Brexit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wheeze

Of course that graph has nothing to do with undecided firming up their decision just before the vote.

---

Yes, the most striking thing about the graph for me was the wide variance in poll results before the referendum (I think 95% confidence intervals for Leave and Remain would have a lot of overlap), whereas it all stabilised afterwards. It's now clearly in favour of Remain; on the other hand, if a People's Vote was announced, it would probably start oscillating wildly again . . .

Anyway, I'm off to check the local ditches to see if there is a dead Boris in any of them.

The most reliable polls are national elections / referenda.

Since 2014, the EU election where UKIP rattled the cages of the established parties, a clear leave majority has occurred at each GE, EU election or referendum.

But you can also check the recent polling trends.

When asked about a GE, the Tories and Brexit Party combined are reaching 50% so without an Ulster Unionists, or the 30% of SNP supporters that favour Brexit, there is a large rump of the electorate clearly still for leave and this is growing.

The actions of the MPs are only adding to the momentum and the polling is making them even more scared of calling a General Election.

YouGov on 18/10, when stripping out the "Don't Knows" 63% for Johnson's agreement, 37% against. Some of those against are "No Dealers".

I sense there's going to be a few twists, but ultimately the public will catch up with this lot.

The first past the post system is no way to judge overall popularity WP. The tories at their absolute best, when winning the 1983 election, had something like 42% of the popular vote but won effectively 66% of the seats in parliament. I could not vote for the tories for billions of years, given an eternal life time, in my constituency and I suspect that the conservatives would win every time. My vote in a general election means very little. Yeah this does work for labour too, like under Tony Blair, but the disproportional representation was wrong there too.

Boris is shit scared of a second referendum because he knows he’ll lose it. Labour on the other hand aren’t shit scared of an election (they want one once no deal is dead and buried). A delay to the election and hopefully a second referendum before a general election could be a ground zero point for the tories (which they’ll richly deserve) 😊

Sadly the bravado of labour cannot match the reality

Read Dan Hodges assessment in the Mail for a fair summary of where it is all at now.
Behind the brave face,Labour MPs are desparate. Corbyn is even more toxic on doorsteps than no deal brexit. Corbyns duplicity has managed to convince remainers he is for leave, and leavers that he is remain, he reaps what he sows. Nobody wants a marxist terrorist lover, many of his own Mps cannot countenance his becoming PM.

And Labour has a bigger problem than Tory. 70 percent of its seats are leave, 70 percent of the voters remain. If Corbyn backs a referendum, Ie remain, he will lose most of north england. The actions of labour MPs are now managing to piss off most of the EU minor states, for refusing even allowing the deal to vote, knowing they will lose it. The minor states have little to lose by not allowing extension.

Its true. The FPP system has problems, but like capitalism, until someone comes up with something better it must remain. PR leads to the same sort of indecision we see in such as spain. How many governments recentlY? it is why PR states are easy victim to brussels duplicity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stolly

The first past the post system is no way to judge overall popularity WP. The tories at their absolute best, when winning the 1983 election, had something like 42% of the popular vote but won effectively 66% of the seats in parliament. I could not vote for the tories for billions of years, given an eternal life time, in my constituency and I suspect that the conservatives would win every time. My vote in a general election means very little. Yeah this does work for labour too, like under Tony Blair, but the disproportional representation was wrong there too.

Boris is shit scared of a second referendum because he knows he’ll lose it. Labour on the other hand aren’t shit scared of an election (they want one once no deal is dead and buried). A delay to the election and hopefully a second referendum before a general election could be a ground zero point for the tories (which they’ll richly deserve) ��

---

Oracle, I would not even wipe my ar3e with a disgusting rag like the Mail. Cant believe you'd quote someone from that!

