Printable version of thread

Posted by: Brett-Butler 19th November 2017, 05:47 PM

The last EU/Brexit thread was getting a bit long, so have opened up a new page for discussion of the EU, Brexit, and your thoughts on matters relating to those things.

Once again, can I remind everyone to avoid personal, ad hominum attacks on fellow Buzzjack members, although robust disagreement about any opinions expressed is welcome (as long as they add to the conversation).

Posted by: vidcapper 20th November 2017, 06:48 AM

I thought about starting another one myself, but figured an 'unauthorized' one wouldn't survive.



OK

Posted by: vidcapper 20th November 2017, 07:17 AM

Unless he is neutral on Brexit, then his motives for producing a graph like this are suspect.




in case you have forgotten, the question was : Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

Nothing about hard/soft Brexit there!



You realize that isn't going to happen, right?

Others here disagree with Brexit, but it's only you who appear willing to undertake any manipulation of the electoral system to block it. What is it about Brexit you find *so* objectionable that you would be be willing to take such measures to reverse the result?

Posted by: Suedehead2 20th November 2017, 09:14 AM

So you agree that the referendum result did not provide a mandate for leaving the single market. After all, if just 4% of Love voters wanted to stay in the single market (as many Leave campaigners said would happen), that means a majority voted to stay in the single market.

Posted by: vidcapper 20th November 2017, 10:26 AM

Hippies, you mean?



But the vote was *not* about leaving the Single Market, but the *EU* as a whole - that was made abundantly clear during the campaign, so claims that people who voted Leave didn't realise that meant exiting the SM too, hold little credibility.

Posted by: Suedehead2 20th November 2017, 11:54 AM

Bloomin' auto-correct

You chose to ignore the fact that many Leave campaigners specifically stated that they thought we should reman IN the single market. Some even went as fas as saying that leaving the single market would be madness.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 20th November 2017, 12:49 PM

Yes, funny how the lying pack of Brexit hounds have suddenly started to rewrite voting history and remove of all the things they claimed they wanted and the country would get and turned it into:

We won, so we get to say to dictate what you all voted for, and anyone who doesn't agree or reminds us of what we claimed for the campaign is a traitor.

Which is what every dictator in history has always claimed. It's general practice Rule Number One in the "How To Be Dictator" book. Just read statements by Ivana Trump about bedside reading tastes and rape-accusations post-hairdo..

Posted by: vidcapper 20th November 2017, 02:43 PM

Perhaps so, but it obviously wasn't enough to deter them from voting Leave anyway.

Posted by: vidcapper 20th November 2017, 02:49 PM

Posted by: Suedehead2 20th November 2017, 04:01 PM

Eh? They were told that they could vote Leave and that we would still be in the single market. Therefore, if that is what they wanted, they voted Leave.

Posted by: vidcapper 20th November 2017, 04:14 PM

I challenge you to provide a cite of that, since I don't recall that being in the gov'ts booklet.

Posted by: Buttered Muffin 20th November 2017, 04:18 PM

There are a BUNCH of high profile interviews where they say EXACTLY THAT

Thi all invalidates the wafer thin 'win'

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 20th November 2017, 06:14 PM

Look at any message from the vote leave campaign and it’s super visible mouth pieces and you’ll find a multitude of examples of staying in the single market. Leaving the SM didn’t appear until after the vote when the EU was clear that single market = free movement. That’s when the revisionism started

Posted by: Popchartfreak 20th November 2017, 08:15 PM

never one to resist a challenge that takes hardly an effort to prove...

google is a marvellous tool. Much like these marvellous tools being talked about all lying during the referendum..

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/open-britain-video-single-market-nigel-farage-anna-soubry_uk_582ce0a0e4b09025ba310fce

Posted by: Soy Adrián 20th November 2017, 09:13 PM

In all honesty, there were conflicting statements from the Leave side during the campaign on staying within the single market - just as there were for virtually every issue.

They calculated, correctly as it turned out, that the only way that Leave would win a majority of voters was if it was able to be all things for all people. There was never a single coalition of voters large enough to win the referendum on any specific policy platform. The contrast with the Scottish referendum is totally evident - as depressing as it was at times, to the Yes campaign's credit they put forward a specific programme, fought and lost on it.

The whole purpose of the EU referendum being advisory was that in the event of one side or the other winning with no such clear programme, it would be possible for the government to carry out the referendum decision but would have scope within that to forge the best possible path for the country based on some objective information.

Basically it's horseshit whenever the Leave side it claims it has a mandate for any specific action like leaving the single market.

Posted by: Suedehead2 20th November 2017, 11:05 PM

There was probably a story in the Daily Mail saying that Google causes cancer, so vidcapper probably doesn't use it.

Posted by: vidcapper 21st November 2017, 06:35 AM

Very droll.

Posted by: Suedehead2 21st November 2017, 10:37 AM

This Facebook post sums things up rather well...

Posted by: vidcapper 21st November 2017, 11:07 AM

I thought there was a point coming in what you quoted, but it seemed to vanish halfway through.

Posted by: vidcapper 21st November 2017, 04:40 PM

Low £, not all bad...

http://www.cbi.org.uk/news/manufacturing-orders-strongest-for-nearly-30-years/

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 21st November 2017, 08:38 PM

Is it time to remind you how little of our GDP and Economy depends on Manufacturing again already?!

Posted by: Popchartfreak 21st November 2017, 10:04 PM

Lest we forget "the other side" I trust Momentum members are rejoicing at Corbyn & co's support for the Tories in ensuring we have no potential deal to allow single market access.

Lying bunch of tosspots who have betrayed the young generation who thought they were getting a party to avoid a Hard Brexit, or I say sarcastically determined to support the minority who won the wafer-thin vote who all obviously voted entirely for a Hard Brexit despite a Leave campaign that didnt claim that, and one that the Labour Party didn't campaign for. Trust us, they shouted, we will save you from a Hard Brexit, barely months ago.

Piss off you lying toerags. You don't deserve support any more than the lying Tories running that party do. We need a new young party that is willing to do what's best for the country, not for itself.

Posted by: burbe 21st November 2017, 10:23 PM

Labour are a disgrace! We have somehow ended up with a ridiculously weak opposition at a time when it's easy to oppose the government and incredibly important to scrutinise everything they do. This is laughably awful. So so disappointed in them! They have truly failed the British people, whether they have voted for Labour or the Tories, leave or remain. We NEED a strong opposition to thrive and right now we've got a hopefully weak government led by a prime minister with no authority and an opposition that is only opposition in name. Atrocious!

Posted by: Andrew. 21st November 2017, 10:55 PM

We learned what to do with the Red Tories in Scotland a long time ago!!

Posted by: Buttered Muffin 21st November 2017, 10:59 PM

Lol they are MUCH farther to the left than the SNP.

Posted by: Andrew. 21st November 2017, 11:27 PM

- Committed to Theresa May’s divisive and destructive hard Brexit
- trident renewal
- keeping the vast majority (78%) of planned Tory cuts
- increasing tuition fees in the only part of the UK where they have power
- Scottish Party would rather you vote Tory than SNP and reportedly almost stepped aside in areas they’d been big in before which were now Tory-SNP (my constituency falls into that bracket and I can say Labour were nowhere)

I could go on

Posted by: Buttered Muffin 21st November 2017, 11:35 PM

You are talking about Keisha Douglas's abortive attempts at a party, not Corbyn's Labour x

Posted by: Andrew. 21st November 2017, 11:38 PM

I’m not saying they’re the second incarnation of the BNP lmao, but Labour under Corbyn is letting the young people who won them so many seats and votes down with their wishy washy, sneaky hard Brexit policy and huge cuts.

Posted by: vidcapper 22nd November 2017, 06:28 AM

Oh please - if the article had said the opposite, you'd have been jumping up & down saying 'look what Brexit has gone now!'

Posted by: vidcapper 22nd November 2017, 06:30 AM

Good luck in finding/founding one!

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 22nd November 2017, 07:47 AM

Manufacturings continued collapse was happening Brexit or not.

Errr no. Let’s not forget that Corbyns manifesto borrowed extensively from the “Our Record” section of the SNP website. The SNP are more central than they claim to be for sure but Corbyn is in the same space as they are.

Posted by: vidcapper 25th November 2017, 07:27 AM

At last, we've run out of things to argue about.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 25th November 2017, 10:31 AM

I see Labour's Kate Hooooey has just had a jolly to Switzerland to look at the border controls with the EU. She thinks it will be helpful to the Ireland border situation. I'm very happy to hear someone in the Labour Party thinks joining the Schengen area would be a very good thing for the UK. I would love to see inter-EU travel without passports.

Or....she's not just a bit thick is she..?

Skiing's nice this time of the year though.

Posted by: Suedehead2 25th November 2017, 01:45 PM

Ha!

I'm sure her friends will be expecting some nice chocolate for Christmas.

Posted by: vidcapper 26th November 2017, 02:54 PM

I'm amazed that none of this group's Remoaners... sorry Remainers, have posted this...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/25/protest-vote-regret-voting-leave-brexit

Posted by: Doctor Blind 26th November 2017, 02:57 PM

I saw that yesterday - interesting to read. I think it is true that the reason that there has been little shift to the opinion (i.e. remaining close to a 50/50 split) is that people do not like to admit that they were wrong and the body shoots off dopamine when you read something that supports your view and therefore there is a lot of confirmation bias going on.

I think that is what primarily is polarising opinion, the echo chamber bubble that pervades social media. This was covered excellently by Adam Curtis' Hypernormalisation documentary last year.

Posted by: ChRiMbO LeG PiPe 26th November 2017, 03:08 PM

I had no idea about dopamine effects on this. That means opinions will quickly get entrenched in today's media world.

Vidcapper, remoaner is an anti democratic attack on the dissenting opinion, teying to deligitimise it and make it seem smaller than it actually is - i.e 50%

Posted by: Suedehead2 26th November 2017, 04:05 PM

I read that article this morning. It just served to demonstrate what a stupid idea the referendum was in the first place. There have been plenty of other pieces of research which suggest that a lot of people thought it was little more significant than voting in X Factor.

Posted by: vidcapper 26th November 2017, 04:30 PM

Which is why I amended it before posting.

It's not like the insults are all one-way though : e.g. 'little Englander' ; 'xenophobe'; 'unintelligent (and less polite variations)' etc...




Be that as it may, anti-EU feelings had been festering for 40 years, so you can hardly blame people for taking their 'once-in-a-lifetime' chance to express them democratically. Besides, referendum or not, the issue was not going to go away on its own. UKIP support was growing faster than the older generations were dropping dead...

Posted by: ChRiMbO LeG PiPe 26th November 2017, 04:46 PM

With the media pushing stories like 'enemy of the people', 'remoaners', 'will of the people' etc, remoaner has a far worse anti democratic element.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 26th November 2017, 04:58 PM

Yes, and front pages like 'Crush The Saboteurs' from the Fail and 'The Brexit Mutineers' from the Telegraph which IMO unnecessarily incite hatred/harassment.

Thankfully the influence of the print media is rapidly waning, as seen in the 2017 general election and the biggest increase in the Labour vote since Clement Attlee in 1945 in spite of a continued sustained onslaught on Corbyn.

Posted by: Suedehead2 26th November 2017, 05:04 PM

If I relied on the Wail or Distress for my information, I might not have been too keen on the EU. Thankfully, I prefer more reliable sources.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 26th November 2017, 05:16 PM

I agree with all you say except the final few words - I'd add "despite the right-wing press and less-right-wing press bringing up uncomfortable truths like, his basic anti-EU stance (fooling younger voters in the last general election who didn't have much alternative for the anti-Tory vote), his demonising of fellow-non-Momentum Labour party members, having spots on Russia Today, lots of lovely meetings over the years with Terrorist organisations, and oh yes a virtual career voting against his own party's policies and leaders of the Labour Party.

Not to mention not explaining how he's going to pay for the social policies of which most of us approve while keeping a nuclear deterrent which he's never going to even threaten to use."

An overlong addendum admittedly, but one which Labour Party supporters are amazingly quiet about, having been very very vocal in the pre-Corbyn days. I can only assume there is no disagreement on any issue in the party.....

Posted by: Doctor Blind 26th November 2017, 05:24 PM

I would agree with what you've said, I am personally not a fan of Corbyn - but I did like the policies within the recent manifesto.

Posted by: vidcapper 27th November 2017, 06:41 AM

You seem to change your pseudonym more often than politicians change their policies.



You do realise that the only people who'd take headlines like the above seriously, will not be susceptible to pro-EU arguments of any kind?

As for the increase in the Labour vote, that's unlikely to be sustainable through another election, as the fear of a Corbyn-led Labour gov't is likely to prevent many more Tories jumping ship.



AIUI, the Mail has about 4m readers, so how do you account for the other 13m Leavers?

Posted by: Popchartfreak 27th November 2017, 08:18 AM

The Sun, The Telegraph, The Express, Fox News, greed, stupidity and gullibility.

I think that about covers it....

Posted by: vidcapper 27th November 2017, 09:55 AM

You know what irritates me most about the whole Remain/Leave issue?

It is the notion that *only* Remainers were capable of making a rational, informed choice on the issue, and that everyone else would realise how wonderful the EU is, if only it were explained the 'right' way...

Posted by: vidcapper 27th November 2017, 10:15 AM

I've been reading what Wiki has to say about the 1974 Referenda, and in many ways the campaigning tactics were very similar, especially in the negativity towards those who supported the 'no' position.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Communities_membership_referendum,_1975

Posted by: Suedehead2 27th November 2017, 10:19 AM

1) There was only one referendum.
2) It was in 1975.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 27th November 2017, 10:44 AM

Yes, but the point I was trying to make was about how those headlines only encouraged and incited more hatred and aggression.

Posted by: vidcapper 27th November 2017, 10:49 AM

OK, so I got the date slightly wrong, but I'm not in gov't so it doesn't matter.

Posted by: vidcapper 27th November 2017, 10:51 AM

Amongst those who were already inclined to it, or in people who would never have considered it before?

Posted by: Doctor Blind 27th November 2017, 11:01 AM

Are you seriously trying to rationalise those headlines as ok because the people who http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42045175 were 'already inclined to it'. Seriously?!

Posted by: Popchartfreak 27th November 2017, 01:01 PM

1. It's rational debate on the Remain side, because we are rational people

2. Jo Cox, and endless vitriol on the leave side which allowed such a thing to happen.

3. All those Leave referendum promises have already turned out to be lies. Still waiting for you to point out the successes as we go in endless circles.

4. The 1975 campaign was civil and well debated, that's why reasoned argument won the day amongst people who had living memory of the hell and misery of WW2, as opposed to people who had living memory of Dad's Army (chuckle gaffaw) and Hogan's Heroes (LOL).

Posted by: vidcapper 27th November 2017, 02:58 PM

I was not trying to rationalize anything - I was asking a question, the clue was in the question mark I used!




1. Some aspects of Project Fear were about as rational as Chicken Little... does 'Emergency Budget' ring a bell?

2. Her murderer was an extreme-right loony, so it's impossible to rationalise his actions to blame Brexit.

3. Brexit hasn't happened yet, so how can you claim they have been *proven* wrong?

4. Unfortunately I've not seen a demographic breakdown of the 1975 vote, so I don't know which groups tended to vote no.

Posted by: Suedehead2 27th November 2017, 04:18 PM

You mean the emergency Budget that was averted by the Bank Of England spending billions of pounds?

Posted by: vidcapper 27th November 2017, 04:31 PM

I was talking of a threat *before* the election, not an action after.

Posted by: Brett-Butler 27th November 2017, 06:24 PM

I never expected a Labour MP to go full Trump, but http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-42137597 has said that after Brexit, there should be a big wall between Northern Ireland and the Republic, and get the Republic to pay for it.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 27th November 2017, 09:22 PM

1. As I've explained ad infinitum the project Fear was a cameron/osbourne knee-jerk panic attack right at the end and wasnt part of the official campaign - because it worked so well in the Scotland campaign - feel free to slag them off all you like and I'll join in with the heavy boot.

2. No it isn't. The posters, the lies about millions of Turkish immigrants all inflamed hatred among already angry people and pushed them over the edge. Forgotten about the attacks on immigrants already? Thought so. Name a single Remainer going out and attacking anyone. Hint: You can't.

3. The lies they said about the EU falling over to keep our business, (havent even started to discuss it and 2 weeks to go to the deadline) the lies about 350m to the NHS (a central plank of the campaign). 2 billion in total is the fact. Industry, Economists, most MP's, most potential customers in the world, all say it's insane and going to be a disaster. Still, as long as you have hope on your side to blind you to reality, feel free to keep living in La La land that other countries are lining up to do business with us (clue: they aren't)

4. It was 42 years ago, work it out. That means of the people who voted then they must all be between 60 and dead. The dead ones will largely be the ones who didn't grow up on War films, Dads Army and nostalgia for a time that never existed.

Posted by: vidcapper 28th November 2017, 06:17 AM

Like the American Revolution, perhaps?

Posted by: Popchartfreak 28th November 2017, 01:38 PM

Yes exactly like brexiteers. Slave owning racists rich people out to destroy the tyranny of the British who had stolen the country away from native Americans. Exactly like Nigel garage then.

Posted by: vidcapper 28th November 2017, 02:54 PM

Well I was rather hoping to concentrate on the 'look how well it turned out in the end' aspects...

Posted by: Popchartfreak 28th November 2017, 08:46 PM

Given the state of the planet and the rate of decline I have my doubts about a happy ending for anyone and anything....

Posted by: Popchartfreak 28th November 2017, 09:54 PM

back on topic, here's a marvellous work of fiction from June 2016 which has now been deleted. I wonder why Daniel Hannan MP, one of the leading lights of Brexit, full of reassurances and optimism about how easy and marvellous it would all be has deleted this...

Could it be, gasp, he thinks it makes him look like a lying prick? Afraid of something wot he rote nay just 16 or so months ago. Imagine that.

https://archive.fo/CDBFf

Posted by: ChristmasEve201 28th November 2017, 11:13 PM

People on here should be talking about Ireland a lot more - it could make or break any deal and once again shows exactly how the UK is unworkable when it comes to Ireland - English MPs don't give a toss of the consequences of their bigoted views to the peace process!

Posted by: vidcapper 29th November 2017, 07:06 AM

OK then, here's a question : should a hypothetical reunited Ireland automatically be a full member of the EU?

ISTM it would be hard to argue otherwise, as that's what happened when Germany reunited after the end of the cold war...

Posted by: Popchartfreak 29th November 2017, 08:32 AM

....and another attempt to change the subject while ignoring the very valid (and vital) point being made. The first point was crucial to the understanding of the nature of our future relationship with the UK and Ireland, especially given 200 years of history.

The second point is completely irrelevant, an exercise in fantasy.

Posted by: vidcapper 29th November 2017, 09:33 AM

I don't care how Brexit relates to Ireland.

Posted by: Suedehead2 29th November 2017, 11:15 AM

So you don't care if we see a return of the Troubles? Coz sovvrintee innit.

Posted by: vidcapper 29th November 2017, 11:29 AM

And people claim *I* change the subject...

Posted by: Suedehead2 29th November 2017, 12:11 PM

You stated that you didn't care about the implications for the island of Ireland. A return of the Troubles is one potential consequence.

Posted by: vidcapper 29th November 2017, 02:43 PM

How would that occur, then?

Posted by: Suedehead2 29th November 2017, 07:28 PM

How about a collapse of the Good Friday agreement? A free border is part of that agreement.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 29th November 2017, 08:02 PM

Up to £50b to be guaranteed in order to get onto trade deals. That EU is really rolling over exactly like the Leavers predicted isn't it?

The irish government can veto the whole deal if the border isn't sorted.

Davy davy has chopped out swathes of the Brexit Impact assessments he was told to publish by Parliament using that old Local Gov chestnut "financial confidentiality" which they always drag out when told to release something they have lied about that will embarrass politicians. (Trust me, I know how it works).

May be in contempt of Parliament for not showing what a useless job in assessing problems he has done. The EU Brexit assessments are free to access and read...

Week by week the case for Remain is proven to be accurate item by item, and the case for Leave a tissue of lies.

Posted by: Colm 29th November 2017, 09:19 PM

800 years.


I, for one, do not want a united Ireland. We cannot afford it and I dont want to have to deal with a country that has any sizable population who believe in creationism and some of their politicians are equally idiotic.

No offence meant to anyone on here from Northern Ireland. Obviously, there's only a minority of these people but the less influence they have on my life the better.

