Upsides and downsides are usually with reference to the financials. There is quite a lot more to brexit than that.
Yep, Brexit is the biggest loss of rights in modern British history, difficult to forgive those who have blithely voted for me to lose my rights, and galling to have them claim me losing rights as some sort of victory.
There are few Brexiters claiming victory I think you will find.
Maybe not now, but for much of the last two years we've heard nothing, but "leave won, get over it", like I'm supposed to jsut get over my rights being stolen and the financial security of myself, my children and my eventual grandchildren (remember Rees-Mogg blithely saying it could take 50 years before there is any upside?) needlessly put at risk, and to gain what? Please tell me something, anything that is worth what is being forcibly taken from me? It's been over 2 years and nobody can tell me anything that comes even close to being worth what I'm losing.
Forcibly or democratically?
Even if we ignore the fact that it wasn't a binding referendum, that the result was a rounding error in size and that referenda aren't actually recognised by our parliamentary democracy. It's only democratic if the electorate are informed, it's clearly spelt our what will happen for each of the given options (you know, like countries that actually use referenda properly do) and the referendum is conducted under full election law.
What we had was a purely advisory popularity contest where the contestants could tell any lies they liked with impunity apparently.
It's was, and remains, a twisted corruption of the democratic process in this country, that promised the undeliverable to the uninformed.
So the electorate were all fully informed to a level that meets your criteria when we voted to join the EEC? Or at the last election? Or any election?
I think you're missing the point, and that's my fault as I didn't phrase this very well.
Obviously, the better informed the electorate, then better the democracy, but Brexit is unique in that is was set-up to ensure that the electorate were as uninformed as possible. I said on the previous Brexit thread (and probably on this one), it doesn't matter if you're pro or anti Brexit, you shouldn't have voted for it in this referendum as it was defined as to what we'd get, and it was always clear that for it to be successful it would require politicians far more competent than any we currently have available.
In a normal election each party will produce a manifesto plus party political broadcasts, adverts, etc. There are clear laws governing the production of each of those. There's also clear laws on where the funding for that production can come from and how the parties disclose that funding. That ensures that should the electorate which to be better informed, that should easily be able to see what each candidate stands for, what each candidate is offering, and be reasonably confident that that information is accurate and what the candidate is offering is legal and possible.
The referendum ditched all those protections. If you wished to be truly informed about what you would get if you voted yes, the whole referendum was set up to ensure you couldn't. And not only that, everybody involved was allowed to lie, so not only would you find no actual factual information about what you would get, but you would be bombarded by propaganda and lies instead. Furthermore, if you did happen to find any useful information about the likely outcome of a leave vote, the campaign was allowed to lie to you about it.
It wasn't that the electorate was uninformed when voting in the referendum, it was that they were deliberately kept that way. The leave campaign made promises impossible to keep, that were self-contradictory in many cases, and ensured that anybody thinking about voting leave heard what they wanted leave to be.
We see it on here all the time, leavers saying they voted for X, Y and Z. No you didn't, you voted to leave, nothing more nothing less, but the referendum was set up to allow people to promise you that you'd get X,Y and Z no matter how impossible or damaging that may be.
If an informed electorate results in a stronger democracy, then a deceived electorate results in a weaker one. Leavers keep saying a second referendum would be undemocratic when they are a party to one of the greatest sabotages our democracy has ever suffered.
Do you think this would be any different in a second referendum? For example, the project fear projections about the economy are as accurate as any predictions about the economy ever are-ie almost entirely made up. Do you think that these presentations of opinion as fact will be omitted from the Remain campaign? Or any promises that Remain may make about where the EU might or might not go in the future in relation to European armies, more federalisation or legislation on any number of things that may affect us in the future and over which we would exercise extremely limited control?
If you think that the Remain campaign will be any more honest than the Leave campaign then I am afraid you will be in for a shock. They will depend entirely on trying to frighten people by presenting a coordinated propaganda offensive painting the future outside the EU as a disaster, which will have only a vague approximation to the truth.
As in any election, people will weigh up their thoughts and feelings about what they are being told and will vote accordingly. Your assumption, widely held, is that Remainers are smart people who are not easily deceived and Leavers are dumb and easily malleable. Whereas the capitulation to project fear is the stupidest thing of all.
In my view many leading Remainers have contempt for the people whom they represent and have spent the past 2 years insulting and demeaning them. If the words of many Remainers were applied to any other group in society it would be considered a hate crime-consider that the hope that Brexit can be solved when Brexiters die is a common refrain, for example, how loathsome is that? The generation which raised younger people and created our prosperous, democratic society are now despised and wished dead.
Project Fear doesn't exist. It was a myth made up by Farage et all to dismiss any and all concerns of Brexit. Using this phrase just exposes you as a Faragist. No wonder you're so suspectible to populist politicians.
Do you believe the effect on the economy from Brexit will be positive, neutral or negative in terms of GDP growth and employment? Or don't you know because 'nobody knows'?
JRM reckons it could be 50 years to see the benefit - sooner or later than that in your opinion?
