Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A recent servey that took place confirmed it too, the result of it was that 84% said yes and 15% said no with 1% dont know." That wasn't a survey, that was a 'click here to have your say' button on the Daily Mail website. It was widely publicised by left-wing activists who held their noses and went to the site to give their opinion. Most actual polls have rejoin at around 50%. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A recent servey that took place confirmed it too, the result of it was that 84% said yes and 15% said no with 1% dont know. That wasn't a survey, that was a 'click here to have your say' button on the Daily Mail website. It was widely publicised by left-wing activists who held their noses and went to the site to give their opinion. Most actual polls have rejoin at around 50%." This is key. The number of people who believe Brexit was a mistake is consistently 60%+ now. But that’s not the same as rejoin. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Currently re-joiners are probably just over 50%, but basing their vote on a highly simplistic idea. When the true cost, effort and disruption becomes clear, support will likely plummet. For example, we are highly unlikely to re-join under the 'rebate' terms negotiated by Thatcher. We would also likely be required to make binding commitments to membership duration, the Euro, Schengen, open borders and an EU military. It's all a non-starter." Open borders and an EU military don’t exist. Membership duration also doesn’t. We will rejoin the single market though, as a minimum. And it’ll happen in the next decade. I won’t say it’s nailed-on guaranteed, but I would say I feel it’s as close to certain as can be. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Open borders and an EU military don’t exist. Membership duration also doesn’t." EU Associate Membership also doesn't exist, but that didn't stop the EU from offering it to Canada a couple of weeks ago. What do you consider to be the difference between "open borders" and membership of the Schengen area? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Currently re-joiners are probably just over 50%, but basing their vote on a highly simplistic idea. When the true cost, effort and disruption becomes clear, support will likely plummet. For example, we are highly unlikely to re-join under the 'rebate' terms negotiated by Thatcher. We would also likely be required to make binding commitments to membership duration, the Euro, Schengen, open borders and an EU military. It's all a non-starter. Open borders and an EU military don’t exist. Membership duration also doesn’t. We will rejoin the single market though, as a minimum. And it’ll happen in the next decade. I won’t say it’s nailed-on guaranteed, but I would say I feel it’s as close to certain as can be. " But they are EU aspirations that we would likely be strong-armed into signing-up to. But yes, It looks certain we will align on single market and customs union before long. But even that depends on the terms - and the EU are in the driving seat. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Open borders and an EU military don’t exist. Membership duration also doesn’t. EU Associate Membership also doesn't exist, but that didn't stop the EU from offering it to Canada a couple of weeks ago. What do you consider to be the difference between "open borders" and membership of the Schengen area?" Free movement via Schengen comes with responsibility and restrictions, reliable income, not being a burden on host nation etc. The U.K were notoriously poor at upholding the restrictions. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Open borders and an EU military don’t exist. Membership duration also doesn’t. EU Associate Membership also doesn't exist, but that didn't stop the EU from offering it to Canada a couple of weeks ago. What do you consider to be the difference between "open borders" and membership of the Schengen area? Free movement via Schengen comes with responsibility and restrictions, reliable income, not being a burden on host nation etc. The U.K were notoriously poor at upholding the restrictions." Yes I get the theory, but will the British public accept uncontrolled borders given the furore over channel crossings? I very much doubt it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I hope so In 2016 the public were hoodwinked by Johnson Farage two of the most nastiest people on the planet. Self gain and sold the whole idea on stopping immigration and making our own laws saving money given to the EU To spend on the NHS WHAT a load of bollocks Since then rising prices especially food , Poorer relations with NATO Cost push inflation … Awful decision to leave Europe… it’s a must we rejoin " Did any of those issues you mentioned NOT happen in the EU? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I hope so In 2016 the public were hoodwinked by Johnson Farage two of the most nastiest people on the planet. Self gain and sold the whole idea on stopping immigration and making our own laws saving money given to the EU To spend on the NHS WHAT a load of bollocks Since then rising prices especially food , Poorer relations with NATO Cost push inflation … Awful decision to leave Europe… it’s a must we rejoin " You shouldn't leave out Obama's influence. Telling voters, the UK would be at the back of the queue for any US trade deal if they voted to leave the EU. I did wonder at the time if that was worth 2% of the leave vote, when 53% thought his remarks were inappropriate. Pure speculation from me, but the above is overlooked when it comes to Brexit and being lied to. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I hope so In 2016 the public were hoodwinked by Johnson Farage two of the most nastiest people on the planet. Self gain and sold the whole idea on stopping immigration and making our own laws saving money given to the EU To spend on the NHS WHAT a load of bollocks Since then rising prices especially food , Poorer relations with NATO Cost push inflation … Awful decision to leave Europe… it’s a must we rejoin You shouldn't leave out Obama's influence. Telling voters, the UK would be at the back of the queue for any US trade deal if they voted to leave the EU. I did wonder at the time if that was worth 2% of the leave vote, when 53% thought his remarks were inappropriate. Pure speculation from me, but the above is overlooked when it comes to Brexit and being lied to. " “And on that matter, for example, I think it’s fair to say that maybe some point down the line there might be a UK-US trade agreement, but it’s not going to happen any time soon because our focus is in negotiating with a big bloc, the European Union, to get a trade agreement done”. Is anything incorrect in what Obama said, above? We baulked at the ‘back of the queue comment’ for the very same reason that we left the EU to begin with - British exceptionalism. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I voted to remain in 2016 and would vote to rejoin tomorrow. Apart from the tampon tax, and a few fringe areas that don't seem to affect most people, very little has happened to improve people's lives. Also, I'm not massively anti-migration, but I am for a manageable infrastructure, and the small boats problem is the legacy of Brexit. Remember when Nigel Farage told us that Turkey was about to join the EU, and that we risked being swamped with millions of Turkish migrants? Or the poster claiming "Britain is at breaking point" featuring queues of Syrian refugees? Turkey is still not an EU member ten years later, and the refugee crisis is potentially out of control. Pre-Brexit, if a migrant crossed the Channel from France, the UK could legally request France, Germany, or Italy take them back. When the UK left the EU, they failed to negotiate a replacement returns treaty with the EU (Formerly The Dublin Agreement). So, because of Brexit, there is no legal framework to return asylum seekers to mainland Europe. " The boats certainly ain’t small, and it has nothing to do with Brexit but it has everything to do with political will | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I voted to remain in 2016 and would vote to rejoin tomorrow. Apart from the tampon tax, and a few fringe areas that don't seem to affect most people, very little has happened to improve people's lives." You could also say that, apart from a potential future €20 ETIAS charge to visit the EU, very little has happened to impact people's lives. "Pre-Brexit, if a migrant crossed the Channel from France, the UK could legally request France, Germany, or Italy take them back. When the UK left the EU, they failed to negotiate a replacement returns treaty with the EU (Formerly The Dublin Agreement). So, because of Brexit, there is no legal framework to return asylum seekers to mainland Europe." Not true. The Dublin Agreements only allowed us to send someone back if they had already applied to another EU country, and had been refused. In every year that we were part of the Agreements the rules forced us to accept more asylum seekers from the EU than we were allowed to return. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" You could also say that, apart from a potential future €20 ETIAS charge to visit the EU, very little has happened to impact people's lives. " The post Brexit impact will be relative to everyone’s pre-Brexit relationship with the EU. For some people they’ve seen very little impact beyond increased cost of living, higher/additional fees on some products offered from the EU. For others it’s been enormous, jobs lost, businesses lost, additional red tape. Like the poster said though, improvements? Thin on the ground from a project sold as ‘no possible downside’ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Not true. The Dublin Agreements only allowed us to send someone back if they had already applied to another EU country, and had been refused. In every year that we were part of the Agreements the rules forced us to accept more asylum seekers from the EU than we were allowed to return." Go and check what you just posted, because that’s not how the Dublin Agreement worked. First, a person didn't need to be refused asylum elsewhere to be sent back. The rules were based on the "first country of entry" principle—if they registered or gave fingerprints in another EU state, the UK could request their return. Second, it wasn’t "every year" either. While the UK did become a net recipient in its later years of membership, historical data shows the UK actually transferred more people out to Europe than it took in during earlier periods. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The best thing we ever did but it has been deliberately mishandled. We need a PM in that will finish the job correctly and then we will see the benefits. " So what needs to be done to finish the job, and what are the benefits that would follow? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