I'm aware that this makes me look like a bigot.

Posted by: ChristmasEve201 29th November 2017, 11:07 PM

200 years since the union which corrupted the relationship!

Thing is the DUP would likely be in coalition with FG if there was a United Ireland now as most old unionists joined that party after independence!

Posted by: vidcapper 30th November 2017, 06:59 AM

The EU would share the blame for that.



It is May who is rolling over.

If the Irish veto it, we should get that 50b back. In any case, their blocking a deal won't prevent Brexit.

The decision is what matters, not the case.

Posted by: vidcapper 30th November 2017, 07:29 AM

Baby boomer 'used as term of abuse since the Brexit vote': Charity chiefs say group are facing resentment because they own their own homes and had free university education

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5130829/Baby-boomer-used-term-abuse-Brexit-vote.html

*********************

Mere Mail rhetoric, or more than a grain of truth?

While the Mail may have over-egged the pudding as usual, it's no secret that there *has* been resentment from some younger people over 'their futures being harmed by Brexit'.

Why would anyone be resented for owning their own home, though - people had to work long & hard to pay for them.

As for the 'free university education' - how many young people even realise how few baby boomers even *went* to uni?

Posted by: Colm 30th November 2017, 09:34 AM

so that's alright then? As long as we have someone to blame for the escalation in sectarian violence, terrorism, murder, intimidation - basically the state of things in the 70s and 80s.

Posted by: Suedehead2 30th November 2017, 10:28 AM

How? It's the UK government who seem to be asking for something impossible.

Posted by: vidcapper 30th November 2017, 10:44 AM

But such an increase is just speculation.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 30th November 2017, 12:35 PM

Exactly as leading remainers predicted (not including the twatty resigner duo).

We won't get £50 "back". we still owe the money. if we don't pay up not only do we get no more business with the EU (at considerably more value than 50b) but no-one trusts the UK's ability to keep its word, and the billions the Gov borrows will cost much more, assuming any gov or bank trusts us to be able to repay debts as our economy goes into freefall.

The decision suddenly doesn't matter? Fine, then we can stay in the single market and avoid catastrophe, as the Leavers all said we could prior to the referendum. That includes farage the disparage.

Posted by: ChristmasEve201 30th November 2017, 11:22 PM

It's factual if you follow politics here - there's already no government in ni!

Posted by: vidcapper 1st December 2017, 06:57 AM

Why are you *so* convinced that Brexit will be a failure?

As for the £50bn, without a detailed breakdown, it's like a cowboy builder asking for payment upfront. Only an idiot would cough up the money without knowing exactly what they were paying for!

Posted by: Popchartfreak 1st December 2017, 07:41 AM

Because there is no evidence that it will be anything other than a "failure" relative to our situation before June 2016, as I keep saying a million times a week - is your memory faulty? Why are you SO convinced it will be a success? What do you base that on? We would love to hear some optimism based on reality (as opposed to wishful thinking based on nothing). Have a look at that Daniel Hannan work of fiction and he told everyone the UK would be by 2025 from the second we voted to leave. Revisit everything every Leave campaigner claimed and then study what they are claiming now. Don't look at the promises. Try looking at the hard facts of what is actually happening, not what they said and still claim will happen. If you do that and have the capacity for rational decision-making then it should all become clear in a flash of revelation.

There is a detailed breakdown. The British Gov refuses to publish anything. Why have they suddenly said it £50b when they have been claiming it was £20b? Could it be that they were trying to blackmail the EU into agreeing only to pay what the UK owes if we get a fabulous deal that no other country in the world which is NOT in the EU gets? Funny that.....

Posted by: vidcapper 1st December 2017, 09:42 AM

There is no evidence to say it won't be a failure, either.

Are you seriously saying that, just because I remember you making that claim before, that proves your case?




For me, the economic success or failure of Brexit is less important than the reason *I* voted for Brexit - political freedom.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 1st December 2017, 01:11 PM

No, I'm saying I'm as sick of having to repeat myself as everyone else must be reading it.

There is no no evidence WHATSOEVER it will be a success. There is PLENTY of evidence it won't be.

Unlike you I don't have the capacity to put my trust in fantasy optimism based on prejudices against an organisation that you still have to clearly explain why you dislike so much in actual concrete examples. So, until you can offer up specific examples that don't involve vague meaningless phrases like "taking back control" and "free to trade with everyone" and "bureaucracy imposing their will" - none of which mean anything much EXCEPT in the one area of keeping EU citizens from having an automatic right to work here (as opposed to inviting them in anyway because we have jobs that need filling) - then there is no further point in making any response to any of your endlessly-repeated short-statements-posed-as-questions which rely on the Trump technique of wearing people out so much that they cease responding.

I will in future refer you back to my previous statements and give everyone a break.....

You on the other hand, avoid answering difficult questions all the time (see some of my recent posts on various topics that you have just come back with a repeat statement/change of subject because you don't admit you are wrong, you just ignore it entirely if my logic is flawless).

Posted by: vidcapper 1st December 2017, 02:46 PM

then the answer is simple : stop saying it




You and others here seem to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to trip me up, and persuade me I made a mistake voting for Brexit, but what's the point - it's not going to change the result.

To save you a lot of effort then - I will inform you now that I *cannot* be persuaded by economic arguments, simply because, as I said earlier, I voted Brexit for political reasons.

Posted by: Suedehead2 1st December 2017, 05:43 PM

Political reasons which you haven't been able to back up with any actual facts.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 1st December 2017, 07:55 PM

Happy to stop saying it if you do I dont enjoy repeating myself, just damned if I'm going to let you keep making the same old remarks.

Not trying to trip you up. Just not letting you spread misinformation to any helpless passers by that might wander on here and actually get taken in by your unsubstantiated opinions. God knows the Twittersphere is full enough of that, just doing my bit to help keep Buzzjack refreshingly free of Fake News.

PS if you try sticking to arguing for Brexit on POLITICAL REASONS (still waiting for examples of specific things) then I won't have any reason to respond. Result! I can post some pop music charts instead. Hooray!

Posted by: vidsanta 2nd December 2017, 06:44 AM

But political reasons aren't as reliant on them as economic ones are.

Is it so wicked to want to be able to make decisions on how you run your country, without having to consult 27 others, who if they wished could make it very difficult for you to implement them?

Posted by: Suedehead2 2nd December 2017, 08:39 AM

You make it sound as if we have to consult 27 other members before doing anything. We don't. Can you name a single piece of legislation a government has wanted to introduce but couldn't because of EU rules? If not, your point is irrelevant.

Posted by: vidsanta 2nd December 2017, 10:07 AM

I was saying the opposite of that - pointing that while we *could* act unilaterally, it wouldn't be as consequence-free as if we weren't in the EU.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 2nd December 2017, 03:09 PM

No you weren’t. Stop trying to weasel out of everything and answer his damn question

Posted by: vidsanta 2nd December 2017, 04:05 PM

Posted by: vidsanta 2nd December 2017, 04:09 PM

I thought better of keeping what I originally posted!

I am just *so* tired of people misunderstanding what I post, though!

Posted by: ChRiMbO LeG PiPe 2nd December 2017, 04:17 PM

I think you voted out based on the Enid Blyton fantasy tbh

Posted by: vidsanta 2nd December 2017, 04:37 PM

There's one slight flaw in that theory - I never read Enid Blyton.

Posted by: ChRiMbO LeG PiPe 2nd December 2017, 04:54 PM

The myth pervades other aspects of the zeitgeist - it's not just limited to the books.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 2nd December 2017, 05:16 PM

You mean like invading Iraq with the Americans? Only 3 EU countries (it seems) were involved though the consequences have been felt considerably wider afield.

So, the EU could do nothing to stop it, they suffered consequences from it along with much of the Middle East and northern Africa, and we didn't. Didn't ask for or receive EU permission. The EU was totally irrelevant to Blair's decision-making process, and hindsight suggests the EU's more balanced measured approach would have been the sane one.

So how am I misunderstanding what you posted earlier? Feel free to enlighten....

This by the way is a POLITICAL reason, nothing to do with economics (at least they say oil wasn't the reason, they claimed it was WMD, the sort that Iran and North Korea has - and who aren't getting invaded)

Posted by: Colm 2nd December 2017, 07:13 PM

Just wondering, in the light of the people interviewed by Channel Four news not knowing what shape their own country is, do you guys who were educated in mainland Britain get educated in the geography and history of Northern Ireland?

Posted by: ChRiMbO LeG PiPe 2nd December 2017, 07:18 PM

I was

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 2nd December 2017, 07:28 PM

Not in Scotland, that I can recall anyway. They were more preoccupied with the highland clearances and various wars of independence.

Posted by: Colm 2nd December 2017, 07:44 PM

ok

Posted by: Doctor Blind 2nd December 2017, 08:35 PM

There was a small amount about the history of Northern Ireland (Bloody Sunday etc.) but most of my historical knowledge came from The Cranberries’ “Zombie”.

What will really depress you is that one of the people I work with thought that Sinn Féin was a person...

Posted by: Suedehead2 2nd December 2017, 08:36 PM

I learnt nothing of Irish history at school but I did give the subject up at the earliest opportunity.

Posted by: Colm 2nd December 2017, 09:50 PM

Sorry, both of those statements are just hilarious, unintentionally so, perhaps.

Posted by: Snow❄Diploughmat 2nd December 2017, 10:01 PM

I don't believe in creationism but I don't think people believing in creationism is an issue I am sure a proportion of Christians everywhere believe in it, and from all denominations too.

More important is the silly blocking of gay marriage in NI against the tide of the Western world.

Posted by: Brett-Butler 2nd December 2017, 10:22 PM

I learned Northern Irish history during GCSE, focusing largely on the 60s Civil Rights era through to the Anglo-Irish Agreement in the 80s by way of Bobby Sands and the hunger strikers. Although I was educated in Belfast, so you would expect it.

We learned about Irish history as well, although I didn't enjoy it as much, and some of it I struggled to understand - even now I'm unsure what side won the Irish Civil War of the 1920s.

Posted by: vidsanta 3rd December 2017, 06:59 AM

This would be a myth that defies definition?



What - your telepathy not working today?

OK, I was a little unclear - I meant aspects that affect internal EU matters, rather than external ones like foreign policy.

Posted by: vidsanta 3rd December 2017, 07:03 AM

I don't recall it happening, but this would have been at the height of the IRA bombing campaign, so anything we might have been taught would most unlikely have been objective anyway.

Posted by: vidsanta 3rd December 2017, 07:55 AM

Going off at a tangent...

Do people here recognise that it would be virtually impossible for voters to accept a reversal of Brexit in any other form than for the original question to be posed again, and for the answer to go the opposite way?

Posted by: Popchartfreak 3rd December 2017, 09:14 AM

So give some examples of how EU POLITICALLY affects the UK that is internal to the EU.

My observation is that the vast majority is economic or legal-based, and that politically if anything we have had a massive impact on how the EU works, rather than be a drowned voice badly-done-to by all those horrid foreigners. Sticking strictly to internal politics.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 3rd December 2017, 09:19 AM

The events people name to have learned about mostly hadn't happened when I was at school. They were called "news" rather than "history". Oops!

Other than that, no, Irish history wasn't mentioned once, most likely because it would have been regarded as undermining the UK governments of the times and teachers branded IRA sympathisers by the right-wing press. By the way, nobody had any love for an organisation that was murdering people left, right and centre and was determined to make bombing an everyday event for everyone in England and Northern Ireland.

Posted by: vidsanta 3rd December 2017, 10:18 AM

The EU overriding our courts is the main one that immediately springs to mind.

You might argue that is legal, rather than political, but to me there is very little different in this context.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 3rd December 2017, 12:37 PM

There is EVERY difference between the 2. The law is the law no matter what a government (any government) likes to think, and while they can change the law via Parliament (democracy) they are still answerable to it, and above politics. You might recall the recent case about trying to pass legislation about Leaving the EU without going through democratic (and legally required) Parliamentary approval.

Law courts uphold the law as it is written, they don't dance for politicians - if they did it would no longer be a democracy.

So, nothing to argue at all about it. Facts is facts.

PS The courts you refer to are the final court of appeals once someone doesn't like the answer given by British courts (and I doubt they over-ride them in most cases). EU courts for EU legislation, though, is utterly logical - you can't have non-EU courts arbitrarily telling them what to do when ruling on what the agreed (by the UK) legislation states.

So again, interpreting laws the UK has signed off already, and not politics.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 3rd December 2017, 06:02 PM

Same for me but from what i understand it wasn’t in any of the history courses offered by the SQA either and I’m not sure it is now.

I’m not surprised by this though. Scotland has its own weird like quasi proxy war through football and the huge problems they still have with sectarian violence by men with tiny cocks overcompensating about something they know nothing about, in a country they never been too and would fail to point out on a map of Ireland.

Posted by: ChRiMbO LeG PiPe 3rd December 2017, 06:11 PM

I did LOADSS about Ireland - nothin about the Scottish border wars with thr North East until university however, but we learned the general idea of which parts were Northumberland, which parts belonged to Scotland at times, who won what battle in the civil war etc. We did potato famine, Ulster, and some other stuff.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 3rd December 2017, 06:16 PM

Once more, where are your examples?

Oh and the whole deportations stuff is in violation of our law and EU law. Our Supreme Court also strikes them down.

The prisoners voting stuff is EU law the UK chose not to opt out of and implemented and is violating so the EU court has every right to point that obvious fact out because the UK government is breaking a law it implemented!

Most time the EU court passes things back to the national courts. The only time our courts are “overridden” is when they’ve not interpreted EU law correctly. For example, the Scottish Whiskey Federation took the Scottish Government to court over minimum pricing for alcohol (despite it having f*** all impact on the price of Whiskey) and when they didn’t like the answer in the Scottish courts they referred it to the EU court. The EU court told them it didn’t violate EU law and was a matter for the national courts.

They don’t interfere with domestic law. Their jurisdiction strictly covers EU law only. This makes sense. It ensures EU law is being interpreted the same way across all member states. It’s an important check & balance to the system. It’s also brought in to tell the EU when it’s overstepped it’s jurisdiction.


Curious, but do you get angry when the Supreme Court “overrides” the high court? Or is it just because your ideology can’t handle how a judicial system in a proper democracy works?

Posted by: vidsanta 4th December 2017, 06:32 AM

That seems to be your standard response to almost every post I make.

When I do provide them, you simply dismiss them out-of-hand as 'Daily Mail propaganda', so why should I even bother?

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 4th December 2017, 07:08 AM

Because you never back up your rhetoric with anything that has a basis in fact

Posted by: vidsanta 4th December 2017, 07:30 AM

Since when have facts ever had any bearing on politics...

Posted by: Soy Adrián 4th December 2017, 09:41 AM

This, in a nutshell, is why you derailing every thread in this forum is getting rather tiring.

Posted by: vidsanta 4th December 2017, 10:24 AM

No more tiring to me, than you dismissing almost everything I post as 'Daily Mail propaganda'

Posted by: Soy Adrián 4th December 2017, 12:23 PM

It's a news and politics discussion forum. Willfully disengaging with every rational argument and choosing not to respond half the time you're asked a pertinent question tends to render every 'discussion' you get into a predictable argument. Consider switching it up a little.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 4th December 2017, 12:24 PM

well, we have suggested you widen your reading material but you seem disinclined to change the habits of a lunchtime...

Posted by: vidsanta 4th December 2017, 02:49 PM

Whose mandate is 'Thought provoking and controversial issues.'

Surely you can't argue I do that...

I only 'wilfully disengage' when the discussion starts going round in the same old circles.

It generally goes something like :

I post an opinion

I'm asked to justify it (which I am not obliged to do, but do anyway).

It gets dismissed as Tory/Mail propaganda

If instead I choose *not* to reply, then I get accused of 'dodging the issue' - so its a case of 'heads you win, tails I lose'



As I've mentioned before, I've only been reading the Mail for 5-6 years - before that, it was the Daily Mirror.

In case you haven't noticed, I've posted a number of Guardian URL's in the recent past. However, quite apart from the content, I find the layout of the Mail online a lot easier to navigate than the Guardian.

Posted by: Suedehead2 4th December 2017, 03:58 PM

Well, I suppose the Guardian website doesn't have many pictures of scantily clad women. Or men for that matter.

Posted by: vidsanta 4th December 2017, 04:19 PM

If only that was the only reason people here didn't like it...

Posted by: Popchartfreak 4th December 2017, 11:03 PM

I think some of us would be happy with scantily clad men photos (as long as they got paid and were happy about it) but it's the hypocrisy of pretending to be family-values while being anything but. Or butt.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 4th December 2017, 11:41 PM

I did enjoy the DUP causing all kinds of chaos in both Ireland and in Brussels today despite not having a functioning parliament in the province! Classic.

It's getting cold though so maybe Arlene Foster has got the heating on FULL BLAST in Stormont and she's getting restless.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 5th December 2017, 07:59 AM

Or, "Thanks for the billion quid, now we own you"?

Who would have thought that the Irish border wouldnt have been as piss-easy to sort as everyone in the Leave campaign claimed?


Errr, everyone.

Nothing another couple of billion wouldn't sort, I'm sure. "We've already established what you are, now we're just haggling over the price...."

Posted by: Colm 5th December 2017, 08:22 AM

Does that EVERYONE include all the people who can't draw the border?

I'd say even some of the remain people didn't actually have a full grasp of the Good Friday Agreement and it's terms, or the fact that the border would now be an external EU border with all that that entails.

Posted by: vidsanta 5th December 2017, 10:53 AM

There seems to be an assumption here that everyone who voted Leave should have foreseen every possible complication before voting.

In my case, I didn't expect it would be easy, but my position is : 'politicians & bureaucrats are paid exorbitant salaries, so it's about time they earned them!'

Posted by: Popchartfreak 5th December 2017, 12:58 PM

No, but they should have listened carefully to those who spoke facts rather than those liars who glossed over it in half a deliberately optimistic sentence.

The EU's and Ireland's politicians & bureaucrats are paid just as handsomely to look after their best interests. Your point? That the UK's dumb-ass overpaid and inexperienced ones should somehow know how to make fantasy real because they get a lot of money? They can't cos they're dense, their salary doesn't change that basic problem.

If only chucking taxpayers money at something could solve all problems. As T. May is finding out right now, it can't....

Posted by: vidsanta 5th December 2017, 02:54 PM

But all politicians lie, so people tend to default to those who are espousing the position they support anyway - that's how confirmation bias works.

In any case, I suspect most Leavers couldn't care less about the process, only the end result.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 5th December 2017, 05:14 PM

No they don't all lie. We have one former politician on buzzjack so you have just called him a liar.

All brexiteers lie perhaps.

Posted by: vidsanta 6th December 2017, 06:36 AM

Anyone who says they don't lie, is lying when they say that.

Posted by: Suedehead2 6th December 2017, 09:01 AM

That depends on how you define "lie". Take an example from my time as a councillor. Before I went to party conference one year, I wrote a piece for a Focus leaflet which included the words "Speaking at the party conference Councillor X said ...". I then said the words quoted over coffee one morning. Was the statement in the leaflet a lie or just slightly misleading?

Posted by: Popchartfreak 6th December 2017, 09:40 AM

Back to the utter shambles that is Brexit, and Corbyn tweeting blaming May and the DUP for the mess.

Time for an LibDem leader to own Corbyn and his outright rewriting of recent events and blame shifting:

Tim Farron: "Now, Jeremy, remember when you voted with the Tories for hard Brexit with no conditions over Ireland, workers protections, single market or anything? Yep, that's why we're in this mess."

That is what is known as an "owning yo momma, bitch" moment in some circles.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 6th December 2017, 10:40 AM

Meanwhile, Davy Davy just admitted to MP's that the government has done no impact assessments on Brexit WHATSOEVER!

Think about that. They have had years to prepare, 18 months to do this, and are so arrogantly committed to Brexit that they havent prepared for what it will to do various sectors of the British economy AT ALL. See that cliff edge? Let's all jump, we can learn to fly afterwards.

What a f***ing moron and a shambles of a government.

Why is there no impact assessments? BECAUSE THEY KNOW IT'S GOING TO BE A DISASTER!

Posted by: vidsanta 6th December 2017, 10:44 AM

Perhaps he should consult you then, as you apparently know more about it than anyone else...

