Brexit - Post Match Reaction

[shurlock]

I try and take a more balanced view, Shatlock. That is accepting that a spokesman for Trump will naturally defend his policies and utterances. Do you deny though that the BBC has a biased agenda based on a pro-Remain stance?

 

Stop being a weasel Les - you endorsed the video. Should have added your disclaimers before posting it and aligning it with your sweeping final sentence. Try to be more careful next time

 

Re. BBC and Brexit, both sides have claimed that it is biased. Depends what you mean by bias and what part of the BBC you're talking about.

Edited 19 February, 2017 by shurlock

[Wes Tender]

Stop being a weasel Les - you endorsed the video. Should have added your disclaimers before posting it and aligning it with your sweeping final sentence. Try to be more careful next time

 

Re. BBC and Brexit, both sides have claimed that it is biased. Depends what you mean by bias and what part of the BBC you're talking about.

 

I didn't endorse it, as you put it. I used it as an example of BBC bias. The weasel was Evan Davis, although of course naturally you won't accept that, for the reason that Weston SS astutely observes. If you wish to have an example of BBC bias, then you don't have to look much further than Newsnight when he's presenting it. BBC bias was evident in most of their coverage of the referendum and subsequently on Brexit. It ought to be evident even to you that the Beeb have a tendency to report anything they can rake up that puts a negative slant on Brexit, whilst failing to report the favourable news.

 

Naturally there are complaints from the Remoaners that the BBC is biased towards the Brexit position. That is their ruse to pretend that they are hard done by and therefore the BBC must be balanced in its coverage, but of course, it plainly isn't.

[Batman]

Anything that James O'brien hosts is far from being balanced

[JackFrost]

http://brexitcentral.com/no-surprise-blair-referendums-breaking-promises/

 

An interesting article on the arch-hypocrite Blair and some good reasons why his intervention into the Brexit debate at this stage has been met with howls of derision, even from his former cohorts, Blairites in the Labour Party. It's a shame he doesn't recognise that he is yesterday's man, spouting yesterday's platitudes.

 

But I welcome his intervention for one reason alone; his arrogance in insinuating that those who voted to leave the EU didn't understand what the implications would be, is a gift to the Brexiteers, whose resolve to leave will have been hardened against the EU.

 

If there is anything that drove the British public to vote leave it was Blair campaigning to remain before the election. The guy has long since reached legendary status in the combination of his complete absence of any self-awareness and his deliberate ignorance of how universally hated he is from all sides of the political spectrum.

 

I don't think there is a more powerful political force in Blair campaigning for one thing will guarantee the British public will vote in their droves to do the polar opposite

 

 

Naturally there are complaints from the Remoaners that the BBC is biased towards the Brexit position. That is their ruse to pretend that they are hard done by and therefore the BBC must be balanced in its coverage, but of course, it plainly isn't.

 

Wouldn't be anything to do with it receiving millions in EU funding in the run up to the referendum, and trying to declare it in the books as "other grant income" would it?

[Lord Duckhunter]

Mandleson did a great job for Brexit supporters on Marr this morning. It's great seeing unelected peers, with massive EU pensions, telling the British people they didn't know what they were voting for. Of course Marr being a raving pinko let him off the hook, but hopefully Nuttell will be quoting him this week in Stoke

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited 19 February, 2017 by Lord Duckhunter

[shurlock]

Mandleson did a great job for Brexit supporters on Marr this morning. It's great seeing unelected peers, with massive EU pensions, telling the British people they didn't know what they were voting for. Of course Marr being a raving pinko let him off the hook, but hopefully Nuttell will be quoting him this week in Stoke

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Not seen it yet. But is that codeword for someone telling a few home truths and running rings around the kipper case and you getting a bit touchy

Edited 19 February, 2017 by shurlock

[Wes Tender]

Not seen it yet. But is that codeword for someone telling a few home truths and running rings around the kipper case and you getting a bit touchy

 

I suggest that you watch it first, before posting drivel about it and aligning it with your sweeping final sentence. Try to be more careful next time

 

But LD is spot on, Mandelson did do a great service to the Brexit cause. There's nothing like a failed politician on the EU gravy train attempting to patronise the electorate to raise their hackles, especially one who had to resign twice in disgrace.

