worked through, and like every major change, there should be a benefits realisation exercise. That has not happened. There should maybe have thought about trying to identify any benefits before telling people to vote Leave. Radical idea. Still, maybe in the next ten years someone will find one somewhere down the back of the sofa. " There are benefits to be leveraged from leaving the EU, to think other wise is a mistake that I think is being made now. We need focus and not a political holding pattern driven through fear. If we exploit the areas where we now have our autonomy, regulation, trade, taxes and innovation we can strengthen our economic position. That’s how we will see positive societal change, by shaping the economy to be more competitive, and not as it is now stagnating. Secondly, if we are ever in a position to discuss rejoining, we are in a far stronger position if we have built an independent strong economy, and not just spent a 20 years drifting, which we have been doing for nearly 50% of that time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Where is the political drive to exploit the benefits of leaving? We have had nothing but infighting and half hearted attempts at flowering up a speech or 2, and then letting it fizzle out. Leaving the EU wasn’t exactly graceful either. We had years to prepare, and what we ended up with was a rushed (you can't make it up), compromised deal that left gaps in trade, services, Northern Ireland, and regulations. Do you have an example of one of the "benefits" that could be exploited. Nearly 10 years on from the start of this debacle, and no one has been able to pin down what any of these "benefits" could be. There are potential benefits in many areas, they need to be worked through, and like every major change, there should be a benefits realisation exercise. That has not happened. There should maybe have thought about trying to identify any benefits before telling people to vote Leave. Radical idea. Still, maybe in the next ten years someone will find one somewhere down the back of the sofa. There are benefits to be leveraged from leaving the EU, to think other wise is a mistake that I think is being made now. " Sure. I'm open to it. It's been nearly ten years and no one has found one yet that we could leverage. Maybe in ten more years someone will identify one? " We need focus and not a political holding pattern driven through fear. If we exploit the areas where we now have our autonomy, regulation, trade, taxes and innovation we can strengthen our economic position. That’s how we will see positive societal change, by shaping the economy to be more competitive, and not as it is now stagnating. " Sounds positive. Still this is the problem with the whole leave side from the beginning, nothing solid, concrete or real. " Secondly, if we are ever in a position to discuss rejoining, we are in a far stronger position if we have built an independent strong economy, and not just spent a 20 years drifting, which we have been doing for nearly 50% of that time. " That's true. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We need focus and not a political holding pattern driven through fear. If we exploit the areas where we now have our autonomy, regulation, trade, taxes and innovation we can strengthen our economic position. That’s how we will see positive societal change, by shaping the economy to be more competitive, and not as it is now stagnating." What policy changes on regulation, trade, taxes and innovation do you think the government should make? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We need focus and not a political holding pattern driven through fear. If we exploit the areas where we now have our autonomy, regulation, trade, taxes and innovation we can strengthen our economic position. That’s how we will see positive societal change, by shaping the economy to be more competitive, and not as it is now stagnating. What policy changes on regulation, trade, taxes and innovation do you think the government should make?" Many to encourage exports, which is where we need to focus the support for business. I’m an advocate of “freeports” the concept is good, but it needs to be fine tuned and expanded across the country. We need infrastructure, simplified regulation, and policy that encourages manufacturing, logistics, and R&D to grow. If we are serious about competitiveness and growth, this is where we start by backing businesses that can sell abroad, bring in revenue, and create longterm jobs. There is of course many moving parts in the above and many more areas for growth but the above is what I would focus on. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Indicates that the majority of people would vote to rejoin the EU. Sensible or plain mad???" I ask the question have you been polled, in all my life I have never been polled. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Indicates that the majority of people would vote to rejoin the EU. Sensible or plain mad??? I ask the question have you been polled, in all my life I have never been polled." "Polled" in this context sounds like a euphemism.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Many to encourage exports, which is where we need to focus the support for business. I’m an advocate of “freeports” the concept is good, but it needs to be fine tuned and expanded across the country. We need infrastructure, simplified regulation, and policy that encourages manufacturing, logistics, and R&D to grow. If we are serious about competitiveness and growth, this is where we start by backing businesses that can sell abroad, bring in revenue, and create longterm jobs. There is of course many moving parts in the above and many more areas for growth but the above is what I would focus on." That all sounds good although a bit vauge. Which parts of this weren't possible when we were in the EU? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Many to encourage exports, which is where we need to focus the support for business. I’m an advocate of “freeports” the concept is good, but it needs to be fine tuned and expanded across the country. We need infrastructure, simplified regulation, and policy that encourages manufacturing, logistics, and R&D to grow. If we are serious about competitiveness and growth, this is where we start by backing businesses that can sell abroad, bring in revenue, and create longterm jobs. There is of course many moving parts in the above and many more areas for growth but the above is what I would focus on. That all sounds good although a bit vauge. Which parts of this weren't possible when we were in the EU?" Autonomy over taxation and trade, we can now tailor our own incentives, adjust tariffs, and simplify export processes in ways we couldn’t within the EU. It may sound vague because it’s complex infrastructure, regulation, and trade policy that all needs to align in a coherent plan. But that’s no excuse for the inaction of this and the previous government. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I ask the question have you been polled, in all my life I have never been polled." That's because for a population of 69 million one only needs to poll 385 people to get a result with a confidence level of 95% with a margin of error of 5%. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Many to encourage exports, which is where we need to focus the support for business. I’m an advocate of “freeports” the concept is good, but it needs to be fine tuned and expanded across the country. We need infrastructure, simplified regulation, and policy that encourages manufacturing, logistics, and R&D to grow. If we are serious about competitiveness and growth, this is where we start by backing businesses that can sell abroad, bring in revenue, and create longterm jobs. There is of course many moving parts in the above and many more areas for growth but the above is what I would focus on. That all sounds good although a bit vauge. Which parts of this weren't possible when we were in the EU? Autonomy over taxation and trade, we can now tailor our own incentives, adjust tariffs, and simplify export processes in ways we couldn’t within the EU. It may sound vague because it’s complex infrastructure, regulation, and trade policy that all needs to align in a coherent plan. But that’s no excuse for the inaction of this and the previous government." Are we not a much smaller trading partner on our own than we were in the EU, giving us a much weaker position in trade agreements? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Indicates that the majority of people would vote to rejoin the EU. Sensible or plain mad??? Or inevitable? Not exactly been a success has it.. For those who orchestrated brexit it's been a partial success. Transferred wealth and power from ordinary people to those at the top. Created opportunities for disaster capitalism. Got rid of the main barriers to removing environmental protections, workers rights, food safety standards etc. Hasn't as of yet allowed the US to buy into the produce or healthcare sectors. Hasn't been as ruinous to the economy as some hoped (the no-deal brexit peeps) " That was their intention all along methinks.. All they needed to do was tap into fear , division and a lack of critical thinking.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Where is the political drive to exploit the benefits of leaving? We have had nothing but infighting and half hearted attempts at flowering up a speech or 2, and then letting it fizzle out. Leaving the EU wasn’t exactly graceful either. We had years to prepare, and what we ended up with was a rushed (you can't make it up), compromised deal that left gaps in trade, services, Northern Ireland, and regulations. Do you have an example of one of the "benefits" that could be exploited. Nearly 10 years on from the start of this debacle, and no one has been able to pin down what any of these "benefits" could be. There are potential benefits in many areas, they need to be worked through, and like every major change, there should be a benefits realisation exercise. That has not happened. " 'potential benefits' sounds very much like 'this time next year Rodney we'll be millionaires'..  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I ask the question have you been polled, in all my life I have never been polled. That's because for a population of 69 million one only needs to poll 385 people to get a result with a confidence level of 95% with a margin of error of 5%. " That depends on where you get your 385 people from. Polls can very easily be manipulated to give whatever result you want. For example, I live in one of the safest conservative seats in the country but that doesn’t make to a Tory. The result in the last general election around here with a lot more than 385 votes proves that the majority of people didn’t want Labour in power. Is that a fair assessment with 5% margin of error? A similar vote at the same time in Starmers own constituency gave a different answer. Both polls have a 5% margin of error? Actually as the number of opinions considered was tens of thousands, the margin of error is considerably less. Yet there would be massively more than 5% difference between the results. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Autonomy over taxation and trade, we can now tailor our own incentives, adjust tariffs, and simplify export processes in ways we couldn’t within the EU. It may sound vague because it’s complex infrastructure, regulation, and trade policy that all needs to align in a coherent plan. But that’s no excuse for the inaction of this and the previous government." I can see tariffs as one thing we could now eaily change. I'm not sure what effect that would have on the overall economy though. On simplifying export processes, our biggest export market is the EU at £358 billion (41%) but leaving the EU has made the export processes much more complex and expensive. The next biggest export market is the USA at £196 billion (22%) but I don't know how we could improve this by incentives, tariff changes or simplifying export processes. Likewise exports to the rest of the world. I agree increasing net exports would be a good thing but I don't see any easy mechanism to achieve this, other than perhaps rejoining the EU. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Many to encourage exports, which is where we need to focus the support for business. I’m an advocate of “freeports” the concept is good, but it needs to be fine tuned and expanded across the country. We need infrastructure, simplified regulation, and policy that encourages manufacturing, logistics, and R&D to grow. If we are serious about competitiveness and growth, this is where we start by backing businesses that can sell abroad, bring in revenue, and create longterm jobs. There is of course many moving parts in the above and many more areas for growth but the above is what I would focus on. That all sounds good although a bit vauge. Which parts of this weren't possible when we were in the EU? Autonomy over taxation and trade, we can now tailor our own incentives, adjust tariffs, and simplify export processes in ways we couldn’t within the EU. It may sound vague because it’s complex infrastructure, regulation, and trade policy that all needs to align in a coherent plan. But that’s no excuse for the inaction of this and the previous government. Are we not a much smaller trading partner on our own than we were in the EU, giving us a much weaker position in trade agreements?" Yes, and that’s exactly why we need to focus on the export side of trade. It’s not just about tariffs, it’s about the quality of what we offer. The stronger our products and services, the more competitive we become globally. That drives exports, creates jobs, and strengthens our trade position over time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Autonomy over taxation and trade, we can now tailor our own incentives, adjust tariffs, and simplify export processes in ways we couldn’t within the EU. It may sound vague because it’s complex infrastructure, regulation, and trade policy that all needs to align in a coherent plan. But that’s no excuse for the inaction of this and the previous government. I can see tariffs as one thing we could now eaily change. I'm not sure what effect that would have on the overall economy though. On simplifying export processes, our biggest export market is the EU at £358 billion (41%) but leaving the EU has made the export processes much more complex and expensive. The next biggest export market is the USA at £196 billion (22%) but I don't know how we could improve this by incentives, tariff changes or simplifying export processes. Likewise exports to the rest of the world. I agree increasing net exports would be a good thing but I don't see any easy mechanism to achieve this, other than perhaps rejoining the EU." See above ref tariffs. The export side should be looked at in 2 ways, reduced friction on goods and services entering and leaving the country, those tax incentives support export. Whilst R&D and innovation support will increase our trading options on a global scale and increase jobs. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That depends on where you get your 385 people from. Polls can very easily be manipulated to give whatever result you want. For example, I live in one of the safest conservative seats in the country but that doesn’t make to a Tory. The result in the last general election around here with a lot more than 385 votes proves that the majority of people didn’t want Labour in power. Is that a fair assessment with 5% margin of error? A similar vote at the same time in Starmers own constituency gave a different answer. Both polls have a 5% margin of error? Actually as the number of opinions considered was tens of thousands, the margin of error is considerably less. Yet there would be massively more than 5% difference between the results." Fair enough, I was talking about a very well designed poll and about the maths involved which assumes that the sample is not biased. Obviously if you went to a football match and asked 385 fans all wearing the same scarf who their favourite team was you wouldn't get a representative answer of who the most popular team in the country was. It's difficult to avoid sample bias which is why in practice top-end political polls are generally carefully designed to cover a wide area and about 1,000 to 5,000 rather than 385 people are asked a question but we are still talking about a tiny proportion of the population being polled, so my overall point stands. Larger polls wouldn't improve accuracy by much - it's a matter of diminishing returns. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Many to encourage exports, which is where we need to focus the support for business. I’m an advocate of “freeports” the concept is good, but it needs to be fine tuned and expanded across the country. We need infrastructure, simplified regulation, and policy that encourages manufacturing, logistics, and R&D to grow. If we are serious about competitiveness and growth, this is where we start by backing businesses that can sell abroad, bring in revenue, and create longterm jobs. There is of course many moving parts in the above and many more areas for growth but the above is what I would focus on. That all sounds good although a bit vauge. Which parts of this weren't possible when we were in the EU? Autonomy over taxation and trade, we can now tailor our own incentives, adjust tariffs, and simplify export processes in ways we couldn’t within the EU. It may sound vague because it’s complex infrastructure, regulation, and trade policy that all needs to align in a coherent plan. But that’s no excuse for the inaction of this and the previous government. Are we not a much smaller trading partner on our own than we were in the EU, giving us a much weaker position in trade agreements? Yes, and that’s exactly why we need to focus on the export side of trade. It’s not just about tariffs, it’s about the quality of what we offer. The stronger our products and services, the more competitive we become globally. That drives exports, creates jobs, and strengthens our trade position over time." Being a weaker partner in trade negotiations simply can't be good for the UK. We could have made quality products and sold them for higher prices with better trade deals as an EU member. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Many to encourage exports, which is where we need to focus the support for business. I’m an advocate of “freeports” the concept is good, but it needs to be fine tuned and expanded across the country. We need infrastructure, simplified regulation, and policy that encourages manufacturing, logistics, and R&D to grow. If we are serious about competitiveness and growth, this is where we start by backing businesses that can sell abroad, bring in revenue, and create longterm jobs. There is of course many moving parts in the above and many more areas for growth but the above is what I would focus on. That all sounds good although a bit vauge. Which parts of this weren't possible when we were in the EU? Autonomy over taxation and trade, we can now tailor our own incentives, adjust tariffs, and simplify export processes in ways we couldn’t within the EU. It may sound vague because it’s complex infrastructure, regulation, and trade policy that all needs to align in a coherent plan. But that’s no excuse for the inaction of this and the previous government. Are we not a much smaller trading partner on our own than we were in the EU, giving us a much weaker position in trade agreements? Yes, and that’s exactly why we need to focus on the export side of trade. It’s not just about tariffs, it’s about the quality of what we offer. The stronger our products and services, the more competitive we become globally. That drives exports, creates jobs, and strengthens our trade position over time. Being a weaker partner in trade negotiations simply can't be good for the UK. We could have made quality products and sold them for higher prices with better trade deals as an EU member." We could have done more to boost exports while in the EU, but we didn’t. The difference now is that we have full control over trade, tax, and industrial policy, but we are not using it effectively. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Being a weaker partner in trade negotiations simply can't be good for the UK. We could have made quality products and sold them for higher prices with better trade deals as an EU member." But that wasn't the choice we were faced with. The choice was to be a weak partner in trade deals, or not to have any trade deals at all. When we were in the EU all trade deals had to be centrally negotiated by the EU, and we weren't allowed to negotiate anything on our own. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Being a weaker partner in trade negotiations simply can't be good for the UK. We could have made quality products and sold them for higher prices with better trade deals as an EU member. But that wasn't the choice we were faced with. The choice was to be a weak partner in trade deals, or not to have any trade deals at all. When we were in the EU all trade deals had to be centrally negotiated by the EU, and we weren't allowed to negotiate anything on our own." ...which makes sense! Why be part of a trading group then make your own independent trades separately from the group? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Many to encourage exports, which is where we need to focus the support for business. I’m an advocate of “freeports” the concept is good, but it needs to be fine tuned and expanded across the country. We need infrastructure, simplified regulation, and policy that encourages manufacturing, logistics, and R&D to grow. If we are serious about competitiveness and growth, this is where we start by backing businesses that can sell abroad, bring in revenue, and create longterm jobs. There is of course many moving parts in the above and many more areas for growth but the above is what I would focus on. That all sounds good although a bit vauge. Which parts of this weren't possible when we were in the EU? Autonomy over taxation and trade, we can now tailor our own incentives, adjust tariffs, and simplify export processes in ways we couldn’t within the EU. It may sound vague because it’s complex infrastructure, regulation, and trade policy that all needs to align in a coherent plan. But that’s no excuse for the inaction of this and the previous government. Are we not a much smaller trading partner on our own than we were in the EU, giving us a much weaker position in trade agreements? Yes, and that’s exactly why we need to focus on the export side of trade. It’s not just about tariffs, it’s about the quality of what we offer. The stronger our products and services, the more competitive we become globally. That drives exports, creates jobs, and strengthens our trade position over time. Being a weaker partner in trade negotiations simply can't be good for the UK. We could have made quality products and sold them for higher prices with better trade deals as an EU member." Whilst refusing to acknowledge it as a Brexit benefit, hasn't the govt acknowledged that our, much better with the US than the EU managed, deal couldn't have been done unless we had the ability to negotiate on our own? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Many to encourage exports, which is where we need to focus the support for business. I’m an advocate of “freeports” the concept is good, but it needs to be fine tuned and expanded across the country. We need infrastructure, simplified regulation, and policy that encourages manufacturing, logistics, and R&D to grow. If we are serious about competitiveness and growth, this is where we start by backing businesses that can sell abroad, bring in revenue, and create longterm jobs. There is of course many moving parts in the above and many more areas for growth but the above is what I would focus on. That all sounds good although a bit vauge. Which parts of this weren't possible when we were in the EU? Autonomy over taxation and trade, we can now tailor our own incentives, adjust tariffs, and simplify export processes in ways we couldn’t within the EU. It may sound vague because it’s complex infrastructure, regulation, and trade policy that all needs to align in a coherent plan. But that’s no excuse for the inaction of this and the previous government. Are we not a much smaller trading partner on our own than we were in the EU, giving us a much weaker position in trade agreements? Yes, and that’s exactly why we need to focus on the export side of trade. It’s not just about tariffs, it’s about the quality of what we offer. The stronger our products and services, the more competitive we become globally. That drives exports, creates jobs, and strengthens our trade position over time. Being a weaker partner in trade negotiations simply can't be good for the UK. We could have made quality products and sold them for higher prices with better trade deals as an EU member. We could have done more to boost exports while in the EU, but we didn’t. The difference now is that we have full control over trade, tax, and industrial policy, but we are not using it effectively." The difference is now we are in a much weaker position to negotiate trade deals which we already had as an EU member. I agree over "industrial policy, but we are not using it..". The government hasn't managed to remover safely standards, workers rights etc. which are no longer protected by the EU. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Being a weaker partner in trade negotiations simply can't be good for the UK. We could have made quality products and sold them for higher prices with better trade deals as an EU member. But that wasn't the choice we were faced with. The choice was to be a weak partner in trade deals, or not to have any trade deals at all. When we were in the EU all trade deals had to be centrally negotiated by the EU, and we weren't allowed to negotiate anything on our own." Yes. It was excellent. We binned all that and went on our own as a smaller, weaker entity. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Being a weaker partner in trade negotiations simply can't be good for the UK. We could have made quality products and sold them for higher prices with better trade deals as an EU member." "But that wasn't the choice we were faced with. The choice was to be a weak partner in trade deals, or not to have any trade deals at all. When we were in the EU all trade deals had to be centrally negotiated by the EU, and we weren't allowed to negotiate anything on our own." "Yes. It was excellent. We binned all that and went on our own as a smaller, weaker entity." So it comes down to - is it better to be strong but slow, or weak and nimble. Obviously that's not a question that has an simple answer, it depends on the circumstances. We don't seem to be good at nimble yet, but the recent US and India trade deals show that we might be getting better. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Being a weaker partner in trade negotiations simply can't be good for the UK. We could have made quality products and sold them for higher prices with better trade deals as an EU member. But that wasn't the choice we were faced with. The choice was to be a weak partner in trade deals, or not to have any trade deals at all. When we were in the EU all trade deals had to be centrally negotiated by the EU, and we weren't allowed to negotiate anything on our own. Yes. It was excellent. We binned all that and went on our own as a smaller, weaker entity. So it comes down to - is it better to be strong but slow, or weak and nimble. Obviously that's not a question that has an simple answer, it depends on the circumstances. We don't seem to be good at nimble yet, but the recent US and India trade deals show that we might be getting better." Nimble you say..... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Being a weaker partner in trade negotiations simply can't be good for the UK. We could have made quality products and sold them for higher prices with better trade deals as an EU member. But that wasn't the choice we were faced with. The choice was to be a weak partner in trade deals, or not to have any trade deals at all. When we were in the EU all trade deals had to be centrally negotiated by the EU, and we weren't allowed to negotiate anything on our own. Yes. It was excellent. We binned all that and went on our own as a smaller, weaker entity." That somehow got a better deal with the US, and, according to the labour party government incredible deals elsewhere... that wouldn't have been possible within the EU. Is it not within you to acknowledge, just for once, that it's beneficial on this one point?????????? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Being a weaker partner in trade negotiations simply can't be good for the UK. We could have made quality products and sold them for higher prices with better trade deals as an EU member. But that wasn't the choice we were faced with. The choice was to be a weak partner in trade deals, or not to have any trade deals at all. When we were in the EU all trade deals had to be centrally negotiated by the EU, and we weren't allowed to negotiate anything on our own. Yes. It was excellent. We binned all that and went on our own as a smaller, weaker entity. That somehow got a better deal with the US, and, according to the labour party government incredible deals elsewhere... that wouldn't have been possible within the EU. Is it not within you to acknowledge, just for once, that it's beneficial on this one point??????????" I assume you haven't read any analysis or comparison between the UK and the EUs trade deals with the US? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Many to encourage exports, which is where we need to focus the support for business. I’m an advocate of “freeports” the concept is good, but it needs to be fine tuned and expanded across the country. We need infrastructure, simplified regulation, and policy that encourages manufacturing, logistics, and R&D to grow. If we are serious about competitiveness and growth, this is where we start by backing businesses that can sell abroad, bring in revenue, and create longterm jobs. There is of course many moving parts in the above and many more areas for growth but the above is what I would focus on. That all sounds good although a bit vauge. Which parts of this weren't possible when we were in the EU? Autonomy over taxation and trade, we can now tailor our own incentives, adjust tariffs, and simplify export processes in ways we couldn’t within the EU. It may sound vague because it’s complex infrastructure, regulation, and trade policy that all needs to align in a coherent plan. But that’s no excuse for the inaction of this and the previous government. Are we not a much smaller trading partner on our own than we were in the EU, giving us a much weaker position in trade agreements? Yes, and that’s exactly why we need to focus on the export side of trade. It’s not just about tariffs, it’s about the quality of what we offer. The stronger our products and services, the more competitive we become globally. That drives exports, creates jobs, and strengthens our trade position over time. Being a weaker partner in trade negotiations simply can't be good for the UK. We could have made quality products and sold them for higher prices with better trade deals as an EU member. We could have done more to boost exports while in the EU, but we didn’t. The difference now is that we have full control over trade, tax, and industrial policy, but we are not using it effectively. The difference is now we are in a much weaker position to negotiate trade deals which we already had as an EU member. I agree over "industrial policy, but we are not using it..". The government hasn't managed to remover safely standards, workers rights etc. which are no longer protected by the EU." I'm not quite sure you can keep arguing from a legacy position. Things were different when we were an EU member but we are no longer an EU member. I guess this type of thinking could be why we have had 2 governments struggling to push forward and would rather tread water. The fact that we can make our own trade policies and have, is a sign that we can alter our outcomes, that is a brexit benefit. Doing nothing about it however is just lazy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Indicates that the majority of people would vote to rejoin the EU. Sensible or plain mad???" I believe there is a political party called rejoin who's goal is to obviously rejoin the EU. Also the lib Dems are very pro rejoin though have been a bit quiet on that recently. Polls can give indicators but until people vote consistently for parties that are up front about rejoining then I don't see a change. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Being a weaker partner in trade negotiations simply can't be good for the UK. We could have made quality products and sold them for higher prices with better trade deals as an EU member. But that wasn't the choice we were faced with. The choice was to be a weak partner in trade deals, or not to have any trade deals at all. When we were in the EU all trade deals had to be centrally negotiated by the EU, and we weren't allowed to negotiate anything on our own. Yes. It was excellent. We binned all that and went on our own as a smaller, weaker entity. That somehow got a better deal with the US, and, according to the labour party government incredible deals elsewhere... that wouldn't have been possible within the EU. Is it not within you to acknowledge, just for once, that it's beneficial on this one point?????????? I assume you haven't read any analysis or comparison between the UK and the EUs trade deals with the US?" So that's an unsurprising no? If the left argued black was white would you support it? Don't bother answering, I already have the answer | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Being a weaker partner in trade negotiations simply can't be good for the UK. We could have made quality products and sold them for higher prices with better trade deals as an EU member. But that wasn't the choice we were faced with. The choice was to be a weak partner in trade deals, or not to have any trade deals at all. When we were in the EU all trade deals had to be centrally negotiated by the EU, and we weren't allowed to negotiate anything on our own. Yes. It was excellent. We binned all that and went on our own as a smaller, weaker entity. That somehow got a better deal with the US, and, according to the labour party government incredible deals elsewhere... that wouldn't have been possible within the EU. Is it not within you to acknowledge, just for once, that it's beneficial on this one point?????????? I assume you haven't read any analysis or comparison between the UK and the EUs trade deals with the US? So that's an unsurprising no? If the left argued black was white would you support it? Don't bother answering, I already have the answer "So you don't know anything about the difference between the trade deals, an unsurprising no? Also, general question, why do you imply that only "the left" would bother to learn about these two trade deals? Isn't that patronising to everyone else. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Being a weaker partner in trade negotiations simply can't be good for the UK. We could have made quality products and sold them for higher prices with better trade deals as an EU member. But that wasn't the choice we were faced with. The choice was to be a weak partner in trade deals, or not to have any trade deals at all. When we were in the EU all trade deals had to be centrally negotiated by the EU, and we weren't allowed to negotiate anything on our own. Yes. It was excellent. We binned all that and went on our own as a smaller, weaker entity. That somehow got a better deal with the US, and, according to the labour party government incredible deals elsewhere... that wouldn't have been possible within the EU. Is it not within you to acknowledge, just for once, that it's beneficial on this one point?????????? I assume you haven't read any analysis or comparison between the UK and the EUs trade deals with the US?" May I also ask if your thinking is as accurate as you clearly seem to think is it, why is the country is in the xxxxing mess it is after 12 months of of the Labour party salvation? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Being a weaker partner in trade negotiations simply can't be good for the UK. We could have made quality products and sold them for higher prices with better trade deals as an EU member. But that wasn't the choice we were faced with. The choice was to be a weak partner in trade deals, or not to have any trade deals at all. When we were in the EU all trade deals had to be centrally negotiated by the EU, and we weren't allowed to negotiate anything on our own. Yes. It was excellent. We binned all that and went on our own as a smaller, weaker entity. That somehow got a better deal with the US, and, according to the labour party government incredible deals elsewhere... that wouldn't have been possible within the EU. Is it not within you to acknowledge, just for once, that it's beneficial on this one point?????????? I assume you haven't read any analysis or comparison between the UK and the EUs trade deals with the US? May I also ask if your thinking is as accurate as you clearly seem to think is it, why is the country is in the xxxxing mess it is after 12 months of of the Labour party salvation?" In no specific order: Brexit Pandemic 14 years of Tory rule. Labour being Tory-lite. The system of parliamentary democracy serving those who donate the most to election campaigns instead of the people of the country. Side note. I've never claimed my "thinking" is accurate. I very rarely offer an opinion on such things. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Being a weaker partner in trade negotiations simply can't be good for the UK. We could have made quality products and sold them for higher prices with better trade deals as an EU member. But that wasn't the choice we were faced with. The choice was to be a weak partner in trade deals, or not to have any trade deals at all. When we were in the EU all trade deals had to be centrally negotiated by the EU, and we weren't allowed to negotiate anything on our own. Yes. It was excellent. We binned all that and went on our own as a smaller, weaker entity. That somehow got a better deal with the US, and, according to the labour party government incredible deals elsewhere... that wouldn't have been possible within the EU. Is it not within you to acknowledge, just for once, that it's beneficial on this one point?????????? I assume you haven't read any analysis or comparison between the UK and the EUs trade deals with the US? So that's an unsurprising no? If the left argued black was white would you support it? Don't bother answering, I already have the answer
So you don't know anything about the difference between the trade deals, an unsurprising no?
Also, general question, why do you imply that only "the left" would bother to learn about these two trade deals? Isn't that patronising to everyone else."I've read and listened to details about these trade deals and the overwhelming consensus is that the EU has been screwed. You clearly don't like it but the question was about the UK and our ability to agree deals out with the EU which the trade secretary admitted was the reason we had a good deal. Was he lying? Or was that just a roundabout way of admitting that it was a benefit of Brexit? Cmon Johnny boy, admit it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Being a weaker partner in trade negotiations simply can't be good for the UK. We could have made quality products and sold them for higher prices with better trade deals as an EU member. But that wasn't the choice we were faced with. The choice was to be a weak partner in trade deals, or not to have any trade deals at all. When we were in the EU all trade deals had to be centrally negotiated by the EU, and we weren't allowed to negotiate anything on our own. Yes. It was excellent. We binned all that and went on our own as a smaller, weaker entity. That somehow got a better deal with the US, and, according to the labour party government incredible deals elsewhere... that wouldn't have been possible within the EU. Is it not within you to acknowledge, just for once, that it's beneficial on this one point?????????? I assume you haven't read any analysis or comparison between the UK and the EUs trade deals with the US? May I also ask if your thinking is as accurate as you clearly seem to think is it, why is the country is in the xxxxing mess it is after 12 months of of the Labour party salvation? In no specific order: Brexit Pandemic 14 years of Tory rule. Labour being Tory-lite. The system of parliamentary democracy serving those who donate the most to election campaigns instead of the people of the country. Side note. I've never claimed my "thinking" is accurate. I very rarely offer an opinion on such things. " You forgot to add magna carta, the wars of the roses, ww1 and ww2 to the list, anything apart from the inadequacies of a labour govt that was, I believe, ready to hit the ground running? Everything fully costed? Is the latest £40bn self inflicted black hole also down to the Tories? Laughable! But I digress | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Being a weaker partner in trade negotiations simply can't be good for the UK. We could have made quality products and sold them for higher prices with better trade deals as an EU member. But that wasn't the choice we were faced with. The choice was to be a weak partner in trade deals, or not to have any trade deals at all. When we were in the EU all trade deals had to be centrally negotiated by the EU, and we weren't allowed to negotiate anything on our own. Yes. It was excellent. We binned all that and went on our own as a smaller, weaker entity. That somehow got a better deal with the US, and, according to the labour party government incredible deals elsewhere... that wouldn't have been possible within the EU. Is it not within you to acknowledge, just for once, that it's beneficial on this one point?????????? I assume you haven't read any analysis or comparison between the UK and the EUs trade deals with the US? So that's an unsurprising no? If the left argued black was white would you support it? Don't bother answering, I already have the answer
So you don't know anything about the difference between the trade deals, an unsurprising no?
Also, general question, why do you imply that only "the left" would bother to learn about these two trade deals? Isn't that patronising to everyone else.
I've read and listened to details about these trade deals and the overwhelming consensus is that the EU has been screwed. You clearly don't like it but the question was about the UK and our ability to agree deals out with the EU which the trade secretary admitted was the reason we had a good deal. Was he lying? Or was that just a roundabout way of admitting that it was a benefit of Brexit? Cmon Johnny boy, admit it"Admit that you are angry at me for some random reason. Yeah. No idea what's going on in your life that you behave like this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Being a weaker partner in trade negotiations simply can't be good for the UK. We could have made quality products and sold them for higher prices with better trade deals as an EU member. But that wasn't the choice we were faced with. The choice was to be a weak partner in trade deals, or not to have any trade deals at all. When we were in the EU all trade deals had to be centrally negotiated by the EU, and we weren't allowed to negotiate anything on our own. Yes. It was excellent. We binned all that and went on our own as a smaller, weaker entity. That somehow got a better deal with the US, and, according to the labour party government incredible deals elsewhere... that wouldn't have been possible within the EU. Is it not within you to acknowledge, just for once, that it's beneficial on this one point?????????? I assume you haven't read any analysis or comparison between the UK and the EUs trade deals with the US? May I also ask if your thinking is as accurate as you clearly seem to think is it, why is the country is in the xxxxing mess it is after 12 months of of the Labour party salvation? In no specific order: Brexit Pandemic 14 years of Tory rule. Labour being Tory-lite. The system of parliamentary democracy serving those who donate the most to election campaigns instead of the people of the country. Side note. I've never claimed my "thinking" is accurate. I very rarely offer an opinion on such things. You forgot to add magna carta, the wars of the roses, ww1 and ww2 to the list, anything apart from the inadequacies of a labour govt that was, I believe, ready to hit the ground running? Everything fully costed? Is the latest £40bn self inflicted black hole also down to the Tories? Laughable! But I digress" You clearly didn't read my reply. And not sure why you're ranting to me about Labour. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Where is the political drive to exploit the benefits of leaving? We have had nothing but infighting and half hearted attempts at flowering up a speech or 2, and then letting it fizzle out. Leaving the EU wasn’t exactly graceful either. We had years to prepare, and what we ended up with was a rushed (you can't make it up), compromised deal that left gaps in trade, services, Northern Ireland, and regulations. " Oven ready. From a buffoon and charlatan | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Indicates that the majority of people would vote to rejoin the EU. Sensible or plain mad??? I believe there is a political party called rejoin who's goal is to obviously rejoin the EU. Also the lib Dems are very pro rejoin though have been a bit quiet on that recently. Polls can give indicators but until people vote consistently for parties that are up front about rejoining then I don't see a change. " if we end up with a hung parliament the idea will gain traction very quickly, especially with the way online information operates now. when it's been thrust to the forefront it'll stay there and no party will be able to ignore it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Being a weaker partner in trade negotiations simply can't be good for the UK. We could have made quality products and sold them for higher prices with better trade deals as an EU member. But that wasn't the choice we were faced with. The choice was to be a weak partner in trade deals, or not to have any trade deals at all. When we were in the EU all trade deals had to be centrally negotiated by the EU, and we weren't allowed to negotiate anything on our own. Yes. It was excellent. We binned all that and went on our own as a smaller, weaker entity. That somehow got a better deal with the US, and, according to the labour party government incredible deals elsewhere... that wouldn't have been possible within the EU. Is it not within you to acknowledge, just for once, that it's beneficial on this one point??????????" I don't think you can compare the two deals made with the US by the UK and EU. Yes not the best outcome for EU but drawbacks to both. Starmer accepted 10% which many businesses in the UK would say is still a disaster. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Where is the political drive to exploit the benefits of leaving? We have had nothing but infighting and half hearted attempts at flowering up a speech or 2, and then letting it fizzle out. Leaving the EU wasn’t exactly graceful either. We had years to prepare, and what we ended up with was a rushed (you can't make it up), compromised deal that left gaps in trade, services, Northern Ireland, and regulations. Do you have an example of one of the "benefits" that could be exploited. Nearly 10 years on from the start of this debacle, and no one has been able to pin down what any of these "benefits" could be. There are potential benefits in many areas, they need to be worked through, and like every major change, there should be a benefits realisation exercise. That has not happened. 'potential benefits' sounds very much like 'this time next year Rodney we'll be millionaires'.. "But in the end Del Boy was right. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Where is the political drive to exploit the benefits of leaving? We have had nothing but infighting and half hearted attempts at flowering up a speech or 2, and then letting it fizzle out. Leaving the EU wasn’t exactly graceful either. We had years to prepare, and what we ended up with was a rushed (you can't make it up), compromised deal that left gaps in trade, services, Northern Ireland, and regulations. Oven ready. From a buffoon and charlatan " . You are referring to one of the most successfull politicians of modern times. He gained an 80 seat majority, negotiated a syccessfull exit from the EU , saved us from financial disaster during the covid crisis and gave extensive support to Ukraine. Lizz Trusss was a worthy successor but sadly events overtook her. We are all worse off as a result. Richi Sunak was a disaster and is responsible for destroying the Conservative party. However it is not all bad news. Nigel Farage is leading in the opinion polls and if this run continues will be the next pm. The intimidation tactics of the woke warriors and left wingers only have a small effect. What matters is the opinion of decent lawabiding citizens who work hard every day and support family values. These people are in the majority and a substantial one at that. Last time I checked 66 % of the population supported tighter controls of immigration. Hopefully we will be on the right side of history. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Where is the political drive to exploit the benefits of leaving? We have had nothing but infighting and half hearted attempts at flowering up a speech or 2, and then letting it fizzle out. Leaving the EU wasn’t exactly graceful either. We had years to prepare, and what we ended up with was a rushed (you can't make it up), compromised deal that left gaps in trade, services, Northern Ireland, and regulations. Oven ready. From a buffoon and charlatan . You are referring to one of the most successfull politicians of modern times. He gained an 80 seat majority, negotiated a syccessfull exit from the EU , saved us from financial disaster during the covid crisis and gave extensive support to Ukraine. Lizz Trusss was a worthy successor but sadly events overtook her. We are all worse off as a result. Richi Sunak was a disaster and is responsible for destroying the Conservative party. However it is not all bad news. Nigel Farage is leading in the opinion polls and if this run continues will be the next pm. The intimidation tactics of the woke warriors and left wingers only have a small effect. What matters is the opinion of decent lawabiding citizens who work hard every day and support family values. These people are in the majority and a substantial one at that. Last time I checked 66 % of the population supported tighter controls of immigration. Hopefully we will be on the right side of history. "
I vote for more posts from Pat. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Indicates that the majority of people would vote to rejoin the EU. Sensible or plain mad??? I believe there is a political party called rejoin who's goal is to obviously rejoin the EU. Also the lib Dems are very pro rejoin though have been a bit quiet on that recently. Polls can give indicators but until people vote consistently for parties that are up front about rejoining then I don't see a change. if we end up with a hung parliament the idea will gain traction very quickly, especially with the way online information operates now. when it's been thrust to the forefront it'll stay there and no party will be able to ignore it." Possibly though I won't have thought that would depend on the parties trying to do a deal and with who they are trying to get into an agreement. If the lib Dems and or the rejoin party get plenty of seats and are king makers then they may request a new referendum in return for support. It would be a big step for either of the 2 main parties given they have so far ruled that out but not impossible | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Being a weaker partner in trade negotiations simply can't be good for the UK. We could have made quality products and sold them for higher prices with better trade deals as an EU member. But that wasn't the choice we were faced with. The choice was to be a weak partner in trade deals, or not to have any trade deals at all. When we were in the EU all trade deals had to be centrally negotiated by the EU, and we weren't allowed to negotiate anything on our own. Yes. It was excellent. We binned all that and went on our own as a smaller, weaker entity. That somehow got a better deal with the US, and, according to the labour party government incredible deals elsewhere... that wouldn't have been possible within the EU. Is it not within you to acknowledge, just for once, that it's beneficial on this one point?????????? I assume you haven't read any analysis or comparison between the UK and the EUs trade deals with the US? So that's an unsurprising no? If the left argued black was white would you support it? Don't bother answering, I already have the answer
So you don't know anything about the difference between the trade deals, an unsurprising no?
