Brexit - Post Match Reaction

[Batman]

he was full of waffle this morning on telly when that was read out to him

[hypochondriac]

he was full of waffle this morning on telly when that was read out to him

They'll just say whatever their party tells them to say at the time and people wonder why no one trusts politicians. Politics of conviction doesn't exist anymore. I know a Labour politician who despised corbyn and then after his relatively good election result he couldn't get enough of him. Absolutely spineless.

[shurlock]

Let's see what the shadow trade secretary has to say:

 

I’m simply repeating what Barnier has stated, not what Keir Starmer’s towel boy, the quivering, clueless Barry Gardiner says.

 

It’s very clear: as part of a customs union, the UK loses the ability to set its own trade policy (wrt goods) - it cannot set its own tariffs in bilateral trade deals with other countries and must accept whatever external tariff is set by the EU.

 

It goes without saying that businesses trading in the customs union have to comply with EU regulations. But that’s true for any business, whether American, Chinese or Venezuelan that wants to export to the EU and would continue to be true if the UK crashed out without a deal onto WTO terms. If that’s your point, it’s beyond banal.

Edited 26 February, 2018 by shurlock

[buctootim]

They'll just say whatever their party tells them to say at the time and people wonder why no one trusts politicians. Politics of conviction doesn't exist anymore. I know a Labour politician who despised corbyn and then after his relatively good election result he couldn't get enough of him. Absolutely spineless.

 

Regardless of what you think of them Anna Soubry and Ken Clarke are doing what they believe in - despite what must be some horrendous party pressure

[buctootim]

George Osborne is now saying that Labour is more pro-business than the Tories.

 

https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/evening-standard-comment-brexiteers-have-handed-labour-an-open-goal-a3775721.html

 

It says something for the catastrophic May government that even someone as ditheringly useless as Corbyn should be in a position even to think about winning power.

 

In this case dithering might have served him well. The hard Brexiteers have backed a weak May into a very blind and very dead end cul de sac. If Labour had set their stall out earlier arguably the Tories wouldn't have jumped off the cliff in the same way.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Instead of sniping from the sidelines because he got sacked perhaps Osborne should have stayed in Parliament where his opinion counted.

 

If staying in the Customs or A customs union whilst leaving the EU was possible or desirable in the event of leaving perhaps him and Cameron should have said so during the referendum campaign. All we keep hearing about is how nobody explained what sort of out we voted for, well Osborne did. Out of SM & out of CU.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[buctootim]

Instead of sniping from the sidelines because he got sacked perhaps Osborne should have stayed in Parliament where his opinion counted.

 

If staying in the Customs or A customs union whilst leaving the EU was possible or desirable in the event of leaving perhaps him and Cameron should have said so during the referendum campaign. All we keep hearing about is how nobody explained what sort of out we voted for, well Osborne did. Out of SM & out of CU.

 

I'm pretty sure most of the leading figures in the original Brexit debate didnt really understand the complexities involved. It might have been possible to bring about hard Brexit if it had been properly planned and phased in over a 10-15 year period. Crashing out into a black hole is economic suicide, especially when we already have massive debts and a budget deficit

[Lord Duckhunter]

I'm pretty sure most of the leading figures in the original Brexit debate didnt really understand the complexities involved. It might have been possible to bring about hard Brexit if it had been properly planned and phased in over a 10-15 year period. Crashing out into a black hole is economic suicide, especially when we already have massive debts and a budget deficit

 

I’m not making comment on the rights and wrongs, that’s been done to death on here. I think everybody knows every bodies views without starting the same old arguments again. My point was Osborne is now calling for us to remain in The or A customs union, when he made it very clear during the campaign that this wasn’t possible. As Chancellor surely he was aware of the complexities, so if this option was possible why did he specifically say it wasn’t?

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[shurlock]

I’m not making comment on the rights and wrongs, that’s been done to death on here. I think everybody knows every bodies views without starting the same old arguments again. My point was Osborne is now calling for us to remain in The or A customs union, when he made it very clear during the campaign that this wasn’t possible. As Chancellor surely he was aware of the complexities, so if this option was possible why did he specifically say it wasn’t?