I don’t read the mail. Never picked one up or looked online. I follow dan hodges on social media who is a freelance , and I read his recent article and hehas the ear of many mps. Not surprising considering who his mum is. He is critical of all sides from time to time:

but important is the feedback from labour mps - it is that that is worth reading, better still his social media posts not just the articlr

If Bercow refuses a straight vote on the deal which is outrageous to bar government business , but I think he might, and if a customs union amendment is filed I think Boris might just take the nuclear chance of forcing a general election based on the deal by calling confidence. The rest are unwilling to allow each other to be even temporary pm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stolly

The first past the post system is no way to judge overall popularity WP. The tories at their absolute best, when winning the 1983 election, had something like 42% of the popular vote but won effectively 66% of the seats in parliament. I could not vote for the tories for billions of years, given an eternal life time, in my constituency and I suspect that the conservatives would win every time. My vote in a general election means very little. Yeah this does work for labour too, like under Tony Blair, but the disproportional representation was wrong there too.

Boris is shit scared of a second referendum because he knows he’ll lose it. Labour on the other hand aren’t shit scared of an election (they want one once no deal is dead and buried). A delay to the election and hopefully a second referendum before a general election could be a ground zero point for the tories (which they’ll richly deserve) ��

---

There are a few issues here Stolly.

Firstly you dismiss my point because of your perceived flaws in FPTP. However the point I made referred to 3 other national electoral events which were not FPTP.
All 5 national electoral events have produced leave majorities.

I don't believe that Boris is shit-scared of a 2nd referendum because of the potential result. I believe he is concerned at the damage to the system such a referendum would have.
Firstly, what question?
You can see the Remainers are for a two option BRINO or Remain. Labour's as you know is for the softest of soft Brexits and Remain.
The intent to airbrush leave out of a 2nd referendum is quite sinister in my opinion.

You only need to look across at France and Spain to see the effects of political chicanery.
The Brits are rather more reserved it has to be said, but if you keep poking with that stick....

and then we have the recurring issue of what happens if Remain win a 2nd referendum 52/48 assuming Remain gets back on such a referendum?
Best of 3?
What type of Remain?
3 years of debate to see how we create a remain arrangement with the EU that respects the views of the 48?
After 3 years do we put the Remain "deal" to the electorate in a confirmatory referendum?
Would that 3rd confirmatory referendum have the options of "Remain Light" or No Deal?

and round and round we go.....

Finally (for now :D )you say that Labour want a General Election once no deal is dead and buried. You can't actually reach that point.
Assuming that Boris Johnson's deal passes, even with an amendment such as Labour are currently proposing for a Customs Union to be added as a preferred outcome. We leave, there's an election. The Tories or a Tory/Brexit Party coalition win. The previous issues are irrelevant as a Government with a majority can do more or less what they want for 5 years.

And that is why Labour are refusing a General Election. All polling suggests they will tank and the degree of their downfall only seems to look worse with each successive week's polling.

That is why, despite back in early September, the offer of a 15/10 General Election was declined. It could have delivered a Remain PM in to Downing Street before EU Council.

But they are shit-scared.

It looks more likely, that even if there is an extension, Labour will not go for a GE, but they will seek to lead a minority Govt.
In fact this weekend they have been discussing this very issue with the DUP.

Hansard 4/9
Patrick McLoughlin Chair, European Statutory Instruments Committee
"Does the Leader of the Opposition want a general election? A yes or no will suffice."

Jeremy Corbyn Leader of Her Majesty's Official Opposition, Leader of the Labour Party
"The right hon. Gentleman obviously did not hear what I just said. Before he gently interrupted me, I was about to point out that the offer of the election today is a bit like the offer of an apple to Snow White from the Wicked Queen, because what the Prime Minister is offering is not an apple or even an election, but the poison of a no deal. I repeat what I said last night. Let this Bill pass and gain Royal Assent, and then we will back an election"

As you can see, Corbyn promised a General Election twice. On the 3/9 to the Prime Minister. Again on the 4/9 here.

He wanted the Benn Act passed.
The Tories were planning to filibuster it in the Lords
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk...k-no-deal-bill
but let it pass after the confirmation from Corbyn.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk...tch-filibuster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wheeze

Oracle, I would not even wipe my ar3e with a disgusting rag like the Mail. Cant believe you'd quote someone from that!

---

Settle darn Wheeze, Oracle has explained about Mr Hodges and has made some good points.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wheeze

Oracle, I would not even wipe my ar3e with a disgusting rag like the Mail. Cant believe you'd quote someone from that!

---

I'm surprised at such an attack from you Wheeze. I've often had the cheap shot "Daily Mail Reader" accusation despite never having bought one, and only occasionally picked one up when free at an airport.