Posted by: Doctor Blind 6th December 2017, 10:53 AM

There was a great tweet from Ed Milliband yesterday (the guy who quite frankly told a UK audience in May 2015 that he wasn't going to give the public an in/out referendum, was booed, and CamOron subsequently tweeted that the 2015 general election was a choice between stable government or a 'coalition of chaos' under Labour - that's aged well...) which summed up my feelings well:

https://twitter.com/Ed_Miliband/status/937960558170689537

Posted by: vidsanta 6th December 2017, 10:55 AM

There's no honour in politics nowadays - when you bribe a party with £1bn, you expect them to stay bought...

Posted by: Suedehead2 6th December 2017, 11:09 AM

Ah yes, those impact assessments that the same Davy Davy told us were completed months ago. The impact assessments that went into such excruciating detail (his words) that a shortened version had to be prepared for the PM. There are two possibilities here - 1) Davy Davy lied or 2) He has a Tardis.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 6th December 2017, 02:32 PM

Unbelievable, and once again Corbyn was relatively weak in PMQs which allowed May to get away with what has been a pretty shambolic week, even by this administration's piss-poor standards.

Oh and the DUP will not accept a deal that "separates" Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom - well how about having the same laws as the rest of the UK on abortion and same sex marriage then?

Posted by: Popchartfreak 6th December 2017, 02:41 PM

as Ive said before, he could consult, say, a mud-skipper, and he WOULD STILL BE BETTER INFORMED.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 6th December 2017, 02:45 PM

Yes, seems they want to pick and choose what laws apply to them....hypocrites.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 6th December 2017, 04:35 PM

Twitter, as always, said it best. If the DUP want alignment then Westminster should immediately bring forward a law to bring NI into the 21st century on abortion and equal marriage. As well as a few other regulatory changes such as the banning of firearms.

Funny how “no regulatory divergence” has a silent “unless it suits our ideology” when spoken in a northern Irish accent

Posted by: Popchartfreak 6th December 2017, 05:01 PM

Davies admitting he lied to the country about Brexit assessments, while sucking a sweet, and the PM and the entire Tory cabinet backed him up. Bout the same as whistling as you leave office. What do you call a bunch of liars?

The Tory Party.

Posted by: PeaceMob 6th December 2017, 05:08 PM

The government and in particular Theresa May are doing a fantastic job so far, when she promised that the UK would get a great deal, well so far she seems to be on track for that to happen. The EU are being incredibly awkward but I expected that because they are fighting for their interests and are trying to squeeze as much out of the UK before we are out. But time is not on the EU's side and they know that.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 6th December 2017, 05:22 PM

Lol you might want to ease off the illegal narcotics mate

Posted by: Suedehead2 6th December 2017, 05:56 PM

I assume your real name is David Louis Dedd, otherwise known as D Lou Dedd.

Posted by: ChRiMbO LeG PiPe 6th December 2017, 06:03 PM

The Sun readers in the home Tory counties in the deep south live on another planet!!

Which scandal would yoy like us to start with/ the SHAMBOLIC UTTERLY SHAMBOLIC EU negotiations?

Posted by: PeaceMob 6th December 2017, 06:05 PM

Bless, people on here still believe everything they read in the papers. Thankfully most British people are much wiser and can read between the lines. Theresa May represents the people that are neither EU fanatics and want us tied to the EU no matter what and she's not the UKIP type who want to see the EU destroyed and look to Nigel Farage as their saviour.

Posted by: ChRiMbO LeG PiPe 6th December 2017, 06:05 PM

Wat??

Posted by: Cal 6th December 2017, 08:09 PM

LMAO at the Tories saying the Irish stance has "changed considerably" since Varadkar and Coveney took control of it. Yeah, because Enda Kenny is basically a man-child who is notorious for rolling over to keep everyone else happy and to get a pat on the back. I disagree with Fine Gael on a LOT of issues but Varadkar is killing this and it's delicious. As for Arlene Foster... she's basically a walking foghorn and if the Tories had any sense they'd call her bluff. She basically tanked the prospect of NI having easy access to the largest single market in the world. The mind boggles.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 6th December 2017, 08:45 PM

Yet she's pandering exactly to those people, and lying to the country while doing it. The Tory party is split, the Labour Party is split, and the country is split. Meanwhile the EU cant even try to do a deal because NO-ONE KNOWS WHAT SORT OF DEAL WE WANT.

The problem with not reading up on current events, is you end up knowing nothing about current events and what is actually happening. So, as the great Brian Cox today stated exasperatedly (more or less, I'm not quoting), it's like David Davies represents crass stupidity and deceit and is PROUD TO BE A DUMB LIAR.

Believe what you want, of course, including that the EU is an evil empire. The EU will tick along nicely with or without the UK. The only one who will be destroyed economically (and hope you are looking forward to the equally moronic Corbyn running the country) is the UK.

Brexiters are like ostriches with their heads in the sand and up their own arses, unable to see what's staring them in the face. That you were lied to, and you fell for it, big time, and we will all pay for it. Except the rich, of course, they will be fine.

Posted by: vidsanta 7th December 2017, 07:13 AM

'destroyed economically' : If you must continue continue with the hyperbole, at least vary your phrases a little.

IMO, you still don't really understand Leavers - you still seem to believe that what you consider good points about the EU, must necessarily be appealing/advantageous to everyone else - and if they disagree, it's only because of Daily Mail brainwashing, therefore all they need is 're-education' to see things your way...

The factor you miss is that Leavers are as entitled to a different vision for the future of this country as you are - and as unappealing as their vision is to you, the converse holds true for us.

Our version gives political autonomy the highest priority - a concept that millions of people have fought & died for over the centuries, so surely it cannot be just dismissed as 'meaningless Mail propaganda'?

Posted by: Popchartfreak 7th December 2017, 08:10 AM

Stop putting words into my mouth and misunderstanding my points. Sound familiar?

I have said many times half my friends and family voted leave. I know exactly what they think, cos, errr I ask them. You are just one person with a fixed blinkered view.

Democracy does not mean that one third of the country gets to dictate what happens based on a simple referendum without making very good arguments for what effects it is going to have. Make some agood arguments and provide evidence just as the Remain case has.

You can't, because there is none. Just as Davies hasn't, because there is no case. If there was he would provide it. You don't care what happens, that what it all boils down to, and are willing to put the future well-being of the country at risk on a hunch.

People fought and died to avoid right-wing Nazis who wanted to impose their will on minorities and freedom.

Hitler's words, and Trump's words (and presumably Farage's as a fan of Hitler):

You keep repeating the lies, and in the end people will believe them.

That's how fascism starts and that is how democracy dies. Feel free to read Trump's Art Of The Deal of Mein Kampf. We live in a free country so you are able to do that. In Nazi Germany any dissenters were killed.

Posted by: vidsanta 7th December 2017, 09:01 AM

Achingly.(yawn)

Are you saying you understand why *they* voted for Brexit?




The arguments *were* made by both sides in the weeks running up to Jun 23rd - those put up by the Leave side simply proved more persuasive.




I am prepared to take a small risk for the change of future gain, yes. That's also why people buy lottery tickets.

{I've snipped the Godwins-Law-invoking bits]

Posted by: Popchartfreak 7th December 2017, 12:46 PM

1. Yes, yawn

2. Yes, I do, and you don't speak for everyone who voted Leave, no matter how you like to pretend. You do not have the gift of telepathy. As we have discussed before.

3. People were very persuaded by lies, it turns out. Still waiting for you to show it's all going marvellously as expressed by any prominent Leaver during the referendum, just one example would do.

4. Small risk when peoples wellbeing is at stake, is not a small risk. If it was small risk your Idols Of Brexit would have produced facts and figures to show it. They haven't.

PS You don't work do you? Not much change in your status then either way (until they cut benefits) unless you are independently wealthy (in which case ditto) so I'm Alright Jack, pretty much. Others won't be so lucky, still never mind, an increase in the suicide rate (more than it has already gone up) and the death rate is a small price to pay for a matter of principle and a slight chance that things might be marginally better 30 years from now.

PPS They won't be. All available evidence shows the reverse. Anyone who puts trust in people like Johnson, Davies, Rees-Mogg, Fox & co shows huge bad judgement (eg, shown to be lying, self-servers many times over as we have produced evidence for over and over)

PPPS Tick tock tick tock Hard Brexit approaching, and a guaranteed massive jolt to the economy. Followed by Corbyn in power.

Enjoy the future...

Posted by: ChRiMbO LeG PiPe 7th December 2017, 02:21 PM

52% or 37% of the electorate is just really not enough. Brexit should stop, but the brainwashing Murdoch media machine and Tories, desperate not to split so go along with it, convines people it has to based on thosr miniscule figures.

Posted by: vidsanta 7th December 2017, 03:05 PM

What reasons that your friends gave for voting Brexit did you accept, while rejecting mine?

There are two different aspects

1. The negotiations, which are currently stalled

2. The end result

Problems with the first do not automatically mean the second will fail, though.
.


At the risk of being accused of distraction again, I do not believe that people should be made to feel guilty for voting an option they prefer, when they are simply putting their own perceived financial well-being ahead of that of total strangers.

Getting back to the point - how could supporters of Brexit produce figures to support it *before* it actually happens? They would necessarily be just as speculative as claims of its inevitable failure are.



This seems to be a constant theme of yours, that the minority should prevail - if I were cynical (perish the thought) I would suggest that it was an outgrowth of PC where the interests of the minority always come first.

Posted by: ChRiMbO LeG PiPe 7th December 2017, 05:49 PM

So you think a razor thin majority should make 100% of the decisions and in a union where HALF the nations voted against it? So because England is the most populous what it says, goes? Well, then, it barely nakes being in the union fair at all...

Posted by: Popchartfreak 7th December 2017, 09:07 PM

1. I reject theirs too, don't feel persecuted.

2. It will fail though, the Irish border is insoluble without splitting the UK or remaining within the single market or erecting a border (and resurrecting the troubles). Unless the DUP can be bought.

3. I'm glad you feel that Brexit allows you to act selfishly, even though it actually won't make you better off, it will just make everyone else worse off. On behalf of us all, thanks a lot.

4. It's not the minority. Most of the country didnt vote for Brexit. A slim majority of those who turned up did. You don;t have to produce "figures" you just have to produce evidence of lucrative trade deals, of countries lining up to do wonderful business with us, of them moving to this country to take over from those businesses moving to frankfurt & Europe. In short, all of those marvellous things that they guaranteed would follow from Brexit. 18 months and still nothing. Nada. Zip. Zero. Not one single country of economic significance has said they will give us a better deal than the ones we already with them as members of the EU.

De. Lude. Ed. as Suedey said. I don't care what you believe, but you insist on forcing your unsubstantiated opinions on everyone else endlessly, instead of just shutting up and waiting and seeing. We don't mind you being able to say "I told you say" in one year, 2 years, 5 year, 10 years. But until you actually have something new to say, it's getting beyond tedious lreading the same old drivel and having to constantly reply to it so no feeble-minded innocents get taken in by it...

I mean that in a caring fashion of course, but enough is enough. We can provide data and figures and back up opinions. You can't because you haven't.

Posted by: Soy Adrián 7th December 2017, 09:54 PM

Spoiler alert: They can't.

As far as I understand it, there's basically three options on the border.

1. We try and sign up to a deal which involves a hard border between ROI and NI. The Irish government uses their veto to block this, and we fall out in March 2019 with no deal.
2. We try and sign up to a deal which involves NI effectively staying within the customs union and a sea trade border between NI and Great Britain. The DUP don't support it, and the government falls as Jeremy Corbyn won't bail them out when another early election would probably put him in Downing Street.
3. We cave and go for a deal involving full regulatory alignment on trade between the UK and the EU, effectively staying in the customs union. Hard Brexiteers in the government trigger a confidence vote in Theresa May and the bitter pill of somehow ending up with David Davis as PM is made slightly easier to swallow by the prospect of a reasonably soft Brexit.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 7th December 2017, 10:05 PM

I agree and I think that option 3 is the only one that is really on the table here. Clearly however it is in Theresa May's interest to string along the frothing Brexiteers in her cabinet/party for as long as possible and that is why the wording in this deal that is done tomorrow will be suitably vague as to appease both sides and effectively defer this decision until the trade deal is completed in late March 2019.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 7th December 2017, 10:17 PM

I really hope that you're right because my fear is that we will end up with number 1 because May will capitulate to the DUP and those looking to cut their nose off to spite their face.

If we were dealing with a UK government of rational people an option 4 of "remain in single market & customs union. UK & IRE remain in CTA continuing the permanent opt-out for IRE on the Schengen area to uphold the GFA. Rights of EU nationals in the UK & vice versa is protected by a bi-lateral agreement that continues right to study/work/live and provides for a joint EU-UK court of arbitration to settle disputes overseen by the UK Supreme Court and the EU Courts" would be available. Then again, if the government had been made up of rational people in 2010-2016 we wouldn't be wasting all our time and effort on this mess.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 7th December 2017, 10:27 PM

Despite the total incompetence of certain parts of the cabinet involved in the process thus far, I still have faith that they have enough sense to realise that going for the ‘nuclear option’ would not only be catastrophic for the UK but would effectively be political suicide and see the Conservative party out of power for a generation. Much as I'd love to see the Conservatives obliterated politically for a generation, I don't think the trade off would be ultimately worth it.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 7th December 2017, 10:30 PM

I don't think those pushing for the cliff actually care about the potential consequences for the island of Ireland and the GFA. That's what concerns me. Many of them see that as a sacrifice worth making for 'the cause'. (and they can all get in the sea)

Posted by: vidsanta 8th December 2017, 06:41 AM

iro your first point - that's how the usually HoC works, and we've seen from recent experience how coalitions prevent strong decisive gov'ts.

The nations didn't each have a bloc vote in the referendum - and AFAIK they never have in other situations. In any case, the other nations have more MP's than their population entitles them to, but you don't seem to mind *that*...

Posted by: vidsanta 8th December 2017, 06:58 AM

How could I not - I'm outnumbered at least 5-1 *here*, yet the referendum proves the real pro/anti-Brixit is virtually 50/50.

The article of faith again.



We've been through this before, too - the true consequences of Brexit cannot be known *before* the process is completed.

On the contrary, wait & see is what I've been advocating all along - it is *you* who've been preaching 'disaster' all along.

The only reason *I'm* reiterating the same old points is because *you* are also doing so - you think I like the repetition?



Don't pretend I haven't *tried* to do so, but I get kicked back every time because of irrational prejudice against my sources.

Posted by: PeaceMob 8th December 2017, 07:31 AM

Well done Theresa May and David Davis.

The EU Commission has now agreed that sufficient progress has been made and for negotiations to move onto Phase 2, and to start trade talks and the future relationship between the UK and the EU. Even Juncker himself has said the UK WILL be leaving on 29th March 2019.

Posted by: Soy Adrián 8th December 2017, 07:44 AM

Convenient time for you to reappear. I assumed you were hiding with David Davis' Brexit impact papers.

Posted by: vidsanta 8th December 2017, 07:59 AM

If we weren't a major net contributor, we'd have felt their boot on our ass on 24/6/2016...

Posted by: Popchartfreak 8th December 2017, 08:07 AM

I'm not "preaching" disaster, I'm extrapolating based on available facts, and blatantly obvious lies that were told. You have faith all will be well, I don't.

The overnight announcement (and let's see the details, not the media blurb) is the first instance of an actual step in the right direction (assuming nothing stupid has been agreed) and Davies had nothing to do with it - May had to sort out the mess. It was, BTW, entirely predicted by that propaganda comic Private Eye many many months ago - that a last-minute agreement would come forth after bluster and much panic.

There is no irrational prejudice against your sources. It's rational. Your complete reluctance to accept facts is irrational. Congrats though, you have at long last a positive story to hold up! Plain sailing from here until March 2019.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 8th December 2017, 08:10 AM

Correction: David Davies did not have much to do with this agreement.

The EU never doubted that the UK was leaving. Why do you think that wasn't the case? Has he said something along the lines of "The UK will never leave if I have anything to do with it"? Cos I don't recall that article.....

Posted by: PeaceMob 8th December 2017, 08:20 AM

No doubt, but since the EU are going to be our neighbours, I believe it would be better for everyone that the UK and the EU can be strong allies without the UK actually having to be in it.

Posted by: vidsanta 8th December 2017, 09:39 AM

I guess it's a breakthrough that you accept some forms of prejudice are rational.

Seriously though, I saw that story in the Mail, but figured there was no point posting their URL for it.

Posted by: vidsanta 8th December 2017, 09:40 AM

Maybe they took Gina Miller too seriously?




That has been my position all along - many Remainers mistakenly seem to equate Brexit with isolationism.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 8th December 2017, 09:48 AM

As predicted we've a sufficiently vaguely worded statement that placates the likes of REES-MOGG, DUNCAN-SMITH and BONE until the final deal is thrashed out in around 15 months time - no doubt it is just simply storing up the real problems and sticking points for later and simply 'kicking the can down the road' but I think all parties realised that failure to move on would have resulted in a collapse of government and even more chaos.

Incidentally I don't think David Davis has had much to do with anything, he looks the very definition of 'coasting to retirement' at the moment.

Posted by: vidsanta 8th December 2017, 10:44 AM

If you're allowed to have faith that all will be disastrous, then I hold that I am allowed to maintain the opposite view.

Posted by: Suedehead2 8th December 2017, 11:56 AM

You missed the point. John's belief (which I share) that it will be a disaster is backed up with facts. Your belief that it will be the most wonderful thing ever to have happened to any country in this (or any other) universe is based on blind faith.

Posted by: vidsanta 8th December 2017, 12:26 PM

Brexit won't even be completed for 15 months, so no *facts* can possibly be available before then, and probably not for several years after.

As for the other, I've never claimed Brexit will be a guaranteed success, only that I don't believe it will be the disaster many Remainers claim. In any case, I've made it clear that my main reason for voting Leave was political, rather than economic.

As a side issue, how would 'failure' even be defined in Brexit terms - it will surely be a matter of interpretation.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 8th December 2017, 12:54 PM

so, a few thoughts.

Hard Brexit seems more unlikely now, so well done TM for stepping up to the plate where the useless isloated Davies refused to.

We are paying £40b or so, it's a joy to have the right nutters have to eat humble pie over that, and it's pissed off Farage so a big bonus there.

There will be no border between Ireland/N Ireland or between N Ireland and the UK, so that's a great way for EU citizens, or anyone travelling via the EU, to have ongoing access to the UK (albeit illegally). Presumably this all relies on a trade deal, but that shouldn't be too hard given the way the UK has held firm with all of it's principles against the EU (as in, caved in as predicted).

8 years of European justice overseeing of EU citizens cases is sensible, and another matter Farage is moaning about so it must be good news.

we leave in march 2019, except that we also simultaneously have another 2 years to sort stuff out before actually being free to sort out trade deals out of the EU. So 2021 then.

S another Hard Brexit demand watered then. So, all in all, the UK might come out of this without having it's economy destroyed, and all of the BS spouted by Leavers about the EU caving in to our demands (Please note, the UK has caved in to EU demands) has proved to be just that - assuming a trade deal can be done.

See, I can be optimistic? I was also not wrong about the liars gotta lie bout caving in and the fanatical liars gotta lie Leavers didn't get their way.

I've probably missed a lot of stuff, but over to others...

Posted by: Yuki On Ice~ 8th December 2017, 01:23 PM

Meanwhile in sensible governments, the EU and Japan have agreed a huge trade deal worth 30% of global GDP. That would have been a nice deal for the UK. Too bad, I guess https://www.ft.com/content/f0f093fb-89e9-395d-b12a-39a789c321a1

So what I'm getting from this announcement is that we will probably stay in the customs union, Ireland will sort that. We may well stay in the single market, the regulatory agreement will see to that. We will after all be a lot like Norway, bound to the EU's rules, paying them for all of this hassle, just not getting a vote on their direction. Great taking back control that.

I'm happy it's not hard out, but it really begs the question, what was the fucking point?

Posted by: Winter Wombatland 8th December 2017, 06:12 PM

But now we're independent so will lose all those immigrants!111 Oh hang on...

I mean, fair play, this is actually a decent deal and we could actually come out OK with it, Farage calling is 'pathetic' exemplifies this even more and pleases me greatly, even though there's still quite a lot of questions left hanging and the question of trade and security.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 8th December 2017, 06:26 PM

Decent deal? Nothing has been agreed yet!! Only that 'sufficient progress has been made to move to the next stage of the negotiations'. The cabinet still don't agree on what kind of relationship the UK and EU should have outside of meaningless non-phrases such as a deep and special relationship. Theresa May has ruled out both remaining within the Customs Union and the Single Market and so the hard reality of that statement meeting the equally hard reality of 'how can that be possible without a hard border between Ireland / N Ireland?' has simply been kicked down the road to be sorted out at a later date because there is no real answer to that question, but to admit that now would risk the government collapsing!