As I have argued a few days ago here, Brexit in itself will not have any specific measurable impact, it will entirely depend on what economic policies are pursued where we ever to leave (which does not look likely)
Remember that "populism" is not a good way to go. It describes politicians who say whatever they think people want to hear without actually having any plans to govern effectively or in the interests of the voters and generally are only doing it to get into power for less salubrious reasons.
Not that it matters, but my like is for the generic comment that many people are disaffected by the status quo and are looking for something that works for them.
Why is that wrong? Surely these are the type of people that we should be trying to help?
Ah, but there's the rub. For weeks, months, years, I've been trying to get @southbank to tell me how Brexit is going to help "these people". Or failing that, how it will at least help him. You've seen his answers. And I pick on him because he represents on here a large bloc of Brexit voters who seem to me to be fixated on Brexit for reasons which look like nothing more than an escape valve for their general, unspecified rage at the world as they see it.
I would like to to help "these..people". For most of my life I have voted for policies which would have resulted in me paying more direct tax, in the belief that the money might be spent on those who need it more than I do. Does Jacob Rees-Mogg want to help "these people"? Really, does he? Does Aaron Banks? Farage? Johnson?? Do Raab, Grayling, Davies, Fox, Leadsom, McVey, Mordaunt, Patterson, Arlene DUP woman, et al.? Look at those names. The "Mordor of British politics" (to borrow an excellent Czech political insult.)
Now you may not buy a lot of the policies I support. But I don't think we are that far apart. Should you really be camping on the edge of Mordor?
Cameron and Osborne made less than helpful comments then both resigned. They were not part of any official Remain campaign.
Project Feae was invented by Brexiters as a smear campaign against ALL concerns made before the referendum. As such anyone who thinks such a project actually existed can have their views safely dismissed as the nonsense it is because if you believe Farage's fairy tales you'll believe anything.
You mention Farage...What official leave campaign was he part of?
Remember that "populism" is not a good way to go. It describes politicians who say whatever they think people want to hear without actually having any plans to govern effectively or in the interests of the voters and generally are only doing it to get into power for less salubrious reasons.
Not that it matters, but my like is for the generic comment that many people are disaffected by the status quo and are looking for something that works for them.
Why is that wrong? Surely these are the type of people that we should be trying to help?
Ah, but there's the rub. For weeks, months, years, I've been trying to get @southbank to tell me how Brexit is going to help "these people". Or failing that, how it will at least help him. You've seen his answers. And I pick on him because he represents on here a large bloc of Brexit voters who seem to me to be fixated on Brexit for reasons which look like nothing more than an escape valve for their general, unspecified rage at the world as they see it.
I would like to to help "these..people". For most of my life I have voted for policies which would have resulted in me paying more direct tax, in the belief that the money might be spent on those who need it more than I do. Does Jacob Rees-Mogg want to help "these people"? Really, does he? Does Aaron Banks? Farage? Johnson?? Do Raab, Grayling, Davies, Fox, Leadsom, McVey, Mordaunt, Patterson, Arlene DUP woman, et al.? Look at those names. The "Mordor of British politics" (to borrow an excellent Czech political insult.)
Now you may not buy a lot of the policies I support. But I don't think we are that far apart. Should you really be camping on the edge of Mordor?
In fact, I am camping on the edge of a free trade area that is not in line with other free trade areas, hence the reason I made my decision. However, I have explained this ad infinitum so will not do so again.
Although I do sometimes wonder if the Berlaymont building is actually Barad-dur
Upsides and downsides are usually with reference to the financials. There is quite a lot more to brexit than that.
Yep, Brexit is the biggest loss of rights in modern British history, difficult to forgive those who have blithely voted for me to lose my rights, and galling to have them claim me losing rights as some sort of victory.
There are few Brexiters claiming victory I think you will find.
Maybe not now, but for much of the last two years we've heard nothing, but "leave won, get over it", like I'm supposed to jsut get over my rights being stolen and the financial security of myself, my children and my eventual grandchildren (remember Rees-Mogg blithely saying it could take 50 years before there is any upside?) needlessly put at risk, and to gain what? Please tell me something, anything that is worth what is being forcibly taken from me? It's been over 2 years and nobody can tell me anything that comes even close to being worth what I'm losing.
Forcibly or democratically?
Even if we ignore the fact that it wasn't a binding referendum, that the result was a rounding error in size and that referenda aren't actually recognised by our parliamentary democracy. It's only democratic if the electorate are informed, it's clearly spelt our what will happen for each of the given options (you know, like countries that actually use referenda properly do) and the referendum is conducted under full election law.
What we had was a purely advisory popularity contest where the contestants could tell any lies they liked with impunity apparently.
It's was, and remains, a twisted corruption of the democratic process in this country, that promised the undeliverable to the uninformed.
So the electorate were all fully informed to a level that meets your criteria when we voted to join the EEC? Or at the last election? Or any election?
I think you're missing the point, and that's my fault as I didn't phrase this very well.