It's a free country. We should debate, disagree by all means, but attacks for the choice of which newspaper from a relatively poor choice isn't warranted.

Of course it's a free country WP. I was freely admitting my surprise that a well informed commentator would quote from such a dreadfully biased right wing rag. I would expressed similar surprise if someone quoted a source from the Daily Star. In my own view, it damages credibility. However, Oracle offered a good defence in saying it was Margaret Hodges son he was actually quoting. Fair enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wheeze

Of course it's a free country WP. I was freely admitting my surprise that a well informed commentator would quote from such a dreadfully biased right wing rag. I would expressed similar surprise if someone quoted a source from the Daily Star. In my own view, it damages credibility. However, Oracle offered a good defence in saying it was Margaret Hodges son he was actually quoting. Fair enough.

---

Peter Hitchens is someone who writes for the Mail who I find interesting and provocative. I have to say I don't like him and I more often than not disagree with him but I do like reading and he is open to a debate online as well, which few are.

There is crap in all papers regardless of their political position. Journalist of the year, Carole Cadwaller, has had to print or tweet so many retractions for stuff run in the Guardian/Observer recently, you wonder how she is still employable.

No time to answer all your points WP as I’m on my way to a work meeting but the 2nd referendum is needed because the first was so flawed. It put Brexit over as if it was a single thing when, if the past three years have taught us anything, it’s nothing like that. Brexit could be soft, medium or hard and all could effect our day to day standard of living in a myriad of ways. Already the country has spent something like £100 billion trying to get Brexit done and will have to spend a shit load more in the years ahead. Everybody makes out that we just need to get this deal done but this deal is only the end of the beginning of Brexit. It’s singularly the most stupid thing ever and the irony is that, even if it happens, the U.K. now has possibly the strongest and largest pro EU lobby in Europe; rejoining will be inevitable.

Also for such a major constitutional referendum as the original was, they clearly should have had a 60% or more threshold to avoid all the caffuffle that we’ve had since.

Oh and did I mention all of the lies in the original campaign....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witton Park

I don't believe that Boris is shit-scared of a 2nd referendum because of the potential result. I believe he is concerned at the damage to the system such a referendum would have.
Firstly, what question?
You can see the Remainers are for a two option BRINO or Remain. Labour's as you know is for the softest of soft Brexits and Remain.
The intent to airbrush leave out of a 2nd referendum is quite sinister in my opinion.

You only need to look across at France and Spain to see the effects of political chicanery.
The Brits are rather more reserved it has to be said, but if you keep poking with that stick....

and then we have the recurring issue of what happens if Remain win a 2nd referendum 52/48 assuming Remain gets back on such a referendum?
Best of 3?
What type of Remain?
3 years of debate to see how we create a remain arrangement with the EU that respects the views of the 48?
After 3 years do we put the Remain "deal" to the electorate in a confirmatory referendum?
Would that 3rd confirmatory referendum have the options of "Remain Light" or No Deal?

and round and round we go.....

---

Good points. I would add another. There is no guarantee that if Leave won again our Remain parliament would accept the result even then. In fact both Jo Swinson and Caroline Lucas have admitted that they wouldn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stolly

Oh and did I mention all of the lies in the original campaign....

---

Yes, the claim that just by voting to leave unemployment would increase by 500,000 to 800,000 was truly shocking and subsequently proven to be completely wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stolly

No time to answer all your points WP as I’m on my way to a work meeting but the 2nd referendum is needed because the first was so flawed. It put Brexit over as if it was a single thing when, if the past three years have taught us anything, it’s nothing like that. Brexit could be soft, medium or hard and all could effect our day to day standard of living in a myriad of ways. Already the country has spent something like £100 billion trying to get Brexit done and will have to spend a shit load more in the years ahead. Everybody makes out that we just need to get this deal done but this deal is only the end of the beginning of Brexit. It’s singularly the most stupid thing ever and the irony is that, even if it happens, the U.K. now has possibly the strongest and largest pro EU lobby in Europe; rejoining will be inevitable.

Also for such a major constitutional referendum as the original was, they clearly should have had a 60% or more threshold to avoid all the caffuffle that we’ve had since.

