ew the daily express :puke:

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.

 

1. No we wouldn't. You've accused us of that before

2. Yawn

3. I NEVER EVER EVER deliberately misinterpret you. You do that well yourself. I was pointing out that we DO know that inflation is a direct consequence of Brexit. It happened the next day! Failing memory again. That affected inflation 100% guaranteed. No serious economist would say otherwise without getting laughed out of the business. The proportion is what it is, more or less. Just compare it to other rates in Europe to get a rough idea of what it would have been without Brexit.

4. So you keep saying. Unfortunately YOUR wild optimism affects the rest of US, so we have a strong interest in not taking your opinions as worth anything much when it's OUR well-being at stake. Why do you not understand that?

5. Usual response, yawn.

ew the daily express :puke:

 

Them too?

 

1. No we wouldn't. You've accused us of that before

2. Yawn

3. I NEVER EVER EVER deliberately misinterpret you. You do that well yourself. I was pointing out that we DO know that inflation is a direct consequence of Brexit. It happened the next day! Failing memory again. That affected inflation 100% guaranteed. No serious economist would say otherwise without getting laughed out of the business. The proportion is what it is, more or less. Just compare it to other rates in Europe to get a rough idea of what it would have been without Brexit.

4. So you keep saying. Unfortunately YOUR wild optimism affects the rest of US, so we have a strong interest in not taking your opinions as worth anything much when it's OUR well-being at stake. Why do you not understand that?

5. Usual response, yawn.

 

1. So you're not as cynical about Farage as I thought you were?

 

2. Well, if Shia LeMuffQueef will stop saying it, i'll stop responding to it. ;)

 

3. I will reiterate - low levels of inflation do not concern me.

 

4. I do understand that, but most of the people who voted Leave did not perceive that they gained anything from our EU membership.

 

5. You're bored by the truth? :huh:

I wasn't aware the Guardian had a whole section dedicated to Brexit - though it explains a lot. ;)

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/eu-referendum

Them too?

1. So you're not as cynical about Farage as I thought you were?

 

2. Well, if Shia LeMuffQueef will stop saying it, i'll stop responding to it. ;)

 

3. I will reiterate - low levels of inflation do not concern me.

 

4. I do understand that, but most of the people who voted Leave did not perceive that they gained anything from our EU membership.

 

5. You're bored by the truth? :huh:

 

1. No

2. Then dont respond or just say "yawn"

3. Very little concerns you in terms of OUR future wellbeing, based entirely on what you post.

4. They were misinformed

5. Bored by your catchphrase. It basically says anytime anyone raises a valid point "I dont care we won na na na na na" as if that is the end of the matter and we all have to do whatever you choose to think the referendum meant. It doesn't.

1. No

2. Then dont respond or just say "yawn"

3. Very little concerns you in terms of OUR future wellbeing, based entirely on what you post.

4. They were misinformed

5. Bored by your catchphrase. It basically says anytime anyone raises a valid point "I dont care we won na na na na na" as if that is the end of the matter and we all have to do whatever you choose to think the referendum meant. It doesn't.

 

2. I'll try.

 

3. By 'Our', do you mean the country in general, or Remainers in particular?

 

4. How could they be misinformed about their *own* perceptions? :huh:

 

5. Had Remain won, I would expect their attitude to be along the lines of 'that settles the matter for decades to come'

Edited January 22, 20187 yr by vidcapper

I wasn't aware the Guardian had a whole section dedicated to Brexit - though it explains a lot. ;)

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/eu-referendum

Oh, how terrible. A newspaper website has been designed so that it is easy to access all their stories on a particular topic. How dare they?

2. I'll try.

 

3. By 'Our', do you mean the country in general, or Remainers in particular?

 

4. How could they be misinformed about their *own* perceptions? :huh:

 

5. Had Remain won, I would expect their attitude to be along the lines of 'that settles the matter for decades to come'

Because they have benefited from EU membership even if they don't realise it. How many of them have benefited from roaming charges being abolished? How many of them have benefited from cheap air fares? How many have spent time on UK beaches which are a lot cleaner than they were 40 years ago?

 

Of course, many of those people read papers that faithfully reported Mayhem's claim that abolishing charges for using credit cards and extending the ban on plastic bags were all her idea. Wrong again - they are both EU initiatives.

Because they have benefited from EU membership even if they don't realise it. How many of them have benefited from roaming charges being abolished? How many of them have benefited from cheap air fares? How many have spent time on UK beaches which are a lot cleaner than they were 40 years ago?

 

It's hard to convince people that relatively intangible benefits like the above are due solely to the EU though - all of the above *could* have been achieved without our being in the EU - but that's not something we can know.