Posted by: Suedehead2 13th December 2017, 07:18 PM

The Commons has just voted for an amendment insisting that there is a meaningful vote on the final agreement. A small step in the right direction.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 13th December 2017, 10:17 PM

309 to 305.. Oofffft.

What a great end to 2017.

Posted by: Suedehead2 13th December 2017, 11:23 PM

The howls of protest from many Leavers tonight has been entertaining. How dare MPs vote to be allowed to do their job?

Posted by: vidsanta 14th December 2017, 06:51 AM

But what is a 'meaningful vote' in this context? A HoC vote, or another referendum?

Posted by: vidsanta 14th December 2017, 07:45 AM

Another article I wish I'd written...

http://www.vernoncoleman.com/howthebritishmedia.htm


How The British Media Lied And Tricked Us Into Joining The EU

Vernon Coleman

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernon_Coleman

Posted by: Popchartfreak 14th December 2017, 09:38 AM

How the far right spread lies and hate

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/daily-stormer-nazi-style-guide_us_5a2ece19e4b0ce3b344492f2

Posted by: Suedehead2 14th December 2017, 09:45 AM

A vote that is more than a choice between accepting whatever deal May (or any successor) comes up with or leaving with no deal at all. The amendment was purely about what choices will be presented to the Commons.

Posted by: vidsanta 14th December 2017, 11:02 AM

There was no point in posting this in more than *one* thread, since I was only ever going to read it once.



But those are the only two realistic options, since the gov't has *no* mandate for remaining in the EU.

Posted by: Suedehead2 14th December 2017, 11:09 AM

Parliament can still vote to Remain. If parliament cannot vote against the government line, what is the point of it?

Posted by: Popchartfreak 14th December 2017, 11:51 AM

It was the same point and worth repeating.

You are using the techniques of spreading lies and you continue to do so. You are either gullible or doing it intentionally. Either way you further the right wing agenda as pushed and explained in the article.

Btw i see you are noticeably inactive in commenting on the progress of the brexit deals. I thought you would be over the moon that a deal has been reached and we can more likely be able to trade with our closest neighbours for the wellbeing of the uk and that british parliament can now democratically decide on the final deal representing the views of the british people. You DO want the uk to do well dont you? You did want british people to have a democratically elected parliament control our destiny? I certainly dont recall anything in the regerendum about electing May Queen as ruler over the queendom.

Posted by: vidsanta 14th December 2017, 12:24 PM

They *could* - but it would be political suicide. Who on earth would be dumb enough to piss off 17.4 million voters, a majority of whom support the party in power!

Posted by: vidsanta 14th December 2017, 12:30 PM

Any article that his a prominent picture of Hitler is instantly discredited - no sane person would use it to base any judgement on!




I haven't commented on it, because I didn't want to hear from smug Remainers who've get Brexit rescinded in all but name!

Posted by: Popchartfreak 14th December 2017, 07:24 PM

Brexit is going ahead as you voted for. What part of brexit means brexit dont you understand?

Posted by: Candlelit Snow 14th December 2017, 07:35 PM

So 37% of the electorate. If they support the shitty tories, then rvery single mp and rebel should vote against it.

Posted by: Yuki On Ice~ 15th December 2017, 06:50 AM

Be nuanced, the Tories can do good on occasion. What's more pertinent is that people barely hold the government to account for so many things, voter's memories are short and many get tired of a political story easily after weeks, let alone 18 months. The amount of votes they'd lose from 'betrayed' Brexiteer club members is nowhere near 17 million in size. And they're not going to reverse Brexit.



The only way I can read this is that you are advocating against learning any lessons from the most significant and ghastly event of the 20th century... for no other reason than because it's overused (which is largely because the vast majority of us find it rather important that it is not allowed to happen again), but this time, entirely justified. Some of the people you are siding with are literal neo-nazis and raging anti-semites. Please introspect yourself.



Yet more evidence that you do not admit to being wrong, you never attempt to introspect yourself and your beliefs, and you do not debate effectively, rather act like a child who hasn't got his way by refusing to engage with the points we are making.

Posted by: vidsanta 15th December 2017, 06:50 AM

The same part that no-one else understands either?

Seriously though - what we look like ending up with will see us stuck with almost everything about the EU that led us to vote Out.



What is it with you & % of electorate vs % of voters? Why are you the only one who cannot grasp that only the latter counts?

Also, where did this huge bee-in-your-bonnet about the Tories come from? I'm no fan of them myself, but you seem to regard them almost as the spawn of the devil!

Posted by: Suedehead2 15th December 2017, 10:57 AM

That's a bit unfair on the devil.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 15th December 2017, 11:28 AM

So you chose to disregard all the factual warnings of the remain campaign in favour of unrealistic lies about leaving institutions that the uk was a driving force in creating and forming.

There are still years of negotiations ahead and nobody has a clue what will happen, as i have said before we are involved in an exercise in damage limitation to avoid a catastrophic blow to the uk economy and you just dont seem to care if that happens

Posted by: vidsanta 15th December 2017, 12:22 PM

Grin.

At least you have a sense of humour about politics, unlike some others here.

Posted by: vidsanta 15th December 2017, 12:24 PM

Well if Project Fear hadn't been so OTT, then it might have been taken more seriously.

Replace 'care' with 'believe'.

Posted by: Candlelit Snow 15th December 2017, 06:40 PM

Have you seen the fascist daily Mail kicking off over starting to be on the losing side? The brainwashed babyboomers behind it are calling us 'soft headed millenials' ahahaha. Your timr is up, baby boomer Daily Mail lot. Let us take it from here ... and do a much better job of it.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 15th December 2017, 07:07 PM

Project fear was a campaign slogan thought up by the liars to discredit the campaign pre panic osbourne/cameron oar sticking in.

So Project Fear about Project Fear from people who cant cope with facts they dont like.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 15th December 2017, 07:15 PM

How rude! I piss myself laughing every time adolph farage opens his american-election homophobic-misoginistic-allegedpedophile-supporting mouth. That was just this weeks larks.

Still sticking his oar into foreign politics, i see.

I say I say I say, what do you call a book written by an right-wing extremist homophobic nutter?

Mein Camp.

Comedy gold!!

Posted by: vidsanta 16th December 2017, 07:04 AM

Well, you like handing it out, so why would you have a problem taking it?



Either way though, it worked.

The following is a genuine question (not that most of my others aren't - I jut feel the need to make it clear) :

Do you think the result would have been different if the Remain campaign had emphasized the positives of staying in, rather than the dangers of getting out?




But there's a big difference between laughing at someone, to *with* them. The former is mockery - something you would not tolerate if the target were, say, gay or non-white...

Posted by: Popchartfreak 16th December 2017, 10:39 AM

Yes i do think the remain campaign shoukd have stressed more positive points, though it would have been insane not to also state what we will be losing.

If the person was a gay or black or asian bigot my response would be exactly the same. So stop trying to make it sound like i tolerate such behaviour among nonwhite straight people because i dont and never have. Bigots and evil callous people come in all forms, and good people have to band together to keep them out of power, so as udual your remarks are just dumb wholesale bland sweeping statements because you choose to accept prejudice as an acceptable lifestyle choice and get pissed off at anyone who doesnt.

Posted by: vidsanta 16th December 2017, 12:34 PM

Do you think it would have made a difference to the result, though?



I suggest you re-read my post - I was referring to non-whites as victims of mockery, not perpetrators,

I *DO NOT* accept prejudice as an acceptable lifestyle choice, only as an inevitable downside of having freedom of speech.

I wish I had a penny for every time you misunderstood me.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 16th December 2017, 12:56 PM

Then you would have about 3p tops.

You misunderstand the implication of your own comment. I was mocking someone who supports people who wishes to take away votes from women, votes from black people, and who claims to be religious but is accused of being a pedophile. Someone who refuses to accept the democratic vote. Farage is a man who says it is wrong for obama to make a statement about trade deals after brexit - factually correct -while campainging for evil politicians in other countries.

Mocking someone for their opinions on antidemocratic principles is not the same as mocking someone for their sexuality or skin colour.

What part of that is misunderstanding what you said?

Posted by: Candlelit Snow 16th December 2017, 01:07 PM

The Guardian published an article saying it is time we discuss the Daily Mail's role in inciting hatred. And I agree.

The rag has no place in a civilised society when it calls people traitors for rejecting fascist control of our democracy. It is beyond belief.

Posted by: vidsanta 16th December 2017, 03:23 PM

Then you misunderstand how often you misunderstand me.

When did Farage ever say he wanted to take away votes from women or blacks?

Who has accused him of being a peadophile?

What democratic vote doesn't he accept - certainly not that of 23/6/16!






Is this the article you refer to

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/14/newspapers-react-to-mays-commons-defeat-by-tory-brexit-rebels

If not, then which? The Guardian has the worst search facility of any newspaper I know!



How ironic - by using phrases like 'fascist control' you are using the same kind of hyperbole you accuse the Mail of!

Posted by: Popchartfreak 16th December 2017, 05:06 PM

Farage has been in the usa campaigning for someone who DOES 100% believe and is accused of those things. He therefore supports them. He is not an american citizen and has no interest in having to support someone other than he wants to. If you had read my sentence correctly and paid attention to current events then i would not be having to repeat myself again. Your reading and writing skills need work.

The wanna be senator lost the vote but refuses to accept he lost, blaming blacks.

The daily hate spreads and incites people to threaten our elected mps with death by calling skilled legal TORIES - and im having to support and defend actual bloody tories here - traitors. They actually know the rushed bill is legally shite and will cause horrendous problems. You know, experts. Which the leading brexiters arent. All of the tories who regularly vote against their own party are the snotty thick ones pushing for a hard brexit. As always you show you know nothing and just repeat mail headlines. There is no rom in a democracy for calling elected democrats making reasoned accurate points traitors and shit stirring as they did in the 30s in support of fascism. As you werent born then and its never been on mail online you may want to google a bit to find out about it

Posted by: Candlelit Snow 16th December 2017, 05:21 PM

When we have MPs being threatened, one dead, and being called traitors for going against fascist dictator-style side-stepping of parliament, as the Mail did when the judges ruled on Mad May not having the authorty to vote it through herself, then no, it is doing a LOT of harm.

Posted by: ChristmasEve201 17th December 2017, 06:11 PM

That daily mail front page after the vote was so predictable and from the paper that published Hurrah for the Blackshirts!!

Posted by: Suedehead2 17th December 2017, 06:29 PM

Headlines such as "Smash the saboteurs", "Enemies of the people" and Thursday's shameful front page would be bad enough at any time. For them all to have come within just 18 months of an MP being murdered just makes them even worse. If anybody can find equally vile headlines from one of the few left-leaning papers in this country, then I will be happy to condemn them as well.

Posted by: Brett-Butler 17th December 2017, 06:49 PM

*Starts digging through the front pages of the Morning Star from the past few months, then stops after realising there's more productive things I could do with my time, like trimming my toenails.*

Posted by: ChristmasEve201 17th December 2017, 07:38 PM

Morning Star prob wouldn't be considered mainstream tho!

Posted by: Suedehead2 17th December 2017, 11:46 PM

Just thought it might be worth mentioning that the political editor of the Daily Mail has left to go and work in Downing Street.

Posted by: ChristmasEve201 17th December 2017, 11:54 PM

Oh Christ that's all we need!!

Posted by: vidsanta 18th December 2017, 07:00 AM

That'll put the cat among the pigeons!

Posted by: Soy Adrián 18th December 2017, 10:26 AM

More like the cat among the other cats.

Posted by: Candlelit Snow 18th December 2017, 02:03 PM

The revolving door between media and Tories and Tories and media, including BBTory, is gross.

Posted by: Brett-Butler 18th December 2017, 02:32 PM

I assume you're also opposed to Corbyn having ex-Guardian journos, like Seumas 'America deserved 9/11' Milne, working for him?

Posted by: Candlelit Snow 18th December 2017, 02:34 PM

When it is from ONE source, it is not so institutionalised as the Tories with MANY DIFFERENT, including state 'non-biased' broadcaster, sources of shared employment. However, yes I would like to see the revolving door shut to all of them.

Posted by: Brett-Butler 18th December 2017, 06:19 PM

You do realise that until relatively recently, Corbyn's deputy communications director was someone who had been employed by, in your own words, thttps://labourlist.org/2017/08/corbyns-office-loses-communications-chief/? A quick Google search would have told you that, and if I dug even further, you could probably find other individuals within Corbyn's team with previous media experience, across many different media entities. It's kind of important for political parties to understand the inner workings of as many media organizations as possible, and the Labour Party is no exception.

I'm not sure if the Lib Dems has much of a communications team. I imagine its Head of Communications once held the lofty position of Chief Volleyball Correspondent for the Grimsby Mercury...

Posted by: Suedehead2 18th December 2017, 07:34 PM

Before the 2010 election the Lib Dems had a very effective press team. Unfortunately, they didn't prove to be as good at the job for a party in government as they were for a party in opposition. That left them getting stitched up by the Tories on a host of issues.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 18th December 2017, 08:45 PM

This appointment is apparently from the man who wrote of our Judges "Enemies Of The People", so Mrs May's wet response to MP death threats triggered by another Mail headline looks as shallow and insincere as all the previous ones from the woman who sent vans round streets telling foreigners to leave the country. I expect we can see whoever wrote the most recent Mail headline joining her team in the near future unless, presumably, one of her colleagues has actually been murdered.

Just saying....

Posted by: Suedehead2 18th December 2017, 08:53 PM

I have been reminded of a front page headline in the Times in January - May to EU: Give us a fair deal or you'll be crushed. How do people think that is going?

Posted by: Suedehead2 18th December 2017, 08:54 PM

Something tells me May forgot to suggest headline writers ought to act a little more responsibly.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 18th December 2017, 09:03 PM

There's been a lot of fannying about for no actual progress. For the lack of progress that has been made they should have had a basic agreement about 3 weeks after the EU published their position paper.

Only real point they got some potential movement on was the Divorce bill but the EU never really put a concrete number on it so it was always speculation and leaks about how much it was. The cynic in me wonders if this was leaked a little higher than it ever truly was so that it looked a little like a win for the Government, but then I remember this lot are incompetent f***ers who couldn't piss themselves so I ruled that out.

Posted by: ChristmasEve201 19th December 2017, 01:09 AM

Milne isn't your average journalist tbf!

Posted by: Doctor Blind 21st December 2017, 11:03 AM

Now that Damian Green has been sacked /forced to resign, when is Davy Davy resigning in honour to support his right to 'w*** at work' ??

Posted by: vidsanta 21st December 2017, 11:31 AM

If he also went then I dare say a significant proportion of all MP's would have to go.

Posted by: ChristmasEve201 21st December 2017, 12:27 PM

Probably a blow for the soft brexiteers in the cabinet as he was one of the more centrists close to May, interesting to see who his replacement is.

Posted by: vidsanta 22nd December 2017, 07:37 AM

It seems not everyone is as pessimistic about Britain's future prospects as this group's Remainers are :

https://news.sky.com/story/uk-best-country-for-business-in-2018-forbes-annual-rankings-11178253

Posted by: Popchartfreak 22nd December 2017, 08:02 AM

Forbes, the billionaires club magazine, who see a UK vision of low employment rights and people desperate for jobs to take advantage of, low tax for business, law that supports business not individuals or the general public (Hi Bankers!) and who also say anything could happen but choose to ignore the "political" risks in their assessment, not a mention, not one single one, of Brexit issues.

In other words, almost as if someone had a word in their ear.....

I'm sure any other glossy magazine could offer advice on How To Ignore Reality too, if they depended on sucking up to rich folk....

Posted by: vidsanta 22nd December 2017, 08:44 AM

I don't know why I'm even surprised when you have a trite comeback to everything I post.

I guess this is why I prefer Usenet, where the Remain'Leave balance is a lot closer to the 50/50 split that actually exists.

Posted by: Soy Adrián 22nd December 2017, 09:32 AM

Do they tolerate you not giving an answer to inconvenient questions there?

Posted by: Suedehead2 22nd December 2017, 09:48 AM

Anyone looking at certain front pages this morning or listening to the BBC news would think that the EU forced us to have a burgundy passport. Here is a picture of all EU countries' passports.

Posted by: Suedehead2 22nd December 2017, 09:55 AM

You mean the report where the UK's worst rating is for political risk? And the report that gives the UK a high rating for red tape, i.e.they don't think it is a significant problem.

Posted by: vidsanta 22nd December 2017, 10:16 AM

Ah , but you can use kill-files on Usenet...

As for 'inconvenient questions' , it's a Catch-22 situation - If I answer them, my responses are dismissed as 'Daily Mail propaganda', and if I don't answer, I then get accused of dodging inconvenient questions!

Maybe the plan is to make me feel like an oppressed minority group?

Posted by: Popchartfreak 22nd December 2017, 01:09 PM

Just back up your views from a reputable source and I for one will accept the viewpoint. Nobody is topping you holding whatever opinion you want to hold. There is also no law that says anyone else should treat it like the word of a wise Prophet preaching from the top of a mountain either. Most rabid Brexiters prefer to chat amongst other rabid Brexiters so they can re-inforce each others views, so in that respect I'm quite happy to say you are exceptional and at least willing to venture forth into unknown territory.

Surely WE are the oppressed minority though, or rather, majority, in not wanting a Hard Brexit? That we are better at arguing our case suggests that those pushing for it have either less facts, or less ability (and I'm talking about the professional politicians, here, not the less involved public).

Posted by: vidsanta 22nd December 2017, 02:38 PM

I doubt there's any source that we'd both consider reputable though, so that's likely to create an impasse. Perhaps you could recommend a Brexit-supporting source that you nonetheless consider reputable, so that we could make progress?

Posted by: Popchartfreak 22nd December 2017, 09:03 PM

wish I could help you there, but damned if I've found one yet....

Posted by: ChristmasEve201 22nd December 2017, 11:05 PM

Sounds like the Tory Parties manifesto there Pop!

Posted by: ChristmasEve201 22nd December 2017, 11:10 PM

I know and May tweets as if she has made a huge patriotic reverse to gain votes from populists! I will proudly hold my Red Irish passport in NI!!

Posted by: Suedehead2 22nd December 2017, 11:31 PM

You would also think from the news coverage that we had had a blue passport for at least 500 years. We actually had it for about 80 years. Before that we had a single piece of plain paper. Then a group of nations got together and devised a set of standards for passports with which we had to comply. A whole series of other changes were forced upon us by the USA.

Posted by: ChristmasEve201 23rd December 2017, 12:19 AM

Imagine working together with other countries to work things out!!

Posted by: vidsanta 23rd December 2017, 06:43 AM

Well, there's the problem - if you consider Brexit indefensible, then what's the point asking me to defend my position, when you know in advance that nothing I say will be accepted by you?



What about the problems that are *generated* by working with other countries, e.g. cultural and religious ones?

Posted by: vidsanta 23rd December 2017, 09:47 AM

Something just occurred to me :

Some people here seem to consider Brexiters to be under-educated xenophobes brainwashed by the Daily Mail.

Also, there have been regular calls for all matters Brexit to be decided by our elected representatives.

But since some of our MP's are themselves Leave supporters, does that tar them with the same brush as ordinary Leave voters?

Posted by: Popchartfreak 23rd December 2017, 09:54 AM

I'm always willing to be convinced by evidence. Only a fool denies reality. For example, there are reports coming out now that the UK has seen an upswing in the last few months in foreign trade. That's good news.

What you then have to ask, is...

Where exactly is the trade coming from?
Will it be affected by Brexit?
Is it in upswing because we have had a downswing immediately before that so it's just returning to where it was?

How does it compare to pre-referendum?
How does it compare to pre-banking crisis?

Now, a propaganda machine will just report the fact and spin it into something marvellous and proof that Brexit is working terribly well. Someone who isn't an idiot would ask the right questions. It's not difficult. Gullible people just accept the statement on face value and don't question it, or anything.

Posted by: ChristmasEve201 23rd December 2017, 09:56 AM

With Brexit I think it's a case of reality vs ideology like all political debates

Posted by: Popchartfreak 23rd December 2017, 06:08 PM

that's not my experience of people who support Remain and people who support Brexit. The former tend to be well-educated, moderate, well-informed people, the latter, irrational, impulsive, poorly-informed on the whole. That obviously can't apply to everyone - but then people look for reasons to support their pre-conceived opinions and nothing shakes that belief.