Obviously, the better informed the electorate, then better the democracy, but Brexit is unique in that is was set-up to ensure that the electorate were as uninformed as possible. I said on the previous Brexit thread (and probably on this one), it doesn't matter if you're pro or anti Brexit, you shouldn't have voted for it in this referendum as it was defined as to what we'd get, and it was always clear that for it to be successful it would require politicians far more competent than any we currently have available.
In a normal election each party will produce a manifesto plus party political broadcasts, adverts, etc. There are clear laws governing the production of each of those. There's also clear laws on where the funding for that production can come from and how the parties disclose that funding. That ensures that should the electorate which to be better informed, that should easily be able to see what each candidate stands for, what each candidate is offering, and be reasonably confident that that information is accurate and what the candidate is offering is legal and possible.
The referendum ditched all those protections. If you wished to be truly informed about what you would get if you voted yes, the whole referendum was set up to ensure you couldn't. And not only that, everybody involved was allowed to lie, so not only would you find no actual factual information about what you would get, but you would be bombarded by propaganda and lies instead. Furthermore, if you did happen to find any useful information about the likely outcome of a leave vote, the campaign was allowed to lie to you about it.
It wasn't that the electorate was uninformed when voting in the referendum, it was that they were deliberately kept that way. The leave campaign made promises impossible to keep, that were self-contradictory in many cases, and ensured that anybody thinking about voting leave heard what they wanted leave to be.
We see it on here all the time, leavers saying they voted for X, Y and Z. No you didn't, you voted to leave, nothing more nothing less, but the referendum was set up to allow people to promise you that you'd get X,Y and Z no matter how impossible or damaging that may be.
If an informed electorate results in a stronger democracy, then a deceived electorate results in a weaker one. Leavers keep saying a second referendum would be undemocratic when they are a party to one of the greatest sabotages our democracy has ever suffered.
Do you think this would be any different in a second referendum? For example, the project fear projections about the economy are as accurate as any predictions about the economy ever are-ie almost entirely made up. Do you think that these presentations of opinion as fact will be omitted from the Remain campaign? Or any promises that Remain may make about where the EU might or might not go in the future in relation to European armies, more federalisation or legislation on any number of things that may affect us in the future and over which we would exercise extremely limited control?
As in any election, people will weigh up their thoughts and feelings about what they are being told and will vote accordingly. Your assumption, widely held, is that Remainers are smart people who are not easily deceived and Leavers are dumb and easily malleable. Whereas the capitulation to project fear is the stupidest thing of all.
In my view many leading Remainers have contempt for the people whom they represent and have spent the past 2 years insulting and demeaning them. If the words of many Remainers were applied to any other group in society it would be considered a hate crime-consider that the hope that Brexit can be solved when Brexiters die is a common refrain, for example, how loathsome is that? The generation which raised younger people and created our prosperous, democratic society are now despised and wished dead.
Project Fear doesn't exist. It was a myth made up by Farage et all to dismiss any and all concerns of Brexit. Using this phrase just exposes you as a Faragist. No wonder you're so suspectible to populist politicians.
Do you believe the effect on the economy from Brexit will be positive, neutral or negative in terms of GDP growth and employment? Or don't you know because 'nobody knows'?
JRM reckons it could be 50 years to see the benefit - sooner or later than that in your opinion?
As I have argued a few days ago here, Brexit in itself will not have any specific measurable impact, it will entirely depend on what economic policies are pursued where we ever to leave (which does not look likely)
You have also argued less than two hours ago here that "...projections about the economy are as accurate as any predictions about the economy ever are-ie almost entirely made up."
Can't be arsed to read over 170 posts since my last visit.
All I will say is that TM is a,liar & can't be trusted to run a whelk stall. For over 2 years she has repeatedly stated that No Deal is better than a bad deal. Now, when she finally has a deal that is worse than we already have....and pisses all over her "red lines"....all we hear is that it's "this deal or nothing".
Well.......you can piss off & the the rest of the government with you. There will be so much arm twisting, cajoling & bribing over the next 2 weeks it will make Dubai's winning of hosting the 2022 WC look kosher. I expect her deal to get through Parliament as 300 odd Tory MP's will vote for their own future's & not for what the public voted for.
Shame on the lot of them.
I agree with you golfie. However. Did you expect us to get a deal as good as the one we currently have as members ? It would be impossible and thats the knub of the whole brexit lie. How many people fell for it and you have to ask just how gullible were they.
No....I wasn't expecting to get a better deal than the one we have initially or may be not even as good as what we have in terms of trade etc. But eventually, once we un-tie ourselves from the EU & find our feet then I believe the UK can thrive & prosper.
I've been divorced twice & in neither cases did I come out of the marriages better off financially or even on par. But you don't stay married just because it's easier not to get divorced. For me financially it has been a long hard struggle over the past 8 years....but I'm a lot better off now than I was on the day my decri absolute came through.
Can't be arsed to read over 170 posts since my last visit.