Oh and did I mention all of the lies in the original campaign....

---

Yes you've more or less covered this on multiple occasions and I disagree with you. So I'll leave it with back in the 70s the electorate were given a simple in/out and at that time we didn't consider the concept of a hard, soft, medium, clean..... membership.

I completely agree with the assertion that a sensible majority like 60/40 should have been agreed up front. Kerfuffle-saving it would have been. I also agree with WP that the referendum question was correct. Binary Leave/Remain. Of course issues resulting from the decision would have had to be dealt with. Thats what politicians are for. We choose, they do. Or not in this case!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wheeze

Of course it's a free country WP. I was freely admitting my surprise that a well informed commentator would quote from such a dreadfully biased right wing rag. I would expressed similar surprise if someone quoted a source from the Daily Star. In my own view, it damages credibility. However, Oracle offered a good defence in saying it was Margaret Hodges son he was actually quoting. Fair enough.

---

No actually Wheeze, keep up!
He is ( ex lab mp - ex actor) Glenda Jackson’s son.

You are speaking like one of our lifelong state sponger mps

Reality is starting a new enterprise, kicking in the day job, investing a fortune is not normally amenable to simple economic assessment, it is done on the basis of belief backed by evidence, not on immediate short term but what it might become.

Using your short termist thinking that cannot see past the present, there would be no private sector or public funding at all.

So it is far more pertinent that Singapore, Canada, Australia are doing better than EU , and that EU is a titanic on a path to financial self destruction than it is a myopic short term fear of loss on leaving the present arrangement.

It is laughable quoting “ expert” economists when almost all including imf, boe, ECB missed 2008 coming, and all the uk professors told us failing to join the euro was death. The economists I follow were spot on with both. They say the euro will collapse taking EU with it.

Also it is vital to assess the criteria which are the catalyst that makes that future possible ( ie own trade deals, so no customs union)

So speaks a guy who has been involved in setting up businesses exporting round the world, even to China, in fields such as robotics, imaging and biotechnology, Companies that refuse to take leaps of faith into the future die.

You cannot see past the end of your nose stolly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stolly

No time to answer all your points WP as I’m on my way to a work meeting but the 2nd referendum is needed because the first was so flawed. It put Brexit over as if it was a single thing when, if the past three years have taught us anything, it’s nothing like that. Brexit could be soft, medium or hard and all could effect our day to day standard of living in a myriad of ways. Already the country has spent something like £100 billion trying to get Brexit done and will have to spend a shit load more in the years ahead. Everybody makes out that we just need to get this deal done but this deal is only the end of the beginning of Brexit. It’s singularly the most stupid thing ever and the irony is that, even if it happens, the U.K. now has possibly the strongest and largest pro EU lobby in Europe; rejoining will be inevitable.

Also for such a major constitutional referendum as the original was, they clearly should have had a 60% or more threshold to avoid all the caffuffle that we’ve had since.

Oh and did I mention all of the lies in the original campaign....

---

Well I sure don’t want to be another Singapore - effectively a family run autocracy - and in any event Singapore are a member of a south East Asian trade block aren’t they? As for Australia a huge part of its success depends on having lots of minerals that expanding economies around the world need (at the minute). Australia are also having ever increasing dealings with the south east Asia trade block and also depend massively on the continued expansion of China and other countries in that neck of the woods. And Canada exports 75% of everything it exports to the USA, its biggest (obviously by far) and guess what nearest trading partner 🤔

Use logic stolly.

You manage to disprove your own point.

Canada is not in the US but manages to export to it, we don’t need to be in the EU to export to that either.
Eu laments it’s inability under WTO to keep Chinese goods out!

Our balance of trade and balance of growth show the tide turning towards rest of the world. Eu is declining.

We are not in the US either, but manage to export more financial services there than EU

I’ve exported all round the world. EU made it harder not easier because externally it is a protection zone, not a free trade area.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stolly

Well I sure don’t want to be another Singapore - effectively a family run autocracy - and in any event Singapore are a member of a south East Asian trade block aren’t they? As for Australia a huge part of its success depends on having lots of minerals that expanding economies around the world need (at the minute). Australia are also having ever increasing dealings with the south east Asia trade block and also depend massively on the continued expansion of China and other countries in that neck of the woods. And Canada exports 75% of everything it exports to the USA, its biggest (obviously by far) and guess what nearest trading partner ��

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oracle

Use logic stolly.