 

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

 

I just checked, and roaming charges we not abolished by the EU until *after* the Brexit referendum, so therefore could not have influenced the decision.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40281013

Edited January 22, 20187 yr by vidcapper

Actually roaming charges were banned by the EU years before. The EU first made steps in 2006 with a consultation and then in 2007 introduced Eurotariff which capped charges for calls. Texts and a further reduction in calls happened in 2009 and that text you get when you land in an eu country that tells you of all the rates and charges became EU law in 2008. In 2010, 2011 and 2012 the cap was reduced in each year.

 

In 2013 the proposal to kill roaming charges was put forward by the European Commission. The European Parliament votes in favour of the proposal early 2014. In 2015 the date for the death of roaming charges was set at 15/6/17 to allow for the wholesale telecom market to make necessary reforms and for fair usage policies to be agreed.

 

2016 saw another price fall as part of the transition to abolition and confirmation of fair use. Jan 17 saw the regulated wholesale market price fixed at lower rates than initially agreed. The final piece of the jigsaw.

 

15th of June 2017 saw the ban on roaming charges come into force after a decade of work by the European Union

2. I'll try.

 

3. By 'Our', do you mean the country in general, or Remainers in particular?

 

4. How could they be misinformed about their *own* perceptions? :huh:

 

5. Had Remain won, I would expect their attitude to be along the lines of 'that settles the matter for decades to come'

 

3. The Country, including Leavers.

 

4. Perceptions are not facts, they are beliefs. Beliefs were pushed by the lying politicians running the Leave campaign, they are all on the record, as mentioned many many times in threads

 

5. No they wouldn't. I TOTALLY expected Farage to have a strop and UKIP to keep pushing for another referendum down the line because that's what he actually said. In a democracy nothing is forever and regular sensible revisits if something remains unpopular is inevitable. Had it been a referendum that made it clear what would actually happen (by accepting the EU version of the process) and there had been universal accurate agreement by Leavers then the case for another one wouldn't be as relevant.

4. Perceptions are not facts, they are beliefs. Beliefs were pushed by the lying politicians running the Leave campaign, they are all on the record, as mentioned many many times in threads

 

5. No they wouldn't. I TOTALLY expected Farage to have a strop and UKIP to keep pushing for another referendum down the line because that's what he actually said. In a democracy nothing is forever and regular sensible revisits if something remains unpopular is inevitable. Had it been a referendum that made it clear what would actually happen (by accepting the EU version of the process) and there had been universal accurate agreement by Leavers then the case for another one wouldn't be as relevant.

 

4. Beliefs may be reinforced by politicians, but Euroscepticism amongst voters wasn't *created* by them.

 

5. Surely on that basis, we shouldn't have had to wait *forty one* years to revisit the EU issue?

4. Beliefs may be reinforced by politicians, but Euroscepticism amongst voters wasn't *created* by them.

 

5. Surely on that basis, we shouldn't have had to wait *forty one* years to revisit the EU issue?

 

4. Daily Mail, Sun, Express, Telegraph, news Of The World, etc. Pretty much created by billionaires and millionaires and fallen for by non-billionaires. There was no internet in those days, so the basic (mis)information came from the mouths of rich foreigners with agendas.

 

5. There may have been an argument that there should have been a referendum 10 years ago (it wasn't an issue before then in numbers that would have made it a worthwhile exercise). It became an issue following economic boom years and mass immigration (and emigration) after the banking crisis when everyone looked for someone to blame. Step up The Usual Suspects, foreigners. Don't try to deny it isn't relevant because you didnt vote for those reasons personally. The evidence is everywhere, including the front pages of the gutter press over the last 25 years (at least). The key phrase is "if there is enough support for" and that applies both ways if it's roughly split 50/50. 20/80 either way would be waste of money.

If Remain hd won narrowly, Leave campaigners would have been entitled to call for another vote. Remainers (including, somehow, most of the current Cabinet regardless of what they said in the referendum) would have been equally entitled to refuse that demand without a significant change in circumstances. As it is, the terms of the deal will represent a significant change in circumstances. In fact, such a vote would not be a "second referendum", it would be a first vote on the terms of the deal.

Sorry, but it needs repeating as you and other Brexiteers act like you got 100%! As Suedehead said, we need a vote on the actual deal, especially seeing as Leave promised everything to everyone. The % is pithy and not enough for a Hard Brexit.

It's hard to convince people that relatively intangible benefits like the above are due solely to the EU though - all of the above *could* have been achieved without our being in the EU - but that's not something we can know.