All I will say is that TM is a,liar & can't be trusted to run a whelk stall. For over 2 years she has repeatedly stated that No Deal is better than a bad deal. Now, when she finally has a deal that is worse than we already have....and pisses all over her "red lines"....all we hear is that it's "this deal or nothing".
Well.......you can piss off & the the rest of the government with you. There will be so much arm twisting, cajoling & bribing over the next 2 weeks it will make Dubai's winning of hosting the 2022 WC look kosher. I expect her deal to get through Parliament as 300 odd Tory MP's will vote for their own future's & not for what the public voted for.
Shame on the lot of them.
I agree with you golfie. However. Did you expect us to get a deal as good as the one we currently have as members ? It would be impossible and thats the knub of the whole brexit lie. How many people fell for it and you have to ask just how gullible were they.
No....I wasn't expecting to get a better deal than the one we have initially or may be not even as good as what we have in terms of trade etc. But eventually, once we un-tie ourselves from the EU & find our feet then I believe the UK can thrive & prosper.
I've been divorced twice & in neither cases did I come out of the marriages better off financially or even on par. But you don't stay married just because it's easier not to get divorced. For me financially it has been a long hard struggle over the past 8 years....but I'm a lot better off now than I was on the day my decri absolute came through.
Possibly the most ridiculous analogy I have ever seen. Unless you forced about 50% of other happily married people to get divorced at the same time?
You told us pages back that you dropped a bollock by voting leave. Why do you keep on coming back with more mad ideas?
Can't be arsed to read over 170 posts since my last visit.
All I will say is that TM is a,liar & can't be trusted to run a whelk stall. For over 2 years she has repeatedly stated that No Deal is better than a bad deal. Now, when she finally has a deal that is worse than we already have....and pisses all over her "red lines"....all we hear is that it's "this deal or nothing".
Well.......you can piss off & the the rest of the government with you. There will be so much arm twisting, cajoling & bribing over the next 2 weeks it will make Dubai's winning of hosting the 2022 WC look kosher. I expect her deal to get through Parliament as 300 odd Tory MP's will vote for their own future's & not for what the public voted for.
Shame on the lot of them.
I agree with you golfie. However. Did you expect us to get a deal as good as the one we currently have as members ? It would be impossible and thats the knub of the whole brexit lie. How many people fell for it and you have to ask just how gullible were they.
No....I wasn't expecting to get a better deal than the one we have initially or may be not even as good as what we have in terms of trade etc. But eventually, once we un-tie ourselves from the EU & find our feet then I believe the UK can thrive & prosper.
I've been divorced twice & in neither cases did I come out of the marriages better off financially or even on par. But you don't stay married just because it's easier not to get divorced. For me financially it has been a long hard struggle over the past 8 years....but I'm a lot better off now than I was on the day my decri absolute came through.
Forgetting how ridiculous the analogy is, presumably when you got divorced you did so because of a complete breakdown of the relationship? That things had got so bad that you simply couldn't be together anymore and the costs were secondary to your emotional wellbeing? Which raises the questions, has live been so terrible in the EU that getting out is more important than any costs? Because I can't see anything in our relationship with the EU that is so broken that the only possibly solution is to impoverish ourselves to get out of it.
There is actually an upside to this saga! Quite simply the government are attempting to implement Brexit and are coming across that reality which the leave campaigns were so careful to avoid. Nietzsche stated that "there are no facts but only interpretations" and we have an ongoing debate about the validity of forecasts and experts. As per this piece, the philosophers of the last century are the starting point for this post truth world whereby people exchange narratives that are at best retrofitted around a convenient subset of the truth. And at worst we have Trump whose narrative steers clear of truth as if it were an inconvenience!
From the link above, there's a particularly apposite quote: "What has happened in the past 10 days is that the post-truth train of Brexit has finally collided with this “hard core” of undeniable reality, these “lines of resistance”. The hitherto-hypothetical “backstop” proposal is now all-too-real, the stubborn kernel of trouble at the heart of the 585-page deal."
For the WA has landed and, as posted the other day, polls have seen < 20% approval vs 50% against and 35% don't know. We have also seen the Tories drop 4% moving Labour into a 3% lead. Applying Brexit preferences to the numbers, 10% of leave voters (that's nearly two million!) have opted to abandon the Tories for another party. 6% to UKIP and 4% to Labour which in turn places Labour in the lead. No net movement in Remain supporters and nothing for the Lib Dems since they are a strident Remain party who don't accept the 2016 referendum... so they will always be unattractive to Tory leave voters. We will see how the trend develops as the WA topic and associated drama unfolds.
Some still maintain Corbyn can't do anything right even up to the point where he is meeting with the other opposition parties to discuss tactics and strategy to defeat the WA and whatever else they agree on. People critique Corbyn but continuously fail to look at why Labour is polling at or around 40% while the Lib Dems are in single digits.