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

I'm convinced you got a different ballot paper from me pal.

[Verbal]

Instead of sniping from the sidelines because he got sacked perhaps Osborne should have stayed in Parliament where his opinion counted.

 

If staying in the Customs or A customs union whilst leaving the EU was possible or desirable in the event of leaving perhaps him and Cameron should have said so during the referendum campaign. All we keep hearing about is how nobody explained what sort of out we voted for, well Osborne did. Out of SM & out of CU.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Osborne was right then and he's being coy now. Corbyn's customs union speech is just another step in the demolition of a Brexit jihadist's dream. Once there's a majority in parliament for a customs union (in practice, 'the' customs union), the next in line is membership of the single market. After that, the 'why bother?' question becomes irresistible.

 

Trebles all round!

[hypochondriac]

Osborne was right then and he's being coy now. Corbyn's customs union speech is just another step in the demolition of a Brexit jihadist's dream. Once there's a majority in parliament for a customs union (in practice, 'the' customs union), the next in line is membership of the single market. After that, the 'why bother?' question becomes irresistible.

 

Trebles all round!

 

Good luck with that. Imagine the reaction when millions have been ignored.

[aintforever]

To be fair to Corbyn, staying in the customs union is the only way to sort out the NI border issue. Wether it is worthwhile leaving will depend on what sort of deal can be struck.

[scotty]

George Osborne is now saying that Labour is more pro-business than the Tories.

 

https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/evening-standard-comment-brexiteers-have-handed-labour-an-open-goal-a3775721.html

 

It says something for the catastrophic May government that even someone as ditheringly useless as Corbyn should be in a position even to think about winning power.

 

George Osbornes agenda is so glaringly transparent that it really isn't worth listening to him, tbh.

[Jonnyboy]

They'll just say whatever their party tells them to say at the time and people wonder why no one trusts politicians. Politics of conviction doesn't exist anymore. I know a Labour politician who despised corbyn and then after his relatively good election result he couldn't get enough of him. Absolutely spineless.

 

Bit like the electorate who will sway back and forth based on what the media feed them.

[hypochondriac]

Bit like the electorate who will sway back and forth based on what the media feed them.

Or based on their own judgements about the competence of party leaders. Interesting that it's only when voters decide not to back a candidate that someone favours that they start shouting about that nefarious media influencing how people vote. It couldn't possibly be that they decided someone wasn't worth voting for of their own accord.

[buctootim]

Or based on their own judgements about the competence of party leaders. Interesting that it's only when voters decide not to back a candidate that someone favours that they start shouting about that nefarious media influencing how people vote. It couldn't possibly be that they decided someone wasn't worth voting for of their own accord.

 

The mainstream print media are far more partisan and less interested in truth than ever before. They have abandoned informing in favour of echoing whatever the majority of their readers already think. You really have to search for unvarnished facts now.

[hypochondriac]

The mainstream print media are far more partisan and less interested in truth than ever before. They have abandoned informing in favour of echoing whatever the majority of their readers already think. You really have to search for unvarnished facts now.

And yet the proliferation of the Internet means its easier than ever to find varied points of view about virtually every single issue. I can't speak for others but I certainly don't take pieces from the mail, guardian, mirror or telegraph as Gospel. Increasingly more people from all sides of the political spectrum are turning their backs on the traditional media, its certainly not the case that the majority blindly parrot mainstream media opinion just because the Daily Mail calls Corbyn a twerp or the Guardian calls May incompetent. I think much of the public are perfectly capable of listening to them and coming up with those opinions entirely unaided.

 

Both Conservative and Labour supporters may like to pretend it's all the evil mainstream media but the truth is that both major party political leaders are about as inspiring as damp rags slightly less appealing to the less partisan majority who aren't affiliated to either.