Also, general question, why do you imply that only "the left" would bother to learn about these two trade deals? Isn't that patronising to everyone else.
I've read and listened to details about these trade deals and the overwhelming consensus is that the EU has been screwed. You clearly don't like it but the question was about the UK and our ability to agree deals out with the EU which the trade secretary admitted was the reason we had a good deal. Was he lying? Or was that just a roundabout way of admitting that it was a benefit of Brexit? Cmon Johnny boy, admit it
Admit that you are angry at me for some random reason. Yeah. No idea what's going on in your life that you behave like this."You choose not to deal with the question as usual when you don't have an answer | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Being a weaker partner in trade negotiations simply can't be good for the UK. We could have made quality products and sold them for higher prices with better trade deals as an EU member. But that wasn't the choice we were faced with. The choice was to be a weak partner in trade deals, or not to have any trade deals at all. When we were in the EU all trade deals had to be centrally negotiated by the EU, and we weren't allowed to negotiate anything on our own. Yes. It was excellent. We binned all that and went on our own as a smaller, weaker entity. That somehow got a better deal with the US, and, according to the labour party government incredible deals elsewhere... that wouldn't have been possible within the EU. Is it not within you to acknowledge, just for once, that it's beneficial on this one point?????????? I assume you haven't read any analysis or comparison between the UK and the EUs trade deals with the US? May I also ask if your thinking is as accurate as you clearly seem to think is it, why is the country is in the xxxxing mess it is after 12 months of of the Labour party salvation? In no specific order: Brexit Pandemic 14 years of Tory rule. Labour being Tory-lite. The system of parliamentary democracy serving those who donate the most to election campaigns instead of the people of the country. Side note. I've never claimed my "thinking" is accurate. I very rarely offer an opinion on such things. You forgot to add magna carta, the wars of the roses, ww1 and ww2 to the list, anything apart from the inadequacies of a labour govt that was, I believe, ready to hit the ground running? Everything fully costed? Is the latest £40bn self inflicted black hole also down to the Tories? Laughable! But I digress You clearly didn't read my reply. And not sure why you're ranting to me about Labour. " I've read your reply, it's the same rhetoric that I've been reading from you since I've been on here. If a party to the right delivered xanadu, people of your ilk wouldn't accept it because of where it came from. I refer to the trade deals that wouldn't have been possible if we were shackled to the failing EU but God forbid you might acknowledge it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes del boy did finish up a millionaire Thanks to a painting he didn't buy if memory serves,after all the get rich quick schemes failed So many parallels " It was a watch. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Rejoining under the old terms, yes. New terms, would be a serious consideration. " Lol. The soul of bregrets | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes del boy did finish up a millionaire Thanks to a painting he didn't buy if memory serves,after all the get rich quick schemes failed So many parallels It was a watch." Okydoky, the parallels still remain stark though | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Join the Euro." That's never going to happen. Most Brits won't even embrace metrication! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No chance! Remoaners have been pedalling this shit since the day we voted to leave. It’s very much the same as our Scottish cousins saying that they would vote for independence from the Union, if they had the chance to do so now. They still wouldn’t have the numbers, and it ain’t going to happen. End of…" Plus if people were convinced to vote against their own interests last time, who's to say it won't happen again. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No chance! Remoaners have been pedalling this shit since the day we voted to leave. It’s very much the same as our Scottish cousins saying that they would vote for independence from the Union, if they had the chance to do so now. They still wouldn’t have the numbers, and it ain’t going to happen. End of… Plus if people were convinced to vote against their own interests last time, who's to say it won't happen again. " I would imagine that is true for any referendum or election | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No chance! Remoaners have been pedalling this shit since the day we voted to leave. It’s very much the same as our Scottish cousins saying that they would vote for independence from the Union, if they had the chance to do so now. They still wouldn’t have the numbers, and it ain’t going to happen. End of… Plus if people were convinced to vote against their own interests last time, who's to say it won't happen again. I would imagine that is true for any referendum or election " Absolutely. We have a specific example from 2016 on how effective misinformation and propaganda can be. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No chance! Remoaners have been pedalling this shit since the day we voted to leave. It’s very much the same as our Scottish cousins saying that they would vote for independence from the Union, if they had the chance to do so now. They still wouldn’t have the numbers, and it ain’t going to happen. End of… Plus if people were convinced to vote against their own interests last time, who's to say it won't happen again. I would imagine that is true for any referendum or election Absolutely. We have a specific example from 2016 on how effective misinformation and propaganda can be." 2024 General Election. Total pack of lies from Labour to get elected. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Most Brits won't even embrace metrication!" Ask most people under the age of 25 what a yard, an acre or a fluid once is and they'll look at you like you're from the stoneage. We will keep feet, inches, miles and pints. That's about it. The days of barleycorns, chains, leagues, roods, gills and drachms are long gone. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Most Brits won't even embrace metrication! Ask most people under the age of 25 what a yard, an acre or a fluid once is and they'll look at you like you're from the stoneage. We will keep feet, inches, miles and pints. That's about it. The days of barleycorns, chains, leagues, roods, gills and drachms are long gone." You forgot lb or pound as in' I promise to pay the bearer', imperial has its place in engineering and such, metric is usefull when coverting weights to area volume, Gravity is imperial along with time.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No chance! Remoaners have been pedalling this shit since the day we voted to leave. It’s very much the same as our Scottish cousins saying that they would vote for independence from the Union, if they had the chance to do so now. They still wouldn’t have the numbers, and it ain’t going to happen. End of… Plus if people were convinced to vote against their own interests last time, who's to say it won't happen again. I would imagine that is true for any referendum or election Absolutely. We have a specific example from 2016 on how effective misinformation and propaganda can be. 2024 General Election. Total pack of lies from Labour to get elected." Good point. What about Labour! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You forgot lb or pound as in' I promise to pay the bearer', imperial has its place in engineering and such, metric is usefull when coverting weights to area volume, Gravity is imperial along with time." There have been 100 pennies in a £ rather than 240 for a long time. Soon the other pounds aren't going to be around outside the US. Do you use tower pounds, merchant pounds, troy pounds, avoirdupois pounds or London pounds? It depends on what you mean by engineering. A car mechanic over 40 in the UK will use foot pounds as will some US engineers but most other engineers these days will use newton metres for instance. I can't remember the last time I heard anyone talk about gravity in ft/s^2 rather than m/s^2. But you are right we'll keep the old fashioned time measurements. UTC has pinned it down sufficiently. Although again in engineering everything is measured in seconds. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No chance! Remoaners have been pedalling this shit since the day we voted to leave. It’s very much the same as our Scottish cousins saying that they would vote for independence from the Union, if they had the chance to do so now. They still wouldn’t have the numbers, and it ain’t going to happen. End of… Plus if people were convinced to vote against their own interests last time, who's to say it won't happen again. I would imagine that is true for any referendum or election Absolutely. We have a specific example from 2016 on how effective misinformation and propaganda can be. 2024 General Election. Total pack of lies from Labour to get elected. Good point. What about Labour!" Same idiots who voted for Brexit presumably voted for Labour. Still waiting for your explanation as to how you manage to avoid falling prey to the “misinformation and propaganda” while lesser beings are so easily brainwashed. Is it your superior intellect? Mental resilience? Tin foil from Aldi? Wearing blinkers when you go to the newsagent to avoid catching a glimpse of today’s Sun? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No chance! Remoaners have been pedalling this shit since the day we voted to leave. It’s very much the same as our Scottish cousins saying that they would vote for independence from the Union, if they had the chance to do so now. They still wouldn’t have the numbers, and it ain’t going to happen. End of… Plus if people were convinced to vote against their own interests last time, who's to say it won't happen again. I would imagine that is true for any referendum or election Absolutely. We have a specific example from 2016 on how effective misinformation and propaganda can be." And elections before and after | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Most Brits won't even embrace metrication! Ask most people under the age of 25 what a yard, an acre or a fluid once is and they'll look at you like you're from the stoneage. We will keep feet, inches, miles and pints. That's about it. The days of barleycorns, chains, leagues, roods, gills and drachms are long gone." I don’t think many people except surveyors would be able to say how big an acre is, or furlong, a fathom. They have no need | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We never should have left. It’s been a shambles. It was a big enough decision that the pass mark should have been raised to at least 70%. Having it decided with the vote split 50/50 was ridiculous. Also folks above 60/65 ish shouldn’t have been able to vote, and I reckon they should have lowered the age you could too. I for one would be delighted if we re-joined, even if we had to sit at the wee table in the corner. " There is a fairly new political party called Rejoin that may be of interest to you. Alternatively the lib Dems though they have been a bit quiet lately. If another vote should occur should it be a simple majority as before or set a threshold of saying 65% ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We never should have left. It’s been a shambles. It was a big enough decision that the pass mark should have been raised to at least 70%. Having it decided with the vote split 50/50 was ridiculous. Also folks above 60/65 ish shouldn’t have been able to vote, and I reckon they should have lowered the age you could too. I for one would be delighted if we re-joined, even if we had to sit at the wee table in the corner. There is a fairly new political party called Rejoin that may be of interest to you. Alternatively the lib Dems though they have been a bit quiet lately. If another vote should occur should it be a simple majority as before or set a threshold of saying 65% ?" The rejoin vote only requires a 25% vote in favour. It’s only the votes after that which will require a 90% threshold. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We never should have left. It’s been a shambles. It was a big enough decision that the pass mark should have been raised to at least 70%. Having it decided with the vote split 50/50 was ridiculous. Also folks above 60/65 ish shouldn’t have been able to vote, and I reckon they should have lowered the age you could too. I for one would be delighted if we re-joined, even if we had to sit at the wee table in the corner. There is a fairly new political party called Rejoin that may be of interest to you. Alternatively the lib Dems though they have been a bit quiet lately. If another vote should occur should it be a simple majority as before or set a threshold of saying 65% ?" A two thirds majority to change such things has been voiced in here. I’m happy with that figure. UKIP will start up again demanding another referendum straight away like the remainers did, if the vote goes that way | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No chance! Remoaners have been pedalling this shit since the day we voted to leave. It’s very much the same as our Scottish cousins saying that they would vote for independence from the Union, if they had the chance to do so now. They still wouldn’t have the numbers, and it ain’t going to happen. End of… Plus if people were convinced to vote against their own interests last time, who's to say it won't happen again. I would imagine that is true for any referendum or election Absolutely. We have a specific example from 2016 on how effective misinformation and propaganda can be. 2024 General Election. Total pack of lies from Labour to get elected. Good point. What about Labour! Same idiots who voted for Brexit presumably voted for Labour." No idea how this is relevant. " Still waiting for your explanation as to how you manage to avoid falling prey to the “misinformation and propaganda” while lesser beings are so easily brainwashed. " This is a strange way to word things. Waiting since the moment you typed the question? Anyway, I simply learned about what the EU is, how it works, what the impact of leaving would be. And I looked that the "benefits" that were presented to leaning, they were all based on meaningless rhetoric and could be debunked in minutes. Nothing mysterious. " Is it your superior intellect? Mental resilience? Tin foil from Aldi? Wearing blinkers when you go to the newsagent to avoid catching a glimpse of today’s Sun?" Not sure what to think of this bizarre rant. Maybe if I'd have been conned into voting against my own interests, I would get angry and confused with randomers on line too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Most Brits won't even embrace metrication! Ask most people under the age of 25 what a yard, an acre or a fluid once is and they'll look at you like you're from the stoneage. We will keep feet, inches, miles and pints. That's about it. The days of barleycorns, chains, leagues, roods, gills and drachms are long gone. I don’t think many people except surveyors would be able to say how big an acre is, or furlong, a fathom. They have no need " In my shooting days we always used "grains" as a measure for powder I think it is still used. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We never should have left. It’s been a shambles. It was a big enough decision that the pass mark should have been raised to at least 70%. Having it decided with the vote split 50/50 was ridiculous. Also folks above 60/65 ish shouldn’t have been able to vote, and I reckon they should have lowered the age you could too. I for one would be delighted if we re-joined, even if we had to sit at the wee table in the corner. There is a fairly new political party called Rejoin that may be of interest to you. Alternatively the lib Dems though they have been a bit quiet lately. If another vote should occur should it be a simple majority as before or set a threshold of saying 65% ? A two thirds majority to change such things has been voiced in here. I’m happy with that figure. UKIP will start up again demanding another referendum straight away like the remainers did, if the vote goes that way " Two thirds majority sounds reasonable. One of the popular criticisms of the referendum was it did not have a pass threshold so in theory should be welcomed. That said some might say, as the first vote was simple majority then so should the second be. Opinions will change depending on the result people want I guess | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe we need to have a poll to see how many people think it’s important to keep talking about the results of the referendum 🤣 The referendum was quite possibly the most divisive thing in our political history and it’s still proving to be so. Maybe the solution is half the country joins and half doesn’t and we can all be happy? " In fairness to those who orchestrated Brexit, further dividing the population was one of the aims. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe we need to have a poll to see how many people think it’s important to keep talking about the results of the referendum 🤣 The referendum was quite possibly the most divisive thing in our political history and it’s still proving to be so. Maybe the solution is half the country joins and half doesn’t and we can all be happy? In fairness to those who orchestrated Brexit, further dividing the population was one of the aims. " Does that include all the labour MPs who were in favour of it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe we need to have a poll to see how many people think it’s important to keep talking about the results of the referendum 🤣 The referendum was quite possibly the most divisive thing in our political history and it’s still proving to be so. Maybe the solution is half the country joins and half doesn’t and we can all be happy? In fairness to those who orchestrated Brexit, further dividing the population was one of the aims. Does that include all the labour MPs who were in favour of it?" If they were part of those who orchestrated it. Side note, why do you ask me about Labour in every thread? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe we need to have a poll to see how many people think it’s important to keep talking about the results of the referendum 🤣 The referendum was quite possibly the most divisive thing in our political history and it’s still proving to be so. Maybe the solution is half the country joins and half doesn’t and we can all be happy? In fairness to those who orchestrated Brexit, further dividing the population was one of the aims. Does that include all the labour MPs who were in favour of it? If they were part of those who orchestrated it. Side note, why do you ask me about Labour in every thread?" Not every thread, just most of them because your opinions are to the left of centre...why does that bother you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe we need to have a poll to see how many people think it’s important to keep talking about the results of the referendum 🤣 The referendum was quite possibly the most divisive thing in our political history and it’s still proving to be so. Maybe the solution is half the country joins and half doesn’t and we can all be happy? In fairness to those who orchestrated Brexit, further dividing the population was one of the aims. Does that include all the labour MPs who were in favour of it? If they were part of those who orchestrated it. Side note, why do you ask me about Labour in every thread? Not every thread, just most of them because your opinions are to the left of centre...why does that bother you?" Just extremely random. I have no special knowledge about the Labour party. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feet inches pints etc isn't even taught in schools. Hasn't been for 40+ years. Time the UK caught up with rest of world" I’m more than happy with metric and imperial and can interchange and convert from one to the other quite happily, and I’m not exactly gen Z lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Most Brits won't even embrace metrication! Ask most people under the age of 25 what a yard, an acre or a fluid once is and they'll look at you like you're from the stoneage. We will keep feet, inches, miles and pints. That's about it. The days of barleycorns, chains, leagues, roods, gills and drachms are long gone. You forgot lb or pound as in' I promise to pay the bearer', imperial has its place in engineering and such, metric is usefull when coverting weights to area volume, Gravity is imperial along with time. "Speaking from experience; the only engineers I've worked with you used Imperial were Americans; our drawings were in Imperial & Metric...& was an absolute disaster; for example; the company had a mix of Imperial & Metric bolts, meaning you needed 2x toolkits for work. Metric system is much better. Even NASA & the US Military officially use metric as their reference dimension | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"imperial has its place in engineering ..." And that place in "in its history". Yes, almost all domestic pipe threads in the UK are 1/2” or 3/4”, but that's because we used to have nationalised water companies, and they came up with standards that there's no reason to 'improve'. Other than for historic reasons, no engineering firms use imperial measurements today. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"imperial has its place in engineering ... And that place in "in its history". Yes, almost all domestic pipe threads in the UK are 1/2” or 3/4”, but that's because we used to have nationalised water companies, and they came up with standards that there's no reason to 'improve'. Other than for historic reasons, no engineering firms use imperial measurements today." Is your TV a 50 inch or a 127 cm? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"imperial has its place in engineering ... And that place in "in its history". Yes, almost all domestic pipe threads in the UK are 1/2” or 3/4”, but that's because we used to have nationalised water companies, and they came up with standards that there's no reason to 'improve'. Other than for historic reasons, no engineering firms use imperial measurements today. Is your TV a 50 inch or a 127 cm?" I can guarantee you that the actual engineering for that 50" TV is in metric; same as for car wheels. Your example is more for marketing than anything else | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"imperial has its place in engineering ... And that place in "in its history". Yes, almost all domestic pipe threads in the UK are 1/2” or 3/4”, but that's because we used to have nationalised water companies, and they came up with standards that there's no reason to 'improve'. Other than for historic reasons, no engineering firms use imperial measurements today. Is your TV a 50 inch or a 127 cm? I can guarantee you that the actual engineering for that 50" TV is in metric; same as for car wheels. Your example is more for marketing than anything else" Yes it probably is but the fact they still use inches for marketing says a lot about peoples understanding. Tyre sizes are the strange one though. A 205-55-16 (or whatever) uses both systems. Tread width 205mm tyre profile 55mm wheel size 16 inches.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"imperial has its place in engineering ... And that place in "in its history". Yes, almost all domestic pipe threads in the UK are 1/2” or 3/4”, but that's because we used to have nationalised water companies, and they came up with standards that there's no reason to 'improve'. Other than for historic reasons, no engineering firms use imperial measurements today. Is your TV a 50 inch or a 127 cm? I can guarantee you that the actual engineering for that 50" TV is in metric; same as for car wheels. Your example is more for marketing than anything else Yes it probably is but the fact they still use inches for marketing says a lot about peoples understanding. Tyre sizes are the strange one though. A 205-55-16 (or whatever) uses both systems. Tread width 205mm tyre profile 55mm wheel size 16 inches. "the 55 in 205/55/16 is not a measurement in mm .... it's is the aspect ratio, i.e the height of the sidewall as a percentage of the width of the tyre. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"imperial has its place in engineering ..." "And that place in "in its history". Yes, almost all domestic pipe threads in the UK are 1/2” or 3/4”, but that's because we used to have nationalised water companies, and they came up with standards that there's no reason to 'improve'. Other than for historic reasons, no engineering firms use imperial measurements today." "Is your TV a 50 inch or a 127 cm?" "I can guarantee you that the actual engineering for that 50" TV is in metric; same as for car wheels. Your example is more for marketing than anything else" Agreed. Weirdly Germany still advertises TVs and bicycle frames in inches. Search for "fernseher" (TV) and "zoll" (inch) if you want to look it up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Those who want to be in the EU should go ahead and move there. " This is my all time favourite from the Brexit believers. Completely missing the irony that we could have moved there easily, until people voted to remove our freedom of movement. " True patriotic English people don’t want anything to do with it. " Patriotic people voted not to damage the economy, and voted not to remove freedoms of movement, and voted not to remove the protection's the EU gave us on food safety standards, workers rights, environmental standards. We voted in the interests of British people, and against the transfer of wealth and power from ordinary people, to those at the top. " Brexit has yet to be properly implemented, a Reform government will change that, and we will all feel the benefit. The sooner we are shot of Starmer the better." Is there still an opportunity for reform to enact their ruinous no-deal brexit? As far as I know that ship has sailed. Thank fuck. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Those who want to be in the EU should go ahead and move there. True patriotic English people don’t want anything to do with it. Brexit has yet to be properly implemented, a Reform government will change that, and we will all feel the benefit. The sooner we are shot of Starmer the better." "Communism is brilliant, it just hasn't been implemented correctly" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Those who want to be in the EU should go ahead and move there. True patriotic English people don’t want anything to do with it. Brexit has yet to be properly implemented, a Reform government will change that, and we will all feel the benefit. The sooner we are shot of Starmer the better." Ok, give us a rundown on the economic policies that reform will implement ? And don't forget costings If you are going to vote for them I assume you have studied these in detail. I did send them several emails asking their press office but still no reply | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Those who want to be in the EU should go ahead and move there. True patriotic English people don’t want anything to do with it. Brexit has yet to be properly implemented, a Reform government will change that, and we will all feel the benefit. The sooner we are shot of Starmer the better. Ok, give us a rundown on the economic policies that reform will implement ? And don't forget costings If you are going to vote for them I assume you have studied these in detail. I did send them several emails asking their press office but still no reply " Voting for Brexit/Reform and "studied these in detail" are mutually exclusive. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Those who want to be in the EU should go ahead and move there. True patriotic English people don’t want anything to do with it. Brexit has yet to be properly implemented, a Reform government will change that, and we will all feel the benefit. The sooner we are shot of Starmer the better. Ok, give us a rundown on the economic policies that reform will implement ? And don't forget costings If you are going to vote for them I assume you have studied these in detail. I did send them several emails asking their press office but still no reply " Reform haven’t set out a detailed costed manifesto yet, most parties don’t at this stage of the electoral cycle. Policies will be worked on and published as we get closer to the next general election. Expecting a full breakdown now is not going to happen, but they have made their general direction clear enough with their now shelved 2024 manifesto. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Those who want to be in the EU should go ahead and move there. True patriotic English people don’t want anything to do with it. Brexit has yet to be properly implemented, a Reform government will change that, and we will all feel the benefit. The sooner we are shot of Starmer the better. Ok, give us a rundown on the economic policies that reform will implement ? And don't forget costings If you are going to vote for them I assume you have studied these in detail. I did send them several emails asking their press office but still no reply Reform haven’t set out a detailed costed manifesto yet, most parties don’t at this stage of the electoral cycle. Policies will be worked on and published as we get closer to the next general election. Expecting a full breakdown now is not going to happen, but they have made their general direction clear enough with their now shelved 2024 manifesto." In fairness to Reform, they're not trying to attract the type of voter who is interested in a coated manifesto. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Those who want to be in the EU should go ahead and move there. True patriotic English people don’t want anything to do with it. Brexit has yet to be properly implemented, a Reform government will change that, and we will all feel the benefit. The sooner we are shot of Starmer the better. Ok, give us a rundown on the economic policies that reform will implement ? And don't forget costings If you are going to vote for them I assume you have studied these in detail. I did send them several emails asking their press office but still no reply Reform haven’t set out a detailed costed manifesto yet, most parties don’t at this stage of the electoral cycle. Policies will be worked on and published as we get closer to the next general election. Expecting a full breakdown now is not going to happen, but they have made their general direction clear enough with their now shelved 2024 manifesto." Sounds similar to labour pre election | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Those who want to be in the EU should go ahead and move there. This is my all time favourite from the Brexit believers. Completely missing the irony that we could have moved there easily, until people voted to remove our freedom of movement. True patriotic English people don’t want anything to do with it. Patriotic people voted not to damage the economy, and voted not to remove freedoms of movement, and voted not to remove the protection's the EU gave us on food safety standards, workers rights, environmental standards. We voted in the interests of British people, and against the transfer of wealth and power from ordinary people, to those at the top. Brexit has yet to be properly implemented, a Reform government will change that, and we will all feel the benefit. The sooner we are shot of Starmer the better. Is there still an opportunity for reform to enact their ruinous no-deal brexit? As far as I know that ship has sailed. Thank fuck." It’s like a comedy shop in here! Remoaners pretending they care a toss about Great Britain. If they did, they would be happy that we are no longer kowtowing to Germany and France. Instead they are still incessantly whining about freedom of bloody movement, boo hoo! Well folks, we are going to have a Reform UK government after the next general election, whenever that may be. Then and only then Will the advantages we voted for be implemented. Such as no more boats, or only our fishermen fishing in our waters. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Those who want to be in the EU should go ahead and move there. This is my all time favourite from the Brexit believers. Completely missing the irony that we could have moved there easily, until people voted to remove our freedom of movement. True patriotic English people don’t want anything to do with it. Patriotic people voted not to damage the economy, and voted not to remove freedoms of movement, and voted not to remove the protection's the EU gave us on food safety standards, workers rights, environmental standards. We voted in the interests of British people, and against the transfer of wealth and power from ordinary people, to those at the top. Brexit has yet to be properly implemented, a Reform government will change that, and we will all feel the benefit. The sooner we are shot of Starmer the better. Is there still an opportunity for reform to enact their ruinous no-deal brexit? As far as I know that ship has sailed. Thank fuck. It’s like a comedy shop in here! Remoaners pretending they care a toss about Great Britain. If they did, they would be happy that we are no longer kowtowing to Germany and France. Instead they are still incessantly whining about freedom of bloody movement, boo hoo!" Is this the new meaning of "patriotic" or "caring about Great Britain", not understanding how the EU works and voting against the interests of British people? Amazing. " Well folks, we are going to have a Reform UK government after the next general election, whenever that may be. Then and only then Will the advantages we voted for be implemented. Such as no more boats, or only our fishermen fishing in our waters. " So we'd no longer be able to fish in EU waters too? This seems like the kind of nonsense that Reform voters would get behind. Still, i do appreciate that you tried to find one of the elusive Brexit benefits, even if it's in vain. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There should never have been a referendum. Voters fed misinformation and too thick to consider and comprehend the possible negative outcomes. Reap what you sow. " A common theme of all your responses on any forum topic is that you are the fountain of all knowledge and anyone that holds a different opinion is thick, stupid or anything else derogatory etc | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There should never have been a referendum. Voters fed misinformation and too thick to consider and comprehend the possible negative outcomes. Reap what you sow. A common theme of all your responses on any forum topic is that you are the fountain of all knowledge and anyone that holds a different opinion is thick, stupid or anything else derogatory etc " This is the snooty narrative of the rabid remoaner. That we only got Brexit because most of the people who voted in the referendum, were too stupid to be allowed such responsibility. Now they are parroting that everything that is wrong in Great Britain today, is because we are not in the EU. Never mind the fact that EU nations are in the same bloody mess. There is a worldwide recession going on, and it has more to do with Covid and the Russian invasion of the Ukraine, than it ever had to do with Brexit. Don’t try to tell those wastrels though, they are ‘too stupid to understand.’ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There should never have been a referendum. Voters fed misinformation and too thick to consider and comprehend the possible negative outcomes. Reap what you sow. A common theme of all your responses on any forum topic is that you are the fountain of all knowledge and anyone that holds a different opinion is thick, stupid or anything else derogatory etc This is the snooty narrative of the rabid remoaner. That we only got Brexit because most of the people who voted in the referendum, were too stupid to be allowed such responsibility. Now they are parroting that everything that is wrong in Great Britain today, is because we are not in the EU. Never mind the fact that EU nations are in the same bloody mess. There is a worldwide recession going on, and it has more to do with Covid and the Russian invasion of the Ukraine, than it ever had to do with Brexit. Don’t try to tell those wastrels though, they are ‘too stupid to understand.’" That's right, all the problems caused by Brexit are down to something else. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There should never have been a referendum. Voters fed misinformation and too thick to consider and comprehend the possible negative outcomes. Reap what you sow. A common theme of all your responses on any forum topic is that you are the fountain of all knowledge and anyone that holds a different opinion is thick, stupid or anything else derogatory etc This is the snooty narrative of the rabid remoaner. That we only got Brexit because most of the people who voted in the referendum, were too stupid to be allowed such responsibility. Now they are parroting that everything that is wrong in Great Britain today, is because we are not in the EU. Never mind the fact that EU nations are in the same bloody mess. There is a worldwide recession going on, and it has more to do with Covid and the Russian invasion of the Ukraine, than it ever had to do with Brexit. Don’t try to tell those wastrels though, they are ‘too stupid to understand.’ That's right, all the problems caused by Brexit are down to something else. " The EU negotiated 180/360, the UK accepted 90/180...is that down to Brexit or the failure to properly negotiate? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There should never have been a referendum. Voters fed misinformation and too thick to consider and comprehend the possible negative outcomes. Reap what you sow. A common theme of all your responses on any forum topic is that you are the fountain of all knowledge and anyone that holds a different opinion is thick, stupid or anything else derogatory etc This is the snooty narrative of the rabid remoaner. That we only got Brexit because most of the people who voted in the referendum, were too stupid to be allowed such responsibility. Now they are parroting that everything that is wrong in Great Britain today, is because we are not in the EU. Never mind the fact that EU nations are in the same bloody mess. There is a worldwide recession going on, and it has more to do with Covid and the Russian invasion of the Ukraine, than it ever had to do with Brexit. Don’t try to tell those wastrels though, they are ‘too stupid to understand.’ That's right, all the problems caused by Brexit are down to something else. The EU negotiated 180/360, the UK accepted 90/180...is that down to Brexit or the failure to properly negotiate?" We had freedom of movement as a member of the EU. Leaving the EU meant we had to spend time negotiating things like this. So the answer to your question is, this is obviously the fault of Covid, Russians etc. as per the other chap. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There should never have been a referendum. Voters fed misinformation and too thick to consider and comprehend the possible negative outcomes. Reap what you sow. A common theme of all your responses on any forum topic is that you are the fountain of all knowledge and anyone that holds a different opinion is thick, stupid or anything else derogatory etc " To be fair, a lot of the time he's right. Case in point: Most people who voted to leave the EU had no proper understanding of what that actually meant. That's demonstrable. Now, rather than calling these people stupid, I would rather say that these people made a stupid decision. It was an objectively stupid decision at the time and it has since been exhaustively proven to have been a stupid decision. One of the many, many problems with this entire debate, and one of the reasons it is now politically unviable to even bring it up, is the point at which the pro-leave side began to sell the line that it's unacceptable to talk about stupidity. That we're supposed to behave as if people who are ignorant of the facts and who follow populist dog-whistle bollocks are somehow just as wise as people who inform themselves and exercise caution. Gordon Brown fell foul of this when he was caught off-camera correctly describing a bigot as a bigot. Hillary Clinton fell foul of this when she correctly described Trump voters as a "basket of deplorables". Until we as a culture, population, even species, get comfortable with the idea that recognising and excluding objective stupidity is a good and useful thing to do, we will continue to get deeper and deeper into trouble. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There should never have been a referendum. Voters fed misinformation and too thick to consider and comprehend the possible negative outcomes. Reap what you sow. A common theme of all your responses on any forum topic is that you are the fountain of all knowledge and anyone that holds a different opinion is thick, stupid or anything else derogatory etc To be fair, a lot of the time he's right. Case in point: Most people who voted to leave the EU had no proper understanding of what that actually meant. That's demonstrable. Now, rather than calling these people stupid, I would rather say that these people made a stupid decision. It was an objectively stupid decision at the time and it has since been exhaustively proven to have been a stupid decision. One of the many, many problems with this entire debate, and one of the reasons it is now politically unviable to even bring it up, is the point at which the pro-leave side began to sell the line that it's unacceptable to talk about stupidity. That we're supposed to behave as if people who are ignorant of the facts and who follow populist dog-whistle bollocks are somehow just as wise as people who inform themselves and exercise caution. Gordon Brown fell foul of this when he was caught off-camera correctly describing a bigot as a bigot. Hillary Clinton fell foul of this when she correctly described Trump voters as a "basket of deplorables". Until we as a culture, population, even species, get comfortable with the idea that recognising and excluding objective stupidity is a good and useful thing to do, we will continue to get deeper and deeper into trouble." The problem that Remoaners have are fourfold: 1. They are arrogant and entitled knobs. 2. They think they are far more clever than they actually are (see 1.) 3. They don’t actually have a clue what they are talking about. 4. They try desperately to dress up being sore losers with some kind of quasi-intellectual claptrap and pretence that they understand economics or have any idea what’s happening in the UK vis a vis the EU. This all actually aligned in 2016. The Remoaners were so arrogant that they didn’t bother to work out how to win what should have been an open goal Referendum for them. They failed to understand cultural shifts. They don’t understand the people around them probably because they dwell in a tiny little world of similarly mediocre minds afflicted by group think and never talk to anyone who isn’t just like them. I recall at the time of the Referendum seeing Leave campaigners endlessly dropping leaflets through doors and campaigning in public. From Remoaners it was just crickets. The only two Remoan campaigners I ever met in 2016 were campaigning in an affluent Birmingham suburb: a Spanish maths professor and some posh student who hadn’t got a clue what he was talking about. Remoaners have always reminded me of Vance’s quote (though made only recently): “he has an IQ of 110 and thinks he has an IQ of 130”. There’s a whole load of complex reasons why Leave won in 2016, and why incidentally we will never go back into the EU. It was obvious to me about 35 years ago that the UK would end up leaving the EU, regardless of my own views on the topic. But ultimately the reason why Remoaners lost in 2016 is quite simple: they were basically too stupid and arrogant to run an effective campaign. Subconsciously I think this is why they have fallen back on calling everyone else stupid since: because they know it’s them who are the dumb ones who suffered total humiliation at the hands of people they consider to be peasants. If you have an inflated sense of your own importance, social standing, and intellect it must have been a very humiliating moment. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There should never have been a referendum. Voters fed misinformation and too thick to consider and comprehend the possible negative outcomes. Reap what you sow. A common theme of all your responses on any forum topic is that you are the fountain of all knowledge and anyone that holds a different opinion is thick, stupid or anything else derogatory etc To be fair, a lot of the time he's right. Case in point: Most people who voted to leave the EU had no proper understanding of what that actually meant. That's demonstrable. Now, rather than calling these people stupid, I would rather say that these people made a stupid decision. It was an objectively stupid decision at the time and it has since been exhaustively proven to have been a stupid decision. One of the many, many problems with this entire debate, and one of the reasons it is now politically unviable to even bring it up, is the point at which the pro-leave side began to sell the line that it's unacceptable to talk about stupidity. That we're supposed to behave as if people who are ignorant of the facts and who follow populist dog-whistle bollocks are somehow just as wise as people who inform themselves and exercise caution. Gordon Brown fell foul of this when he was caught off-camera correctly describing a bigot as a bigot. Hillary Clinton fell foul of this when she correctly described Trump voters as a "basket of deplorables". Until we as a culture, population, even species, get comfortable with the idea that recognising and excluding objective stupidity is a good and useful thing to do, we will continue to get deeper and deeper into trouble. The problem that Remoaners have are fourfold: 1. They are arrogant and entitled knobs. 