We might all look at the world through a Remain lens but this is to ignore two core aspects of the challenge. First there are 17.4M Leave voters who expressed an opinion back in 2016 (less the ones who have died!) and secondly Brexit is a paradox. It's essentially an unexploded bomb which won't be defused on March 29th 2019. And there is no single solution which delivers to what was the Leave majority. It has split the Tories into three factions, or rather exposed the split to the whole nation and also pushed the DUP into abstaining of late. Even after they agree a deal they start squabbling again. And should the EU27 agree next Sunday, Gove and the rest will still bang on about customs technology.
There is an upside and we can start with journalists taking Rees Mogg apart as his attempts to unseat May fail to match the bluster. More importantly, this is an opportunity to learn.
Can't be arsed to read over 170 posts since my last visit.
All I will say is that TM is a,liar & can't be trusted to run a whelk stall. For over 2 years she has repeatedly stated that No Deal is better than a bad deal. Now, when she finally has a deal that is worse than we already have....and pisses all over her "red lines"....all we hear is that it's "this deal or nothing".
Well.......you can piss off & the the rest of the government with you. There will be so much arm twisting, cajoling & bribing over the next 2 weeks it will make Dubai's winning of hosting the 2022 WC look kosher. I expect her deal to get through Parliament as 300 odd Tory MP's will vote for their own future's & not for what the public voted for.
Shame on the lot of them.
I agree with you golfie. However. Did you expect us to get a deal as good as the one we currently have as members ? It would be impossible and thats the knub of the whole brexit lie. How many people fell for it and you have to ask just how gullible were they.
No....I wasn't expecting to get a better deal than the one we have initially or may be not even as good as what we have in terms of trade etc. But eventually, once we un-tie ourselves from the EU & find our feet then I believe the UK can thrive & prosper.
I've been divorced twice & in neither cases did I come out of the marriages better off financially or even on par. But you don't stay married just because it's easier not to get divorced. For me financially it has been a long hard struggle over the past 8 years....but I'm a lot better off now than I was on the day my decri absolute came through.
Fabulous work..........the divorce analogy could be to the Brexit thread what the house buying analogy is to the takeover thread.
There are no longer 17.4 million living Brexit voters. The number now is barely 16 million.
Wow, you really asked them all? That is dedication above and beyond-although I must have been out when you came round.
I think the key word was "living" but there is also an assumption that those who've died since 2016 where all leavers and all those previously too young to vote are remainers.
Do you think this would be any different in a second referendum? For example, the project fear projections about the economy are as accurate as any predictions about the economy ever are-ie almost entirely made up. Do you think that these presentations of opinion as fact will be omitted from the Remain campaign? Or any promises that Remain may make about where the EU might or might not go in the future in relation to European armies, more federalisation or legislation on any number of things that may affect us in the future and over which we would exercise extremely limited control?
If you think that the Remain campaign will be any more honest than the Leave campaign then I am afraid you will be in for a shock. They will depend entirely on trying to frighten people by presenting a coordinated propaganda offensive painting the future outside the EU as a disaster, which will have only a vague approximation to the truth.
As in any election, people will weigh up their thoughts and feelings about what they are being told and will vote accordingly. Your assumption, widely held, is that Remainers are smart people who are not easily deceived and Leavers are dumb and easily malleable. Whereas the capitulation to project fear is the stupidest thing of all.
In my view many leading Remainers have contempt for the people whom they represent and have spent the past 2 years insulting and demeaning them. If the words of many Remainers were applied to any other group in society it would be considered a hate crime-consider that the hope that Brexit can be solved when Brexiters die is a common refrain, for example, how loathsome is that? The generation which raised younger people and created our prosperous, democratic society are now despised and wished dead.
Project Fear doesn't exist. It was a myth made up by Farage et all to dismiss any and all concerns of Brexit. Using this phrase just exposes you as a Faragist. No wonder you're so suspectible to populist politicians.
Do you believe the effect on the economy from Brexit will be positive, neutral or negative in terms of GDP growth and employment? Or don't you know because 'nobody knows'?
JRM reckons it could be 50 years to see the benefit - sooner or later than that in your opinion?
As I have argued a few days ago here, Brexit in itself will not have any specific measurable impact, it will entirely depend on what economic policies are pursued where we ever to leave (which does not look likely)
Maybe I am misunderstanding the words "specific", "measurable" and "impact", but are the numbers of jobs and amounts of money (particularly in the financial sector) that are already moving out of the UK to the EU27 not impacts that are both specific and capable of being measured?
Equally, the loss of the European Medicines Agency, for example, has an impact, not just the loss of 800 relatively highly paid jobs, or the impact on the pharmaceutical industry activities within the UK, but also upon hotels etc. (if we are to accept that business travelers are a lucrative source of income).
Barring those espousing the hard right Tory/UKIP Redwood-Minfordesque unilateral free trade (which would, even its proponents agree, have a significant and measurable negative impact on manufacturing and agriculture), almost no-one is suggesting that the introduction of customs or regulatory controls (where currently there are none) will fail to have a specific and measurable impact on costs in the supply chain, manufacturing, retail and to the consumer.