Edited 26 February, 2018 by hypochondriac

[aintforever]

And yet the proliferation of the Internet means its easier than ever to find varied points of view about virtually every single issue. I can't speak for others but I certainly don't take pieces from the mail, guardian, mirror or telegraph as Gospel. Increasingly more people from all sides of the political spectrum are turning their backs on the traditional media, its certainly not the case that the majority blindly parrot mainstream media opinion just because the Daily Mail calls Corbyn a twerp or the Guardian calls May incompetent. I think much of the public are perfectly capable of listening to them and coming up with those opinions entirely unaided.

 

Both Conservative and Labour supporters may like to pretend it's all the evil mainstream media but the truth is that both major party political leaders are about as inspiring as damp rags slightly less appealing to the less partisan majority who aren't affiliated to either.

 

I guess it's mainly the oldies who are mostly influenced by the print media nowadays - It will be interesting to see how the younger generations will vote.

 

I rarely buy newspapers anymore and kids nowadays will buy even less. When I did look at the papers around election time I found the biased reporting on both sides just laughable - but especially the smears aimed at Corbyn. I don't get why people read stuff that is so obviously biased - surely you read the news for news, not someone else's politically biased bullsh!t?

[hypochondriac]

I guess it's mainly the oldies who are mostly influenced by the print media nowadays - It will be interesting to see how the younger generations will vote.

 

I rarely buy newspapers anymore and kids nowadays will buy even less. When I did look at the papers around election time I found the biased reporting on both sides just laughable - but especially the smears aimed at Corbyn. I don't get why people read stuff that is so obviously biased - surely you read the news for news, not someone else's politically biased bullsh!t?

I do think some of the media make up silly smears about corbyn which only backfires. The facts are concerning enough on their own without having to resort to exaggerations and falsehoods. I'm certainly not any more anti corbyn because of some falsehoods in the media.

[aintforever]

I do think some of the media make up silly smears about corbyn which only backfires. The facts are concerning enough on their own without having to resort to exaggerations and falsehoods. I'm certainly not any more anti corbyn because of some falsehoods in the media.

 

Many people are though. I think to an extent we are all influenced by what we read.

 

The print media is a dying breed and I also think reading obviously biased reporting a dying concept as well - It's just a by product of a dated red vs blue political system where people just want to read something that makes them feel more comfortable with their own bigoted views.

[hypochondriac]

Many people are though. I think to an extent we are all influenced by what we read.

 

The print media is a dying breed and I also think reading obviously biased reporting a dying concept as well - It's just a by product of a dated red vs blue political system where people just want to read something that makes them feel more comfortable with their own bigoted views.

 

It's all too easy though to dismiss opponents as brainwashed sheep simply because they aren't a fan of a political party. Much easier to dismiss the obvious deficiencies of May or Corbyn as delusional rantings of the opposition, hopelessly suckered by the Guardian or the Daily Mail than thinking the other side may actually have a point...

[aintforever]

It's all too easy though to dismiss opponents as brainwashed sheep simply because they aren't a fan of a political party. Much easier to dismiss the obvious deficiencies of May or Corbyn as delusional rantings of the opposition, hopelessly suckered by the Guardian or the Daily Mail than thinking the other side may actually have a point...

 

I agree. In past elections it could be fair argument that opponents have been 'brainwashed' if their only source of news is one biased newspaper. Going forward this will be less and less of a genuine argument and new generations should be much more balanced and open minded as the opinions of the press become more and more of an irrelevance.

[Lord Duckhunter]

I agree. In past elections it could be fair argument that opponents have been 'brainwashed' if their only source of news is one biased newspaper. Going forward this will be less and less of a genuine argument and new generations should be much more balanced and open minded as the opinions of the press become more and more of an irrelevance.

 

Twitter and other social media is more biased & unbalanced than any newspaper. It reinforces opinions rather than challenge them, because people mainly block or don’t follow people or institutions with differing views. As many have pointed out it’s an echo chamber. Most newspapers tend to have some columnists with different views, apart from The Times which seems to be all pinkos. Whether it’s d'Ancona at the Guardian, Rod Liddle at the sun or Hodges in the Mail, the written press isn’t quite as one eyed or biased as is made out. Certainly not as bad as Little Owen Jones who just about blocks everybody that has a contrary opinion to his.