 

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

 

I just checked, and roaming charges we not abolished by the EU until *after* the Brexit referendum, so therefore could not have influenced the decision.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40281013

Silas has answered the second point eloquently enough. On the first issue, that is precisely the point. They are all things that have happened because of the EU. How likely is it that one country would have forbidden mobile countries to impose roaming charges? UK governments had decades to impose higher standards for British beaches; they didn't do it.

4. Daily Mail, Sun, Express, Telegraph, news Of The World, etc. Pretty much created by billionaires and millionaires and fallen for by non-billionaires. There was no internet in those days, so the basic (mis)information came from the mouths of rich foreigners with agendas.

 

5. There may have been an argument that there should have been a referendum 10 years ago (it wasn't an issue before then in numbers that would have made it a worthwhile exercise). It became an issue following economic boom years and mass immigration (and emigration) after the banking crisis when everyone looked for someone to blame. Step up The Usual Suspects, foreigners. Don't try to deny it isn't relevant because you didnt vote for those reasons personally. The evidence is everywhere, including the front pages of the gutter press over the last 25 years (at least). The key phrase is "if there is enough support for" and that applies both ways if it's roughly split 50/50. 20/80 either way would be waste of money.

 

4. Like politicians, I see the media as reinforcers of beliefs, not the instigators of them.

 

5. We've been through this many times - I've admitted that immigration is a factor, but IMO the proportion of the people who support the extreme-right parties for whom it is an issue, is too low for racist voters to have reversed the result

 

If Remain hd won narrowly, Leave campaigners would have been entitled to call for another vote. Remainers (including, somehow, most of the current Cabinet regardless of what they said in the referendum) would have been equally entitled to refuse that demand without a significant change in circumstances. As it is, the terms of the deal will represent a significant change in circumstances. In fact, such a vote would not be a "second referendum", it would be a first vote on the terms of the deal.

 

I could live with a second referendum as long at it was only about the *terms* of the deal, i.e. no option for rejecting Brexit entirely.

 

Silas has answered the second point eloquently enough. On the first issue, that is precisely the point. They are all things that have happened because of the EU. How likely is it that one country would have forbidden mobile countries to impose roaming charges? UK governments had decades to impose higher standards for British beaches; they didn't do it.

 

Ah, but unless roaming charges will be reimposed, & beach cleanliness standards dropped after Brexit, then voting Leave would not compromise those issues, and therefore not be a reason to vote Remain.

 

And since there is a whole big issue about EU laws being cut/pasted into British law after Brexit, we know the above will remain in force...

I could live with a second referendum as long at it was only about the *terms* of the deal, i.e. no option for rejecting Brexit entirely.

Ah, but unless roaming charges will be reimposed, & beach cleanliness standards dropped after Brexit, then voting Leave would not compromise those issues, and therefore not be a reason to vote Remain.

 

And since there is a whole big issue about EU laws being cut/pasted into British law after Brexit, we know the above will remain in force...

1) If a democracy cannot change its mind, then it ceases to be a democracy - the words of David Davis. For once, I agree with him. Surely if a majority of people decide, having seen the deal and got a better idea of what leaving entails, want to stay in the EU, it would be user madness to go ahead and leave.

 

2) As ever, you are shifting the argument. You said that Leave voters felt they had received no benefit from EU membership. I have demonstrated that they have benefitted, even if they don't realise it. Whether those benefits are taken away at some future date is irrelevant.

 

3) You have missed the point yet again. As I have explained before, the issue is not about incorporating EU law into UK law. The issue is about the government granting themselves the power to repeal or amend those laws without any debate or votes in parliament. They could relax the rules on the cleanliness of beaches, or allow phone companies to reintroduce roaming charges at the stroke of a pen.

1) If a democracy cannot change its mind, then it ceases to be a democracy - the words of David Davis. For once, I agree with him. Surely if a majority of people decide, having seen the deal and got a better idea of what leaving entails, want to stay in the EU, it would be user madness to go ahead and leave.

 

But if you grant *that*, you will not be able to deny the people another referendum, if the political situation changes *again*, against the EU.

 

Surely you must recognise that it would be utter madness, not to mention an affront to democracy, to have a situation where only the 'wrong' answer is subject to immediate review?

 

But if you grant *that*, you will not be able to deny the people another referendum, if the political situation changes *again*, against the EU.

 

Surely you must recognise that it would be utter madness, not to mention an affront to democracy, to have a situation where only the 'wrong' answer is subject to immediate review?

It is not subject to "immediate review". It would be asking a different question. Even f the wording is more or less the same, the circumstances will have changed sufficiently for it effectively to be a different question. If somebody says Yes to a marriage proposal, they can change their mind at any point up to and including the ending day itself. Why should this be any different?