You manage to disprove your own point.

Canada is not in the US but manages to export to it, we don’t need to be in the EU to export to that either.
Eu laments it’s inability under WTO to keep Chinese goods out!

Our balance of trade and balance of growth show the tide turning towards rest of the world. Eu is declining.

We are not in the US either, but manage to export more financial services there than EU

I’ve exported all round the world. EU made it harder not easier because externally it is a protection zone, not a free trade area.

---

Haha but the EU is signing up trade deals all around the world duh brain. And as part of the EU we benefit from that and in leaving we jeopardise and/or incredibly complicate that. And because of its size the EU can demand high standards and is much more powerful than the clout or lack of clout of one single country. Why do you think Canada and Japan were so keen to sign up trade deals with the EU?

I just proved you don’t need to be in EU to trade with it,and so did you: that is what a trade deal is. It is why EU does trade deals.

And yes, it would be better to have one, but certainly not at a price of 39 billion or 10 billion a year, when on balance of trade, we are buyers! “ Duh brain.”

In reality it is a chink in a set of high walls, to eus protection zone, that makes exports harder for those selling out. I’ve done it, have you?

China is not what it was. They are now increasingly GMP , so the standards arguments is also increasingly fallacious.what EU declares as standards are just deliberate trade barriers, Singapore is the best educated work force in the world. Which is why such as Dyson went there, other than to escape corbyn thefts of property.

And a trade deal is like a suit of clothes. In Trying to fit 27 bodies it fits all of them badly, none of them well.
And because 27 are sat round the table with minnows deciding the whole. the decisions are lowest common denominator and take forever to do. Like a company that takes 7 years to make deals, and has too large a bureaucracy Eu will go bust, as others more nimble that take better decisions quicker beat the titanic,


So now you have disproved all your own arguments!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stolly

Haha but the EU is signing up trade deals all around the world duh brain. And as part of the EU we benefit from that and in leaving we jeopardise and/or incredibly complicate that. And because of its size the EU can demand high standards and is much more powerful than the clout or lack of clout of one single country. Why do you think Canada and Japan were so keen to sign up trade deals with the EU?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wheeze

I completely agree with the assertion that a sensible majority like 60/40 should have been agreed up front. Kerfuffle-saving it would have been. I also agree with WP that the referendum question was correct. Binary Leave/Remain. Of course issues resulting from the decision would have had to be dealt with. Thats what politicians are for. We choose, they do. Or not in this case!!

---

60/40 is also flawed in my opinion Wheeze. I know some places have used this, but you can block any progress.

With hindsight, had we known the losers would not have accepted the result of THIS referendum (they've relished the Welsh Assembly on a thinner margin and turnout) the Government should have constructed a more robust referendum bill.

It seems the Remainers think Leavers didn't hear the countless claims of economic doom, that we would leave the Single Market and Customs Union, and be subject to WTO terms.
Had we heard that, clearly we would have voted with the enlightened 48%.

So perhaps it could have been done with a paired electoral process.
eg.

First step, a referendum on Remain or Leave. The direction of travel.

If Leave, Second Step is to make the necessary arrangements often wrongly called leaving with a deal and then to put a second confirmatory referendum to the public on the deal or no deal.

If Remain, because the type of remain is really shaped by the EU28 or whatever the future numbers are, the second step is to build in a public confirmatory event such as has been offered to the assembly in Northern Ireland (it should be the public in my opinion as the politicians are barmy)

In that way, following a vote to Leave, we would have had a second one to decide what sort of leave.

In that way, following a vote to Remain it could not be as last time, for a 40 year period that allowed our political class to entangle us so much legally and bureaucratically without any consent by the public.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stolly

Singapore are a member of a south East Asian trade block aren’t they?