 

By far and away the worst form of political reporting is TV. Whether Sky, ITV or the BBC, they all seem to have forgotten the art of reporting the news. Way way too much analysis, newsreaders interviewing reporters on what they think or what they heard. Smug twts like Nick Watt, Kuenssberg (although I would) and Faisal Islam, seem more intent on telling us how clever they are or how well connected they are, rather than tell us the news.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[buctootim]

they all seem to have forgotten the art of reporting the news. Way way too much analysis, newsreaders interviewing reporters on what they think or what they heard.....seem more intent on telling us how clever they are or how well connected they are, rather than tell us the news.

 

This

[aintforever]

Twitter and other social media is more biased & unbalanced than any newspaper. It reinforces opinions rather than challenge them, because people mainly block or don’t follow people or institutions with differing views. As many have pointed out it’s an echo chamber. Most newspapers tend to have some columnists with different views, apart from The Times which seems to be all pinkos. Whether it’s d'Ancona at the Guardian, Rod Liddle at the sun or Hodges in the Mail, the written press isn’t quite as one eyed or biased as is made out. Certainly not as bad as Little Owen Jones who just about blocks everybody that has a contrary opinion to his.

 

By far and away the worst form of political reporting is TV. Whether Sky, ITV or the BBC, they all seem to have forgotten the art of reporting the news. Way way too much analysis, newsreaders interviewing reporters on what they think or what they heard. Smug twts like Nick Watt, Kuenssberg (although I would) and Faisal Islam, seem more intent on telling us how clever they are or how well connected they are, rather than tell us the news.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Don’t disagree but the important fact is that there is a myriad of different ways to get news nowadays be it social media, online, TV or print. Very different from my Dad’s generation who only got their news solely from the daily paper and the news at Ten.

 

All news is biased to a degree but what you read on the BBC is a million miles away from a newspaper telling you to “turn the lights out if Labour win”. Wether it is right or left wing, that sort of journalism seems really dated.

[hypochondriac]

There really is no excuse in this day and age for living in an echo chamber. Loads of opportunity to see opposing viewpoints if you want to.

[Jonnyboy]

It's all too easy though to dismiss opponents as brainwashed sheep simply because they aren't a fan of a political party. Much easier to dismiss the obvious deficiencies of May or Corbyn as delusional rantings of the opposition, hopelessly suckered by the Guardian or the Daily Mail than thinking the other side may actually have a point...

 

What am I supposed to think the next time an "oldie" tells me with smug certainty that Corbyn was passing on state secrets to the Czechs?

[hypochondriac]

What am I supposed to think the next time an "oldie" tells me with smug certainty that Corbyn was passing on state secrets to the Czechs?

Or when someone dismisses the entire episode entirely like the BBC

 

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/02/the-bbcs-coverage-of-ben-bradleys-apology-to-corbyn-is-fascinating/

[shurlock]

So who made the bigger helmet of themselves today -Boris comparing the Irish border to the boundary between Westminster and Camden or Liam Fox and his packet of crisps? This is jihadism Four Lions-style.

Edited 27 February, 2018 by shurlock

[Jonnyboy]

Or when someone dismisses the entire episode entirely like the BBC

 

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/02/the-bbcs-coverage-of-ben-bradleys-apology-to-corbyn-is-fascinating/

 

Answer the question.

[Verbal]

So who made the bigger helmet of themselves today -Boris comparing the Irish border to the boundary between Westminster and Camden or Liam Fox and his packet of crisps? This is jihadism Four Lions-style.

 

I'm waiting for the next Davis cretinism so that I can call Brexit jihadist bingo. Unfortunately BoJo has popped in ahead of him with an even more stupid idea, with his leaked letter to TM saying a hard border between the two Irelands wouldn't be so bad.

 

Christ, this lot are dumb ****s.

[Saint_clark]

An insulting speech from John Major full of inaccuracies and lies in an attempt to butter up the population ready for remaining in all but name.

 

Sent from my SM-J330FN using Tapatalk

[shurlock]

An insulting speech from John Major full of inaccuracies and lies in an attempt to butter up the population ready for remaining in all but name.