What you should understand is that remainers don't CHOOSE to oppose Brexit out of ideology, they do it out of practicality and an assessment of evidence. That is not in any way something that can be applied to Brexiters, most of whom having particular angry whinges about something, while remaining oblivious or unconcerned or both about the problems that exist due to Brexit.

Posted by: ChristmasEve201 23rd December 2017, 09:27 PM

That's a little harsh on brexiteers imo - I'm not one of them but I respect their opinion and argue it back 100% with my opinion trying to justify my opinions and trying to alay their fears which remainers haven't been able to do both now or during. The referendum campaign.

Posted by: vidsanta 24th December 2017, 07:00 AM

Perhaps we have legitimate reasons to be angry, e.g. signing up to what we thought would be just a free-trade area, only to see it morph into an expansionist political entity. The Left usually have major issues with imperialism, but how is EU 'imperialism' different from, say, British Empire imperialism?



I just wish I could convince people here that my objections to the EU are politically based, not the populist ones claimed here. The only EU immigrants I have ever complained about, are the convicted criminals who seek to avoid deportation by manipulating HR laws - ones that were intended to protect citizens from their governments, NOT criminals from the consequences of their actions!

Posted by: ChristmasEve201 24th December 2017, 10:23 AM

Well that's fair enough!

Posted by: Popchartfreak 24th December 2017, 10:43 AM

Because we democratically CHOSE to become members of the organisation WE HELP SET UP AND SET THE RULES FOR, and continue to vote for every change that was mutually agreed.

The other was military might imposing it's will and running weaker nations and lands against their wishes.

If you can't tell the difference between the two then it's not very flattering on your basic ability to understand simple concepts.

Unless you are just confused. Or just saying the first thing that pops into your head in attempts to provoke arguments.

I think that covers the options.

Posted by: Suedehead2 24th December 2017, 11:07 AM

How many more times do you need to be told that there was plenty of information available at the time to make clear that the Common Market was more than a free trade area? How is the single market not a logical extension of the free trade area?

Posted by: vidsanta 24th December 2017, 11:23 AM

By 'we', you mean the gov't, *not* the electorate...

I'm not saying there's no difference in *methods* - just in aims.



There's a difference between info being available and it being *publicised*- that's my point.

IMO the very fact that people who could have voted in the 1975 referendum, are now the main core of brexiters, suggests very strongly that I'nm not alone in thinking that we were misled.

Posted by: ChristmasEve201 24th December 2017, 12:31 PM

I think the concern is people in the U.K. Can see how their MPs stand up for them and change thing but this has been less clear voting in eu elections and only see the drawbacks such as social changes created by free movement between nations of differing development. The eu parliament is so bureaucratic and isn't reported on enough in th uk - apart from the negatives which have been hyped up in the uk press since 1992 and Boris Johnstons Times columns from the late 90s.

Posted by: Suedehead2 24th December 2017, 01:53 PM

Who was supposed to publicise it? It was stated very clearly in Commons debates. The PM made it clear in a letter to the electorate. If that wasn't reported widely enough, whose fault is that? Besides, surely the oft-quoted words "ever closer union" in the Treaty of Rome are pretty clear.

Posted by: vidsanta 24th December 2017, 02:31 PM

Yeah right, it means about as much as 'Brexit is Brexit'

Posted by: Popchartfreak 24th December 2017, 08:11 PM

Ever closer union - means a union that is ever-closer.

Brexit MEANS Brexit, I think you mean - means a simplistic vote to leave means we can leave in any fashion that the Tory Government chooses to interpret what it means and somehow magically read the minds of everyone who voted Brexit and know instantly what reasons they voted for on every single topic related to every single Brexit topic which magically also happens to be exactly how the government interprets it. Whatever that is. It changes on a daily basis.

Simple enough......

Posted by: Popchartfreak 24th December 2017, 08:18 PM

That's not what you said. The various governments were elected by us. How do you propose we deal with other countries? Phone them up individually? Send smoke signals? Morse code novels on every line in every agreement?

The British Empire walked in and took lands, killed the native inhabitants, and raided the natural resources without the need for elections of any sort whatsoever, be they British citizens or non-British. Now if any EU countries started invading us (there is precedent) then quite rightly we can a bit uppity about and forcefully express our displeasure. As I recall we were besties with Poland at the time. Oddly enough, Tezza May is also trying to be besties with Poland - for doing away with independent democratic legal systems that can be controlled by politicians. I wonder why that appeals so much to her.....

Posted by: vidsanta 25th December 2017, 07:17 AM

But 'ever closer union' is just as vague. Do you really think voters in 1975 would have been as happy if they'd realized that that meant : open borders, our courts being overruled, our economic freedem being undermined, etc?



At least in that scenario the threat is obvious, and resistance movements can organise - what the EU does is far more insidious, taking over by stealth while fooling people into believing it is benign...

Posted by: Suedehead2 25th December 2017, 12:25 PM

You mean those things that have only happened in the Daily Mail's imagination?

Posted by: vidsanta 25th December 2017, 05:16 PM

Whatever the currently approved EU euphemisms are, that *is* what is happening!

Posted by: Suedehead2 25th December 2017, 05:22 PM

Have you really never heard of the word veto?

Posted by: vidsanta 26th December 2017, 06:45 AM

If it worked, we wouldn't be leaving the EU in the first place.

Posted by: Candlelit Snow 26th December 2017, 03:55 PM

Yes we would because of the right wing press.

It works.

In more can't make it up news, the Daily Mail's front page is a snowflake, tantrum-filled cry of, I kid you not,

"Stop Sneering Blue Passports"

UNBELIEVABLE 😂😂😂🤣

Posted by: vidsanta 26th December 2017, 04:05 PM

It's like they're trolling, and you're falling for it every time.

Posted by: Candlelit Snow 26th December 2017, 04:12 PM

I don't read that trash, so I don't fall for their right wing brainwashing,

Posted by: Popchartfreak 26th December 2017, 08:50 PM

1. Yes
2. No it isn't. You are saying murdering swathes of native populations is preferable to democratic changes. You are wrong and your morality is deeply flawed. Before you say "misunderstanding what i say" if that isn't what you believe then correct your sentence, because mass murder and ethic cleansing is evil, and the other situation is at best just annoying to people like you.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 26th December 2017, 08:51 PM

he really HASN'T heard of the concept of veto at all has he? All countries must agree on changes, as we shall shortly find out on the other end of it.

Posted by: vidsanta 27th December 2017, 06:32 AM

1. Then why did so many people who must've voted Yes in 1975, change their minds?

2. The British Empire sincerely believed that they were civilizing the colonies, and that those who resisted the process had to be 'dealt with'. That doesn't excuse what they did, but they were certainly no worse than anyone else by the standard of those times. They did create infrastructure that is still useful to this day though.

Posted by: vidcapper 27th December 2017, 06:50 AM

We got it wrong on Brexit gloom, economists admit: Buoyant British economy is set to power past France by 2020

CEBR think-tank claimed the economy would slow because of a drop in spending
But last night the organisation admitted it had got this wrong
Its economists accepted the fears they expressed last year that Brexit would leave the UK behind the French economy for five years were exaggerated

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5212079/We-got-wrong-Brexit-gloom-economists-admit.html

Posted by: Popchartfreak 27th December 2017, 09:29 AM

1. how would you know? You werent of voting age and neither was I. My parents were and didnt change their mind. They were also post WW2 and were young. A lot of old people feel insecure as they grow older and rose-tint back to happier times that actually werent happier then for older people - they were just young. Neither of us has statistics to back up our viewpoint, its just assumption.

2. I don't care what the moral standards were hundreds of years ago. We are talking about moral standards now. Do you or don't you believe that genocide is preferable to a democratic system that legally protects human rights. If your answer is not "No" then your morals are warped. If you have proof that the EU does not practice what it preaches feel free to provide evidence.

Posted by: vidcapper 27th December 2017, 10:11 AM

1. Obviously I can't *know* for certain, but I can think of no other place for the Brexit vote to come from, if not disillusioned 1975 Yes voters, since we *do* know it didn't come from the young.

2. Of course my answer is No (I'm dismayed you could ever doubt that. ), but does that mean I should ignore other potential methods of gaining influence over a country?

Posted by: Popchartfreak 27th December 2017, 01:12 PM

1. The bulk of the votes came from people like you, those too young to remember the 40's to 60's, but old enough to look back on those times as some sort of glorious golden age that never existed, assuming things were much better then (they weren't).

2. Glad to hear it. I have no problem with you disliking any political system, but you tend to hyperbole when it comes to the EU, as if it is as bad as some evil murdering Nazi empire, when at worst it's a bureaucratic, albeit well-intentioned, flawed system. Just like every other democratic system in the world. Democracy is a work in progress and always will be until the end of time because life is complex. You think the Tories have our interests at heart as a nation, I don't, I trust the EU more than I trust the Tories or Corbyn. So no more hyperbole, and just agree to disagree.

Posted by: vidcapper 27th December 2017, 03:19 PM

1. Doesn't *everyone* strive towards something better than currently exists, whether it be past or future?

One of my particular bugbears is the casualisation of the Labour market over the last several decades. My dad worked at the same company for almost his whole working life, and that gave his family the security all always knowing where the next paycheque was coming from. That security is now lost for most people in the workplace now.

But I digress.

2. I have very little trust in governments, period, that's why I prefer referenda - they are voted on by people who have direct experience that gov'ts know about only secondhand. Yes, I employ hyperbole, but I'm hardly alone in that, and cynicism plus devils advocacy has always been part of my posting style - I find that's the best way of projecting the sincerity of my opinions.

Posted by: Suedehead2 27th December 2017, 05:27 PM

If all countries decided major issues by referendum, homosexual acts would still be illegal. Is that OK by you?

On your other point, the loss of job security is down to the action (or inaction) of successive governments, not the EU. The same applies to so many other things that Leave voters have raised.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 27th December 2017, 05:48 PM

*everything.


People are going to find out real quick that the EU was used as a boogeyman and isn't actually the cause of the issues that the right-wing rags used to blame on the EU.

Posted by: Suedehead2 27th December 2017, 06:14 PM

But it did work. Can you name any law which we have had to implement against the will of the British government?

Posted by: Candlelit Snow 27th December 2017, 06:26 PM

I think the fact he thinks it did not work shows he was manipulated by big right wing media.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 27th December 2017, 08:16 PM

1. I agree with your digression, every word. Don't be shocked!

2. Neither do I trust governments, but I dont trust stupidly simple referendums on complex issues either. The honest approach would be to go back to the people - if we MUST accept that Brexit os 100% happening - and now that there has been a period of reflection explain the options and see what people actually WANT, not what politicians claim they want (and that means EVERYBODY who is affected by Brexit, not just those that voted Leave).

Posted by: Brett-Butler 27th December 2017, 11:31 PM

To change tack slightly, I've got a thought that I'm not too sure has been addressed yet - if, as it appears to be with the current negotiations, that the UK does not leave in 2019 after the 2 year process, and instead leaves in 2020 or 2021, what will happen in regards to elections to the European Parliament in 2019? I'd taken it as a given that if the UK left in 2019, then there wouldn't be any elections in the UK to the European Parliament as the UK would already have been withdrawn from the EU at that point. However, if this is delayed by two years, then there is the argument that the UK should be allowed to vote in the EU elections in 2019, as there would still be two years that the UK would still be in the EU, and there would need to be some representation in the EU for the UK until the point that the Brexit actually happened.

And if that were the case, and the UK did vote in the EU in 2019, then there could be some major surprises if certain parties did better/worse than expected. UKIP would most likely lose a lot of their seats, and an improvement in strength of the Lib Dems could give the Remainers a 2nd wind (although it wouldn't be hard for the Lib Dems to improve on the sole MEP they won in 2014).

Posted by: Suedehead2 27th December 2017, 11:39 PM

I think it depends a lot on whether it is still assumed that the UK will ultimately leave the EU. If that is the assumption, I would guess that the UK's MEPs would stay in office until the day we leave. OTOH, if the elections go ahead, it would be an ideal opportunity for parties supporting Remain to get their message across and, potentially, win more votes than the neanderthals.

Posted by: vidcapper 28th December 2017, 07:07 AM

To clarify : Do you mean 'Do I think that homosexual acts should still be illegal' or 'Do I think that people should be able to decide issues like that in referenda'?



I wish you'd tell 'Candlelit Snow' that iro the Tories, too.



My opinions are based on by own observations & experience - any correlation to what the right-wing media posts is purely coincidental.


1. I am surprised when anyone agrees with me on *anything* here. The casualization of the workforce is inextricably connected with Thatcher's emasculation of the unions though.

2. Referenda need to be binary in order to produce a majority answer. I can't think of any way of asking the question that avoids the issues that causes.



I've been wondering that, too,




Does the above derogatory reference to Leavers grant me one opportunity to use the term 'Remoaners' in retaliation?

Posted by: Suedehead2 28th December 2017, 08:28 AM

You could always answer both.

Posted by: vidcapper 28th December 2017, 09:46 AM

Letting voters decide on moral issues tends to be a minefield - just look at what happened with US Prohibition.

Better to let politicians do it, then they get the flak if it all goes pear-shaped!

Posted by: Popchartfreak 28th December 2017, 09:50 AM

I'm in favour of any option that gives Nigel Farage his 80+k pension sooner than later, as he will no longer be able to moan about the UK paying it's dues to the EU: effectively UK taxpayers will be paying his outrageous pension for the rest of his life. Perhaps one actual reasonable argument he had was the size of the pension - and he intends to have it, totally making him look like an utter hypocrite just spouting words.

If the shoe fits....

Posted by: vidcapper 28th December 2017, 10:26 AM

Unless the EU insist on it for continued access to the Free market...

Posted by: Popchartfreak 28th December 2017, 09:53 PM

you miss the point. The Uk will be paying what it owes, that includes contributions to pensions (including British MEP's like Farage). He says he wants the UK to refuse to pay it - yet he still wants his diamond-plated pension. How does he think it will be paid for? That the UK voter is going to agree to give him one if the UK refuses to contribute and British MEP's get nowt? Pretty sure we would all say on yer bike, stick to mouthing off on radio which is money for old rope anyway.

Posted by: vidcapper 30th December 2017, 07:33 AM

Wasn't Brexit supposed to completely collapse our economy...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5222253/Employment-breaks-ten-records-year-new-highs.html#ixzz52ivJY0pB

Employment breaks ten records in a year including new highs for older people, women and ethnic minorities in work

The number of people in work in the UK also at a new high of 32.14 million people

Department for Work and Pensions says employment reached 75.3 per cent

Employment minister Damian Hinds hailed the impact of benefit reforms

Posted by: Doctor Blind 30th December 2017, 08:30 AM

Some of the economic predictions were I think 'overhyped' in order to scare people into voting for the status quo, however I would hardly portray our economy as healthy and worthy of celebration - especially since we haven't actually left the EU yet.

The economy is working at full capacity and yet growth is mediocre, wages are stagnating and productivity is also flatlining. To me, that's deeply concerning.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 30th December 2017, 11:58 AM

Real wage growth is negative because inflation has skyrocketed due to a collapse in the currency and the jobs market is overinflated by millions of insecure zero-hours contracts.

Its fabulous that more people are working, its great for the economy and for them. However there has been no signs of increased labour market participation translating to increased productivity which is a major problem for our economy.

Posted by: vidcapper 30th December 2017, 12:36 PM

Inflation 'skyrocketing'?

You're talking to someone who remembers it being regularly in double figures - even as high as 25%...

http://www.inflation.eu/inflation-rates/great-britain/historic-inflation/cpi-inflation-great-britain.aspx

Posted by: Suedehead2 30th December 2017, 02:44 PM

Just a couple years ago cameron and Osborne were boasting that the UK economy was growing faster than any other in the G7. UK growth is now the lowest in the G7.

The UK economy is the only major European economy where growth is positive but real wages are falling.

Inflation may be a long way short of the levels seen in the 1970s and '80s, but it is rising.

Productivity remains well below that of our competitors.

We are about to throw away the best trade deal this country has ever had.

Posted by: vidcapper 30th December 2017, 02:58 PM

That remains to be seen - but it was still our choice to make.

Posted by: Candlelit Snow 30th December 2017, 03:04 PM

No, it was the choice of billionaire press barons and 51%. So no.

Posted by: vidcapper 30th December 2017, 03:08 PM

Even billionaire press barons have only one vote each - and how would *they* benefit from Brexit anyway?

Posted by: Candlelit Snow 30th December 2017, 03:09 PM

Good thing they tell millions how to vote then ey and have platforms to brainwash and sway millions

Posted by: vidcapper 30th December 2017, 03:14 PM

They can't *tell* people how to vote, only present the Leave case to them. I assume you have no problem with the public money pumped in by the gov't to support the Remain side?

Posted by: Candlelit Snow 30th December 2017, 03:17 PM

'BeLEAVE in Britain: Vote LEAVE in the referendum to get back control

Hi hmm...

Posted by: vidcapper 30th December 2017, 03:24 PM

Are you suggesting we won't get back control, once we leave?

Posted by: Candlelit Snow 30th December 2017, 04:01 PM

No, I am disputong your point that Murdoch and co don't tell people how to vote. They do it every single time. What was th front page for the election? Dodn't it have the words 'vote Conservative' on there somewhere? Pretty sure it did.

Posted by: vidcapper 30th December 2017, 04:30 PM

OK then, even if they are saying that, it doesn't mean that voters don't have the free will to make their own choice, regardless.

Also, if people are reading a Conservative supporting paper. surely they're more inclined to vote Tory *anyway*?

Posted by: Candlelit Snow 30th December 2017, 04:41 PM

Wrong.

They read them out of buyer habit and from the fact those papers pretend to speak for everyone. The Sun also switches its allegiance to whichever corporate party Mudoch thinks will win/ wants to win at the time.

Posted by: Soy Adrián 30th December 2017, 04:43 PM

"See, the economy's doing really well! Brexit will be fine!"

Several key statistics show the economy is slowing down and looking in rather bad shape

"It's too soon to draw any conclusions until after we leave"

Posted by: Candlelit Snow 30th December 2017, 04:44 PM

I noticed this ironic change of stance too

Posted by: Popchartfreak 30th December 2017, 04:54 PM

So, people who should be retired are having to work longer (hooray for us having to carry on working rather than enjoying life!)

So, women are having to work longer than they used to (60), hooray for having to work longer rather than enjoying life!

32 million people in work is because so many of us (including me) are now job sharing, so the figures are massaged bollocks. How many of those jobs are FULL-TIME and PERMANENT. That's the key point. How many of those jobs are because older people can't afford to retire and are therefore kept in the job market doing part-time work? If there are only 23 million jobs which are full-time it's bullshit. If 5 million are zero hour contracts and the jobs seasonal than that's also bullshit.

Then Damian Distorty makes bogus claims about tax breaks meaning all these people are fabulously well off, when in actual fact the cost of living has far exceeded any wage rises or tax breaks (except for the rich), so this is also bullshit.

Plus, oh yes, BREXIT HASN'T HAPPENED YET. Just a small point. The Mail said the EU would be climbing over themselves to give us fabulous deals on trade. All that has happened so far: Pound has dropped and stayed dropped compared to May 2016. Inflation. Some jobs have moved to the EU (just a small amount so far, but...). We have agreed to all the EU's terms, including the cost of leaving. Workers enetring the country to support the NHS (and so on) have dropped, leaving vacancies unfilled. I don't see zero hours pensioners taking on these sort of jobs in the near or far future...

Daily Mail: a voice you can guarantee to give you a one-sided view with no intellectual assessment of reality....

Posted by: Suedehead2 30th December 2017, 05:04 PM

Most of the points I made were facts, not speculation. The only vaguely speculative one was the trade deal, but nobody has yet explained why the EU would give us a trade deal at least as good as the one we already have.

Posted by: vidcapper 1st January 2018, 07:41 AM

The latest strange idea by the gov't :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/31/dads-army-volunteers-help-border-force-patrol-britains-coastline/
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/dec/31/ministers-consider-using-volunteers-to-guard-uk-borders

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 1st January 2018, 11:10 AM

How anyone could even begin to think that is a good idea.

Same with the police really. Just hire people to do the job properly.

Posted by: Suedehead2 1st January 2018, 01:12 PM

It certainly seems to be a rather bizarre idea.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 1st January 2018, 05:37 PM

but Brexit is guaranteed to give us shitloads of money to spend on all those ships we will need to patrol, all those borders in Ireland to man, and extra staff at ports airports to carefully check all those EU people trying to enter the country illegally.....

