Brexit - the Deal or No Deal poll

Brexit - Deal or No Deal?

  • Deal

    Votes: 45 29.0%
  • No Deal

    Votes: 72 46.5%
  • Call in the Donald

    Votes: 2 1.3%
  • Call in Noel Edmonds

    Votes: 4 2.6%
  • I don't care anymore

    Votes: 32 20.6%

  • Total voters
    155

Briggsy

Junior Member
Joined
30 Jan 2018
Messages
87
It’s covering* old ground this argument.
When the vote took place I don’t believe that people were considering whether they’d like this to stay or go. They clearly voted out and Cameron told us we would be out, no customs union, no single market etc
In the end what we have is government going against the electorate and the EU doing more than their level best to keep us in.
We should be out and be saving £12 billion a year. Negotiate treaties when we leave
The problem is that it was never that clear. You would assume that we would leave the single market, as Cameron said at one point: "The British public would be voting if we leave would be to leave the EU and leave the single market. We’d then have to negotiate a trade deal from outside with the European Union."

However, there was a lot of confusion and downright obfuscation on this point, with different people saying different things about how much access we'd have to the single market. So the argument that all 17.4 million people knew exactly what they were voting for doesn't really hold water.

This is helpful: https://fullfact.org/europe/what-was-promised-about-customs-union-referendum/
 

tonyw

Active member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
541
Personally if we leave and it goes tits up I would feel embarrassed but then after an initial 2 year period I think we GB would be getting things right and not have to worry about being told what to do when as a country we would be able to govern ourselves.
I'm curious - what have our leaders done over the past couple of years that gives you confidence that they'll be getting things right in the next two?

Personally, I was dubious about their capabilities two years ago - now I'm 100% sure they're incompetent and incapable of successfully governing the country in isolation.
 

Marked Ox

Well-known member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
7,177
Questions already about Brexit Party funding:


 

Gary Baldi

Well-known member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
3,302
How is it generous view? The £350m was horsesh*t as it ignored the other side of the equation (ie. the rebate etc) which has a very significant effect. Also it ignored the non direct financial benefits to the economy of EU membership.

Many people believed it would be spent on the NHS because that is what the Leave Campaign kept pushing.
It's generous as as it uses the very top line, rather than the figure after rebates, funding, pensions, etc. But, if I recall, it was even slightly lower than the real figure that they could have used if they were smarter - 352m (I think)! It's not horseh*t, but I grant as I always have, it's a generous view.

You may not agree with the method/presentation, fair enough, but as it is, the 350m is correct. It's not a lie. It's no different to the other stats flung about by both sides at the time and since, but for some reason, is the sand is some Remainers shoe that they can't get rid of.
Difficult to see how this could be interpreted as anything else than 'we send the EU £350 million a week let's fund our NHS instead'.



Who would like to claim that the two are unconnected?

EDIT - The word 'instead' is the giveaway.
I still read it as we send ..... Let's fund our NHS instead.

It doesn't say We send the EU £350 million a week, let's give it all to the NHS. Maybe I am being thick, but I still struggle to see how it's read as let's give it all to the NHS and always have done.

I'm still slightly in awe at the perceived power that battle bus over the Brexit vote.
 

Gary Baldi

Well-known member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
3,302
I'm curious - what have our leaders done over the past couple of years that gives you confidence that they'll be getting things right in the next two?

Personally, I was dubious about their capabilities two years ago - now I'm 100% sure they're incompetent and incapable of successfully governing the country in isolation.
There was an interesting quote from a journo a few months back that I'll paraphrase.

The sad state of UK politics is such that there is more talent and nous sat in the the back benches on both sides of the house than there is on the front benches (cough, Chris Failing. cough.). If the leaders of the 2 big parties were better, we'd be worried about where the next generation was coming from, but we aren't.
 

Marked Ox

Well-known member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
7,177
It's generous as as it uses the very top line, rather than the figure after rebates, funding, pensions, etc. But, if I recall, it was even slightly lower than the real figure that they could have used if they were smarter - 352m (I think)! It's not horseh*t, but I grant as I always have, it's a generous view.

You may not agree with the method/presentation, fair enough, but as it is, the 350m is correct. It's not a lie. It's no different to the other stats flung about by both sides at the time and since, but for some reason, is the sand is some Remainers shoe that they can't get rid of.