 

Mandelson wouldn't know a home truth if it bit him on the arse. But if you imply that Brexiteers will be a bit touchy by his intervention, then you add weight to the suggestion that he has helped the Brexit cause, do you not?

 

And yes, Marr was a pretty toothless interviewer and avoided asking the sort of questions that could have had him squirming. Marr is a bit of a lightweight compared to Andrew Neil, I'm afraid.

[shurlock]

I suggest that you watch it first, before posting drivel about it and aligning it with your sweeping final sentence. Try to be more careful next time

 

But LD is spot on, Mandelson did do a great service to the Brexit cause. There's nothing like a failed politician on the EU gravy train attempting to patronise the electorate to raise their hackles, especially one who had to resign twice in disgrace.

 

Mandelson wouldn't know a home truth if it bit him on the arse. But if you imply that Brexiteers will be a bit touchy by his intervention, then you add weight to the suggestion that he has helped the Brexit cause, do you not?

 

And yes, Marr was a pretty toothless interviewer and avoided asking the sort of questions that could have had him squirming. Marr is a bit of a lightweight compared to Andrew Neil, I'm afraid.

 

Now watched it. My hunch was confirmed to be correct. He is a bit touchy -and so are you it seems

Edited 20 February, 2017 by shurlock

[Lord Duckhunter]

Now watched it. My hunch was confirmed to be correct. He is a bit touchy -and so are you it seems

 

What a load of pony.

 

Rather than being "touchy" I welcome Mandlesons intervention. People like him are one of the main reasons the British people voted Brexit. How does continuing to say the same thing over and over again change anything. Failed economic arguments and warnings will fail again. Surely the losing side should come back with some new arguments, some nuanced debate, not just keep repeating the same old pony. He won't have changed one Brexit voters mind with that nonsense and whether you like it or not the only way you'll stop Brexit is Leave voters turning. Is Mandleson & Blair peddling their pony going to make that more likely or less?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[shurlock]

What a load of pony.

 

Rather than being "touchy" I welcome Mandlesons intervention. People like him are one of the main reasons the British people voted Brexit. How does continuing to say the same thing over and over again change anything. Failed economic arguments and warnings will fail again. Surely the losing side should come back with some new arguments, some nuanced debate, not just keep repeating the same old pony. He won't have changed one Brexit voters mind with that nonsense and whether you like it or not the only way you'll stop Brexit is Leave voters turning. Is Mandleson & Blair peddling their pony going to make that more likely or less?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Mandy certainly exposed your little hobby horse as fatuous tosh – that people knew exactly what they were voting for. Brexiters might claim caveat emptor - that a vote to leave meant leaving single market (though few references were made about possibly leaving the custom union). Of course as Mandy points out, it was also claimed that in doing so the UK would enjoy the same trade and trade benefits as it does now.

 

Touchy stuff being told by Mandy in all his queeny pomp that your position is fundamentally based on an impossibility, if not a pack of lies and the vote to leave is far more brittle than you desperately pretend.

Edited 20 February, 2017 by shurlock

[Lord Duckhunter]

Take a look at the latest polls, then come back. While you're at it check the yougov poll about Blairs intervention. Opinion is moving away from your side of the argument, but that's always going to happen until you change the tune. Project fear didn't work in June , so it certainly won't work now

 

Personally, I'm actually pleased that people like you, Mandleson and other assorted remoaners think we won with a pack of lies. That somehow you have the high moral ground & that we won't be leaving the single market or customs union. It's makes our glorious Independence Day even sweeter. The establishment have spent years covering up the true nature & aims of the EU and couldn't give a monkeys about the truth or the British people. We had to suck it up for 40 years and now you snowflakes will have to do the same . Instead of crying and whinging on social media and the BBC perhaps the snowflakes should set about finding an inspirational character like our Nigel to do the hard yards, set up a pro EU party and try to gain re-admittance. They won't of course, because deep down they know within 10 years the thing will be toast anyway .