Then chase up those that slip through the net. What sort of numpty would volunteer to do a job for nothing? One with mates smuggling goods or people, most likely.

In other words, it's the government starting to make announcements about all the money they are going to have to spend, having denied it would cost anything. Just making sure we all get used to the idea that Brexit is going to be very expensive just so we can't say we weren't warned......(2 years later)

Posted by: vidcapper 2nd January 2018, 06:46 AM

Ah, but not all of us voted for Brexit in the belief it would guarantee saving money - after all, you can't put a price on sovereignty.

On a side issue, thanks to everyone who *didn't* vote for me as The Poster Who Represents The Worst Of Buzzjack' - I feared I would be a shoe-in, given how much I argue with people here.

Posted by: Soy Adrián 2nd January 2018, 08:29 AM

It's going to be fun watching that be tested over the next few years.


Not that I got round to voting, but thankfully you don't really represent the forum as a whole.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 2nd January 2018, 09:18 AM

Plenty of folk however did vote on that assumption (because thats what they were told by Leavers). Evidence suggests that Rees-Mogg, Johnson, Mr May, newspaper billionaires & co with offshore millions and millions (and Rees-Mogg who advises other millionaires and billionaires where to avoid UK taxes) may have personal reasons for wanting a very hard Brexit - to beat the forthcoming EU changes to stop this in 2019. What a coincidence that they all keep campaigning for hard Brexit! They stand to lose millions if it's anything that keeps those rules. One can see why T. May was so keen to get that march 2019 deadline in stone.

Funny that. Rich establishment people standing to make shitloads out of Brexit, the rest of us standing to lose money. Whoda thought it?

I don't usually vote in personal rates, it's a bit like picking your fave or least-fave nieces and nephews and then telling them, oops! Praise for good work, that's fine, though.

Posted by: vidcapper 2nd January 2018, 10:45 AM

Although that cannot be proven one way or the other for years.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 2nd January 2018, 11:59 AM

just ask them. You know, real life actual talking to people, and see who voted for what and what they thought they were getting. You dont have to wait for a poll, you know...

If you mean it cant be proven that we are going to be worse off, thats pretty much a given that we will be, no-one is claiming otherwise now, not even brain-dead leading Brexiteers*. They can wish-fulfilment that 20 years from now we will be living in paradise, but we've already had a decade of misery and half a lifetime of it won't appeal to most people on the offchance that they might be happier and more affluent as they approach their (ever-more-distant) pension. By which time there will be no way of proving one way or the other whether we will still be worse off compared to if we'd stayed in the EU, even if it's going marvellously and the generation wrenched out hasn't taken us back in.

(* campaign (everyone): we will save shitloads of money that we send to the EU, and be free to make easy trade deals that will make us better off.

Now: It's a matter of principle, and worth any cost to be free of the tyrants sending stormtroopers into the streets to force children to sweep chimneys and accept zero hour wages)

PS No it isn't worth any cost. And the EU is against that sort of thing, unlike Tories who'd have 5-year-olds back up chimneys in a flash if coal reserves were easy to mine and the they didn't come across looking a bit heartless.

PPS Sarcastic exaggeration for effect. Not all Tories are Victorian trolls. Only some are.

Posted by: vidcapper 2nd January 2018, 02:58 PM

You just described pretty much what pollsters do.

But the referendum was only 18 months ago...

Assuming you refer to the austerity measures though, they were necessary, given that the previous Lab gov't had spent us into massive debt.



Hey,I thought I had the copyright on sarcastic exaggeration.

Posted by: Candlelit Snow 2nd January 2018, 03:07 PM

WRONG

WRONG

WRONG!!!

WRONG AGAIN

Do NOT come in here with that Daily Mail Tory lir.

The fact of the matter is a giant banking CRASH caused the GLOBAL crisis and debt, NOT Labour. Labour's deregulation of the banks did not help o course, but the Tories voted for that and wanted even MORE deregulation!

A country economy is NOT like a household one. Labour was investing money into infrastructure. That is all. It did NOT cause the recession and did NOT overspend. Gifdeon Osborne even agreed to that recently.

Austerity is wrong. It is a political choicw, not an economic one.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 2nd January 2018, 05:42 PM

Austerity was not necessary, it was an ideological choice. A choice that has caused billions of pounds of damage

Posted by: Candlelit Snow 2nd January 2018, 06:15 PM

I literally cannot believe h came in here wth tha Murdoch lie.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 2nd January 2018, 09:14 PM

Any countries with weak banking oversight (like the UK) and indifferent attitudes towards banks lending habits (like the UK) and in particular countries that allowed banks to sell crap that it was supposed to be checking on (like the UK) having set the trend for allowing banks to get ever bigger until they were too large and powerful to argue with and be allowed to fail (like the UK) while claiming they were a safe stable pair of hands (like the UK) ended up with a banking crisis and an economy wrecked for a decade (the UK). Thatcher started the ball rolling, but Brown and Blair were entirely complacent and complicit in it (with the full support of the Tories who originated the policy). That we allowed banking to be our primary moneymaking national tool meant governments were terrified to do what needed to be done, so they did nothing and the market did it for them. They were warned many times by annoying "experts"....

Not all countries had to rescue global banks because they had very tight regulations, and kept a close eye on what they were up to (see canada, which is why we employ ol' Marky boy so he can do his bit to bring his reputation into a system that is still largely flawed, but not quite as flawed as it was under Gordon Brown "The Iron Chancellor").

The fact that it was a global problem is a direct condemnation of all governments that failed to do their duty, it's not a "get out of jail free" card because it was a Labour government in power. Had it been a Tory government pursuing exactly the same policies that Labour opposed then Labour would have the superior moral stance. I'm not aware of Corbyn having any policies on banking (which still owe the country bail-out money) or oversight, regulations to make it tighter and harder to lend recklessly - though I stand to be corrected, as I'm out of the loop a bit lately...

Austerity, yes, is a completely different kettle of fish, but one which both parties were outbidding each other on until Corbyn got into power, so in effect the voter had no other alternative but to vote for it.

Posted by: vidcapper 3rd January 2018, 06:48 AM

I never claimed Labour *caused* the banking crash, only that they seemed to be in denial of by increasing spending despite it, thus exacerbating the problem.



I'm glad I'm neither your bank manager, or Candlelit Snow's - you seem to have a 'spend-until-the-credit-card-is-maxed-out' attitude.

When that causes Labour to be voted out (as in 2010), you then blame the Tories for taking the measures necessary to clear up the mess...



Maybe so, but when voters did get a chance to choose, they *still* preferred prudence over profligacy...

Posted by: Popchartfreak 3rd January 2018, 09:48 AM

1. well, despite austerity, deficit is even bigger now, so that logic is flawed.

2. There is a difference between borrowing money to fix and maintain your house so it doesn't fall apart and cost even more to repair down the line, and borrowing money to blow on exotic holidays and piss ups. Or borrowing to set up a business that will employ people and bring money and tax in, or to care for the needy, versus borrowing money to give huge tax breaks/ tax avoiding capability. The whole of society went credit card borrowing mortgage-buying insane, because everyone saw it as a quick way to get richer and savings went out the window. It was a bubble that has yet to properly burst because there is no incentive to save with such low rates, so people speculate still. Life support politically, I call it, by slamming savers.

3. They chose rather less in 2017 than they did in the election before, so your argument doesn't make sense - the previous election didn't run on a platform of increasing spending - and were it not for bribing a small party with taxpayers money Tories might not even be running the country right now.

Posted by: vidcapper 3rd January 2018, 10:07 AM

1. I doubt that a lack of austerity would have *reduced* the deficit. When you've borrowed too much, you cut back, not spend more - that's basic money management.

2. But wouldn't the Tories also be slammed if interest rates went up?

3. But the point is that they had the chance to reject austerity - but they didn't.

Regardless of the DUP, Labour were *far* short of having enough MP's to form a government, even with LD & SNP help. We'd just be stuck with *another* GE.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 3rd January 2018, 03:11 PM

1. If cutting back was a cure, then why do we owe even more? Cutting back on maintaining and heating your home while allowing it to fall to bits will mean you end up paying more in the long run than if you borrowed and paid back over a long period. Simplistic comments, and the economy is far more complicated than running a house.

2. If rates went up yes, everyone with a mortgage and debt would be very pissed off. That is the fault of the banks for allowing people to borrow more than they can comfortably pay back, and them for not realising that interests go up as well as down and allowing for that (the current situation is historically freakish, and we're talking centuries of data here, and shows just how much manipulation is still going on a decade later). Some people of course may be unlucky, say in losing a job, but they can at least sell the house and rent.

3. The election was more Brexit than anything. The Tories promised a "fair society" for "everyone" and how Brexit was going to be marvellous. They didn't point out the debt, and the ongoing cuts (despite claims to the contrary) so most voting for them didn't even realise what they were voting for. Never mind that it is most likely going to get much much worse.

Posted by: vidcapper 4th January 2018, 06:48 AM

1. You just critiqued your own analogy there. AIUI, the debt continues to rise partly because of the interest we're having to pay in it.

2. I agree

3. I would say 50% Brexit/50% Keep-Corbyn-out.

A more moderate Labour leader might have had greater appeal to floating voters, but OTOH may have had less appeal to younger voters - we'll never know which option would have lead to more votes/MP's for Labour, though.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 4th January 2018, 09:36 AM

Yes, interest is a problem (though it gets quite cheap over a very long period of time and inflation, if you are using it to generate new money - this is happening in councils right now, who have cheap government loans and are investing in property to rent out to get an income that will outpace the loan) but it depends what you are spending it on. As I said, if you let your house fall down rather than borrow to maintain it you lose everything and it's worth nothing and you end up homeless. Borrow and you end up with a (hopefully manageable amount) spread debt to pay back and you have a home and an asset that you can use if you get into difficulties.

Half our problem as a nation is our decision to sell our assets to foreign companies and individuals who then make money out of us who are screwed as there is no alternative. Debt is a choice, but a necessary choice sometimes.

Posted by: Suedehead2 6th January 2018, 01:09 PM

More lies and distortion from Leave supporters coming up. Gove made a speech this week on the post-EU future for farming. Here is an extract...

Note that he says that we will be able to complete with the Dutch and the Danes after leaving the EU because we won't be bound by their rules. How, then, does he think the Dutch and the Danes are getting away with it now? Or could it be that there are no EU rules stopping us selling parts of the pig we find unpalatable to China? Surely Gove isn't telling porkies.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 6th January 2018, 04:18 PM

Gove’s stupidity is staggering

Posted by: Popchartfreak 6th January 2018, 06:18 PM

Hilariously "misinformed". Pig products are found in zillions of things, most of them not edible.

Here's a fairly accurate report on it from, cough, the Daily Mail.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1217794/From-bullets-bread-beer-tambourines-toothpaste--plus-180-things-pig.html

So, Mr Gove, are you just stupid or are you desperately looking for lies to tell to make Brexit sound appealing and make the EU look wasteful?

I'd plump for stupid, based on his previous ludicrous statements off the cuff.....though he can always take it up with the Daily Mail if he has issues, I know how much he loves and admires them.

Posted by: vidcapper 7th January 2018, 06:36 AM

I never thought I'd hear those two things in the same context here!

Posted by: vidcapper 7th January 2018, 04:28 PM

From your beloved Guardian...

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/07/brexit-why-buyers-remorse-hasnt-hit-the-uk-economy

The recession meant to make leave voters regret decision has failed to materialise – with majority of people having moved on

Posted by: Suedehead2 7th January 2018, 04:34 PM

Once again, the effects of the referendum result have been mitigated by the Bak of England throwing tens of billions of pounds at the problem. The fact that some Remain voters have decided to let the matter rest just shows (as I have said before) what a stupid idea the referendum was in the first place. A decision as important as this should not be put in the hands of people who are largely indifferent.

Before you introduce your straw man, general elections are very different. If people feel they have made a mistake, they can vote for someone else five years later (or two years if Mayhem is PM).

Posted by: vidcapper 7th January 2018, 05:36 PM

But that was a once-off intervention, over 18 months ago now - it cannot explain the continuing absence of 'disaster'.



You forget one of the main reasons for holding a referendum was the growing strength of UKIP. They were the most popular party in the 2014 Euro-elections, and their vote share also went up considerably in the 2015 GE. UNless they were mollified, eventually their support would likely have grown enough for them to hold the balance of power in a hung parliament, and then they could compel the holding of a Brexit referendum on their terms, rather than someone else's.

Posted by: Soy Adrián 7th January 2018, 05:57 PM

It was an intervention to prevent what would have been a severe shock to the economy, which would have had effects lasting rather longer than 18 months.


That's a tactical reason for the Tories to promise to hold on - it's not a convincing argument as to why there should be one.

Posted by: vidcapper 8th January 2018, 06:48 AM

But it's the BoE's job to prevent such shocks, whatever the cause - and since they haven't needed to since, surely that says something about the exaggeration of the Brexit effect?



OK then, how about this : politicians are elected to represent the public - if/when they cease doing so (in this case a demand to be consulted over our EU membership), they will be replaced by politicians who *will* grant the public what they want. We can only assume they considered the rise of UKIP a greater threat to themselves, than the possibility of the public voting for Brexit.

Posted by: Soy Adrián 8th January 2018, 09:39 AM

It was still a minority position, that they adopted to increase their support among UKIP voters. It wasn't like, for instance, Theresa May deciding that she would match Corbyn's position on rail renationalisation - in that instance, where polls rate public support very highly and the other main party is already supporting it, that would be an example of (arguably) trying to acknowledge the "will of the people". See the difference?

Posted by: vidcapper 8th January 2018, 09:49 AM

Except that it turned out *not* to be a minority position...

Posted by: Soy Adrián 8th January 2018, 04:03 PM

The actual referendum turned out to be about a million and one things, as any half decent analysis of the results or any conversation with a diverse group of Leave voters would tell you.

Posted by: vidcapper 10th January 2018, 07:41 AM

This seems a very petty move...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/virgin-trains-daily-mail-ban-sell-newspapers-beliefs-compatible-richard-branson-a8149786.html

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 10th January 2018, 08:09 AM

They sold 70 copies a day of the shit rag on the entire West Coast line. Even if it was rightfully dropped for being nothing other than a hatemongering pathetic excuse for “journalism”, it wasn’t popular with their customers either.

Posted by: vidcapper 10th January 2018, 08:50 AM

You may be right, but how many copies of other papers were sold, for comparison?

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 10th January 2018, 08:53 AM

They haven’t released other numbers but one could conclude that it’s greater than 70

Posted by: Suedehead2 10th January 2018, 09:53 AM

In his latest attempt to be crowned the dimmest person ever to hold a Cabinet post, Davy Davey has criticised the EU for daring to plan for the possibility of the UK leaving without a deal. He has also suggested that the EU's stance could lead to companies leaving the UK. How much would it cost to display a large poster saying "We told you so, you cockwomble" outside his department?

Posted by: vidcapper 10th January 2018, 10:12 AM

On what basis - solely on the fact it wasn't mentioned?

Posted by: Popchartfreak 10th January 2018, 10:56 AM

Yes it's hilarious!

DD: If you don't give us what we insist on we will leave with no deal and go onto WTO terms! That should do the trick to make you see reason!

EU: OK, we'd better plan for a Hard Brexit then to minimise damage to us if you don't accept the terms agreed with every other non-EU country.

DD: How dare you plan for the thing I've threatened to do! We haven't planned for it, it really is too much for you to plan for it and call our bluff, waaaah, waaaaah, waaaah, waaaah, I want my mummy or I'll hold my breath till I turn even bluer.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 10th January 2018, 11:17 AM

Logic and an IQ greater than 6

Posted by: Suedehead2 10th January 2018, 11:37 AM

Then of course there is his boss who told us that we must vote for her because she is such a brilliant negotiator. Let's have a look at that technique.

Mayhem: Ah, Jeremy, I want to move you to Business Secretary.
*unt: I don't want to go.
Mayhem: I'm Prime Minister and I'm moving you.
*unt: I'm not going. I want to stay and I want to add Social Care to my department's name.
Mayhem: OK then. Now who's next? Ah yes, Justine Greening. This should be easy.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 10th January 2018, 02:07 PM

Ha!

Now Davy & Philo are in germany desperate to warn that not givig the UK a unique Financial Services deal that is not available to anyone not in the Single Market (ie our "cake") will lead to a worldwide financial crash. This is a threat so we can get our way ("and eat it"). Given British banks were behind a large part of the last financial crash and the Tories have been threatening to relax tax regulations to make the UK a tax haven (rather than just our overseas territories) one would imagine the EU are quaking in their boots at the ever-changing nature of the UK threats and Project Fear that Leavers once claimed was all lies but are now actually quoting and using as threats against the EU. They appear to have forgotten all of their promises and have adopted all of the Remainer arguments.....

Project Paradise suddenly turned into Project Fear? You can read it here...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/10/davis-and-hammond-make-plea-to-germany-in-pursuit-of-brexit-deal?CMP=twt_gu

Posted by: Suedehead2 10th January 2018, 02:49 PM

My understanding is that they only stock a selection of papers rather than the full range. Therefore, they can justify dropping a title that sells one copy for every four trains on which it is stocked as a commercial decision. The fact that it helps to detoxify that part of the train is just a bonus.

Posted by: vidcapper 10th January 2018, 02:58 PM

'Detoxify'? The ire directed towards a newspaper that a lot of people *like* to read, seems to know no bounds here.

Posted by: Shia LeMuffQueef 10th January 2018, 03:01 PM

It supported the Nazis.

Posted by: Shia LeMuffQueef 10th January 2018, 03:02 PM

Could not make it up.

This shows that reducing such a complex issue to a teeny tiny majority and only 2/4 nations agreeing to it vote was insane. Pithy headlines, puns and blaming the EU for everything does not equate economic reason or financial arguments.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 10th January 2018, 03:15 PM

Anyone who enjoys that rag gets the same ire

Posted by: vidcapper 10th January 2018, 03:17 PM

That was 80 years ago, FFS!

Posted by: vidcapper 10th January 2018, 03:21 PM

Whereas 'selfish uneducated oldies have deprived us kids of opportunities' is a radically better argument?

Posted by: Shia LeMuffQueef 10th January 2018, 03:22 PM

Oh ok.

Well, I'm waiting x

Posted by: vidcapper 10th January 2018, 03:32 PM

I suppose that's your way of saying 'a leopard doesn't change its spots'.

Perhaps then you could point to one single Mail article since 1945 in which they have supported the Nazis?

Posted by: Shia LeMuffQueef 10th January 2018, 03:38 PM

I could point to their use of news as an obvious means of propaganda, repeated lies, personal attacks, absence of left wing views,right wing opinion eds and existence as an echo chamber instead. When it stops being so vile, attacking UK institutions of democracy and being so nationalistic, narrow-minded and with tunnel vision, then I might accept it as a news source. Until then, it is an echo chamber propaganda arm of its owner, just like Fox News.

Posted by: Soy Adrián 10th January 2018, 04:07 PM

I mean... it became a bit niche after 1945.

Posted by: vidcapper 10th January 2018, 04:41 PM

All newspapers reflect the mindset of their owners, so that in itself is nothing unusual.



Obviously, because that's when their real nature became only too apparent. Totalitarian regimes always present a rosy picture to the outside work - the Nazis at the 1936 Olympics; Stalin during the time of the purges, etc.

Perhaps the crucial issue is : did the Mail ever admit they were wrong to support the Nazis?

Posted by: Brett-Butler 10th January 2018, 06:35 PM

Regarding the Virgin Trains/Daily Mail issue, my thoughts on it are thusly -

As a private company, Virgin Trains are free to sell and distribute whatever they want in their trains, including newspapers. And if the consumer is not happy about it, then they can express their opinion by voting with their feet (or in this case, with their railcard).

I have some reservations about why Richard Branson/Virgin decided to make this move now, and that's because, as some have pointed out, that this story will help to deflect from some of the negative headlines that they have received over the past few weeks. They've received huge criticism for their running of one of their https://www.theguardian.com/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/2018/jan/02/chris-grayling-east-coast-line-rotten-state-uk-rail-system (something for which they've been criticised for, funnily enough, in the Daily Mail), their social media presence was heavily rebuked for sending http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42542640, and that's before we even come to stories surrounding alleged sexual harassment from Mr Virgin himself, Richard Branson. My inner sceptic is of the opinion that the main reason why VT have made this announcement now is to move the conversation away from everything wrong with VT, and into something that will give them endless kudos with the Twitterati & people of a left-leaning persuasion. And by jove, it appears to have worked for the time being - a bait & switch straight out of the Trump playbook.

