Gove’s stupidity is staggering

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.

 

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/art...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.

Here's a fairly accurate report on it from, cough, the Daily Mail.

 

I never thought I'd hear those two things in the same context here! :lol:

From your beloved Guardian...

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/j...-the-uk-economy

 

The recession meant to make leave voters regret decision has failed to materialise – with majority of people having moved on

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).

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.

 

But that was a once-off intervention, over 18 months ago now - it cannot explain the continuing absence of 'disaster'.

 

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.

 

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.

 

But that was a once-off intervention, over 18 months ago now - it cannot explain the continuing absence of 'disaster'.

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.

 

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.

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.

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

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?

It was still a minority position, that they adopted to increase their support among UKIP voters.

 

Except that it turned out *not* to be a minority position...

Except that it turned out *not* to be a minority position...

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.

This seems a very petty move...

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-...n-a8149786.html

Edited January 10, 20187 yr by vidcapper

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.

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.

 

You may be right, but how many copies of other papers were sold, for comparison?

They haven’t released other numbers but one could conclude that it’s greater than 70

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?

They haven’t released other numbers but one could conclude that it’s greater than 70

 

On what basis - solely on the fact it wasn't mentioned? :unsure:

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?

 

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.

 

 

On what basis - solely on the fact it wasn't mentioned? :unsure:

Logic and an IQ greater than 6

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.

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.