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited 20 February, 2017 by Lord Duckhunter

[Wes Tender]

Now watched it. My hunch was confirmed to be correct. He is a bit touchy -and so are you it seems

 

Both LD and me are having a good belly laugh at you, trying to add credence to the intervention of the likes of Mandelson and Blair into the debate at the 11th hour. Two failed politicians, both disgraced in their political careers, but subsequently given the opportunity to put their snouts deep into the EU trough.

 

But I admire your chutzpah in attempting to label us as touchy to cover up the discomfort that you must be feeling, trying to defend the likes of Mandelson.

 

Now that the passage of the Brexit Bill is to go to the Lords today, I do hope that their Lordships like Mandelson who receive substantial sums of monies for the EU will be asked to declare an interest in the debate before speaking. That's the aspect of questioning that Marr should have pursued, had he not been such a toady.

[Wes Tender]

Mandy certainly exposed your little hobby horse as fatuous tosh – that people knew exactly what they were voting for. Brexiters might claim caveat emptor - that a vote to leave meant leaving single market (though few references were made about possibly leaving the custom union). Of course as Mandy points out, it was also claimed that in doing so the UK would enjoy the same trade and trade benefits as it does now.

 

Touchy stuff being told by Mandy in all his queeny pomp that your position is fundamentally based on an impossibility, if not a pack of lies and the vote to leave is far more brittle than you desperately pretend.

 

We've already had the debate before the referendum and voted to leave. Frankly, you look pathetic trying to score points so long after the event, attempting to support this political has-been's arrogant claims that the electorate were duped, because they weren't bright enough to understand what leaving the EU meant, despite being bombarded with the dire forecasts of the consequences by the Remoaners.

 

Only a small proportion of the electorate will have seen this programme anyway (even you did not watch it until you were forced to, in order to comment on it) and most of them will have entrenched views on the position they took in the referendum. More pertinent is not the actual finer points of the debate, but that accusation made by Mandelson that the electorate was too thick to understand the implications of leaving. It is a fantastic gift to the Brexiteers, as will be the likes of him trying to delay the passage of the Bill in the Lords. If they do, it will be like turkeys voting for Christmas, stoking the debate on abolishing this unelected body, which is way past its sell by date, a complete anachronism.

[Portugalsaint]

Classic monumentally thick leave post. If the UK had voted remain it would have meant the status quo. Apart from a few posts about the rights and wrongs of the campaign or decision there would have been nothing to discuss. Leaving means a whole different economic, social and political landscape is being discussed and thrashed out - which of course people want to comment on.

 

Thanks for calling me thick.

 

Have you ever lived outside the UK? Do you know what it's like to live in a country that is under the cosh of the EU?

 

Usual codswallop from a bitter remainer. There would have been no discussion forward if the country had voted remain. The EU do as they wish what is there to discuss. The British do as they are told introduce the laws whilst the rest bin them if they do not like them.

 

Call me thick, I say you to you carry on with the rest of the chattering classes after all education or no education the UK is leaving.

[Wes Tender]

Thanks for calling me thick.

 

Have you ever lived outside the UK? Do you know what it's like to live in a country that is under the cosh of the EU?

 

Usual codswallop from a bitter remainer. There would have been no discussion forward if the country had voted remain. The EU do as they wish what is there to discuss. The British do as they are told introduce the laws whilst the rest bin them if they do not like them.

 

Call me thick, I say you to you carry on with the rest of the chattering classes after all education or no education the UK is leaving.

 

Timmy misunderstood your original post, went off the deep end, was made to look a bit of a mug as a result and has not defended his post since. Ignore him. He got his knickers in a twist.