 

Sent from my SM-J330FN using Tapatalk

 

#triggered

[Saint_clark]

#triggered [emoji38]

Hardly. But a democratic vote being subverted through these kinds of means shouldn't be anything to celebrate, even if you disagree with the outcome.

 

Sent from my SM-J330FN using Tapatalk

[John B]

Hardly. But a democratic vote being subverted through these kinds of means shouldn't be anything to celebrate, even if you disagree with the outcome.

 

Sent from my SM-J330FN using Tapatalk

 

Democracy means to be able to change your mind if you think something you voted for is wrong.

 

You are whining because you realise a second referendum with all the facts known may not go your way..

 

By the way what benefits are there to Brexit apart from taking back control and stopping EU citizens coming to the UK to work in Health Social Care and Agriculture plus dozens of other area

[Lord Duckhunter]

Democracy means to be able to change your mind if you think something you voted for is wrong.

 

 

 

Course you are. Campaigning to rejoin the EU is a totally legitimate cause to fight for.

 

Had we lost, I’d have started to campaign and help the leave cause in the hope the country eventually changed its mind. However, I wouldn’t have thrown my toys out of the pram , demanded a second referendum within a short timescale, called Remainers thick idiots or devised ways to suppress the result.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Edited 28 February, 2018 by Lord Duckhunter

[Saint_clark]

Democracy means to be able to change your mind if you think something you voted for is wrong.

 

You are whining because you realise a second referendum with all the facts known may not go your way..

 

By the way what benefits are there to Brexit apart from taking back control and stopping EU citizens coming to the UK to work in Health Social Care and Agriculture plus dozens of other area

I think a second referendum would be extremely close again but still a win for leave, I just don't think there should be one anyway. We didn't have one for the referendum on electoral reform.

Benefits include negotiating trade deals with the rest of the world on terms that benefit us specifically rather than on terms that take into account an entire continent many of whose countries have differing interests. Being able to manage immigration including increased immigration from other areas of the world. You say workers from the EU will be stopped from coming here, that is nonsense - they will just have to justify the reasons they should be let in the same as everyone else.

You see leaving the EU as reclusive and taking Britain back to being an isolated nation, it's far from it. Why limit ourselves to Europe when we can push our nation out on a global scale?

Fwiw one of the first things I'd do as both an economic and symbolic step forward is negotiate a commonwealth free trade agreement, we can benefit with work services from the countries in Africa, Asia and South America with poorer job opportunities (there's your care and agriculture jobs!) As well as help to improve health and standard of living in said countries. And that's before you get to the benefits of a free trade agreement with the likes of India and Singapore who have growing/strong manufacturing economies respectively.

 

Sent from my SM-J330FN using Tapatalk

[trousers]

I don't agree with having a second referendum on whether or not to leave the EU.

 

However, I am in favour of having a first referendum on the outcome of the negotiations.

[hypochondriac]

I don't agree with having a second referendum on whether or not to leave the EU.

 

However, I am in favour of having a first referendum on the outcome of the negotiations.

 

But if the EU know that is the intention then why would they not just be as unreasonable as they possibly can because they don't want us to leave?

[Saint_clark]

But if the EU know that is the intention then why would they not just be as unreasonable as they possibly can because they don't want us to leave?

 

Exactly, whichever way you look at it a referendum on the outcome is yet another attempt to just reverse it at all costs.

If there are three options - yes, no and stay or no and renegotiate, you split the leave vote in two between yes and renegotiate.

 

People kicked up a huge fuss to begin with about parliament having a vote on the final deal - well, we got that (rightly so) but now all of a sudden that isn't enough either.

[trousers]

But if the EU know that is the intention then why would they not just be as unreasonable as they possibly can because they don't want us to leave?

I'm talking more in principle, rather than what may or may not be practical. I'm also not suggesting we should announce a referendum on the outcome in advance. We (the government) can/could decide to do that once the negotiations are finished.

[Lord Duckhunter]

But if the EU know that is the intention then why would they not just be as unreasonable as they possibly can because they don't want us to leave?