To test the theory - the next time a major UK company makes an announcement that they are to cut ties with the Daily Mail, do a quick Google search to see if there are any stories in the media in the preceding days that said company would like to bury. If there are, you'll have your answer.

Posted by: Suedehead2 10th January 2018, 06:57 PM

You'd almost think Virgin Trains have taken their cue from the government Make that "any government" to be fair.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 10th January 2018, 07:08 PM

Interestingly the negative press has been focused on the East Coast service but this relates only to the West Coast line. Everything I’ve read has pointed out the distinction but of course we all know that people are just going to see Virgin and think it’s the same company

Posted by: Suedehead2 10th January 2018, 07:53 PM

Apparently Virgin Trains now only sell the Times, FT and Mirror. Therefore, it has gone from four papers I don't want to three.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 10th January 2018, 08:00 PM

Not really an option though if you don't own a car and the only train operator on the route you commute on is ran by Virgin Trains - and thus the absurdity of having a franchise on a national rail network.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 10th January 2018, 08:13 PM

How about calling our judges (and legal system) and MP's (elected by us) "Enemies Of The People" and encouraging every nutter to murder yet another one - because they, the Lord God Daily Mail, don't agree with democracy and the British Constitution as it is written. They can f*** off to their non-British domiciles and stay out of OUR affairs. They are not British any more than Rupert (Aussie/American) Murdoch is. As farage said to Pres Obama - "stop sticking your nose into British affairs". The same Farage who is supporting Nazis in Germany and elsewhere, and who has the support of the Daily Mail.

So if you choose to ignore basic facts that is being selective with the truth. Fake News, it's called.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 10th January 2018, 08:18 PM

As for the Daily Mail, probably the most known example in recent years was the suicide of Lucy Meadows which I think was as a direct consequence of a hate-inciting transphobic article they published in 2013.

Posted by: vidcapper 11th January 2018, 06:45 AM

I don't recall the latter part?

Sometimes *I* don't - all that proves is that I have free will





Even though the Guardian quotes 'In a note she left, she made no mention of press intrusion, citing instead her debts, a number of bereavements including the death of her parents, and her stressful job as a primary school teacher.'?

Posted by: Doctor Blind 11th January 2018, 11:44 AM

Yes, the coroner singled out the Daily Mail - same article:

Posted by: Shia LeMuffQueef 11th January 2018, 06:14 PM

A paper that attacks democratic institutions and riles up hate to the point that there was a terror attack on an MP during the referendum is just vile and not fit for a democracy.

Posted by: Brett-Butler 11th January 2018, 07:23 PM

In a surprise twist, Nigel Farage has said that he is warming to the idea of a http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42649214.

The charitable interpretation is that he recognises how divisive the Referendum campaign was, and with such a narrow margin of victory, he wants a re-run in the hope that the result will be a more resounding "Leave" this time around in order to firmly put a red line under the issue.

The less charitable interpretation is that Nigel Farage's profile has dipped so much since the campaign that he hopes a re-run will allow him to take centre stage in the national picture again, as leader of the "Leave" side.

An even less charitable interpretation is that it's finally dawned on him that the gravy train he's enjoyed as an MEP is coming to a grinding halt, and would very much like to get the train back on its tracks.

The least charitable interpretation is that there's a major story about Farage on the verge of breaking, and he's trying to distract us from it.

Posted by: Shia LeMuffQueef 11th January 2018, 07:31 PM

Not so much a U turn as a return to what he said halfway through the vote night: that 52 for Remain was not enough and there needed to be a second vote, before hastily changing his mind and starting the Newspeak brainwashing cry of, WERRRL ERRFF THERRR PERRRPLERRRR :theresa:

He knows Brexit is a shitstorm. He has more chance of winning a vote now before people experience it, thus delaying our generation from voting us back in soon enough, than once its terms are known.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 11th January 2018, 09:47 PM

I think all of the above farage reasons are correct.

Or else he's trying to shag a remainer.

Posted by: Shia LeMuffQueef 11th January 2018, 10:58 PM

Or couldn't get a German passport, like he tried the day after the vote

Posted by: Suedehead2 11th January 2018, 11:00 PM

An alternative interpretation is that he has realised the amount of damage he could be about to inflict on the country, and is desperately looking for a way out.

Posted by: Shia LeMuffQueef 11th January 2018, 11:01 PM

No, he was well aware. It was always a vanity project. The elite like him only care for their own.

Posted by: vidcapper 12th January 2018, 06:39 AM

Good luck in proving that.

Besides, Tommy Mair was mentally unstable, so the Mail can hardly be blamed for causing *that*!



Somehow I doubt that theory!



Except that Farage is in no way part of the 'elite'.

Posted by: vidcapper 12th January 2018, 07:17 AM

OK, here's a new question :

Name one concession you think the EU could have made to the UK that would have prevented Brexit?

Posted by: Shia LeMuffQueef 12th January 2018, 07:34 AM

None. It shouldn't have to and the press and elite were desperately clamouring doe it.

Lol.
Lol. Lol.

He has you fooled then.

He IS the establishment. Private school. Inherited wealth. Old boys' clubs. He can say he isn't as much as he wants, but just like Trump he IS. He then fools right wing news followers to believe the rich elite is actually Joe Everyman, when really Joe Everyman is the elite in a fake moustache and a copy of The Sun in hand.

Posted by: Soy Adrián 12th January 2018, 07:51 AM

Go on.

Posted by: vidcapper 12th January 2018, 07:58 AM

You have to be part of the political mainstream to be considered a member of the 'elite'.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 12th January 2018, 09:18 AM

1. "mentally unstable" people who murder for political reasons are called terrorists. The white ones just somehow avoid getting called that. He's not in a mental hospital he's in prison, as far as I'm aware.

2. Inciting people to get so angry that they commit crimes, knowing full well that there are "mentally unstable" people in the community, is manipulation.

3. It's a valid theory. Farage knows he's going down in history as the man that ruined the economy of the UK for the benefit of the elite.

4. Farage is part of the elite, private school, privileged upbringing, fox hunting with rich friends, and claims he struggles to get by on 200k a year, having bankrupted his own multi-million pound City-based banking investment business. If that's not "elite" I'd love to hear what you consider "elite". Bin-men? The Royal Family and no-one else? That he has very right-wing views does not change those facts, even if he has pulled the wool over some people's eyes by getting filmed having a pint and a fag and slagging off politicians.

Posted by: vidcapper 12th January 2018, 09:51 AM

<cough> Gerry Adams<cough>



I will concede that point only if you allow that it applies equally to far-left-wingers as well as right...

Posted by: Soy Adrián 12th January 2018, 10:12 AM

Last time I checked there wasn't a far left newspaper with a massive circulation using that kind of language, and an individual with far left views hadn't recently gunned down an MP in the street.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 12th January 2018, 10:21 AM

Well, if we're going back to the 20th century, cough, Nazis and the Daily Mail, cough, splutter.

Posted by: vidcapper 12th January 2018, 11:55 AM

So that would be a 'no' then.

Posted by: vidcapper 12th January 2018, 11:56 AM

You didn't specify a time limit.

Besides, to 'oldies' like me, late 20th C events are still very relavent.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 12th January 2018, 01:53 PM

and to people who were around in the 30's (of which there are still many) so is that still relevant. And to anyone with any sense.

Posted by: Soy Adrián 12th January 2018, 02:03 PM

Find me a meaningful example of a far left publication inciting hatred with the same effects that the right wing press did in the final days of the referendum campaign and you may have a point. Otherwise it's irrelevant, and a way to let some increasingly extremist newspapers off the hook.

Posted by: vidcapper 12th January 2018, 02:45 PM

I don't agree they've become more extremist, only that societies idea of what is 'extremist' has changed over time.

Perhaps that seems like a pedantic point, but to me it is an important one.

Posted by: Shia LeMuffQueef 12th January 2018, 04:20 PM

So do you still believe Farage when he and the rwight wing press lir and try to pass him off as anything other than part and parcel of the elite?

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 12th January 2018, 05:08 PM

Sure jan.

Society pointing out extremist views doesn’t mean the idea of what is extremist has changed, just our willingness to stand up and speak out when something is wrong

Posted by: Soy Adrián 12th January 2018, 05:31 PM

I find it highly unlikely that even the Mail would have printed a front cover featuring three appointed judges and branded them "ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE" even ten years ago. The toxic atmosphere around the immigration debate and Brexit has emboldened them.

Of course if you can find a front cover from ten years ago that was just as extremist, feel free.

Posted by: vidcapper 13th January 2018, 06:54 AM

Who is Jan?

Fair point.



Ten years ago, would judges have been as willing to urinate all over the electorate's decision?

Posted by: Popchartfreak 13th January 2018, 09:15 AM

They didn't. They pointed out that the TORIES grab for power was unconstitutional, and they needed Parliament's assent, which they duly received as per the referendum.

If you can't tell tell the difference between democracy and attempts at imposing ideological dictatorship using a referendum as cover (as incidentally Jeremy Corbyn can't either) then I suggest a quick visit to a dictionary.

Their entire job is to rule on points of law, and that's what they did. They are not traitors or enemies of the people, they are guardians of democracy. people desperate to get their own way seem very keen to ignore due process piss-scared that they won't get their way because they are that fanatical. The Mail being case in point. Fanatical foreign-living tax-dodging far-right supporters.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 13th January 2018, 09:28 AM

how about just being repulsive human beings...

There has been unverified tweets that the family of the 18-year-old who died of flu are being plagued by journalists, and that they specifically name the Mail as being particularly insistent and obnoxious for an interview because it sells newspapers. I like to think it's true because it sounds true and isn't inconsistent with the behaviour in recent years of the gutter press. Anyone remember hacking the phone of a teenage murder victim? That not extreme enough causing misery to the family?

Posted by: Shia LeMuffQueef 13th January 2018, 03:12 PM

Told you.

You are not inured to the propaganda of the Daily Mail, and now you see the judges protecting UK democracy as somehow 'urinating' on it..., using aggressive, inflammatory language yourself after THAT headline, and it is like 48%, or 55% today, or half the nations plus Gibraltar have just disappeared overnight...

Posted by: vidcapper 13th January 2018, 03:22 PM

This is not a usual situation though - IMO a referendum should take precedence over parliament (both Houses) and the courts.

Posted by: Shia LeMuffQueef 13th January 2018, 03:26 PM

No.

No.

No.

A referendum does NOT supersede the democratic institutions of a country, especially when it is NON-BINDING - A NON-BINDING REFERENDUM WITH NO GUARANTEES AND NO SAFEGUARDS BECAUSE IT IS NON-BINDING, no matter what the Daily Mail says!!!

Posted by: Popchartfreak 13th January 2018, 04:47 PM

IMO it shouldn't. That makes it a draw and over to the courts to decide.

Posted by: Suedehead2 13th January 2018, 05:46 PM

So the electorate should have been able to veto measures such as votes for women, decriminalising homosexual acts between men, abolishing capital punishment? Sometimes politicians should lead, not follow.

Posted by: vidcapper 14th January 2018, 06:52 AM

I'm not sure which you have a bigger bee in your bonnet about - the Mail or the Tories?




Well, I was thinking in terms of a fully franchised electorate, but that is a valid point.

Why would a referendum include decriminalising homosexuality for *men*, not for women too?

Posted by: Popchartfreak 14th January 2018, 09:16 AM

It wasn't illegal for women

Posted by: Popchartfreak 14th January 2018, 09:19 AM

But back to Brexit.

Sunday Express rehashing an old report from Sir Patrick Minford's propaganda rubbish about the EU losing 500 billion and the UK gaining 650 billion.

This report was rubbished in April, but it doesn't stop the extreme press barons desperate to avoid EU tax haven regulations from regurgitating the same old crap.

This piece may explain why it's bullshit:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexiteers-economists-for-brexit-patrick-minford-study-doubly-misleading-eu-uk-trade-deal-tariff-a7691271.html

Posted by: vidcapper 14th January 2018, 09:40 AM

How on earth did that come about, then?

Never mind...

https://www.the-pool.com/life/love-sex/2017/7/nichi-hodgson-on-how-lesbians-became-visible

Posted by: Doctor Blind 14th January 2018, 11:49 AM

Absolutely agree, there is no polling to support a strong call for a 2nd referendum at the present moment - the only people that have called for it so far are the Liberal Democrats - but polling suggests most people are actually against it. But even in the event of a referendum called on exactly the same question, I don't think it would necessarily lead to a more resounding 'Leave' vote, nor a victory for 'Remain': more likely is a even more divided electorate who become entrenched in their positions, feeling even more aggrieved at the opposite side whilst feeling even more that they are not listened to by politicians.

Posted by: Andrew. 14th January 2018, 12:36 PM

IF Labour were to call for a second referendum I can see similar vote share drops in their heartlands to the SNP in 2017, perhaps to UKIP although because of the massive majorities in the North of England they'll keep most seats but lose a lot in the Midlands and marginals. I don't think there's much appetite for a second referendum but I am open to the idea, I think a party should have to win a mandate in an election first though.

Posted by: Shia LeMuffQueef 14th January 2018, 02:30 PM

But you just ignore the reasons for why it was odious for the Mail to attack democratic institutions over a referendum. It was a move right ou5 of the totalitarian handbook.

Posted by: Suedehead2 14th January 2018, 02:33 PM

If people are asked whether we should have a final say on the deal, support for a vote is higher. The phrase "a second referendum" suggests an exact re-run of the last one. That would not be the case.

Posted by: vidcapper 14th January 2018, 02:50 PM

But if I said I accepted those reasons now, I doubt it would be taken as sincere?

Posted by: Doctor Blind 14th January 2018, 02:52 PM

It is still not a https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/ftcnc2d61f/TimesResultss_180110_SecondReferendum_w.pdf though and I think it would be a very hard sell to the public given there have been UK elections/referenda held in 2015, 2016 and 2017.

Posted by: Suedehead2 14th January 2018, 02:56 PM

If support for Remain continues at around 55% - or rises further - support for a vote may well rise. I have been told (by an MP) that there are plenty of Labour and Tory MPs who will finally show some backbone if support for Remain reaches around 60%.

Posted by: vidcapper 14th January 2018, 02:59 PM

Continues around 55%?

When did it *reach* 55%? Last time I checked a couple of months ago, it was still 50/50.

Posted by: Shia LeMuffQueef 14th January 2018, 03:09 PM

Then check again

It is at 55%

Obviously still short of a 63/6 majority, but if the Leavers don't care about our democracy being less well safeguarded than golf clubs, then we go low too. Going high didn't work for Hills' anaemic campaign.

Posted by: vidcapper 14th January 2018, 03:14 PM

I did, but still couldn't source that 55% figure.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 14th January 2018, 03:29 PM

There was a http://www.comresglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Daily-Mirror_January-2018-poll_EURef-1.pdf out in the Daily Mirror that had the 55/45 figure (exc. 'don't knows') but I seem to remember a lot of polls had a narrow 'remain' lead in the run-up to the referendum so you really can't read too much into it IMO, I think it is still 50/50 and will likely stay that way for a while.

Posted by: Andrew. 14th January 2018, 03:41 PM

Tbh if a second referendum was actually proposed I can see the support for Bremain dropping quite significantly initially in anger but it rising slowly back up again as the campaigns run. One things for sure, the Remain campaign would have a harder job - if they do a similar campaign to last time it'll be called fear mongering again although a lot of what they said is right but if they refrain from that they'll be criticized for doing so and they'll have to run a positive campaign about the benefits of Europe when most leave voters don't care about them.

Posted by: Shia LeMuffQueef 14th January 2018, 03:53 PM

It simply makes more sense to wait. The tounger generations like ours born into the EU are far more likely to support it. These opinions seem entrenched, either by history or media or both on one side, and being born into it/ good experiences/ changing times/ history as well on the other. These pithy referendums with blaring headlines will no change minds, especially not when opinons are so entrenched.

Posted by: vidcapper 14th January 2018, 04:23 PM

Thanks.

Posted by: vidcapper 14th January 2018, 04:25 PM

Would you say that 'fear of change' is a significant factor, then?

Posted by: Shia LeMuffQueef 14th January 2018, 06:01 PM

Fear of being deprived rights we were born into and fear of negative consequences, yes.

Posted by: Suedehead2 14th January 2018, 06:15 PM

Contrary to the line being peddled by so many, there were actually more polls showing a lead for Leave than Remain in the ten days before the vote.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/eu-referendum

Posted by: Suedehead2 14th January 2018, 06:17 PM

The Remain campaign would definitely need to be better than last time. OTOH. they would be able to point to actual things that will definitely be lost as the terms of the deal will be known.

Posted by: Shia LeMuffQueef 14th January 2018, 06:36 PM

Still can't believe Call Me Dave gambled the entire country on a Tory rift based on 50/50 polling WITHOUT guarantees of at least 60/40 and 3/4s nation lock.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 14th January 2018, 07:06 PM

Yes, unlike the last bunch of lies from ongoing liars, an actual deal to vote on would make it crystal clear exactly what it was going to cost the nation, the individuals, and what they stand to lose.

One can say what they stand to gain, but there is nothing much to point to other than vague promises by people who have been proven to be liars. "Trust me, I'm an MP on a mission/failed economist/investment banker/offshore tax haven supporter/immigrant blamer*"

(* delete as appropriate)

Posted by: Suedehead2 14th January 2018, 07:19 PM

That's because he's a plastic-faced idiot.

Posted by: vidcapper 15th January 2018, 06:51 AM

And Leavers aren't entitled to the same concerns?

Posted by: vidcapper 15th January 2018, 06:54 AM

And if he had, what then? There'd have been an even higher proportion of the electorate pissed off, and primed to vote UKIP next time...

Posted by: Popchartfreak 15th January 2018, 09:48 AM

With the advantage that the economy would have continued slowly recovering and no risk of a cliff-edge disaster may not actually mean an even higher percentage of pissed off people. At worst, the same people may just remain pissed off and they could still quite happily go on not voting for UKIP as much as they did before.

Posted by: vidcapper 15th January 2018, 09:55 AM

Like they 'didn't vote for them' in the 2014 Euros' you mean?

Posted by: Popchartfreak 15th January 2018, 09:56 AM

Most people dont bother voting for those, just those very committed...

Posted by: vidcapper 15th January 2018, 09:57 AM

Well 17.4m seemed pretty committed two years later.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 15th January 2018, 11:01 AM

That was cross-party and was based on cross-party co-operation in telling lies. They weren't UKIP voters necessarily.

and 43 million weren't pretty committed.

Posted by: Suedehead2 15th January 2018, 12:15 PM

And the vast majority of those who did bother to vote didn't vote UKIP.

Posted by: Suedehead2 15th January 2018, 12:16 PM

:Leavers voted to sacrifice those rights. Why should I have any sympathy for them unless they say they have now changed their mind?

Posted by: Popchartfreak 16th January 2018, 11:37 AM

time for a point of view from the EU..



Guy Verhofstadt
‏
Verified account

@guyverhofstadt
2h2 hours ago
More
"Farage's confusion is contagious: Gove doesnt seem to remember that action on plastic bags stems from EU regulation.PM May doesnt seem to know the ban on credit card surcharges is based on EU directive.The recently announced change to British passports was possible inside the EU"

I'm sure we can look forward to a Carillion-upscaled deal from the Tories.....

Posted by: vidcapper 18th January 2018, 07:29 AM

EU to lose £500bn and UK to gain £640bn in no-deal Brexit, economist claims

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/01/13/eu-lose-500bn-uk-gain-640bn-no-deal-brexit-economist-claims/

Posted by: Soy Adrián 18th January 2018, 08:53 AM

Unfortunately it's hidden behind the Telegraph paywall. Could you summarise?

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 18th January 2018, 09:10 AM

Interested to see the model and assumptions used to arrive at such a figure. The last time an economist came out with a pro-Brexit view it spectacularly imploded under peer review. Outlandish assumptions, no explanation of the model used (or indeed any information at all on the model). It looked like it set out to justify an ideology that was not supported by evidence

Something in the back of my mind says that this is the same guy. If he couldn’t prove a much smaller number I don’t trust the academic rigour of this outlandish claim.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 18th January 2018, 09:16 AM

This is a rehash of one I posted on Sunday.

"But back to Brexit.