". We need a PM in that will finish the job correctly and then we will see the benefits. " What would ‘correctly’ entail? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The best thing we ever did but it has been deliberately mishandled. We need a PM in that will finish the job correctly and then we will see the benefits. " Can you explain then how the PM should finish the job and the benefits from that. We keep hearing this generic statement but no specifics. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Quick question for those of you who are keen to rejoin (and I fully respect your wishes to do so). Would you be so keen to do so if the AfD and National Front come to power in Germany and France respectively?" Hungary had Orban in power while we were an EU Member, and I didn’t negatively affect our membership, so I don’t see a problem (except feeling desperately sad that those nations had entrusted the far right with power) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Quick question for those of you who are keen to rejoin (and I fully respect your wishes to do so). Would you be so keen to do so if the AfD and National Front come to power in Germany and France respectively? Hungary had Orban in power while we were an EU Member, and I didn’t negatively affect our membership, so I don’t see a problem (except feeling desperately sad that those nations had entrusted the far right with power)" Appreciate the response. Playing Devil’s Advocate, I believe a far right Germany and France would have wider implications for the direction of the EU than Hungary, especially on the issue of immigration from non-EU states. Chances are it won’t happen, so just a point for discussion. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not true. The Dublin Agreements only allowed us to send someone back if they had already applied to another EU country, and had been refused. In every year that we were part of the Agreements the rules forced us to accept more asylum seekers from the EU than we were allowed to return." "Go and check what you just posted, because that’s not how the Dublin Agreement worked. First, a person didn't need to be refused asylum elsewhere to be sent back. The rules were based on the "first country of entry" principle—if they registered or gave fingerprints in another EU state, the UK could request their return. Second, it wasn’t "every year" either. While the UK did become a net recipient in its later years of membership, historical data shows the UK actually transferred more people out to Europe than it took in during earlier periods." People did need to be refused asylum elsewhere to be sent back. If they had been granted asylum in an EU country they were entitled to be here under the freedom of movement regulations. The Dublin Agreements required that a person be registered in an EU country. In practice this means claiming asylum because there is no way to register as a resident if you don't have the right to live there. I had to go back to the figures, and at first glance they showed that I was right. But then I spotted that the government spreadsheet starts in 2017Q2. If we go back to the beginning, we had more out than in for 6 quarters, all of 2015, 2016Q1, and 2017Q1, with the largest difference being 124 in 2015Q3. The other 18 quarters show more coming in than going out, with the largest difference being 340 in 2020Q4. Even if we take the most 'successful' year for deportations, 2015 with 510 transportations, it doesn't amount to a huge dent in the number of immigrants. In the last year of our Dublin membership we had 8,462 small boat arrivals, and the Dublin Agreement allowed us to send back 105. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Under Dublin, the UK could only transfer people who had already claimed asylum elsewhere and were not recognised refugees — anyone granted asylum in the EU had free‑movement rights and couldn’t be transferred. Transfers didn’t require a literal refusal, only that the person wasn’t already recognised." I think you're saying that Dublin transfers didn't need an asylum refusal in another country, they just needed the person to have registered in another country, and not yet have been granted asylum. If that's what you're saying, I'm going to agree. But of course the only way for a non-European to be registered in an EU country is for them to apply for asylum. It doesn't seem very likely that a person would apply for asylum in an EU country, not wait for the result, travel to the UK, and make a second application here. We don't have the figures available, but I'm going to say that the vast majority of those transferred under the Dublin rules had already been refused in another EU country. I'll say that the number who arrived here and made an application whilst their existing application was still open in another country will be vanishingly small. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In answer to the OP’s post, I think if we could vote on going back into the EU on a “as was” basis, then more would vote to return than stay out. If the version we are asked to return to involves joining the Euro, Schengen etc., my gut feel is that a majority would vote against rejoining. Personally, I would vote against rejoining. I am all for a close economic ties with our nearest neighbours, do not want to be part of a political union. Quick question for those of you who are keen to rejoin (and I fully respect your wishes to do so). Would you be so keen to do so if the AfD and National Front come to power in Germany and France respectively?" On what terms for rejoining is the big question. Several things like joining the euro and Schengen are possible and even likely given we would be just another new member application. The BBC , in their report note the following: As a candidate in the Makerfield by-election that propelled his return to Parliament, Burnham had promised not to "re-run" Brexit arguments and said he was "not proposing that the UK considers rejoining the EU" Given that was only a few months ago it's quite a change and opposite to what he said when seeking election | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Under Dublin, the UK could only transfer people who had already claimed asylum elsewhere and were not recognised refugees — anyone granted asylum in the EU had free‑movement rights and couldn’t be transferred. Transfers didn’t require a literal refusal, only that the person wasn’t already recognised. I think you're saying that Dublin transfers didn't need an asylum refusal in another country, they just needed the person to have registered in another country, and not yet have been granted asylum. If that's what you're saying, I'm going to agree. But of course the only way for a non-European to be registered in an EU country is for them to apply for asylum. It doesn't seem very likely that a person would apply for asylum in an EU country, not wait for the result, travel to the UK, and make a second application here. We don't have the figures available, but I'm going to say that the vast majority of those transferred under the Dublin rules had already been refused in another EU country. I'll say that the number who arrived here and made an application whilst their existing application was still open in another country will be vanishingly small." On the theme of removals it seems the one in one out policy is to be scrapped | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"On the theme of removals it seems the one in one out policy is to be scrapped" Good. I can't understand why anyone thought that a scheme to increase the number of asylum claims granted was likely to be popular. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Quick question for those of you who are keen to rejoin (and I fully respect your wishes to do so). Would you be so keen to do so if the AfD and National Front come to power in Germany and France respectively? Hungary had Orban in power while we were an EU Member, and I didn’t negatively affect our membership, so I don’t see a problem (except feeling desperately sad that those nations had entrusted the far right with power)" The results of where “far right” European political parties entered government is instructive. Giorgio Meloni leads a party that has its origins in the Mussolini admiring far right. But she has largely governed from the traditional centre right thus avoiding confrontation with her EU partners that might have cost EU funds and spooked the debt markets. Le Pen too has ditched plans to leave the European single currency. I guess it’s a case of harsh economic reality always trumping political ideology with the exception being Brexit. And we have seen from that what happens when political ideology takes priority above economic facts. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"no, most wouldn't vote brexit again due to the fact that the largest brexit voting cohort has been literally dying out and continues to do so at an increasingly exponential rate." Really? People today are dying at an earlier age than those that died before Brexit? If Brexit has reduced UK life expectancy I'm surprised that more people aren't shouting about it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"no, most wouldn't vote brexit again due to the fact that the largest brexit voting cohort has been literally dying out and continues to do so at an increasingly exponential rate. rejoin campaigns are wisely targeting those currently in the under 45 yr demographic group with highly effective rejoin facts and so the rejoin vote is correspondingly increasing at an exponential rate. this is clearly ace "There is a party dedicated purely to rejoining and been going a few years. They don't seem to have taken advantage of this as yet | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Continue here, it was interesting seeing the replies, the question comes as tony blair wants andy burnham to take his advice on rejoining eu, not just that, the support for rejoing eu are at all time high. A recent servey that took place confirmed it too, the result of it was that 84% said yes and 15% said no with 1% dont know. I think that it would be a good idea because brexit was based on a lie and it havent worked out as planned, brexit has led to measurable economic contraction, not just that but also lower investment and if it would be a snap elecion we could see in favour of rejoin. It would be interesting to see what your view of it is and what do you think of it, would people vote differently now after seeing the effects of brexit and would you change your vote too "But would the vote change if the UK had to except the €, under the EU constitution joining members must except the euro. Or would this not be better for trade and travel 🤔 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" That leaves the word "Rejoin" to be defined and that process will take a long time. " If only they’d spent a long time defining what leave meant eh? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That leaves the word "Rejoin" to be defined and that process will take a long time." "If only they’d spent a long time defining what leave meant eh?" They did. The problem is that one side defined it as cutting bureaucracy and welcoming new trading partners, and the other side defined it as cutting off trade and committing financial suicide. With no solid facts and a lot of speculation, people choose to believe the predictions that already fitted with their world view. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That leaves the word "Rejoin" to be defined and that process will take a long time. If only they’d spent a long time defining what leave meant eh? They did. The problem is that one side defined it as cutting bureaucracy and welcoming new trading partners, and the other side defined it as cutting off trade and committing financial suicide. With no solid facts and a lot of speculation, people choose to believe the predictions that already fitted with their world view." Even leave couldn’t agree on what leave meant. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That leaves the word "Rejoin" to be defined and that process will take a long time." "If only they’d spent a long time defining what leave meant eh?" "They did. The problem is that one side defined it as cutting bureaucracy and welcoming new trading partners, and the other side defined it as cutting off trade and committing financial suicide. With no solid facts and a lot of speculation, people choose to believe the predictions that already fitted with their world view." "Even leave couldn’t agree on what leave meant." Everyone agreed on what 'leave' meant. It was just how to arrange things for afterwards that they couldn't agree on. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That leaves the word "Rejoin" to be defined and that process will take a long time. If only they’d spent a long time defining what leave meant eh? They did. The problem is that one side defined it as cutting bureaucracy and welcoming new trading partners, and the other side defined it as cutting off trade and committing financial suicide. With no solid facts and a lot of speculation, people choose to believe the predictions that already fitted with their world view. Even leave couldn’t agree on what leave meant. Everyone agreed on what 'leave' meant. It was just how to arrange things for afterwards that they couldn't agree on." You mean the exact nature of leaving?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't know what all the fuss is about. The UK will not be rejoining the EU as a full member under the same conditions as before Brexit. That is a certainty. That leaves the word "Rejoin" to be defined and that process will take a long time. Worrying about currency, migration, single market etc. etc. is pointless until we have some more information. " I agree that if the UK were to apply to rejoin it won't be under the original terms. However things like currency and Schengen are extremely important as it could well be very important to how people decide. When surveys are done, those being asked need to know what they are saying yes or no to | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"These surveys are taken at the back of lots of media push blaming all the UK issues on Brexit, even though the EU countries face the same issue or have it even worse. The Leave side didn't really do much of a media campaign in the recent years because they got what they wanted. If there is going to be referendum, the Leave side will start campaigning and that will affect the results." The Leave side got what they wanted? Are you kidding me?!…they haven’t stopped whinging since 2020 about how it was sold out and betrayed. They continuously say that they did not get the true Brexit ( whatever that looks like) because of something relating to the deep state and other related swiveled eyed conspiracies 😂😂 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The Leave side got what they wanted? Are you kidding me?!…they haven’t stopped whinging since 2020 about how it was sold out and betrayed. They continuously say that they did not get the true Brexit ( whatever that looks like) because of something relating to the deep state and other related swiveled eyed conspiracies 😂😂" We did leave the EU. Sure there are complaints how the issue was handled. But still, no reason to campaign hard. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Even leave couldn’t agree on what leave meant." "Everyone agreed on what 'leave' meant. It was just how to arrange things for afterwards that they couldn't agree on." "You mean the exact nature of leaving?" Everyone on the leave campaigns thought that 'leave' meant 'cease to be a member of the European Union'. It appears that you believed that 'leave' meant 'fully determine our future relationship with the EU before ceasing to be a member'. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The Leave side got what they wanted? Are you kidding me?!…they haven’t stopped whinging since 2020 about how it was sold out and betrayed. They continuously say that they did not get the true Brexit ( whatever that looks like) because of something relating to the deep state and other related swiveled eyed conspiracies 😂😂 We did leave the EU. Sure there are complaints how the issue was handled. But still, no reason to campaign hard." I’m sure Leave will campaign very hard as is its right to. My own view is that there should not be a referendum on the issue at least for another 10 years but that’s something I cant influence. So if we have left the EU while acknowledging the issues were handled badly why do Leavers keep saying that Brexit was betrayed. We are outside of the EU, we have Brexited. It’s a binary issue so why the continuous cries of Brexit wasn’t done properly? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It’s a binary issue so why the continuous cries of Brexit wasn’t done properly? " To explain any negative consequences. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So if we have left the EU while acknowledging the issues were handled badly why do Leavers keep saying that Brexit was betrayed. We are outside of the EU, we have Brexited. It’s a binary issue so why the continuous cries of Brexit wasn’t done properly? " This is where the leave side should do better. It was never going to be a cake walk. We were going to lose the ease of trade with the EU, but it gives us more control over the country's economic future and gives us an opportunity to remove the bad regulations from the EU. Their argument was that the compromise was worth it. Their campaign's focus after Brexit must be on the positives we have had after that, showing the struggles of the EU and what we must do further to reap the benefits, like what regulations have to be gotten rid of? Unfortunately some decided to take the whining and finger pointing route. But either way, there was no full fledged campaign from the leave side, like the politicians/media have been doing in favour of rejoining EU. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So if we have left the EU while acknowledging the issues were handled badly why do Leavers keep saying that Brexit was betrayed. We are outside of the EU, we have Brexited. It’s a binary issue so why the continuous cries of Brexit wasn’t done properly? This is where the leave side should do better. It was never going to be a cake walk. We were going to lose the ease of trade with the EU, but it gives us more control over the country's economic future and gives us an opportunity to remove the bad regulations from the EU. Their argument was that the compromise was worth it. Their campaign's focus after Brexit must be on the positives we have had after that, showing the struggles of the EU and what we must do further to reap the benefits, like what regulations have to be gotten rid of? Unfortunately some decided to take the whining and finger pointing route. But either way, there was no full fledged campaign from the leave side, like the politicians/media have been doing in favour of rejoining EU." I don’t mean to be rude but I have say that is a just complete load of platitudinous, meaningless waffle…have you considered a career in politics? Much love 🤗 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I don’t mean to be rude but I have say that is a just complete load of platitudinous, meaningless waffle…have you considered a career in politics? Much love 🤗" If you don't understand, you could always ask 🤗 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I don’t mean to be rude but I have say that is a just complete load of platitudinous, meaningless waffle…have you considered a career in politics? Much love 🤗 If you don't understand, you could always ask 🤗" I could but I’ll pass if that’s ok ☺️ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I don’t mean to be rude but I have say that is a just complete load of platitudinous, meaningless waffle…have you considered a career in politics? Much love 🤗 If you don't understand, you could always ask 🤗 I could but I’ll pass if that’s ok ☺️" In that case, I don't mean to be rude either. But have you considered a career as a twitter influencer? 