[shurlock]

We've already had the debate before the referendum and voted to leave. Frankly, you look pathetic trying to score points so long after the event, attempting to support this political has-been's arrogant claims that the electorate were duped, because they weren't bright enough to understand what leaving the EU meant, despite being bombarded with the dire forecasts of the consequences by the Remoaners.

 

Only a small proportion of the electorate will have seen this programme anyway (even you did not watch it until you were forced to, in order to comment on it) and most of them will have entrenched views on the position they took in the referendum. More pertinent is not the actual finer points of the debate, but that accusation made by Mandelson that the electorate was too thick to understand the implications of leaving. It is a fantastic gift to the Brexiteers, as will be the likes of him trying to delay the passage of the Bill in the Lords. If they do, it will be like turkeys voting for Christmas, stoking the debate on abolishing this unelected body, which is way past its sell by date, a complete anachronism.

 

Where did Mandy say the electorate was too thick to understand the implications of leaving? And no Les, it's not after the event. You make it sound like getting to Article 50 was the hard bit and the talks will be a doddle, you silly old f**t. The event hasn't even started yet - watching Brexiters pay the price for failing to temper expectations when the miracle deal they've promised fails to materialise will be most delicious indeed, little kipper.

[shurlock]

Both LD and me are having a good belly laugh at you, trying to add credence to the intervention of the likes of Mandelson and Blair into the debate at the 11th hour. Two failed politicians, both disgraced in their political careers, but subsequently given the opportunity to put their snouts deep into the EU trough.

 

But I admire your chutzpah in attempting to label us as touchy to cover up the discomfort that you must be feeling, trying to defend the likes of Mandelson.

 

Now that the passage of the Brexit Bill is to go to the Lords today, I do hope that their Lordships like Mandelson who receive substantial sums of monies for the EU will be asked to declare an interest in the debate before speaking. That's the aspect of questioning that Marr should have pursued, had he not been such a toady.

 

From the person who references a Trump spokesman as evidence that the BBC is biased. What a howler

[Wes Tender]

Where did Mandy say the electorate was too thick to understand the implications of leaving? And no Les, it's not after the event. You make it sound like getting to Article 50 was the hard bit and the talks will be a doddle, you silly old f**t. The event hasn't even started yet - watching Brexiters pay the price for failing to temper expectations when the miracle deal they've promised fails to materialise will be most delicious indeed, little kipper.

 

Of course he didn't say that the electorate was too thick in those words, Shatlock, it was all implied, as you yourself attempted to assert:-

 

Mandy certainly exposed your little hobby horse as fatuous tosh – that people knew exactly what they were voting for.

 

You're tying yourself in knots, old fruit.

 

And it is after the event of the referendum, which he and you and other Remoaners can't accept, 8 months after, and you're still banging on about it, like the sore, sad losers that you are.

 

What is the price we Brexiteers will be paying, Shatlock? I'm sure that most Brexiteers are content that we will have left the EU and accept that if the EU wish to cut off their noses to spite their faces, that no deal is better than a bad deal. Of course, trade isn't the only reason why there was a majority decision to leave the EU, something that you constantly fail to consider, little snowflake.

[Wes Tender]

From the person who references a Trump spokesman as evidence that the BBC is biased. What a howler

 

So do you think that the BBC is not biased against Brexit?

[shurlock]

Of course he didn't say that the electorate was too thick in those words, Shatlock, it was all implied, as you yourself attempted to assert:-

 

 

 

You're tying yourself in knots, old fruit.

 

And it is after the event of the referendum, which he and you and other Remoaners can't accept, 8 months after, and you're still banging on about it, like the sore, sad losers that you are.

 

What is the price we Brexiteers will be paying, Shatlock? I'm sure that most Brexiteers are content that we will have left the EU and accept that if the EU wish to cut off their noses to spite their faces, that no deal is better than a bad deal. Of course, trade isn't the only reason why there was a majority decision to leave the EU, something that you constantly fail to consider, little snowflake.