Sunday Express rehashing an old report from Sir Patrick Minford's propaganda rubbish about the EU losing 500 billion and the UK gaining 650 billion.

This report was rubbished in April, but it doesn't stop the extreme press barons desperate to avoid EU tax haven regulations from regurgitating the same old crap.

This piece may explain why it's bullshit:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business...f-a7691271.html"

You're welcome.

Posted by: Suedehead2 18th January 2018, 10:07 AM

Look at Minford's record. He was against the EU Social Chapter which enhanced workers' rights. He was an enthusiastic sup[porter of the Poll Tax and has always been rabidly anti-EU. Why should we believe his "research" above that of countless others who reach very different conclusions?

Posted by: vidcapper 18th January 2018, 10:15 AM

A "no deal" outcome from the Brexit negotiations would lead to a £500 billion loss for the European Union, according to a new analysis.

A study by Patrick Minford, a professor of economics at Cardiff University, states that while a failure to reach a deal would lead to "short term nuisance" for both sides, Brussels would face a "substantial economic loss", compared to a net gain for the UK.

Prof Minford, who chairs the Eurosceptic Economists for Free Trade group, concludes: "It could not be more open and shut who least wants a breakdown".

The analysis comes after David Davis, the Brexit Secretary, complained in a letter to the Prime Minister that Brussels was damaging British interests by talking up the threat to companies if the UK leaves the European Union without a deal.

Prof Minford said: "For the UK a breakdown would be a short term nuisance but a substantial economic gain; for the EU it is both a short term nuisance and a substantial economic loss."

According to the analysis, the largest cost to the EU would be from paying the UK some £433 billion in tariff revenue. It would also lose around £28 billion which the UK would otherwise pay into the budget period to 2020, and a reported £10 billion contribution to longer term liabilities, as part of a financial settlement, Prof Minford concluded.

"Because its customs union with the UK would stop immediately, it would lose two years’ worth of the terms of trade gain its producers make on its balance of trade surplus with the UK- estimated at around £18 billion a year: so two years’ worth of that would be another £36 billion one-off loss," he added.

By contrast, a breakdown in talks would lead to a "one-off gain" of £38 billion on savings in relation to the EU budget, in addition a £180 billion windfall as a result of bringing forward the "long-term gain" of "free trade, own-regulation and own-border-control" in the absence of the otherwise expected two-year implementation period for a deal.

The UK would also gain the total of £433 billion tariff revenue which Prof Minford calculated would be paid by the EU to the Treasury, he said.

He concluded: "So plus £641 billion for the UK versus minus £507 billion for the EU: it could not be more open and shut who least wants a breakdown. For the UK a breakdown would be a short term nuisance but a substantial economic gain; for the EU it is both a short term nuisance and a substantial economic loss."

Posted by: vidcapper 18th January 2018, 10:18 AM

I didn't *expect* this group's europhiles to believe it, partly because no-one is immune from confirmation bias.

Posted by: Suedehead2 18th January 2018, 10:45 AM

You miss the point (again). This is one economist whose anti-EU vies are well-known. It is also a rehash of a story that was debunked nine months ago.

Posted by: vidcapper 18th January 2018, 11:05 AM

So I guess we're back to 'wait and see' then.

Where I differ from most on this forum, is that I believe that regaining our economic freedom of action is well worth the slight risk that Brexit may entail.

Posted by: Soy Adrián 18th January 2018, 01:26 PM

You found one study supporting your viewpoint, and someone pointed out that it had been debunked months ago.

If you can find debunkings of every report stating that Brexit will negatively affect the economy, then yes, I suppose it's back to 'wait and see'.

Setting aside the use of 'slight risk' for a second - how do you propose we exercise our economic freedom when writing trade deals with larger economies like the US and China? How do you think we should go about protecting our interests?

Posted by: Suedehead2 18th January 2018, 02:22 PM

It's not just larger economies. Negotiations with smaller economies will not necessarily be simple either. Many of them are members of trading blocs which means we will have to negotiate with the bloc, not individual members. For example, we would enter negotiations with a country like Singapore in a reasonably strong position. That position will be massively weakened by the fact that countries such as Malaysia and Singapore will also be involved as part of ASEAN. That's even before you allow for the fact that ASEAN will probably want to conclude discussions with the EU before bothering about the UK.

Posted by: vidcapper 18th January 2018, 02:23 PM

It might sound trite, but why not the same way we did before we joined in the first place?

Posted by: Suedehead2 18th January 2018, 02:28 PM

Things are rather different now. First, I refer you to my post above (which I assume you hadn't read before your post). When we joined the Common Market we became one of the three major economies in the bloc. Italy was still something of a basket case, Spain was still a fascist dictatorship and, therefore ineligible for EU membership, and Eastern Europe was under the Soviet yoke. Being the only major power outside a group of six states is very different from being the only major power outside a bloc of 27.

Posted by: vidcapper 18th January 2018, 03:18 PM

Call me an optimist, but I prefer to look for opportunities, rather than difficulties.

Posted by: Suedehead2 18th January 2018, 03:49 PM

The difference between an optimist and a pessimist is that the pessimist knows the facts.

Posted by: vidcapper 18th January 2018, 04:12 PM

But in this case, the facts cannot be determined until after we leave, and probably not for several years after.

Posted by: Suedehead2 18th January 2018, 04:31 PM

You mean facts like "We'll have to deal with multi-country blocs, not individual counties"?

Posted by: Popchartfreak 18th January 2018, 05:00 PM

I prefer "blinkered" because an "optimist" when faced with facts who chooses to disregard facts is in 'fact' acting totally on faith. Might as well believe the earth is flat and say we'll find out in 10 years time - and then keep putting the time back, or making excuses as they tend to do while making ludicrous claims they call "fact". Lying is quite the "thing" in these Trumpist, propaganda-driven days. The anti-propagandists have to constantly remain sane and provide facts to justify their views, The liars just lie and call everyone else who disagrees a liar or snowflake or "enemy of the people".

The Daily mail has had to write an apology over a "terrorist" front page about an Iraqi citizen held by british troops today. It won't be on the front page. Liars liars pants on fires. fact.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 18th January 2018, 06:20 PM

It’s not confirmation bias to examine the arguments he makes and find that they fail basic academic rigour and are nothing but ideological BS with no basis in reality or fact.

The only one playing with confirmation bias is you.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 18th January 2018, 06:40 PM

This fails basic logical reasoning on so many levels and that’s before you consider economic facts and geopolitical realities.

Couple of things that need explained. First of all is where the £180bn comes from. What’s it made up of and what does it actually entail.

The bulk of the number though is the £433bn tariff that EU business will pay on trade to the UK. I don’t question this amount, the value of trade is staggering. What I question is the lack of tariff payment going in reverse. To reach the figures in question it assumes that we will impose tariffs on EU goods and services inbound to the UK but the EU will waive tariffs on UK goods and services inbound to the EU. I struggle to understand how anyone could have read this and published it without confirmation bias coming into play. Because that assumption is not only defying basic economic and logic principles but goes against literally every single message coming out of Europe. There is no reason the EU would waive tariffs on our imports. We don’t make anything they can’t make themselves. There’s not a single car manufacturer based in the UK that couldn’t produce on the continent instead. The major producers are all EU owned anyway (including Nissan in that as they are 43% owned by Renault who are 19% owned by the French Government and you can damn well bet they’ll put the pressure on to repatriate production to France)

Like there’s nothing that’s vital to the EU economy that they would unilaterally waive tariffs. So for this model to be accurate it needs to model the impact on tariffs payable to the EU. It also should model the impact on complying with the new tariffs and customs borders. Currently no customs declaration needs to be made on cross channel movements but they will when we leave. Actual real business pay £25-£40 per declaration currently. Thats a huge cost to both economies.

There is no calculation of the loss of ERDF for the UK or the benefit of redistribution of that within the EU. No talk of loss of Horizon 2020 cash that will stay within the EU (the UK gets about a 1.5 return on that cash. It’s remarkable value for money and very heavily monitored. In all my time in research grant administration, EU grants were the most heavily scrutinised and audited by the funder. Lots of hoops for us to jump through but huge funding levels for highly important research on a pan-EU Level that returned fabulous value for money to the EC. One of the EUs crowning achievements)

Basically it is my professional view as a qualified accountant working for a big 4 firm that this model is overly simplistic, provides no evidence to support its figures or assumptions, makes unrealistic assumptions that underpin the entire model and that as a result the output is fundamentally flawed.

IMO no one wins from the mess. Both sides lose economically but given the strength of the bloc they are *based on economic facts and economic reality* most likely to recover quicker and stronger. The internal market operates in such a way that trade with the UK can simply be replaced by intra EU trading.

Posted by: Shia LeMuffQueef 18th January 2018, 11:23 PM

Interesting point I've just seen going around. Question, Vidcapper: how would you, Brexiteers and the hard right newspapers have reacted if Remain had won with 52% of the vote, tipped over the line by Scotland and Northern Ireland only, and then used this 'mandate' to demand a superstate, Hard Remain stance, an EU army and Euro currency integration, and signing up to all agreements, that costs £40 billion to achieve? Would they have been as keen to tell people to 'shut up', debate's over, 'werrl of therr perrplerrr' etc?

Posted by: vidcapper 19th January 2018, 06:38 AM

I would have accepted the result, but it wouldn't have stopped me resisting the worst aspects of integration.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 19th January 2018, 08:00 AM

would you though have accepted the result? you have already suggested that the fight against the EU would have continued (as farage immediately said when he thought he had narrowly lost - it was LITERALLY the first thing he said)....

So you are saying that had UKIP kept on going and campaigning for another referndum in 5 or 10 years that you would have turned round and said, "No we had our vote and lost, fair do, thats the end of the matter I bow to the will of the people in the same way I didn't for the 1975 referendum which I still insist was the wrong result and am annoyed about because all those old gits took us in and I wasnt old enough to vote?"

Forgive me if I remain unconvinced.....

Posted by: vidcapper 19th January 2018, 08:28 AM

I would have accepted the result as the Will of the People - but IMO that's a separate matter from believing it would be wrong not to seek to reverse it at a later date.

My believing our continuing membership of the EU would be a mistake, is independent of how everyone else decided.

Posted by: Shia LeMuffQueef 19th January 2018, 12:25 PM

And the will of he other 50% of the nations and people??

I seriously doubt you or the newspapers would sit quietly by for a Hard Remain with only 52%. Wouldn"t happen.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 19th January 2018, 12:38 PM

*waiting for vidcapper to respond to the non-partisan analysis of his Brexit report that backed up his confirmation bias*

*dies waiting*

Posted by: vidcapper 19th January 2018, 02:43 PM

Hard 'Remain'?

Posted by: Shia LeMuffQueef 19th January 2018, 02:58 PM

Read my post again. Hard Remain = integration into an eU superstate with the Euro and a European army. That is hard remain. Would you support that on a 52 48 split like we have to accept Hard Brexit with the same split?

Posted by: vidcapper 19th January 2018, 04:10 PM

Sorry, didn't spot that - but as you've no doubt guessed, I would not support that.

In any case though, that is irrelevant, as neither a hard Remain or a hard Brexit was specifically proposed in the referendum campaign.

Posted by: Shia LeMuffQueef 19th January 2018, 04:11 PM

So you agree that a hard Brexit/ hard remain stance is illogical and completely unwarranted by the referendum?

Posted by: vidcapper 19th January 2018, 04:23 PM

That doesn't mean it should be totally ruled out though - that *would* be illogical, as it would allow the EU to offer us the poorest deal they possibly could, safe in the knowledge that we'd either *have* to accept it, or remain in.

Posted by: Shia LeMuffQueef 19th January 2018, 05:09 PM

On a 52/48 2/2 +Gibraltar split there isn't much strength behind Brexit, so that's kind of all there is - remain or stay in customs union.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 19th January 2018, 08:00 PM

so you accept the result at the moment of the referendum but still would have wanted another. In what way is that any different from what Remainers are saying....?

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 19th January 2018, 08:04 PM

Vidcapper - How do you expect us to take you and your position seriously when you literally ignore every counter-point!? This isn't a debate, you're just running around with your fingers in your ears screaming inane drivel and conspiracy theories. Then mouthing off about being the contrarian and your POV not being taken seriously and people just being against you because you hold a view that is against the masses. Nah fam, it's because you don't answer a question, you don't respond to facts or counter-points, you throw straw-mans and duck and dive and answer questions not asked or bring up some completely unrelated topic. You want some respectful dialogue then engage us in actual debate with facts and real sources.

Prime example is the unanswered post below:

Why do breiteers overlook the really basic flaws in the only economic model that fits their ideology? Got to be the confirmation bias you were accusing us of yeah?

Posted by: vidcapper 20th January 2018, 06:47 AM

1. I wouldn't suggest another referendum happen within a year or two of the last.

2. I wouldn't treat my opponents arguments like they were something the cat dragged in.

Posted by: vidcapper 20th January 2018, 06:50 AM

I do not - I always endeavor to answer politely & rationally



I must point out that I have *tried* debating your way, to no avail.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 20th January 2018, 08:49 AM

1. There wouldnt be a need to have another referendum within a year or two if nothing was affected by the result, but you still would have wanted another go at changing it, so all you are arguing about is the length of time not the principle.

2. Nobody is accusing YOU of treating anyone like anything, but Remainers get slagged off all the time (and called traitors or worse) while Leavers get called stupid and racist. Plenty of insults from both sides I'd say so as a comment it's the kettle calling the frying pan - except that the Remain side is more sensible and fact-based, and the Leave side is more pie in the sky and faith-based and blind to facts of life that will have to be dealt with.

Posted by: vidcapper 20th January 2018, 10:05 AM

1. Correct.

2. I doubt if emphasizing how difficult the transition might be, would have done the Remain campaign any good if they'd concentrated more on it during the campaign, since very few people voted based on potential administrative difficulties.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 20th January 2018, 12:06 PM

"administrative difficulties" is a euphemism for "very bad deal which will leave us much poorer as a nation". Had the Leave campaign concentrated on telling the truth instead of lies then very much fewer people would have voted to Leave. You dont speak for everyone who voted to leave, as i have pointed out ad nauseum, and many were convinced by the promises made. Take away those promises they would have voted the other way.

This is, of course, nothing to do with my point about both sides slagging off the other (so you don't get to play the victim while prominent Remainers continue to get death threats)....

Posted by: vidcapper 20th January 2018, 03:03 PM

I believe you over-estimate that effect - IMO many Leavers just saw them as a means to an end. They were looking for any excuse to vote out, and would jump on any reason, no matter what the basis.



You do realise that they are far from alone in that - Farage has also been threatened.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/nigel-farage-quit-as-ukip-leader-over-death-threats-against-family-a3288301.html

Posted by: Popchartfreak 20th January 2018, 04:56 PM

1. No they didn't and you have no proof that is not the truth. I have hearsay from talking to people. You clearly don't talk to real people.

2. Yes I do. "Boo hoo I got threatened having not been the slightest bothered about Jo Cox getting murdered or judges or MPs getting death threats"

What goes around comes around....

PS both these topics have been discussed at length previously. I don't need to check back, or google. I use my memory. Repeating the same things over and over doesn't change the answers to them, it just makes you look forgetful, hopefully not from advancing in years.

Posted by: Shia LeMuffQueef 20th January 2018, 05:04 PM

A 52/48 split on one day shows that the lies swung it.

The result is inconclusive at best.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 20th January 2018, 05:10 PM

on a different Brexit topic, for a change, McVities have announced smaller biscuits due to the impact of the weaker pound and rising export cost, and the Brexiter twitterverse has denounced them as lying thieves, more or less. I'm not quite sure how any sane person who actually buys food at supermarkets, or any goods anywhere, could have failed to notice that things cost more than they did before the summer of 2016, and have continued to remain more expensive and it has worsened and finally fed through to all goods, including food, so no-one can pretend Brexit has had no impact.

yet the deluded fanatics seem to fail to understand basic cause and effect and do pretend.....so the question is, are they liars or are they stupid? I mean, it's basic Duuuuuuuuuh blatantly obviously the result, as it has always been throughout history when a currency drops against others.....

Posted by: Shia LeMuffQueef 20th January 2018, 05:16 PM

Basic human psychology: unable or unwilling to accept they made a bad decision, and so deny that their vote had anything to do with it. A bit like how Trumpeteers even today cannot accept that the shutdown is Republican not Democrat.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 20th January 2018, 05:24 PM

The £ has actually increased by 14% since February 2017, it is also now only around 6-6.5% off the value it was before the referendum on 22nd June 2016.

I think there is an element of blaming Brexit and using that to bring down costs and try to squeeze out a bit more profit, and arguably smaller biscuits are a good solution to the obesity epidemic in the country.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 20th January 2018, 07:20 PM

inflation however has meant the 2 years of price rises is built into the overall picture given there have been wage cuts during that period in real terms. Whichever way you look at it most of us are worse off. I know I am.

smaller portions don't work though - people just eat more! As my hungry friends tell me...

Posted by: vidcapper 21st January 2018, 07:08 AM

Surely death threats are wrong, whoever they are made against? You seem to be suggesting that they are OK against Farage, simply because he didn't wear a hairshirt over Jo Cox's death?




The result was narrow, but not inconclusive.




There would have been inflation even without the Brexit vote - ISTM there's no way to determine how much extra is due to it, though?

In any case - as I've said before, for someone who grew up in an era where inflation frequently exceeded 10%, 3% is utterly insignificant.




Only the losing side are claiming Leavers made a bad decision.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 21st January 2018, 12:21 PM

1. I never said death threats are OK, never have, never will. I'm saying my sympathy for Farage getting death threats is more along the lines of poetic justice when he has no sympathy for people he sees as "enemies" (they aren't) get murdered or receive death threats. If you think it's fine for some people to be murdered or get death threats then one shouldn't expect any sympathy whatosever when you get them. It's very easy when you are constantly on TV to express sympathy for someone recently murdered, to call it evil, and to try and calm down death threats against others. Takes LITERALLY less than 30 seconds out of your life. He never has. Why should anyone else do it for him? By the way the latest suggestions that he visited Assange is to deliver a file of data useful to the Russians and Trump, from America. If true, that makes him worse than I already think he is, it makes him a spy working for the wrong side.

He still hasn't explained why he visited and insisted no-one be in the room at the same time, immediately after he had been to see Trump.

2. yawn. Record on repeat.

3. Bollocks. With respect. The pound plummeted. There is no way that would have happened with a Remain result. That had an immediate impact, factually back-up-able. Claiming that it would have happened anyway is living in cuckoo-land, typical Leaver attempts to make the result seem blameless. As someone who grew up in an era when 10-20% inflation was rife, I can also say it's not insignificant. Young people were trapped in negative equity for a decade or more, unemployment was in the millions, jobs were scarce, and a whole generation lost opportunites, others struggled as wages declined against inflation.

Rose-tinted specs as usual from you. Being young and fit and happy does not mean it's the same for everyone else. If it was so insignificant then all economies would be rushing to get inflation - it's easy to produce - as a means of a viable way of life. They don't.

4. No, people throughout the world are claiming it was a bad decision......the only ones who don't think it is are racist, fascist, or far-right organisations elsewhere, and those who voted for it (not the majority of the British population), and rich people who can screw us all as a consequence in their tax havens.

PS all of these topics are essentially repeat topics from you that have already been answered. I am getting worried about your memory....

Posted by: vidcapper 21st January 2018, 03:03 PM

1. I suspect if Farage had expressed sympathy, Remainers would just accuse him of being insincere.

2. It's not *me* who keeping banging on about 2/4 and close margins

3. Yet *again* you deliberately misinterpret me! You know PERFECTLY BLOODY WELL I wasn't suggesting that a change in FX rates wouldn't cause inflation - I was merely pointing out that inflation is a constant, and that the proportion due to to Brexit is unknown.

4. It was *our* decision - if it turns out to be a poor choice, then so be it - but for me it was never about economics.

5. It's not *my* memory at fault - only the Remainers here seem to forget what the result of the referendum was.

Posted by: Shia LeMuffQueef 21st January 2018, 03:27 PM

Our decision

Whose?

52% not bloody 100% and only half the nations. It is disputed. It is inconclusive. The Leavers and press have put their bully boy caps on and tried to convince us that it's 100% in order to gain legitimacy for that awful, ON ONE DAY, vote.

Posted by: vidcapper 21st January 2018, 04:21 PM

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/907719/Macron-France-vote-to-LEAVE-EU-referendum-Brexit-Brussels-Marr