I'll gloss over the potential for disruption to road haulage, with a tiny number of operator licenses for those wishing to operate within the EU27 (such a small number that the Government is considering allocating at least some by lottery).
Everything associated with leaving the Single Market and Customs Union, the taking back control, requires additional government bureaucracy and infrastructure, increased numbers of officials, and the erection of (mostly paper-based) barriers that are not needed today. These will increase the costs of doing business, at least in the short to medium term, and, if there's anything I've learnt about the capitalist system, other than a recent revelation that it's like a kick in the bollocks, it's that its proponents are enthusiastic (almost evangelical) about sharing out the costs of doing business (they are, admittedly, a smidgen less willing to share the profits).
Don't get me wrong, plenty will use Brexit as an excuse to raise prices in any event...
While it may be more difficult to immediately (and off the top of one's head) identify impacts on individual citizens, outside of employment, because the cause and effect is less obvious, there are impacts (such as removing the right to be treated exactly the same as native-born students in the Netherlands, and across the EU, which is why numbers of British students can avail of university tuition, in the English language, at a much reduced cost compared to the UK) which are specific and will, over time, be measurable (even if only as trends).
There are no longer 17.4 million living Brexit voters. The number now is barely 16 million.
Wow, you really asked them all? That is dedication above and beyond-although I must have been out when you came round.
I think the key word was "living" but there is also an assumption that those who've died since 2016 where all leavers and all those previously too young to vote are remainers.
“The new study was carried out by data analysis experts Focaldata. It was based on two YouGov polls that together surveyed more than 15,000 people.
In total, it concluded that 2.6 million Leave voters have switched their support to Remain, while 970,000 have moved the other way – a net gain for the pro-EU side of 1.6 million.
The study found that Labour voters accounted for 1.4 million of the 1.6 million switchers to Remain, significantly outnumbering the 837,000 Tory voters who switched the other way.“
There are no longer 17.4 million living Brexit voters. The number now is barely 16 million.
Wow, you really asked them all? That is dedication above and beyond-although I must have been out when you came round.
I think the key word was "living" but there is also an assumption that those who've died since 2016 where all leavers and all those previously too young to vote are remainers.
No. The study I saw calculated that 450,000 leave voters are dying each year and 150,000 remain voters are dying each year.
There are no longer 17.4 million living Brexit voters. The number now is barely 16 million.
Wow, you really asked them all? That is dedication above and beyond-although I must have been out when you came round.
I think the key word was "living" but there is also an assumption that those who've died since 2016 where all leavers and all those previously too young to vote are remainers.
“The new study was carried out by data analysis experts Focaldata. It was based on two YouGov polls that together surveyed more than 15,000 people.
In total, it concluded that 2.6 million Leave voters have switched their support to Remain, while 970,000 have moved the other way – a net gain for the pro-EU side of 1.6 million.
The study found that Labour voters accounted for 1.4 million of the 1.6 million switchers to Remain, significantly outnumbering the 837,000 Tory voters who switched the other way.“
So they counted 15,000 not 16 million. If only there had been a way of finding out what everybody thought instead of a tiny sample.
There are no longer 17.4 million living Brexit voters. The number now is barely 16 million.
Wow, you really asked them all? That is dedication above and beyond-although I must have been out when you came round.
I think the key word was "living" but there is also an assumption that those who've died since 2016 where all leavers and all those previously too young to vote are remainers.
Not just an assumption, Henry, but a barely concealed celebration. This ghoulish aspect of Remain, whether it is correct or not and like you I doubt it, is one of the most disgraceful parts of the overall Remain argument.
There are no longer 17.4 million living Brexit voters. The number now is barely 16 million.
Wow, you really asked them all? That is dedication above and beyond-although I must have been out when you came round.
It is a statistical fact. Even moronic Brexit voters can't question actuarial mortality calculations.
Your original assertion though can’t be proven. 1.74 million might have died but how many of those voted. We’re they all brexiters - No. Although stats would indicate that brexiters would be more affected in the age group that have indeed died.
There are no longer 17.4 million living Brexit voters. The number now is barely 16 million.
Wow, you really asked them all? That is dedication above and beyond-although I must have been out when you came round.
It is a statistical fact. Even moronic Brexit voters can't question actuarial mortality calculations.
Your original assertion though can’t be proven. 1.74 million might have died but how many of those voted. We’re they all brexiters - No. Although stats would indicate that brexiters would be more affected in the age group that have indeed died.
Don’t understand your point. The study concluded that 450,000 Leavers are dying each year and 150,000 Remainers.
There are no longer 17.4 million living Brexit voters. The number now is barely 16 million.
Wow, you really asked them all? That is dedication above and beyond-although I must have been out when you came round.
I think the key word was "living" but there is also an assumption that those who've died since 2016 where all leavers and all those previously too young to vote are remainers.
Not just an assumption, Henry, but a barely concealed celebration. This ghoulish aspect of Remain, whether it is correct or not and like you I doubt it, is one of the most disgraceful parts of the overall Remain argument.
There are no longer 17.4 million living Brexit voters. The number now is barely 16 million.