 

No knots Les - it's very simple, even for you.

 

The Brexiters sold a false prospectus -that doesn't mean people who voted leave are necessarily thick. The thing with promises is that they can't be disproven at the time as judgment day is always in the future. No it says more about the opportunism and hazily sketched vision of a campaign that knowing swivel-eyed fundamentalists like you were in a minority had to be all things to all people to scrape together a majority. Hard to admit I know little kipper.

Edited 20 February, 2017 by shurlock

[Guan 2.0]

Classic monumentally thick leave post. If the UK had voted remain it would have meant the status quo. Apart from a few posts about the rights and wrongs of the campaign or decision there would have been nothing to discuss. Leaving means a whole different economic, social and political landscape is being discussed and thrashed out - which of course people want to comment on.

 

 

Status Quo? We would have had all those wonderful new reforms that David Cameron had 100% guaranteed with his bitter and lengthy negotiations with the EU, that would definitely have happened.

[shurlock]

So do you think that the BBC is not biased against Brexit?

 

And what does an interview with a Trump spokesman about coverage of the US president have to do with the BBC's coverage of Brexit?

 

You posted the link, you failed to adjust for the source and made a complete tit of yourself. While it's funny watching you helplessly gasp for breath, accept it and move on

Edited 20 February, 2017 by shurlock

[shurlock]

Of course he didn't say that the electorate was too thick in those words, Shatlock, it was all implied, as you yourself attempted to assert:-

 

 

 

You're tying yourself in knots, old fruit.

 

And it is after the event of the referendum, which he and you and other Remoaners can't accept, 8 months after, and you're still banging on about it, like the sore, sad losers that you are.

 

What is the price we Brexiteers will be paying, Shatlock? I'm sure that most Brexiteers are content that we will have left the EU and accept that if the EU wish to cut off their noses to spite their faces, that no deal is better than a bad deal. Of course, trade isn't the only reason why there was a majority decision to leave the EU, something that you constantly fail to consider, little snowflake.

 

Where is the evidence for this? Your feverish little mind doesn't count, Les.

Edited 20 February, 2017 by shurlock

[Wes Tender]

No knots Les - it's every simple, even for you.

 

The Brexiters sold a false prospectus -that doesn't mean people who voted leave are necessarily thick. The thing with promises is that they can't be disproven at the time as judgment day is always in the future. No it says more about the opportunism and hazily sketched vision of a campaign that knowing swivel-eyed fundamentalists like you were in a a minority had to be all things to all people to scrape together a majority. Hard to admit I know little kipper.

 

*Yawn*

 

Another day, another incident of your arrogance and puerile name-calling. I accept that this is your usual MO when you are called out on the drivel you spout, but it is becoming tedious.

 

What was this price that we Brexiteers would be paying? You seem to have skimmed over answering that. Is this something that can't be disproven at this time, as it is a future event?

 

Regarding the comment on BBC bias, they are not going to show anything Trump says or does in a favourable light, any more than they will on the subject of Brexit. As you say, this is a debate about Brexit and I ask you again, do you believe that the BBC has covered the referendum and the events following it without bias towards the Remainian cause?

[Wes Tender]

Where is the evidence for this? Your feverished little mind doesn't count, Les.

 

Here's a little snippet from an article in your favourite rag, the Guardian, saying that prominent leaders such as Johnson and Farage were happy with May's statement that no deal was better than a bad deal.

 

Prominent Brexit supporters said the speech represented a clean break from the EU. Boris Johnson, the foreign secretary, who led the Leave campaign, praised a “fantastic speech” on Facebook. He has been keen for the prime minister to make a clean break with the EU, rather than seeking to remain inside the single market.

 

The former Ukip leader Nigel Farage said: “I can hardly believe that the PM is now using the phrases and words that I’ve been mocked for using for years. Real progress.”