---

yes a free trade area. Not a single market, customs union, with a Parliament, several Presidents, a central bank, a court and the ability to pass laws and regs down to the constituent members.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stolly

Haha but the EU is signing up trade deals all around the world duh brain. And as part of the EU we benefit from that and in leaving we jeopardise and/or incredibly complicate that. And because of its size the EU can demand high standards and is much more powerful than the clout or lack of clout of one single country. Why do you think Canada and Japan were so keen to sign up trade deals with the EU?

---

The EU has done a little better of late, but it still hasn't a FTA with the 1st and 2nd biggest trading nations in the world, but many smaller nations do.
It is also negotiating trade deals which are imbalanced and not in our interests.
In fact the Irish are doing their fruit over the draft proposals for a deal with Mercosur and that is typical of what happens.
Canada and Japan will be keen (and have said as much) to sign up to FTAs with the UK.

I stand corrected Oracle. WP you make much common sense.

The problem with the incessant remainer lies, is that they had the entire communications channels of government, aided by a partisan media and civil service to promote them which would cost a fabulous of money to duplicate.

Leave were always massively disadvantaged. Yet we notice it was leave that was challenged on campaign spending by an equally partisan electoral commission!

One day politicians will wise up. The element of truth in some of the remainer claims was so wildly exaggerated, that people disbelieved the claim completely.
If remain had been HONEST, they would have got more traction, perhaps enough to win. Remain was pathogenically dishonest and still is.


Yet all the leavers claims have one by one become true.

Our spending to EU is rapidly increasing, so whether or not the leave bus claim was 50 percent overstated, it is getting closer by the day - not least because our economy is doing better than theirs! so we end up paying more! So much for the cliff edge if we vote leave!

Our sovereignty is ebbing away in power grabs to brussels, and in total violation of Lisbon treaty on "subsidiarity", the EU army derided at the time as a "leave lie" has now been proven entirely true.

The EUs own information channels declare that 10 billion has been fraudulently wasted last year, so we can assume the real number is much higher(since EU has never been independently audited or honest, and sacks all whistleblowers) It is at least double that. So 2 bn of our 10 bn is going into EU fraud and dodgy deals. With no auditing the EU pigs have snouts firmly in the trough. And so on....

The gravy train from strasbourg to brussels still pours money down the toilet every day. The MEPs are treated like FIFA officials.The EU has the same morality as FIFA The amount of unnacounted expenses and chauffeur cars is a disgrace to those who pay for it.. They dont even pay proper tax. There is a special "EU tax rate" for all the EU pigs that have the snouts firmly in the EU trough.


There is still no way I can either amend or get amended legislation, or even sack those who decide legislation. There is no democracy whatsoever. The EU parliament is a sham. The only competence it had, to elect the next Juncker, was taken away this time!

The "turmoil" accompanying no deal was roundly disputed by none other than the man who runs calais docks! He says there will be teething troubles, but soon be back to normal. He is french, so not a leaver!

Then stollies claim, we need to be in the EU to trade with it. All the trade agreements with other countries prove we dont. The trade with EU by countries that dont have a trade deal, carry on regardless

The currency union is even closer to collapse than it was at the time we voted, and the devastation it has caused, is just as visible in youth employement and economic migration..


So leave got it spot on. Remainer claims have been disproven

The negative economic impact so far, is entirely remainers refusing to accept the vote, so sabotaging the way forward. We have left one bank of a river, remainer MPs refuse to go to the other side, or return.

Yet still remain, peddle the lies

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever

Yes, the claim that just by voting to leave unemployment would increase by 500,000 to 800,000 was truly shocking and subsequently proven to be completely wrong.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wheeze

I stand corrected Oracle. WP you make much common sense.

---

:D
Made me laugh. I don't get many compliments on here, apart from occasionally for my races :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wheeze

I stand corrected Oracle. WP you make much common sense.

---

Was that a back handed insult?
Quote Einstein "Common Sense is the net sum of all prejudice learned before the age of 18!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oracle

so whether or not the leave bus claim was 50 percent overstated

---

It wasn't ;)

You see the ONS figure might well be the gross figure, but it doesn't count certain other financial transfers.

It doesn't count the money we send to cover the EHIC card / the treatment of EU nationals here that are unrecovered because the NHS is conditioned not to collect, unlike other EU health services.