2. They think they are far more clever than they actually are (see 1.) 3. They don’t actually have a clue what they are talking about. 4. They try desperately to dress up being sore losers with some kind of quasi-intellectual claptrap and pretence that they understand economics or have any idea what’s happening in the UK vis a vis the EU. This all actually aligned in 2016. The Remoaners were so arrogant that they didn’t bother to work out how to win what should have been an open goal Referendum for them. They failed to understand cultural shifts. They don’t understand the people around them probably because they dwell in a tiny little world of similarly mediocre minds afflicted by group think and never talk to anyone who isn’t just like them. I recall at the time of the Referendum seeing Leave campaigners endlessly dropping leaflets through doors and campaigning in public. From Remoaners it was just crickets. The only two Remoan campaigners I ever met in 2016 were campaigning in an affluent Birmingham suburb: a Spanish maths professor and some posh student who hadn’t got a clue what he was talking about. Remoaners have always reminded me of Vance’s quote (though made only recently): “he has an IQ of 110 and thinks he has an IQ of 130”. There’s a whole load of complex reasons why Leave won in 2016, and why incidentally we will never go back into the EU. It was obvious to me about 35 years ago that the UK would end up leaving the EU, regardless of my own views on the topic. But ultimately the reason why Remoaners lost in 2016 is quite simple: they were basically too stupid and arrogant to run an effective campaign. Subconsciously I think this is why they have fallen back on calling everyone else stupid since: because they know it’s them who are the dumb ones who suffered total humiliation at the hands of people they consider to be peasants. If you have an inflated sense of your own importance, social standing, and intellect it must have been a very humiliating moment." I see, because Leave ran the "better" campaign then it was still the right decision to leave. Congratulations on your vote to start the small boats and ruin our trading relationship with our closest and largest market. None of us are remainers, we ceased to be that when we left. It's obvious to me that we'll rejoin within 15 years. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There should never have been a referendum. Voters fed misinformation and too thick to consider and comprehend the possible negative outcomes. Reap what you sow. A common theme of all your responses on any forum topic is that you are the fountain of all knowledge and anyone that holds a different opinion is thick, stupid or anything else derogatory etc To be fair, a lot of the time he's right. Case in point: Most people who voted to leave the EU had no proper understanding of what that actually meant. That's demonstrable. Now, rather than calling these people stupid, I would rather say that these people made a stupid decision. It was an objectively stupid decision at the time and it has since been exhaustively proven to have been a stupid decision. One of the many, many problems with this entire debate, and one of the reasons it is now politically unviable to even bring it up, is the point at which the pro-leave side began to sell the line that it's unacceptable to talk about stupidity. That we're supposed to behave as if people who are ignorant of the facts and who follow populist dog-whistle bollocks are somehow just as wise as people who inform themselves and exercise caution. Gordon Brown fell foul of this when he was caught off-camera correctly describing a bigot as a bigot. Hillary Clinton fell foul of this when she correctly described Trump voters as a "basket of deplorables". Until we as a culture, population, even species, get comfortable with the idea that recognising and excluding objective stupidity is a good and useful thing to do, we will continue to get deeper and deeper into trouble. The problem that Remoaners have are fourfold: 1. They are arrogant and entitled knobs. 2. They think they are far more clever than they actually are (see 1.) 3. They don’t actually have a clue what they are talking about. 4. They try desperately to dress up being sore losers with some kind of quasi-intellectual claptrap and pretence that they understand economics or have any idea what’s happening in the UK vis a vis the EU. This all actually aligned in 2016. The Remoaners were so arrogant that they didn’t bother to work out how to win what should have been an open goal Referendum for them. They failed to understand cultural shifts. They don’t understand the people around them probably because they dwell in a tiny little world of similarly mediocre minds afflicted by group think and never talk to anyone who isn’t just like them. I recall at the time of the Referendum seeing Leave campaigners endlessly dropping leaflets through doors and campaigning in public. From Remoaners it was just crickets. The only two Remoan campaigners I ever met in 2016 were campaigning in an affluent Birmingham suburb: a Spanish maths professor and some posh student who hadn’t got a clue what he was talking about. Remoaners have always reminded me of Vance’s quote (though made only recently): “he has an IQ of 110 and thinks he has an IQ of 130”. There’s a whole load of complex reasons why Leave won in 2016, and why incidentally we will never go back into the EU. It was obvious to me about 35 years ago that the UK would end up leaving the EU, regardless of my own views on the topic. But ultimately the reason why Remoaners lost in 2016 is quite simple: they were basically too stupid and arrogant to run an effective campaign. Subconsciously I think this is why they have fallen back on calling everyone else stupid since: because they know it’s them who are the dumb ones who suffered total humiliation at the hands of people they consider to be peasants. If you have an inflated sense of your own importance, social standing, and intellect it must have been a very humiliating moment." This fulfills every stereotype of someone who voted Leave. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There should never have been a referendum. Voters fed misinformation and too thick to consider and comprehend the possible negative outcomes. Reap what you sow. A common theme of all your responses on any forum topic is that you are the fountain of all knowledge and anyone that holds a different opinion is thick, stupid or anything else derogatory etc To be fair, a lot of the time he's right. Case in point: Most people who voted to leave the EU had no proper understanding of what that actually meant. That's demonstrable. Now, rather than calling these people stupid, I would rather say that these people made a stupid decision. It was an objectively stupid decision at the time and it has since been exhaustively proven to have been a stupid decision. One of the many, many problems with this entire debate, and one of the reasons it is now politically unviable to even bring it up, is the point at which the pro-leave side began to sell the line that it's unacceptable to talk about stupidity. That we're supposed to behave as if people who are ignorant of the facts and who follow populist dog-whistle bollocks are somehow just as wise as people who inform themselves and exercise caution. Gordon Brown fell foul of this when he was caught off-camera correctly describing a bigot as a bigot. Hillary Clinton fell foul of this when she correctly described Trump voters as a "basket of deplorables". Until we as a culture, population, even species, get comfortable with the idea that recognising and excluding objective stupidity is a good and useful thing to do, we will continue to get deeper and deeper into trouble. The problem that Remoaners have are fourfold: 1. They are arrogant and entitled knobs. 2. They think they are far more clever than they actually are (see 1.) 3. They don’t actually have a clue what they are talking about. 4. They try desperately to dress up being sore losers with some kind of quasi-intellectual claptrap and pretence that they understand economics or have any idea what’s happening in the UK vis a vis the EU. This all actually aligned in 2016. The Remoaners were so arrogant that they didn’t bother to work out how to win what should have been an open goal Referendum for them. They failed to understand cultural shifts. They don’t understand the people around them probably because they dwell in a tiny little world of similarly mediocre minds afflicted by group think and never talk to anyone who isn’t just like them. I recall at the time of the Referendum seeing Leave campaigners endlessly dropping leaflets through doors and campaigning in public. From Remoaners it was just crickets. The only two Remoan campaigners I ever met in 2016 were campaigning in an affluent Birmingham suburb: a Spanish maths professor and some posh student who hadn’t got a clue what he was talking about. Remoaners have always reminded me of Vance’s quote (though made only recently): “he has an IQ of 110 and thinks he has an IQ of 130”. There’s a whole load of complex reasons why Leave won in 2016, and why incidentally we will never go back into the EU. It was obvious to me about 35 years ago that the UK would end up leaving the EU, regardless of my own views on the topic. But ultimately the reason why Remoaners lost in 2016 is quite simple: they were basically too stupid and arrogant to run an effective campaign. Subconsciously I think this is why they have fallen back on calling everyone else stupid since: because they know it’s them who are the dumb ones who suffered total humiliation at the hands of people they consider to be peasants. If you have an inflated sense of your own importance, social standing, and intellect it must have been a very humiliating moment." I didn't run the remain campaign. I agree with you it was poorly run, but I don't feel any personal responsibility for it. However, I'm not sure what point you're making - are you agreeing that leaving the EU was indeed a terrible idea and the real problem is that Remain failed to explain it in such a way as to convince people of its foolishness? Because what I never see the anti-EU lot say is that leaving was such an obviously brilliant idea that leave had no chance of competing with its obvious wisdom, and that's why Leave won. I also think you're projecting about any supposed humiliation remainers felt upon watching a small majority of their fellow countrymen obey the instructions of the various frauds who sold Brexit as a way to assuage people's vague suspicion of foreigners. I suspect all remainers would agree that everybody lost the referendum, it's just that it took a while for half of the people to begin to realise it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To be fair, a lot of the time he's right. Case in point: Most people who voted to leave the EU had no proper understanding of what that actually meant. That's demonstrable" You say he's right; that's because you agree with him! So that's fait accompli. A massive assumption that people don't know what their voting for. Like saying voting should be left to the educated and landed gentry. Such arrogance. So, labour have dropped like a stone in the latest polls. Guess people didn't know what they were voting for either... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To be fair, a lot of the time he's right. Case in point: Most people who voted to leave the EU had no proper understanding of what that actually meant. That's demonstrable You say he's right; that's because you agree with him! So that's fait accompli. A massive assumption that people don't know what their voting for. Like saying voting should be left to the educated and landed gentry. Such arrogance. So, labour have dropped like a stone in the latest polls. Guess people didn't know what they were voting for either... " It's demonstrable that few people, including those campaigning for it, understood all or even any of the ramifications of leaving the EU. It's not, in this specific case, an assumption. There's an Everest of evidence for it. But here's the kicker: even if every last leave vote was cast by someone who knew exactly what would happen, it still means they made a catastrophically stupid decision, just a slightly different one. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There should never have been a referendum. Voters fed misinformation and too thick to consider and comprehend the possible negative outcomes. Reap what you sow. A common theme of all your responses on any forum topic is that you are the fountain of all knowledge and anyone that holds a different opinion is thick, stupid or anything else derogatory etc To be fair, a lot of the time he's right. Case in point: Most people who voted to leave the EU had no proper understanding of what that actually meant. That's demonstrable. Now, rather than calling these people stupid, I would rather say that these people made a stupid decision. It was an objectively stupid decision at the time and it has since been exhaustively proven to have been a stupid decision. One of the many, many problems with this entire debate, and one of the reasons it is now politically unviable to even bring it up, is the point at which the pro-leave side began to sell the line that it's unacceptable to talk about stupidity. That we're supposed to behave as if people who are ignorant of the facts and who follow populist dog-whistle bollocks are somehow just as wise as people who inform themselves and exercise caution. Gordon Brown fell foul of this when he was caught off-camera correctly describing a bigot as a bigot. Hillary Clinton fell foul of this when she correctly described Trump voters as a "basket of deplorables". Until we as a culture, population, even species, get comfortable with the idea that recognising and excluding objective stupidity is a good and useful thing to do, we will continue to get deeper and deeper into trouble. The problem that Remoaners have are fourfold: 1. They are arrogant and entitled knobs. 2. They think they are far more clever than they actually are (see 1.) 3. They don’t actually have a clue what they are talking about. 