 

Not if the vote was Leave with this deal, or leave without one, it wouldn't.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hypochondriac]

Not if the vote was Leave with this deal, or leave without one, it wouldn't.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But that's clearly not what he meant.

[Lord Duckhunter]

I don't agree with having a second referendum on whether or not to leave the EU.

 

However, I am in favour of having a first referendum on the outcome of the negotiations.

 

But if the EU know that is the intention then why would they not just be as unreasonable as they possibly can because they don't want us to leave?

 

Not if the vote was Leave with this deal, or leave without one, it wouldn't.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

But that's clearly not what he meant.

 

How's it clear?

 

He doesn't want a referendum on whether we leave as we've already had that .Therefore any referendum on the deal will be how we leave, not whether we leave.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guided Missile]

In the interest of a quick and painless exit from the EU, I would like to propose a solution to the seemingly intractable problem caused by the freedom of movement issues, in regard to the Irish border. I would like to start by making clear the objective of this proposal:

 

It is in the interest of the UK and the EU to ensure that the borders between us are not a barrier to trade, social and cultural interchange or regional cooperation. An efficient system for local border traffic should consequently be developed.

 

In order to achieve this, I have taken the opportunity to detail legislation that will assist in this objective. Those interested can read the details here.

 

As far as new technological methods of operating such a "smart" border, details of this development can be accessed on this website.

 

I do hope that Messrs. Tusk and Barnier are able to study the proposals I have posted. I would hate to think that UK citizens may get the impression that these self-serving, un-elected, jack-booted, power-hungry, mercenary and desperate civil servants, are trying to erect artificial barriers to the democratic decision of the UK to leave the EU (that includes Northern Ireland, Mr. Tusk. Many of their citizens died in wars that allowed Poland to be free of Nazi rule).

[Jonnyboy]

In the interest of a quick and painless exit from the EU, I would like to propose a solution to the seemingly intractable problem caused by the freedom of movement issues, in regard to the Irish border. I would like to start by making clear the objective of this proposal:

 

 

 

In order to achieve this, I have taken the opportunity to detail legislation that will assist in this objective. Those interested can read the details here.

 

As far as new technological methods of operating such a "smart" border, details of this development can be accessed on this website.

 

I do hope that Messrs. Tusk and Barnier are able to study the proposals I have posted. I would hate to think that UK citizens may get the impression that these self-serving, un-elected, jack-booted, power-hungry, mercenary and desperate civil servants, are trying to erect artificial barriers to the democratic decision of the UK to leave the EU (that includes Northern Ireland, Mr. Tusk. Many of their citizens died in wars that allowed Poland to be free of Nazi rule).

 

[Verbal]

In the interest of a quick and painless exit from the EU, I would like to propose a solution to the seemingly intractable problem caused by the freedom of movement issues, in regard to the Irish border. I would like to start by making clear the objective of this proposal:

 

 

 

In order to achieve this, I have taken the opportunity to detail legislation that will assist in this objective. Those interested can read the details here.

 

As far as new technological methods of operating such a "smart" border, details of this development can be accessed on this website.

 

I do hope that Messrs. Tusk and Barnier are able to study the proposals I have posted. I would hate to think that UK citizens may get the impression that these self-serving, un-elected, jack-booted, power-hungry, mercenary and desperate civil servants, are trying to erect artificial barriers to the democratic decision of the UK to leave the EU (that includes Northern Ireland, Mr. Tusk. Many of their citizens died in wars that allowed Poland to be free of Nazi rule).

 

Do ALL the toys in your pram have ejector buttons?

[shurlock]

As long as no cheap and nasty pesticides make it across the irish border, you can fill your boots with barcodes, drones and oyster cards.

[shurlock]

Trump now slapping tariffs on steel and aluminium. The US protectionist, nah, never. Maybe I'll read a Heritage report for a bit of escapism and entertainment

[Verbal]

The unicorns still roam free in May's speech, but it's good she's a tad less cakeist by finally acknowledging that Brexit will damage the British economy.