Wow, you really asked them all? That is dedication above and beyond-although I must have been out when you came round.
I think the key word was "living" but there is also an assumption that those who've died since 2016 where all leavers and all those previously too young to vote are remainers.
“The new study was carried out by data analysis experts Focaldata. It was based on two YouGov polls that together surveyed more than 15,000 people.
In total, it concluded that 2.6 million Leave voters have switched their support to Remain, while 970,000 have moved the other way – a net gain for the pro-EU side of 1.6 million.
The study found that Labour voters accounted for 1.4 million of the 1.6 million switchers to Remain, significantly outnumbering the 837,000 Tory voters who switched the other way.“
So they counted 15,000 not 16 million. If only there had been a way of finding out what everybody thought instead of a tiny sample.
Yes - and also finding out why they voted leave would have been useful. Oh no, hang on - they all voted leave for the same reason you did.
There are no longer 17.4 million living Brexit voters. The number now is barely 16 million.
Wow, you really asked them all? That is dedication above and beyond-although I must have been out when you came round.
I think the key word was "living" but there is also an assumption that those who've died since 2016 where all leavers and all those previously too young to vote are remainers.
“The new study was carried out by data analysis experts Focaldata. It was based on two YouGov polls that together surveyed more than 15,000 people.
In total, it concluded that 2.6 million Leave voters have switched their support to Remain, while 970,000 have moved the other way – a net gain for the pro-EU side of 1.6 million.
The study found that Labour voters accounted for 1.4 million of the 1.6 million switchers to Remain, significantly outnumbering the 837,000 Tory voters who switched the other way.“
So they counted 15,000 not 16 million. If only there had been a way of finding out what everybody thought instead of a tiny sample.
Do you want people to talk to you like you're an idiot? I'm pretty certain you know that large-scale studies are expensive and take time to do, so aren't practical to run every month or two. I'm also sure you at least understand the basics of a term like statistically significant sample size.
So you ask the question, just to be contrary, you know exactly why 16 million people are surveyed once a month, and you know that 15,000 isn't a "tiny sample". If you don't think 15k is statistically significant, or the study was flawed in some other way then please tell us and we can have a (hopefully) intelligent debate about.
But your snipe here is worthless to the conversation and frankly below you. Whilst I may not agree with you politically, you've at least been fairly succinct in your posts on here.
There are no longer 17.4 million living Brexit voters. The number now is barely 16 million.
Wow, you really asked them all? That is dedication above and beyond-although I must have been out when you came round.
It is a statistical fact. Even moronic Brexit voters can't question actuarial mortality calculations.
Your original assertion though can’t be proven. 1.74 million might have died but how many of those voted. We’re they all brexiters - No. Although stats would indicate that brexiters would be more affected in the age group that have indeed died.
Don’t understand your point. The study concluded that 450,000 Leavers are dying each year and 150,000 Remainers.
It's an estimate, admittedly based on stats. It's not fact
There are no longer 17.4 million living Brexit voters. The number now is barely 16 million.
Wow, you really asked them all? That is dedication above and beyond-although I must have been out when you came round.
I think the key word was "living" but there is also an assumption that those who've died since 2016 where all leavers and all those previously too young to vote are remainers.
“The new study was carried out by data analysis experts Focaldata. It was based on two YouGov polls that together surveyed more than 15,000 people.
In total, it concluded that 2.6 million Leave voters have switched their support to Remain, while 970,000 have moved the other way – a net gain for the pro-EU side of 1.6 million.
The study found that Labour voters accounted for 1.4 million of the 1.6 million switchers to Remain, significantly outnumbering the 837,000 Tory voters who switched the other way.“
So they counted 15,000 not 16 million. If only there had been a way of finding out what everybody thought instead of a tiny sample.
Do you want people to talk to you like you're an idiot? I'm pretty certain you know that large-scale studies are expensive and take time to do, so aren't practical to run every month or two. I'm also sure you at least understand the basics of a term like statistically significant sample size.
So you ask the question, just to be contrary, you know exactly why 16 million people are surveyed once a month, and you know that 15,000 isn't a "tiny sample". If you don't think 15k is statistically significant, or the study was flawed in some other way then please tell us and we can have a (hopefully) intelligent debate about.
But your snipe here is worthless to the conversation and frankly below you. Whilst I may not agree with you politically, you've at least been fairly succinct in your posts on here.
I like the thrust of your argument Andy - but the majority of Southbank's posts read like something from a tabloid newspaper.
Comments
I would like to to help "these..people". For most of my life I have voted for policies which would have resulted in me paying more direct tax, in the belief that the money might be spent on those who need it more than I do. Does Jacob Rees-Mogg want to help "these people"? Really, does he? Does Aaron Banks? Farage? Johnson?? Do Raab, Grayling, Davies, Fox, Leadsom, McVey, Mordaunt, Patterson, Arlene DUP woman, et al.? Look at those names. The "Mordor of British politics" (to borrow an excellent Czech political insult.)