I still read it as we send ..... Let's fund our NHS instead.

It doesn't say We send the EU £350 million a week, let's give it all to the NHS. Maybe I am being thick, but I still struggle to see how it's read as let's give it all to the NHS and always have done.

I'm still slightly in awe at the perceived power that battle bus over the Brexit vote.
With regards the £350m, it is massively different as it was their main strapline which was repeated over and over and was knowingly and deliberately inaccurate, at the least it was a serious obfuscation of the truth. Boris was still quoting the £350m figure in the TV debates as did the other Leave Campaign members when they were on TV.

The £350m is a lie by omission as it ignores a considerable chunk of the equation very deliberately. It is like a company saying to potential investors we have an income of £15m while hiding that their costs are £30m.

It was repeated so many times (on TV, Social media, radio, the bus, leaflets etc) and throughout the campaign. To paraphrase a saying that repeat a lie enough times and it becomes the perceived truth. Plenty of people believed it was true, that you didn't fair enough but plenty did.
 

Pete Burrett

Active member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
704
It's generous as as it uses the very top line, rather than the figure after rebates, funding, pensions, etc. But, if I recall, it was even slightly lower than the real figure that they could have used if they were smarter - 352m (I think)! It's not horseh*t, but I grant as I always have, it's a generous view.

You may not agree with the method/presentation, fair enough, but as it is, the 350m is correct. It's not a lie. It's no different to the other stats flung about by both sides at the time and since, but for some reason, is the sand is some Remainers shoe that they can't get rid of.

I still read it as we send ..... Let's fund our NHS instead.

It doesn't say We send the EU £350 million a week, let's give it all to the NHS. Maybe I am being thick, but I still struggle to see how it's read as let's give it all to the NHS and always have done.

I'm still slightly in awe at the perceived power that battle bus over the Brexit vote.
I would never suggest you're thick, but that whole sentence including use of the comparative 'instead' really can't be misinterpreted! The slogan suggested to the gullible that membership of the EU was depriving the NHS of £350 million were week, funds which would be available to the NHS if we no longer paid it to the EU.

The idea is crap, of course. When we leave the EU those funds will go towards the austerity pledge of reducing the UK's national deficit, not to the NHS.
 

Peterdev

Active member
Joined
17 Dec 2017
Messages
980
It’s a ploy used drawing parallels.
For example, we give away billions in benefits overseas that should go to our own people. Not many will disagree, however, it is always a sweeping generalisation.
The statement suggesting that £350m a week is wasted, of course is a gross figure that takes no account of benefits.
Company profits of £100m gross might look good on paper but could be a net deficit.
If there is a second referendum as Labour seem to want, prepare for more wild assertions of what might or not happen.
George Osborne and his predictions were ridiculous too, and that from a chancellor who was supposed to be in the know
 

Sarge

Well-known member
2018-19 shirt sponsor for Jamie Hanson
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
12,797
It’s a ploy used drawing parallels.
For example, we give away billions in benefits overseas that should go to our own people. Not many will disagree, however, it is always a sweeping generalisation.
The statement suggesting that £350m a week is wasted, of course is a gross figure that takes no account of benefits.
Company profits of £100m gross might look good on paper but could be a net deficit.
If there is a second referendum as Labour seem to want, prepare for more wild assertions of what might or not happen.
George Osborne and his predictions were ridiculous too, and that from a chancellor who was supposed to be in the know
member of the Bullingdon club,.... ridiculous is expected :sneaky:
 

Pete Burrett

Active member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
704
For example, we give away billions in benefits overseas that should go to our own people. Not many will disagree, however, it is always a sweeping generalisation.
That's ironic Pete! You've made a sweeping generalisation there by saying 'not many will disagree'. Maybe it's the social group I associate with, but this topic comes up regularly and most of those people disagree vehemently!

I certainly do. We give away a paltry percentage of our GDP to overseas aid. We are a very wealthy country. The fact that UK citizens need to visit food banks (for example) is a disgrace, but is nothing to do with our overseas aid budget, it's because of lack of government will to bring 'our people' up to an acceptable level, partly through austerity measures.

We can afford to feed our own people AND give 0.3% of GDP in overseas aid. And that aid is not just 'given away'. In return we trade goods and services and establish long-term links with other countries.
 