 

Feel free to quote any others from the Brexiteers' campaign who hold an opposing view. I ask again, what is this price we Brexiteers will be paying?

[shurlock]

*Yawn*

 

Another day, another incident of your arrogance and puerile name-calling. I accept that this is your usual MO when you are called out on the drivel you spout, but it is becoming tedious.

 

What was this price that we Brexiteers would be paying? You seem to have skimmed over answering that. Is this something that can't be disproven at this time, as it is a future event?

 

Regarding the comment on BBC bias, they are not going to show anything Trump says or does in a favourable light, any more than they will on the subject of Brexit. As you say, this is a debate about Brexit and I ask you again, do you believe that the BBC has covered the referendum and the events following it without bias towards the Remainian cause?

 

Les you have a bad enough grasp of developments close to home for you wade out and comment on a country you don't have a clue about. Parallels between the media's treatment of Trump and Brexit are as illusory as they are plain dim.

[Wes Tender]

Les you have a bad enough grasp of developments close to home for you wade out and comment on a country you don't have a clue about. Parallels between the media's treatment of Trump and Brexit are as illusory as they are plain dim.

 

Right. So you aren't going to respond to the questions I asked, but will only wriggle, squirm and bluster instead. Par for the course from you.

[shurlock]

Here's a little snippet from an article in your favourite rag, the Guardian, saying that prominent leaders such as Johnson and Farage were happy with May's statement that no deal was better than a bad deal.

 

 

 

Feel free to quote any others from the Brexiteers' campaign who hold an opposing view. I ask again, what is this price we Brexiteers will be paying?

 

Two people Les -one a fellow Jihadi. Your stupidity never ceases to amaze.

 

Just as moronically they don't even support what you're trying to claim. Farage's statement is too vague to infer anything from while BoJo only talks about the EU and single market and not the prospect of also leaving the customs union, so it's not quite a case of no deal is better than a bad deal. Your reading and comprehension skills need some work.

 

While you're at it, Les, please define 'bad' - surely you don't just mean compromise, you know the thing that happens in any negotiation? I respectfully suggest you've fallen for May's asinine bluster

 

A recent ICM survey found that only 35% would back leaving the EU without an agreement. Of course, all these polls don't show what price people would be willing to pay. This provides clues, however.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/10/poll-public-will-not-accept-brexit-worse-off-tim-farron-ukip-lib-dem-yougov

Edited 20 February, 2017 by shurlock

[Wes Tender]

Two people Les -one a fellow Jihadi. Your stupidity never ceases to amaze.

 

Just as moronically they don't even support what you're trying to claim. Farage's statement is too vague to infer anything from while BoJo only talks about the EU and single market and not the prospect of also leaving the customs union, so it's not quite a case of no deal is better than a bad deal. Your reading and comprehension skills need some work.

 

While you're at it, Les, please define 'bad' - surely you don't just mean compromise, you know the thing that happens in any negotiation? I respectfully suggest you've fallen for May's asinine bluster

 

A recent ICM survey found that only 35% would back leaving the EU without an agreement. Of course, all these polls don't show what price people would be willing to pay. This provides clues, however.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/10/poll-public-will-not-accept-brexit-worse-off-tim-farron-ukip-lib-dem-yougov

 

Always difficult to keep up with responding to your posts when you edit them shortly afterwards. But thanks for the further insults, obfuscation and refusal to answer questions. I can't help seeing a picture of Rene in Allo, Allo every time you label me as stupid; you know, when he is caught by his wife with his pants down and his immediate response to defend himself is to call her a stupid woman.

 

In that Guardian article, Johnson and Farage are described by them as leaders of the Brexit campaign and their remarks immediately follow May's statement about no deal being better than a bad deal, so true to form, as observed astutely by Weston SS and others, you are too dismissive of any source if it disagrees with your position. I'm afraid that it makes you appear rather blinkered, me old mucker. I asked you to name any other prominent Brexiteer who took a different position to those two, but typically you cannot.