Now you may not buy a lot of the policies I support. But I don't think we are that far apart. Should you really be camping on the edge of Mordor?
Although I do sometimes wonder if the Berlaymont building is actually Barad-dur
I've been divorced twice & in neither cases did I come out of the marriages better off financially or even on par. But you don't stay married just because it's easier not to get divorced. For me financially it has been a long hard struggle over the past 8 years....but I'm a lot better off now than I was on the day my decri absolute came through.
You told us pages back that you dropped a bollock by voting leave. Why do you keep on coming back with more mad ideas?
From the link above, there's a particularly apposite quote: "What has happened in the past 10 days is that the post-truth train of Brexit has finally collided with this “hard core” of undeniable reality, these “lines of resistance”. The hitherto-hypothetical “backstop” proposal is now all-too-real, the stubborn kernel of trouble at the heart of the 585-page deal."
For the WA has landed and, as posted the other day, polls have seen < 20% approval vs 50% against and 35% don't know. We have also seen the Tories drop 4% moving Labour into a 3% lead. Applying Brexit preferences to the numbers, 10% of leave voters (that's nearly two million!) have opted to abandon the Tories for another party. 6% to UKIP and 4% to Labour which in turn places Labour in the lead. No net movement in Remain supporters and nothing for the Lib Dems since they are a strident Remain party who don't accept the 2016 referendum... so they will always be unattractive to Tory leave voters. We will see how the trend develops as the WA topic and associated drama unfolds.
Some still maintain Corbyn can't do anything right even up to the point where he is meeting with the other opposition parties to discuss tactics and strategy to defeat the WA and whatever else they agree on. People critique Corbyn but continuously fail to look at why Labour is polling at or around 40% while the Lib Dems are in single digits.
We might all look at the world through a Remain lens but this is to ignore two core aspects of the challenge. First there are 17.4M Leave voters who expressed an opinion back in 2016 (less the ones who have died!) and secondly Brexit is a paradox. It's essentially an unexploded bomb which won't be defused on March 29th 2019. And there is no single solution which delivers to what was the Leave majority. It has split the Tories into three factions, or rather exposed the split to the whole nation and also pushed the DUP into abstaining of late. Even after they agree a deal they start squabbling again. And should the EU27 agree next Sunday, Gove and the rest will still bang on about customs technology.
There is an upside and we can start with journalists taking Rees Mogg apart as his attempts to unseat May fail to match the bluster. More importantly, this is an opportunity to learn.
Equally, the loss of the European Medicines Agency, for example, has an impact, not just the loss of 800 relatively highly paid jobs, or the impact on the pharmaceutical industry activities within the UK, but also upon hotels etc. (if we are to accept that business travelers are a lucrative source of income).
Barring those espousing the hard right Tory/UKIP Redwood-Minfordesque unilateral free trade (which would, even its proponents agree, have a significant and measurable negative impact on manufacturing and agriculture), almost no-one is suggesting that the introduction of customs or regulatory controls (where currently there are none) will fail to have a specific and measurable impact on costs in the supply chain, manufacturing, retail and to the consumer.
I'll gloss over the potential for disruption to road haulage, with a tiny number of operator licenses for those wishing to operate within the EU27 (such a small number that the Government is considering allocating at least some by lottery).
Everything associated with leaving the Single Market and Customs Union, the taking back control, requires additional government bureaucracy and infrastructure, increased numbers of officials, and the erection of (mostly paper-based) barriers that are not needed today. These will increase the costs of doing business, at least in the short to medium term, and, if there's anything I've learnt about the capitalist system, other than a recent revelation that it's like a kick in the bollocks, it's that its proponents are enthusiastic (almost evangelical) about sharing out the costs of doing business (they are, admittedly, a smidgen less willing to share the profits).
Don't get me wrong, plenty will use Brexit as an excuse to raise prices in any event...
While it may be more difficult to immediately (and off the top of one's head) identify impacts on individual citizens, outside of employment, because the cause and effect is less obvious, there are impacts (such as removing the right to be treated exactly the same as native-born students in the Netherlands, and across the EU, which is why numbers of British students can avail of university tuition, in the English language, at a much reduced cost compared to the UK) which are specific and will, over time, be measurable (even if only as trends).
In total, it concluded that 2.6 million Leave voters have switched their support to Remain, while 970,000 have moved the other way – a net gain for the pro-EU side of 1.6 million.
The study found that Labour voters accounted for 1.4 million of the 1.6 million switchers to Remain, significantly outnumbering the 837,000 Tory voters who switched the other way.“
If only there had been a way of finding out what everybody thought instead of a tiny sample.
So you ask the question, just to be contrary, you know exactly why 16 million people are surveyed once a month, and you know that 15,000 isn't a "tiny sample". If you don't think 15k is statistically significant, or the study was flawed in some other way then please tell us and we can have a (hopefully) intelligent debate about.
But your snipe here is worthless to the conversation and frankly below you. Whilst I may not agree with you politically, you've at least been fairly succinct in your posts on here.