It also doesn't count the Import duty. When goods clear customs here in the UK, around 20% is taken as an admin fee by the UK and the 80% goes to the EU.
As this duty is the EU's duty, it doesn't show as a transfer in the ONS figures. Only the 20% admin fee shows as an income.

Further many RoW goods are cleared at EU Ports of entry. So the EU gets more than just the duty from UK direct imports, but in this situation the EU port of clearance gets the 20% admin portion, so a 100% of RoW import duty on Imports destined for the UK via a continental port goes to the EU.

We also have money from the DfID that is passed to the EU.

Add them all up, it comes closer to £500m :eek:

I can’t be bothered to read the oracles rants but, from a quick skim, he is talking pure bollocks 😊

Ok, if that is so it would help the discussion for you to succinctly identify the bollocky bits. So far, name calling and blank refutation seem to be the weapons of choice.
I really want to know if Oracle is spouting bollocks....because if he isn't, we have cause for concern.

I agree with you Witton.
I was just pointing at what remainers often call a lie...

As I said, remainers exaggeration was so overstated (factors of 10!) that the electorate discounted the claims completely.
The irony is, If they had been more realistic they might have swung the vote.

Where the so called "leavers lies" have been proven true...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witton Park

It wasn't ;)

You see the ONS figure might well be the gross figure, but it doesn't count certain other financial transfers.

It doesn't count the money we send to cover the EHIC card / the treatment of EU nationals here that are unrecovered because the NHS is conditioned not to collect, unlike other EU health services.

It also doesn't count the Import duty. When goods clear customs here in the UK, around 20% is taken as an admin fee by the UK and the 80% goes to the EU.
As this duty is the EU's duty, it doesn't show as a transfer in the ONS figures. Only the 20% admin fee shows as an income.

Further many RoW goods are cleared at EU Ports of entry. So the EU gets more than just the duty from UK direct imports, but in this situation the EU port of clearance gets the 20% admin portion, so a 100% of RoW import duty on Imports destined for the UK via a continental port goes to the EU.

We also have money from the DfID that is passed to the EU.

Add them all up, it comes closer to £500m :eek:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oracle

The irony is, If they had been more realistic they might have swung the vote.

---

Or had they been able to give us some positives of membership, other than being able to sing cum-bay-ah around the campfire on International student exchanges, until campfires get banned that is :rolleyes:

Why only a second referendum will solve things - The Times https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b...26f29db582c1ba

Ok. Seems a well reasoned argument although I take issue with the assertion that the referendum question was "hopelessly vague". It was anything but. Leave or remain. Nowt vague at all. Of course, the future course of politics AFTER a leave vote were genuinely unknowable. Anyone who claims to have known were spinning fairy tales.
But yes. Let's have a vote. But agree that only a meaningful majority can overturn the first result. No one wants another 51/49!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wheeze

But yes. Let's have a vote. But agree that only a meaningful majority can overturn the first result. No one wants another 51/49!

---

She is living in a dream world, there is no coming back from this. What would happen if the treshold was set at 60% to overturn the first result and the vote remain was 53% It would be a very strange mandate to move forward with.

It will probably just have to go ahead and see what happens.

At least I can take great joy in the DUP own-goal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stolly

Why only a second referendum will solve things - The Times https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b...26f29db582c1ba

---

Noted you could find not a single arguable point in my post.

Second referendum Solves nothing.
If the first referendum and election manifestos are not honoured, then a second one has no legitimacy.
And you “can’t keep voting again and again“
Ask speaker Bercow who said it. He won’t even allow a first vote on the most important vote parliament has held for a decade for fear his side will lose it, let alone a second,

So our answer to the EU on whether we accept, is “don’t know the speaker won’t allow it to vote.” Only wrecking amendments. Does Bercow know how much he has damaged the uk?

That idiot Angela smith agreed with the speaker that Bercows increasingly bent judgement was indeed a fundamental of democracy, then demanded a second referendum in direct contradiction.
Do these mps ever listen to themselves?

Bercow my view now must face criminal charges for malfeasance. I will help fund it.
Never again must one unnacountable man have such power, or be allowed to abuse it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oracle

The problem with the incessant remainer lies, is that they had the entire communications channels of government, aided by a partisan media and civil service to promote them which would cost a fabulous of money to duplicate.