Peterdev

Active member
Joined
17 Dec 2017
Messages
980
Maybe I have. I think it’s often the older generation that maintain we give millions away that should go to the elderly. But the point really is the two are not directly linked.
It’s easy to say we spend millions on foreign refugees but nothing on homeless soldiers. It’s an argument often made I think to suggest there is a direct relationship.
What you say is correct about us being wealthy and only small amounts are sent abroad.
How often do we hear the phrase charity begins at home..wherever that is
 

Marked Ox

Well-known member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
7,177
Maybe I have. I think it’s often the older generation that maintain we give millions away that should go to the elderly. But the point really is the two are not directly linked.
It’s easy to say we spend millions on foreign refugees but nothing on homeless soldiers. It’s an argument often made I think to suggest there is a direct relationship.
What you say is correct about us being wealthy and only small amounts are sent abroad.
How often do we hear the phrase charity begins at home..wherever that is
The overseas aid budget is also a soft projection of power (such as funding an organisation that helps locals in very poor rural India access benefits from their own Govt that was being appropriated for uses elsewhere by specific politicians as a shot across the bows) and presents long term benefit opportunities, as well as doing the right thing etc. So in the long term, it may be helping "home" as well.
 

Pete Burrett

Active member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
704
Maybe I have. I think it’s often the older generation that maintain we give millions away that should go to the elderly. But the point really is the two are not directly linked.
It’s easy to say we spend millions on foreign refugees but nothing on homeless soldiers. It’s an argument often made I think to suggest there is a direct relationship.
What you say is correct about us being wealthy and only small amounts are sent abroad.
How often do we hear the phrase charity begins at home..wherever that is
Well it seems we now pretty much agree!

Potentially controversial but I'd suggest that attitudes to 'helping foreigners v helping our own people' depend on two factors: levels of education and degrees of tolerance.

As you say, it's simplistic but easy to show a picture of Africans happily eating food aid alongside a picture of what purports to be a homeless ex-serviceman living on the wet streets of England. In fact, I've seen that very same comparison in a 'message' from Britain First, suggesting 'our money' should go to the latter. That's the poor education / ignorance bit. The majority of Africans live in abject poverty. And yes, there are rich Africans but so what? No ex-serviceman should live rough, but unfortunately many of those who do need the sort of mental health care no longer easily available.

On to tolerance. I'm certainly approaching the 'elderly' bracket and becoming less tolerant in many ways, but it does tend to be the older generation who see things in black and white and want to apply 'either / or' logic to any situation, rather than accepting that the UK has the wealth and power to do the right things both at home and abroad.
 

Sarge

Well-known member
2018-19 shirt sponsor for Jamie Hanson
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
12,797
interesting approach in Switzerland .....


 

bazzer9461

Well-known member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
5,097
Davis is an incompetent fool who has already failed, and the EU negotiators laughed at him because he was that unprepared and you think he would make the EU quake with fear!

Raab is equally incompetent considering he only realised how important Dover was for international trade after becoming Brexit Secretary!!! The current bunch make Iain Duncan-Smith seem competent which is quite an achievement.

And you really think telling somebody to "f**k off" will really make them negotiate differently and bring them into your way of thinking?! That was the sort of dismissive attitude David Davis had which just wasted time and achieved nothing.
No I said f**k off as a statement of how intent to do a no deal brexit, not a personal attack of “ f**k off “
 

bazzer9461

Well-known member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
5,097
Jacob Rees-Mogg reckons it will be 50 years to see any benefits. How long do you think it takes to negotiate trade deals and international agreements because 2 years is exceptionally optimistic?
No in 2 years we may have a much better idea we should have an idea how brexit is affecting everyone and what benefits we may get from going alone.
 

bazzer9461

Well-known member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
5,097
I'm curious - what have our leaders done over the past couple of years that gives you confidence that they'll be getting things right in the next two?

Personally, I was dubious about their capabilities two years ago - now I'm 100% sure they're incompetent and incapable of successfully governing the country in isolation.
In the next 2 those leaders will be gone and if there is a leader with a touch of Brexit about him, it will be interesting
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
gofish2 In the news 13
Eaststandboy In the news 49
Eaststandboy In the news 14
Joey's Left Boot In the news 324

Similar threads


Top Bottom