😌 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I don’t mean to be rude but I have say that is a just complete load of platitudinous, meaningless waffle…have you considered a career in politics? Much love 🤗 If you don't understand, you could always ask 🤗 I could but I’ll pass if that’s ok ☺️ In that case, I don't mean to be rude either. But have you considered a career as a twitter influencer? 😌" Now there’s an idea! I’m not sure I’d be a success though. I’ll think about it 😀 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So if we have left the EU while acknowledging the issues were handled badly why do Leavers keep saying that Brexit was betrayed. We are outside of the EU, we have Brexited. It’s a binary issue so why the continuous cries of Brexit wasn’t done properly? This is where the leave side should do better. It was never going to be a cake walk. We were going to lose the ease of trade with the EU, but it gives us more control over the country's economic future and gives us an opportunity to remove the bad regulations from the EU. Their argument was that the compromise was worth it. Their campaign's focus after Brexit must be on the positives we have had after that, showing the struggles of the EU and what we must do further to reap the benefits, like what regulations have to be gotten rid of? Unfortunately some decided to take the whining and finger pointing route. But either way, there was no full fledged campaign from the leave side, like the politicians/media have been doing in favour of rejoining EU." Maybe the leave side haven’t gone full PR on the positives because they’re just not particularly numerous, or noticeable. Even Farage said Brexit had Failed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Maybe the leave side haven’t gone full PR on the positives because they’re just not particularly numerous, or noticeable. Even Farage said Brexit had Failed. " Where we did changes, it helped. Changes in regulations in the Finance services and Banking helped the Finance industry. And the finance industry leaders now don't want to rejoin the EU. We didn't shoot ourselves in the foot like the EU did with its "AI act". The fact that we have lowered VAT below the EU's required minimum levels for some products. And they could point out that whatever problem the UK faces, the EU also faces. So joining the EU isn't the solution. They don't push this often in the media because there isn't hasn't been a threat of rejoining. If there is, they will campaign. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So if we have left the EU while acknowledging the issues were handled badly why do Leavers keep saying that Brexit was betrayed. We are outside of the EU, we have Brexited. It’s a binary issue so why the continuous cries of Brexit wasn’t done properly?" Because the Brexit dream was that we would leave the EU, cut vast amounts of EU mandated red tape from our laws making British business more competitive, and start aggressively chasing trade deals with all those countries that we previously weren't allowed to deal with. Whether that was achievable or not doesn't matter. Since Brexit happened no government has visibly changed any laws, and the trade deals we have aren't the most exciting. To Brexiteers it looks like we could have set out on a bold new path, but instead we're coasting along beside the EU hoping to jump back onboard at the earliest chance. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So if we have left the EU while acknowledging the issues were handled badly why do Leavers keep saying that Brexit was betrayed. We are outside of the EU, we have Brexited. It’s a binary issue so why the continuous cries of Brexit wasn’t done properly? Because the Brexit dream was that we would leave the EU, cut vast amounts of EU mandated red tape from our laws making British business more competitive, and start aggressively chasing trade deals with all those countries that we previously weren't allowed to deal with. Whether that was achievable or not doesn't matter. Since Brexit happened no government has visibly changed any laws, and the trade deals we have aren't the most exciting. To Brexiteers it looks like we could have set out on a bold new path, but instead we're coasting along beside the EU hoping to jump back onboard at the earliest chance." But, but, but it was all supposed to be so easy, we held all the cards, they needed us more than we needed them. I’m getting a strong whiff of deep state conspiracy here. Brexit was sold to the electorate as a cast iron guaranteed successful project no question. Nothing in the small print in Leave promo or comms about it failing under certain circumstances if x, y or x happened. Getting Déjà vu here: excuses, explanations and caveats….again 😀 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've absolutely no doubt that Brexit was the wrong thing to do, but I just don't have the appetite to go through the whole rigmarole again. Listening to some of the arguments over here was an absolutely mind-numbing experience. " I don’t think there is an appetite to re-open the whole thing again either. My personal preference would be for a technocratic solution whereby the UK, at a slower or faster pace depending on where the UK and EU is at politically , reinserts itself back into the SM. The electorate does not want to go through the so called Brexit wars again. As a country we have already paid too high a price for it. Not exactly the sunny uplands promised by BJ and his government back in 2019 and the years leading up to and finally leaving the EU. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Leave campaign had so many false promises. It was based on lies and fear mongering. I think the public deserve another chance to correct this mistake. We can see how it's damaging our economy. We'll be the butt of many EU jokes for the next few decades but that's worth it. Back into the EU, get rid of the red tape, have freedom of movement, more job opportunities, better economic prospects." Voters ineptitude delivered Brexit. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We can see how it's damaging our economy." The problem is that we can't see that. Covid happened just as Brexit did, so there's no way to see how trade was affected. There are lots of analyses of the economy, and they all come up with different numbers, so we can't have any confidence that any of them are correct. If we could see and measure the amount of harm done to the economy, it would be much easier to get agreement on the way forward. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We can see how it's damaging our economy. The problem is that we can't see that. Covid happened just as Brexit did, so there's no way to see how trade was affected. There are lots of analyses of the economy, and they all come up with different numbers, so we can't have any confidence that any of them are correct. If we could see and measure the amount of harm done to the economy, it would be much easier to get agreement on the way forward." A microbe derailed Brexit? I like it 😊….As a way forward how about making it easier for us to trade with the world’s largest and richest single market and trading bloc? And it’s right on our doorstep. Just a suggestion. Or maybe political ideology will yet again overcome rational economics to prevent that happening. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We can see how it's damaging our economy. The problem is that we can't see that. Covid happened just as Brexit did, so there's no way to see how trade was affected. There are lots of analyses of the economy, and they all come up with different numbers, so we can't have any confidence that any of them are correct. If we could see and measure the amount of harm done to the economy, it would be much easier to get agreement on the way forward." Was the UK the only country that was affected by COVID (hence not being able to see the impact of Brexit when looking at how the British economy fared against similar economies elsewhere)? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We can see how it's damaging our economy. The problem is that we can't see that. Covid happened just as Brexit did, so there's no way to see how trade was affected. There are lots of analyses of the economy, and they all come up with different numbers, so we can't have any confidence that any of them are correct. If we could see and measure the amount of harm done to the economy, it would be much easier to get agreement on the way forward." no, it's just that you're incapable of rational thought and are unable to assess and process the facts as a result. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We can see how it's damaging our economy." "The problem is that we can't see that. Covid happened just as Brexit did, so there's no way to see how trade was affected. There are lots of analyses of the economy, and they all come up with different numbers, so we can't have any confidence that any of them are correct. If we could see and measure the amount of harm done to the economy, it would be much easier to get agreement on the way forward." "A microbe derailed Brexit?" It's like you're deliberately misunderstanding what I'm saying. Covid killed global trade, and shut down economies. Each country handled it differently and each country recovered at a different rate. That means we have no meaningful statistics from the period. If Covid hadn't happened we could have seen exactly how much UK trade changed after Brexit. We would have statistics from every European country and be able to compare the UK's performance with the rest of the bloc. Sadly, we don't have that, so it's impossible to be certain what the impact of Brexit was. "As a way forward how about making it easier for us to trade with the world’s largest and richest single market and trading bloc? And it’s right on our doorstep. Just a suggestion." But aligning with the EU means that we can't align with any other blocs. The EU accounts for 14% of global trade. Are you absolutely certain that's the best we can do? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We can see how it's damaging our economy." "The problem is that we can't see that. Covid happened just as Brexit did, so there's no way to see how trade was affected. There are lots of analyses of the economy, and they all come up with different numbers, so we can't have any confidence that any of them are correct. If we could see and measure the amount of harm done to the economy, it would be much easier to get agreement on the way forward." "no, it's just that you're incapable of rational thought and are unable to assess and process the facts as a result." That's quite amusing coming from you. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But aligning with the EU means that we can't align with any other blocs. The EU accounts for 14% of global trade. Are you absolutely certain that's the best we can do?" Trade is hugely reliant on geography though. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Was the UK the only country that was affected by COVID (hence not being able to see the impact of Brexit when looking at how the British economy fared against similar economies elsewhere)?" If we compare France, Germany and the UK's economic growth in the last 5 years, the UK actually did better than the other two. Will people accept that Brexit was good for the UK? There are multiple factors generally affecting any economy. But COVID's impact was too big that it makes every other factor insignificant in comparison. It becomes impossible to carve out the impact of Brexit alone and tell a story about what might have happened if Brexit did not happen. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But aligning with the EU means that we can't align with any other blocs. The EU accounts for 14% of global trade. Are you absolutely certain that's the best we can do?" "Trade is hugely reliant on geography though. " There's quite a good argument that it relies on political geography. It's easier to trade with countries that share cultures and especially languages. The theory goes that it will be easier to trade with Australia because that country has similar wants and desires, and we have a shared language. Trading with Turkey would be more complex as they don't want many of the products we make, and the language barrier makes negotiations more difficult and requires different packaging. It's not trade that's reliant on geography it's shipping, but in this modern global society shipping costs are a small part of the equation. Yes, shipping to Australia would be more expensive than shipping to Turkey, but the shared cultures should mean that we ship more volume and therefore do more trade. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We can see how it's damaging our economy. The problem is that we can't see that. Covid happened just as Brexit did, so there's no way to see how trade was affected. There are lots of analyses of the economy, and they all come up with different numbers, so we can't have any confidence that any of them are correct. If we could see and measure the amount of harm done to the economy, it would be much easier to get agreement on the way forward. A microbe derailed Brexit? It's like you're deliberately misunderstanding what I'm saying. Covid killed global trade, and shut down economies. Each country handled it differently and each country recovered at a different rate. That means we have no meaningful statistics from the period. If Covid hadn't happened we could have seen exactly how much UK trade changed after Brexit. We would have statistics from every European country and be able to compare the UK's performance with the rest of the bloc. Sadly, we don't have that, so it's impossible to be certain what the impact of Brexit was. As a way forward how about making it easier for us to trade with the world’s largest and richest single market and trading bloc? And it’s right on our doorstep. Just a suggestion. But aligning with the EU means that we can't align with any other blocs. The EU accounts for 14% of global trade. Are you absolutely certain that's the best we can do?" I was being facetious about the microbe thing. Forgive me 🙏 14% represents quite a bit of international trade value. Geopolitically the globe has three powerful economic powerhouses: the US, China and the EU. As a mid sized power we will need to form a deep relationship with one of those ( it is at least advisable). Out of the three I’d argue the EU is the best option despite its many flaws. But happy to hear your view. It’s clear we can’t go it alone as was the promise of Brexit. Global Britain was in the end a pipe dream. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I was being facetious about the microbe thing. Forgive me" I shall clean my joke-spotting spectacles. "14% represents quite a bit of international trade value. Geopolitically the globe has three powerful economic powerhouses: the US, China and the EU. As a mid sized power we will need to form a deep relationship with one of those ( it is at least advisable). Out of the three I’d argue the EU is the best option despite its many flaws. But happy to hear your view. It’s clear we can’t go it alone as was the promise of Brexit. Global Britain was in the end a pipe dream." Frankly if it's not the EU, we'd have to pick the USA. But picking the EU would mean that we can't have trade deals with any other countries. The EU insists that only it can negotiate trade deals. Picking the USA wouldn't come with that restriction and we could also trade-pair with lots of other countries around the world. If we could also get deals with Canada and Australia, we'd be matching the 14% of global trade that we could access with the EU. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Frankly if it's not the EU, we'd have to pick the USA. But picking the EU would mean that we can't have trade deals with any other countries. The EU insists that only it can negotiate trade deals. Picking the USA wouldn't come with that restriction and we could also trade-pair with lots of other countries around the world. If we could also get deals with Canada and Australia, we'd be matching the 14% of global trade that we could access with the EU." Trading with our neighbours (the EU) or trading with countries that are further away and it would cost more to transport goods? Makes more sense to be with the EU. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But aligning with the EU means that we can't align with any other blocs. The EU accounts for 14% of global trade. Are you absolutely certain that's the best we can do? Trade is hugely reliant on geography though. There's quite a good argument that it relies on political geography. It's easier to trade with countries that share cultures and especially languages. The theory goes that it will be easier to trade with Australia because that country has similar wants and desires, and we have a shared language. Trading with Turkey would be more complex as they don't want many of the products we make, and the language barrier makes negotiations more difficult and requires different packaging. It's not trade that's reliant on geography it's shipping, but in this modern global society shipping costs are a small part of the equation. Yes, shipping to Australia would be more expensive than shipping to Turkey, but the shared cultures should mean that we ship more volume and therefore do more trade." That helps explain why the UK does more trade with the US than any other country and by a big margin, even with trumps tariffs and geographically they are not exactly close | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I was being facetious about the microbe thing. Forgive me I shall clean my joke-spotting spectacles. 14% represents quite a bit of international trade value. Geopolitically the globe has three powerful economic powerhouses: the US, China and the EU. As a mid sized power we will need to form a deep relationship with one of those ( it is at least advisable). Out of the three I’d argue the EU is the best option despite its many flaws. But happy to hear your view. It’s clear we can’t go it alone as was the promise of Brexit. Global Britain was in the end a pipe dream. Frankly if it's not the EU, we'd have to pick the USA. But picking the EU would mean that we can't have trade deals with any other countries. The EU insists that only it can negotiate trade deals. Picking the USA wouldn't come with that restriction and we could also trade-pair with lots of other countries around the world. If we could also get deals with Canada and Australia, we'd be matching the 14% of global trade that we could access with the EU." The reality of course is that Trump promised the UK a game changing trade deal and of course that has not materialized and in my view is very unlikely to at least in the medium term ( 10 to 20 years). We are currently free to make any trade deals we so wish ( pending trading partners agreement) but since leaving the EU those trade deals we have signed have so far proved relatively underwhelming compared to what we had pre 2020. We would and have entered independent trade negotiations from a relative position of weakness too ( recall Australians laughing live on TV about the trade deal they signed with us when Liz Truss was Trade Secretary). Philip Rycroft the top civil servant at the Department for Exiting the EU from 2017 to 2019 argues that the referendum to exit the EU in 2016 was the worst possible moment for Britain to strike out on its own. 2016 was spectacularly poor timing for a liberal open economy like ours to launch itself on the rough seas of the global trading order just at the time it was fracturing and the security situation was deteriorating. But will we fully rejoin the EU? I’m not so sure. YouGov found in June that only 35% favoured Rejoin if Britain had to give up all its old opt outs. People do think Brexit has failed and feel cheated but understandably they do not want a return to the Brexit wars, people are exhausted and quite rightly worried we end up with yet another crappy deal. This debate has many many years of road left in it yet notwithstanding the fact that most of the electorate consider it way down the list of priorities: cost of living, immigration, social care, justice system. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Trading with our neighbours (the EU) or trading with countries that are further away and it would cost more to transport goods? Makes more sense to be with the EU." That's a simplistic way of looking at it. Shipping costs are not the major consideration they used to be. Just look at the amount of dirt cheap stuff we import from China. More of a consideration is having to run separate production lines to produce packaging in a foreign language. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The reality of course is that Trump promised the UK a game changing trade deal and of course that has not materialized and in my view is very unlikely to at least in the medium term ( 10 to 20 years)." I'm not so sure. If the Democrats get in at the next election, they'll be needing to show that America is back to normal and wanting to reach out to the world. A UK trade deal would be an excellent thing for them, showing Americans that things have changed, and the rest of the world that the US isn't isolating any more. But I agree that's a long shot and we'd be foolish to rely on it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What we got to keep voting until politicians get the answer they want " If that was the case, we’d have not left the EU to begin with, surely? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What we got to keep voting until politicians get the answer they want " Democracy has a tendency to follow and reflect public opinions and taste. There will be few subjects that have static belief levels and time also gives us the luxury of having more experience that shifts opinion. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Continue here, it was interesting seeing the replies, the question comes as tony blair wants andy burnham to take his advice on rejoining eu, not just that, the support for rejoing eu are at all time high. A recent servey that took place confirmed it too, the result of it was that 84% said yes and 15% said no with 1% dont know. I think that it would be a good idea because brexit was based on a lie and it havent worked out as planned, brexit has led to measurable economic contraction, not just that but also lower investment and if it would be a snap elecion we could see in favour of rejoin. It would be interesting to see what your view of it is and what do you think of it, would people vote differently now after seeing the effects of brexit and would you change your vote too "Let’s be honest, the only reason the traitorous murderer Tony Blair wants us to go into the EU is that he and his family will make millions from it, just like the promotion of ID cards | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What we got to keep voting until politicians get the answer they want Democracy has a tendency to follow and reflect public opinions and taste. There will be few subjects that have static belief levels and time also gives us the luxury of having more experience that shifts opinion. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A question to Brexiters When the U.K. rejoins the European Union, which Brexit benefit will you miss the most?" I suspect it'll be Sterling. The EU won't let us back in without a solid plan for transitioning to the Euro. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A question to Brexiters When the U.K. rejoins the European Union, which Brexit benefit will you miss the most?" The fact that we don't have to enforce the "AI act". After successfully stifling tech companies in the EU with regulation after regulation, thereby giving market dominance in tech sector to the American companies, they have already passed regulations to stifle AI development too. It's almost like they never learn their lessons. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A question to Brexiters When the U.K. rejoins the European Union, which Brexit benefit will you miss the most? The fact that we don't have to enforce the "AI act". After successfully stifling tech companies in the EU with regulation after regulation, thereby giving market dominance in tech sector to the American companies, they have already passed regulations to stifle AI development too. It's almost like they never learn their lessons." Prevention is better than the cure. We've already seen how volatile some of these AI programs can be. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A question to Brexiters When the U.K. rejoins the European Union, which Brexit benefit will you miss the most? The fact that we don't have to enforce the "AI act". After successfully stifling tech companies in the EU with regulation after regulation, thereby giving market dominance in tech sector to the American companies, they have already passed regulations to stifle AI development too. It's almost like they never learn their lessons. Prevention is better than the cure. We've already seen how volatile some of these AI programs can be." Indeed, it’s an area that needs regulation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A question to Brexiters When the U.K. rejoins the European Union, which Brexit benefit will you miss the most? The fact that we don't have to enforce the "AI act". After successfully stifling tech companies in the EU with regulation after regulation, thereby giving market dominance in tech sector to the American companies, they have already passed regulations to stifle AI development too. It's almost like they never learn their lessons. Prevention is better than the cure. We've already seen how volatile some of these AI programs can be." Do you think the AI act is going to stop bad AI things from happening? In its current form, all it does is to make development more expensive with no practical value. That's pretty much how they killed off tech start ups in the EU. While some regulations were good, the other ones made tech development more expensive, while providing little to no value to the users. This is a type of populism. People are told that they are protected by these regulations, while indirectly they are being shafted because it stifles economic growth. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A question to Brexiters When the U.K. rejoins the European Union, which Brexit benefit will you miss the most?" I sincerely hope freedom of movement DOES NOT return. That was the whole F’ing point! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A question to Brexiters When the U.K. rejoins the European Union, which Brexit benefit will you miss the most? I sincerely hope freedom of movement DOES NOT return. That was the whole F’ing point!" Why? FOM was smaller in number than non-EU migration (which we could always control fully). And FoM came with restrictions (which U.K. govt. chose not to enforce) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"FOM was smaller in number than non-EU migration (which we could always control fully)." Do you have a source for that? As far as I am aware government didn't collect that statistic (or at least it didn't publish it). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Boston in Lincolnshire was the area that voted ‘leave’ in the highest number. Also the area with the highest numbers of EU migrants… " Boston also has the second lowest level of formal education in the UK, and the third lowest level of higher education. Higher than average unemployment, average wages are low, and have reduced since voting leave, crime has risen since Brexit, and the immigrant population has risen since leaving the EU too. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Boston in Lincolnshire was the area that voted ‘leave’ in the highest number. Also the area with the highest numbers of EU migrants… Boston also has the second lowest level of formal education in the UK, and the third lowest level of higher education. Higher than average unemployment, average wages are low, and have reduced since voting leave, crime has risen since Brexit, and the immigrant population has risen since leaving the EU too. " Is all of the above based on information as of now, historical, or a mixture of both? From what you have posted, it could be concluded that yer average Bostonian is educationally thicker than yer average Brit, so got all they deserved for voting for Brexit in such high numbers. Alternatively, it could be that the immigrant population is educationally sub standard and are driving the average down, are heading to Boston as there are a lot of them there already, can only get low paid work (if any) and are turning to crime. More likely, the truth will lie somewhere between these two extrapolations. Out of interest, do you have an opinion on the root cause of what you kindly supplied? Of the two scenarios prompted by your listing, did you hope one would be gleaned more than the other? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Boston in Lincolnshire was the area that voted ‘leave’ in the highest number. Also the area with the highest numbers of EU migrants… Boston also has the second lowest level of formal education in the UK, and the third lowest level of higher education. Higher than average unemployment, average wages are low, and have reduced since voting leave, crime has risen since Brexit, and the immigrant population has risen since leaving the EU too. Is all of the above based on information as of now, historical, or a mixture of both? From what you have posted, it could be concluded that yer average Bostonian is educationally thicker than yer average Brit, so got all they deserved for voting for Brexit in such high numbers. Alternatively, it could be that the immigrant population is educationally sub standard and are driving the average down, are heading to Boston as there are a lot of them there already, can only get low paid work (if any) and are turning to crime. More likely, the truth will lie somewhere between these two extrapolations. Out of interest, do you have an opinion on the root cause of what you kindly supplied? Of the two scenarios prompted by your listing, did you hope one would be gleaned more than the other? " There was a clear correlation between formal education and leave/remain vote. It was one of the most reliable indicators of which way people voted, in fact. That’s not to say ‘all smart people voted remain’ or ‘all thick people voted leave’ of course, but those with more formal education and higher education were more likely to vote remain. As far as Boston, I suspect like many poor areas in the country, they felt left behind/Ignored by govt. - perhaps understandably so - and they saw Brexit as a response to that. A downtrodden area who had nothing left to lose. Brexit was a chance, a misguided hope, for something better | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Boston in Lincolnshire was the area that voted ‘leave’ in the highest number. Also the area with the highest numbers of EU migrants… Boston also has the second lowest level of formal education in the UK, and the third lowest level of higher education. Higher than average unemployment, average wages are low, and have reduced since voting leave, crime has risen since Brexit, and the immigrant population has risen since leaving the EU too. Is all of the above based on information as of now, historical, or a mixture of both? From what you have posted, it could be concluded that yer average Bostonian is educationally thicker than yer average Brit, so got all they deserved for voting for Brexit in such high numbers. Alternatively, it could be that the immigrant population is educationally sub standard and are driving the average down, are heading to Boston as there are a lot of them there already, can only get low paid work (if any) and are turning to crime. More likely, the truth will lie somewhere between these two extrapolations. Out of interest, do you have an opinion on the root cause of what you kindly supplied? Of the two scenarios prompted by your listing, did you hope one would be gleaned more than the other? There was a clear correlation between formal education and leave/remain vote. It was one of the most reliable indicators of which way people voted, in fact. That’s not to say ‘all smart people voted remain’ or ‘all thick people voted leave’ of course, but those with more formal education and higher education were more likely to vote remain. As far as Boston, I suspect like many poor areas in the country, they felt left behind/Ignored by govt. - perhaps understandably so - and they saw Brexit as a response to that. A downtrodden area who had nothing left to lose. Brexit was a chance, a misguided hope, for something better " Thanks for this. Unfortunately, you haven’t answered my questions about the data supplied ie when was this collated, pre or post the influx of immigrants into the area. Do you have this to hand? Not a problem if you don’t, just makes it harder to fully understand the picture. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Boston in Lincolnshire was the area that voted ‘leave’ in the highest number. Also the area with the highest numbers of EU migrants… Boston also has the second lowest level of formal education in the UK, and the third lowest level of higher education. Higher than average unemployment, average wages are low, and have reduced since voting leave, crime has risen since Brexit, and the immigrant population has risen since leaving the EU too. Is all of the above based on information as of now, historical, or a mixture of both? From what you have posted, it could be concluded that yer average Bostonian is educationally thicker than yer average Brit, so got all they deserved for voting for Brexit in such high numbers. Alternatively, it could be that the immigrant population is educationally sub standard and are driving the average down, are heading to Boston as there are a lot of them there already, can only get low paid work (if any) and are turning to crime. More likely, the truth will lie somewhere between these two extrapolations. Out of interest, do you have an opinion on the root cause of what you kindly supplied? Of the two scenarios prompted by your listing, did you hope one would be gleaned more than the other? There was a clear correlation between formal education and leave/remain vote. It was one of the most reliable indicators of which way people voted, in fact. That’s not to say ‘all smart people voted remain’ or ‘all thick people voted leave’ of course, but those with more formal education and higher education were more likely to vote remain. As far as Boston, I suspect like many poor areas in the country, they felt left behind/Ignored by govt. - perhaps understandably so - and they saw Brexit as a response to that. A downtrodden area who had nothing left to lose. Brexit was a chance, a misguided hope, for something better Thanks for this. Unfortunately, you haven’t answered my questions about the data supplied ie when was this collated, pre or post the influx of immigrants into the area. Do you have this to hand? Not a problem if you don’t, just makes it harder to fully understand the picture." The ‘influx’ of immigrants into Boston is hard to date, they had a high level of EU migration (most likely due to its rural location, farm work etc) prior to the referendum, which was then replaced with a higher level of non EU migration as the EU folk left the UK (as was the case with many short-term workers). Data I just found said Boston was 3.1% foreign born (so not necessarily migrant but the best I can find) in 2001, and 23.6% in 2021 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Bassman80 essentially thinks we’re thick and stupid if we don’t agree with his worldview. "No, BassMan80 is presenting easily researched facts that you can check for yourself
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Boston in Lincolnshire was the area that voted ‘leave’ in the highest number. Also the area with the highest numbers of EU migrants… Boston also has the second lowest level of formal education in the UK, and the third lowest level of higher education. Higher than average unemployment, average wages are low, and have reduced since voting leave, crime has risen since Brexit, and the immigrant population has risen since leaving the EU too. Is all of the above based on information as of now, historical, or a mixture of both? From what you have posted, it could be concluded that yer average Bostonian is educationally thicker than yer average Brit, so got all they deserved for voting for Brexit in such high numbers. Alternatively, it could be that the immigrant population is educationally sub standard and are driving the average down, are heading to Boston as there are a lot of them there already, can only get low paid work (if any) and are turning to crime. More likely, the truth will lie somewhere between these two extrapolations. Out of interest, do you have an opinion on the root cause of what you kindly supplied? Of the two scenarios prompted by your listing, did you hope one would be gleaned more than the other? There was a clear correlation between formal education and leave/remain vote. It was one of the most reliable indicators of which way people voted, in fact. That’s not to say ‘all smart people voted remain’ or ‘all thick people voted leave’ of course, but those with more formal education and higher education were more likely to vote remain. As far as Boston, I suspect like many poor areas in the country, they felt left behind/Ignored by govt. - perhaps understandably so - and they saw Brexit as a response to that. A downtrodden area who had nothing left to lose. Brexit was a chance, a misguided hope, for something better Thanks for this. Unfortunately, you haven’t answered my questions about the data supplied ie when was this collated, pre or post the influx of immigrants into the area. Do you have this to hand? Not a problem if you don’t, just makes it harder to fully understand the picture. The ‘influx’ of immigrants into Boston is hard to date, they had a high level of EU migration (most likely due to its rural location, farm work etc) prior to the referendum, which was then replaced with a higher level of non EU migration as the EU folk left the UK (as was the case with many short-term workers). Data I just found said Boston was 3.1% foreign born (so not necessarily migrant but the best I can find) in 2001, and 23.6% in 2021 " I would imagine that unemployment in Boston must have plummeted then? With so many EU citizens ‘going home’ then the locals will have filled the vacant roles? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Boston in Lincolnshire was the area that voted ‘leave’ in the highest number. Also the area with the highest numbers of EU migrants… Boston also has the second lowest level of formal education in the UK, and the third lowest level of higher education. Higher than average unemployment, average wages are low, and have reduced since voting leave, crime has risen since Brexit, and the immigrant population has risen since leaving the EU too. Is all of the above based on information as of now, historical, or a mixture of both? From what you have posted, it could be concluded that yer average Bostonian is educationally thicker than yer average Brit, so got all they deserved for voting for Brexit in such high numbers. Alternatively, it could be that the immigrant population is educationally sub standard and are driving the average down, are heading to Boston as there are a lot of them there already, can only get low paid work (if any) and are turning to crime. More likely, the truth will lie somewhere between these two extrapolations. Out of interest, do you have an opinion on the root cause of what you kindly supplied? Of the two scenarios prompted by your listing, did you hope one would be gleaned more than the other? There was a clear correlation between formal education and leave/remain vote. It was one of the most reliable indicators of which way people voted, in fact. That’s not to say ‘all smart people voted remain’ or ‘all thick people voted leave’ of course, but those with more formal education and higher education were more likely to vote remain. As far as Boston, I suspect like many poor areas in the country, they felt left behind/Ignored by govt. - perhaps understandably so - and they saw Brexit as a response to that. A downtrodden area who had nothing left to lose. Brexit was a chance, a misguided hope, for something better Thanks for this. Unfortunately, you haven’t answered my questions about the data supplied ie when was this collated, pre or post the influx of immigrants into the area. Do you have this to hand? Not a problem if you don’t, just makes it harder to fully understand the picture. The ‘influx’ of immigrants into Boston is hard to date, they had a high level of EU migration (most likely due to its rural location, farm work etc) prior to the referendum, which was then replaced with a higher level of non EU migration as the EU folk left the UK (as was the case with many short-term workers). Data I just found said Boston was 3.1% foreign born (so not necessarily migrant but the best I can find) in 2001, and 23.6% in 2021 I would imagine that unemployment in Boston must have plummeted then? With so many EU citizens ‘going home’ then the locals will have filled the vacant roles?" You’d think so, right? Taking back control and all that? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Boston in Lincolnshire was the area that voted ‘leave’ in the highest number. Also the area with the highest numbers of EU migrants… Boston also has the second lowest level of formal education in the UK, and the third lowest level of higher education. Higher than average unemployment, average wages are low, and have reduced since voting leave, crime has risen since Brexit, and the immigrant population has risen since leaving the EU too. Is all of the above based on information as of now, historical, or a mixture of both? From what you have posted, it could be concluded that yer average Bostonian is educationally thicker than yer average Brit, so got all they deserved for voting for Brexit in such high numbers. Alternatively, it could be that the immigrant population is educationally sub standard and are driving the average down, are heading to Boston as there are a lot of them there already, can only get low paid work (if any) and are turning to crime. More likely, the truth will lie somewhere between these two extrapolations. Out of interest, do you have an opinion on the root cause of what you kindly supplied? Of the two scenarios prompted by your listing, did you hope one would be gleaned more than the other? There was a clear correlation between formal education and leave/remain vote. It was one of the most reliable indicators of which way people voted, in fact. That’s not to say ‘all smart people voted remain’ or ‘all thick people voted leave’ of course, but those with more formal education and higher education were more likely to vote remain. As far as Boston, I suspect like many poor areas in the country, they felt left behind/Ignored by govt. - perhaps understandably so - and they saw Brexit as a response to that. A downtrodden area who had nothing left to lose. Brexit was a chance, a misguided hope, for something better Thanks for this. Unfortunately, you haven’t answered my questions about the data supplied ie when was this collated, pre or post the influx of immigrants into the area. Do you have this to hand? Not a problem if you don’t, just makes it harder to fully understand the picture. The ‘influx’ of immigrants into Boston is hard to date, they had a high level of EU migration (most likely due to its rural location, farm work etc) prior to the referendum, which was then replaced with a higher level of non EU migration as the EU folk left the UK (as was the case with many short-term workers). Data I just found said Boston was 3.1% foreign born (so not necessarily migrant but the best I can find) in 2001, and 23.6% in 2021 I would imagine that unemployment in Boston must have plummeted then? With so many EU citizens ‘going home’ then the locals will have filled the vacant roles? You’d think so, right? Taking back control and all that? "So all those unemployed Bostonians weren’t desperate to do that back breaking work in the fields? But surely all they needed was a chance, and all those immigrants not taking their jobs? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"FOM was smaller in number than non-EU migration (which we could always control fully). Do you have a source for that? As far as I am aware government didn't collect that statistic (or at least it didn't publish it)." 2011 census data (last census before Brexit): Out of the 63.2 million total residents across the UK in 2011, the foreign-born population accounted for roughly 7.5 to 7.9 million people: • Born in the UK: ~87.4% (~55.3 million) • Born Outside the EU: ~8.4% (5.3 million residents) • Born in the EU (Excluding UK): ~3.6% (2.2 to 2.3 million residents) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"FOM was smaller in number than non-EU migration (which we could always control fully)." "Do you have a source for that? As far as I am aware government didn't collect that statistic (or at least it didn't publish it)." "2011 census data (last census before Brexit): Out of the 63.2 million total residents across the UK in 2011, the foreign-born population accounted for roughly 7.5 to 7.9 million people: • Born in the UK: ~87.4% (~55.3 million) • Born Outside the EU: ~8.4% (5.3 million residents) • Born in the EU (Excluding UK): ~3.6% (2.2 to 2.3 million residents)" I wouldn't have thought to look at the census. Thanks for that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The ‘influx’ of immigrants into Boston is hard to date, they had a high level of EU migration (most likely due to its rural location, farm work etc) prior to the referendum, which was then replaced with a higher level of non EU migration as the EU folk left the UK (as was the case with many short-term workers). Data I just found said Boston was 3.1% foreign born (so not necessarily migrant but the best I can find) in 2001, and 23.6% in 2021 " Thank you for taking the time to supply this. I always respect an argument that has its basis in fact and appreciate you taking the time. The Brexit Referendum took place 15 years after the 2001 census, during which the foreign born population in Boston increased; exactly how much of the 20% increase between the two censuses is not known in the data you supplied, but if we say 75% of the years between censuses correlates to 75% of the increase, this would have the foreign born population of Boston at circa 18% in 2016. If the majority of these were educationally sub-standard, this would skew the figures. (I am not saying this is the case, I am playing Devils Advocate). One bit of anecdotal evidence from Boston - when I stayed overnight in February, both my mate and I commented at the time on how many white, non English speaking people were hanging round the town centre just after 9am. Hardly saw a non white face all the time w the two days we were there. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The ‘influx’ of immigrants into Boston is hard to date, they had a high level of EU migration (most likely due to its rural location, farm work etc) prior to the referendum, which was then replaced with a higher level of non EU migration as the EU folk left the UK (as was the case with many short-term workers). Data I just found said Boston was 3.1% foreign born (so not necessarily migrant but the best I can find) in 2001, and 23.6% in 2021 Thank you for taking the time to supply this. I always respect an argument that has its basis in fact and appreciate you taking the time. The Brexit Referendum took place 15 years after the 2001 census, during which the foreign born population in Boston increased; exactly how much of the 20% increase between the two censuses is not known in the data you supplied, but if we say 75% of the years between censuses correlates to 75% of the increase, this would have the foreign born population of Boston at circa 18% in 2016. If the majority of these were educationally sub-standard, this would skew the figures. (I am not saying this is the case, I am playing Devils Advocate). One bit of anecdotal evidence from Boston - when I stayed overnight in February, both my mate and I commented at the time on how many white, non English speaking people were hanging round the town centre just after 9am. Hardly saw a non white face all the time w the two days we were there." Boston is a very rural, agricultural type or area, with those who reach grammar school and beyond tend to ‘escape’ and the rest are doomed (to over dramatise) to remain in an underfunded area, with low prospects. It’s actually quite a fascinating little microcosm https://socialisteducationalassociation.org/2015/12/22/educational-apartheid-in-lincolnshire-selective-education-as-a-catalyst-for-driving-inequalities/ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