Leave were always massively disadvantaged. Yet we notice it was leave that was challenged on campaign spending by an equally partisan electoral commission!

One day politicians will wise up. The element of truth in some of the remainer claims was so wildly exaggerated, that people disbelieved the claim completely.
If remain had been HONEST, they would have got more traction, perhaps enough to win. Remain was pathogenically dishonest and still is.


Yet all the leavers claims have one by one become true.

Our spending to EU is rapidly increasing, so whether or not the leave bus claim was 50 percent overstated, it is getting closer by the day - not least because our economy is doing better than theirs! so we end up paying more! So much for the cliff edge if we vote leave!

Our sovereignty is ebbing away in power grabs to brussels, and in total violation of Lisbon treaty on "subsidiarity", the EU army derided at the time as a "leave lie" has now been proven entirely true.

The EUs own information channels declare that 10 billion has been fraudulently wasted last year, so we can assume the real number is much higher(since EU has never been independently audited or honest, and sacks all whistleblowers) It is at least double that. So 2 bn of our 10 bn is going into EU fraud and dodgy deals. With no auditing the EU pigs have snouts firmly in the trough. And so on....

The gravy train from strasbourg to brussels still pours money down the toilet every day. The MEPs are treated like FIFA officials.The EU has the same morality as FIFA The amount of unnacounted expenses and chauffeur cars is a disgrace to those who pay for it.. They dont even pay proper tax. There is a special "EU tax rate" for all the EU pigs that have the snouts firmly in the EU trough.


There is still no way I can either amend or get amended legislation, or even sack those who decide legislation. There is no democracy whatsoever. The EU parliament is a sham. The only competence it had, to elect the next Juncker, was taken away this time!

The "turmoil" accompanying no deal was roundly disputed by none other than the man who runs calais docks! He says there will be teething troubles, but soon be back to normal. He is french, so not a leaver!

Then stollies claim, we need to be in the EU to trade with it. All the trade agreements with other countries prove we dont. The trade with EU by countries that dont have a trade deal, carry on regardless

The currency union is even closer to collapse than it was at the time we voted, and the devastation it has caused, is just as visible in youth employement and economic migration..


So leave got it spot on. Remainer claims have been disproven

The negative economic impact so far, is entirely remainers refusing to accept the vote, so sabotaging the way forward. We have left one bank of a river, remainer MPs refuse to go to the other side, or return.

Yet still remain, peddle the lies

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oracle

I just proved you don’t need to be in EU to trade with it,and so did you: that is what a trade deal is. It is why EU does trade deals.

And yes, it would be better to have one, but certainly not at a price of 39 billion or 10 billion a year, when on balance of trade, we are buyers! “ Duh brain.”

In reality it is a chink in a set of high walls, to eus protection zone, that makes exports harder for those selling out. I’ve done it, have you?

China is not what it was. They are now increasingly GMP , so the standards arguments is also increasingly fallacious.what EU declares as standards are just deliberate trade barriers, Singapore is the best educated work force in the world. Which is why such as Dyson went there, other than to escape corbyn thefts of property.

And a trade deal is like a suit of clothes. In Trying to fit 27 bodies it fits all of them badly, none of them well.
And because 27 are sat round the table with minnows deciding the whole. the decisions are lowest common denominator and take forever to do. Like a company that takes 7 years to make deals, and has too large a bureaucracy Eu will go bust, as others more nimble that take better decisions quicker beat the titanic,


So now you have disproved all your own arguments!

---

A dam good FACTUAL post Oracle. Thank you.

If only the remainers would take note and argue with proven facts!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stagger

A dam good FACTUAL post Oracle. Thank you.

If only the remainers would take note and argue with proven facts!!!

---

I suspect most of you remainers are not interested in what happens in the Eu parliament which is an expensive powerless joke, designed to pretend democracy. Even Juncker mocked it last year, much to verhofstadts annoyance.

There was a lot of ritual anger expressed about Thomas cook collapse, and the damage done to Eu businesses. It was pointed out by brexit party that the only reason uk government could not step into help is EU competition law. So EU reaped what they sowed, Farcical.