4. They try desperately to dress up being sore losers with some kind of quasi-intellectual claptrap and pretence that they understand economics or have any idea what’s happening in the UK vis a vis the EU. This all actually aligned in 2016. The Remoaners were so arrogant that they didn’t bother to work out how to win what should have been an open goal Referendum for them. They failed to understand cultural shifts. They don’t understand the people around them probably because they dwell in a tiny little world of similarly mediocre minds afflicted by group think and never talk to anyone who isn’t just like them. I recall at the time of the Referendum seeing Leave campaigners endlessly dropping leaflets through doors and campaigning in public. From Remoaners it was just crickets. The only two Remoan campaigners I ever met in 2016 were campaigning in an affluent Birmingham suburb: a Spanish maths professor and some posh student who hadn’t got a clue what he was talking about. Remoaners have always reminded me of Vance’s quote (though made only recently): “he has an IQ of 110 and thinks he has an IQ of 130”. There’s a whole load of complex reasons why Leave won in 2016, and why incidentally we will never go back into the EU. It was obvious to me about 35 years ago that the UK would end up leaving the EU, regardless of my own views on the topic. But ultimately the reason why Remoaners lost in 2016 is quite simple: they were basically too stupid and arrogant to run an effective campaign. Subconsciously I think this is why they have fallen back on calling everyone else stupid since: because they know it’s them who are the dumb ones who suffered total humiliation at the hands of people they consider to be peasants. If you have an inflated sense of your own importance, social standing, and intellect it must have been a very humiliating moment. I didn't run the remain campaign. I agree with you it was poorly run, but I don't feel any personal responsibility for it. However, I'm not sure what point you're making - are you agreeing that leaving the EU was indeed a terrible idea and the real problem is that Remain failed to explain it in such a way as to convince people of its foolishness? Because what I never see the anti-EU lot say is that leaving was such an obviously brilliant idea that leave had no chance of competing with its obvious wisdom, and that's why Leave won. I also think you're projecting about any supposed humiliation remainers felt upon watching a small majority of their fellow countrymen obey the instructions of the various frauds who sold Brexit as a way to assuage people's vague suspicion of foreigners. I suspect all remainers would agree that everybody lost the referendum, it's just that it took a while for half of the people to begin to realise it." I would like to say it surprises me but of course there has been virtually no introspection or self analysis from Remoaners. I use the term Remoaners advisedly as I think there is a distinction to be drawn between the vast majority of Remain voters (I know many of these) who accepted the result and moved on with their lives, and a much smaller cadre of Remain voters who haven’t been able to cope with the result. I suspect this is because for them the question of whether the UK remained in the EU or not wasn’t actually about the issue itself, which was a fairly minor trading and constitutional decision, but a much bigger psychological issue around their own social standing. The Remain campaign was very much about hectoring the masses to do what they are told. I think the Remainer arrogance was such that they never once considered that they could lose. So they thought it was simply a matter of wheeling out some “experts” and Benedict Cumberbatch to lecture the stinking peasants to do what they are told. After such a (for them) massive defeat one would have thought they would have the intelligence to analyse what they did wrong. But as arrogant twerps of course they have just carried on as was. It can’t possibly be their fault so it must be the Russians, Lies on the Side of a Bus, or ultimately the plain stupidity of the smelly oiks for not doing what their betters told them to. So they continue to dwell in their self created superiority bubble that nobody cares about calling their neighbours “stupid”, “racists”, “bigots” etc etc. A more unsavoury, provincial, and small minded approach to your fellow citizens is difficult to imagine. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I voted to remain and was really shocked by the result. It took a couple of weeks to accept that more people who turned up to vote wanted to leave the EU. Since then, I have hoped our government would grab any opportunities that come our way. I don't sneer at every decision we have as a country and reference it to how it would have been better within the EU... Looking back at what we had or how people voted serves little purpose other than stroking bruised egos. Nine years on, it’s time to move on, it is not a good look." I would agree with some of this. But: exhibit A. The post above this, look at how some people still behave and the kind of things they think. And point B. There haven't really been any opportunities to grab hold of. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I would like to say it surprises me but of course there has been virtually no introspection or self analysis from Remoaners. I use the term Remoaners advisedly as I think there is a distinction to be drawn between the vast majority of Remain voters (I know many of these) who accepted the result and moved on with their lives, and a much smaller cadre of Remain voters who haven’t been able to cope with the result. I suspect this is because for them the question of whether the UK remained in the EU or not wasn’t actually about the issue itself, which was a fairly minor trading and constitutional decision, but a much bigger psychological issue around their own social standing. The Remain campaign was very much about hectoring the masses to do what they are told. I think the Remainer arrogance was such that they never once considered that they could lose. So they thought it was simply a matter of wheeling out some “experts” and Benedict Cumberbatch to lecture the stinking peasants to do what they are told. After such a (for them) massive defeat one would have thought they would have the intelligence to analyse what they did wrong. But as arrogant twerps of course they have just carried on as was. It can’t possibly be their fault so it must be the Russians, Lies on the Side of a Bus, or ultimately the plain stupidity of the smelly oiks for not doing what their betters told them to. So they continue to dwell in their self created superiority bubble that nobody cares about calling their neighbours “stupid”, “racists”, “bigots” etc etc. A more unsavoury, provincial, and small minded approach to your fellow citizens is difficult to imagine." Or it could just be that some people are dismayed to see that Brexit was, as they predicted, a move that at the very best has done nothing to improve life in the UK. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". Or it could just be that some people are dismayed to see that Brexit was, as they predicted, a move that at the very best has done nothing to improve life in the UK. " This, really. It's endlessly bizarre to hear people prattle on about the "arrogance" of people who advised against punching ourselves in the face, who are realistic about the downsides of having punched ourselves in the face, and who now have the temerity to suggest that punching ourselves in the face might have been unwise. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s about time we stop going on about rejoining the eu not going to happen and if it did it would cost us more then it already as we should be looking forward to our own economic growth what done is done if all party’s at got behind the people instead of infighting if could have worked plus covid came along how many other countries give workers 80% of there wages stop moaning move on" Top political analysis there from a man who doesn't know how to punctuate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Those who want to be in the EU should go ahead and move there. True patriotic English people don’t want anything to do with it." A stupid and small minded comment | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s about time we stop going on about rejoining the eu not going to happen and if it did it would cost us more then it already as we should be looking forward to our own economic growth what done is done if all party’s at got behind the people instead of infighting if could have worked plus covid came along how many other countries give workers 80% of there wages stop moaning move on" Hard to pick apart this. But it sounds like you're suggesting we should do what most politicians are doing. Still pretending that Brexit is a good idea. Until we can face the reality of the damage it's caused. How are we supposed to properly mitigate against it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The EU still have the cold war mentality they couldn't run a bath literally because there is no hot water in the 2 eu parliament buildings. What a shower of ,,,,,,." In fairness, this is no more or less ridiculous than any other justification for leaving the EU. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The major economies within the EU aren't doing well either. People need to read the Draghi report. They are well on the path to become economically irrelevant. And members are already having lots of disagreement over economic and social issues. I wouldn't be surprised if some other country leaves. The EU was a great idea as an economic zone and a military alliance. As always, politicians started to use it as a way to consolidate power at the top and are trying to become the United States of Europe which just doesn't work for the European population. " Those are the more sensible, balanced-sounding talking points commonly found at the more intellectual end of the right-wing press, but they are still just talking points, i.e. gross oversimplifications of realities far too complex to be encompassed by platitudes like "United States of Europe". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s about time we stop going on about rejoining the eu not going to happen and if it did it would cost us more then it already as we should be looking forward to our own economic growth what done is done if all party’s at got behind the people instead of infighting if could have worked plus covid came along how many other countries give workers 80% of there wages stop moaning move on" Be fair, people have the right to be upset and angry that the vote did not go as they wanted. UKIP was formed to push for a referendum on the subject. They put pressure on several governments over many years using the democratic process until a point where the PM at the time decided to bring the topic to a conclusion that he hoped would end the question once and for all. Political parties have formed in the same way UKIP did but obviously with the opposite intentions. They may well, in time, be as successful as UKIP was in forcing a vote. They are well within their rights to both complain and campaign, after all it's what UKIP did very successfully. Their growth should be an indicator of support for a new vote. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The major economies within the EU aren't doing well either. People need to read the Draghi report. They are well on the path to become economically irrelevant. And members are already having lots of disagreement over economic and social issues. I wouldn't be surprised if some other country leaves. The EU was a great idea as an economic zone and a military alliance. As always, politicians started to use it as a way to consolidate power at the top and are trying to become the United States of Europe which just doesn't work for the European population. Those are the more sensible, balanced-sounding talking points commonly found at the more intellectual end of the right-wing press, but they are still just talking points, i.e. gross oversimplifications of realities far too complex to be encompassed by platitudes like "United States of Europe"." It's not just a "talking point" if Pro-EU politicians have supported this idea. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Last time I checked we still trade with the EU the only difference being on slightly different terms. The big difference is that we can now trade on our own terms with non EU countries and negotiate trade deals throughout the world without having to comply to EU conditions. We also save a nine billion per annum membership fee. " Most reports estimate the tax revenue lost due to Brexit imposed barriers to be 40 billion GBP. Also; 'slightly different' terms is an interesting phrase. Brexit has also caused major issues with NI & Scotland re reunification & independence | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Most reports estimate the tax revenue lost due to Brexit imposed barriers to be 40 billion GBP." You mean that many experts publishing before Brexit estimated that there would be a £40bn annual tax revenue loss. In actual fact tax revenues have increased almost every year since the referendum (the exception being 2020/21 for obvious reasons). Those experts have now stopped making that claim, since it's obviously incorrect. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Last time I checked we still trade with the EU the only difference being on slightly different terms. The big difference is that we can now trade on our own terms with non EU countries and negotiate trade deals throughout the world without having to comply to EU conditions. We also save a nine billion per annum membership fee. Most reports estimate the tax revenue lost due to Brexit imposed barriers to be 40 billion GBP. Also; 'slightly different' terms is an interesting phrase. Brexit has also caused major issues with NI & Scotland re reunification & independence " Also "on our own terms" implies that any trade deal we do will necessarily be superior to the one the trading company has with EU member states. So far "on our own terms" has failed to yield to my knowledge any deal that is noticeably preferable to the one we had before Brexit, and of course the deal we now have with the EU - our major trading partner - is measurably worse than the one we had by virtue of membership. That nine billion "saving" has cost us multiples and continues to cost - not to mention that we used to make a substantial net profit on that membership fee. These days the pro-Brexit position is basically that dogshit is better than caviar because now we can pick the dog. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" - not to mention that we used to make a substantial net profit on that membership fee." What's your reasoning here. How did we make a profit from our EU contribution? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" - not to mention that we used to make a substantial net profit on that membership fee. What's your reasoning here. How did we make a profit from our EU contribution?" The numerous benefits we enjoyed from our EU partnerships were mostly financially quantifiable and exceeded the cost of membership. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" - not to mention that we used to make a substantial net profit on that membership fee. What's your reasoning here. How did we make a profit from our EU contribution? The numerous benefits we enjoyed from our EU partnerships were mostly financially quantifiable and exceeded the cost of membership." But that was then and now is now. You just keep going over the same ground over and over and over again. Like a puppy chasing it's own tail. Time to move on (at least until the next post on Brexit). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