 

And for a third time, you refuse to answer the two questions I asked; you're as slippery as an eel when it comes to evasion. You're not a politician by any chance?

 

I'll gladly answer your question; a "bad" deal as far as I'm concerned, would be one that didn't do away with the four freedoms that are conditions of membership of the single market. As I have to repeat continuously to you, it isn't just about trade, but also immigration, sovereignty and the supremacy of our own legal system.

 

As for your opinion poll, it is time that I refreshed your memory on the following apposite little snip from Yes, Minister.

 

 

As to the response to that two month old poll asking what financial price people would be prepared to pay in terms of falling income as a result of Brexit, you would have to be incredibly naive to expect any other response than unhappiness at the prospect. But it's a nothing poll, because as you have acknowledged, we haven't even begun the Brexit process yet, so it's all a bit pie in the sky, isn't it?

[shurlock]

Always difficult to keep up with responding to your posts when you edit them shortly afterwards. But thanks for the further insults, obfuscation and refusal to answer questions. I can't help seeing a picture of Rene in Allo, Allo every time you label me as stupid; you know, when he is caught by his wife with his pants down and his immediate response to defend himself is to call her a stupid woman.

 

In that Guardian article, Johnson and Farage are described by them as leaders of the Brexit campaign and their remarks immediately follow May's statement about no deal being better than a bad deal, so true to form, as observed astutely by Weston SS and others, you are too dismissive of any source if it disagrees with your position. I'm afraid that it makes you appear rather blinkered, me old mucker. I asked you to name any other prominent Brexiteer who took a different position to those two, but typically you cannot.

 

And for a third time, you refuse to answer the two questions I asked; you're as slippery as an eel when it comes to evasion. You're not a politician by any chance?

 

I'll gladly answer your question; a "bad" deal as far as I'm concerned, would be one that didn't do away with the four freedoms that are conditions of membership of the single market. As I have to repeat continuously to you, it isn't just about trade, but also immigration, sovereignty and the supremacy of our own legal system.

 

As for your opinion poll, it is time that I refreshed your memory on the following apposite little snip from Yes, Minister.

 

 

As to the response to that two month old poll asking what financial price people would be prepared to pay in terms of falling income as a result of Brexit, you would have to be incredibly naive to expect any other response than unhappiness at the prospect. But it's a nothing poll, because as you have acknowledged, we haven't even begun the Brexit process yet, so it's all a bit pie in the sky, isn't it?

 

It's not a nothing poll. It is quite normal in the social sciences to frame and elicit people's willingness to pay for something as a hypothetical. I assume you don't know anything about contingent valuation and choice experiments

 

 

As usual Les, you're answering a question that nobody else has asked. What a couple of Brexiter campaigners who you've happened to misrepresent is irrelevant. What matters is whether the 52% who voted leave would be happy with such a scenario -you know the ones who were told they could be outside the single market and still enjoy the same trade and trade benefits as they do at present. This was the context in which Mandy made his intervention and motivated the discussion before you had a senior's moment and went off track.

 

Let's see how tight-knit the motley crew of contradictory hopes, objectives and frustrations that defined vote leave is at the end of negotiations. Not everyone who voted leave is like you Les and believes in the Brexiter equivalent of 72 virgins as the reward for sacrificing pragmatism for dogmatism and ideology.

[Wes Tender]

It's not a nothing poll. It is quite normal in the social sciences to frame and elicit people's willingness to pay for something as a hypothetical. I assume you don't know anything about contingent valuation and choice experiments

 

 

As usual Les, you're answering a question that nobody else has asked. What a couple of Brexiter campaigners who you've happened to misrepresent is irrelevant. What matters is whether the 52% who voted leave would be happy with such a scenario -you know the ones who were told they could be outside the single market and still enjoy the same trade and trade benefits as they do at present. This was the context in which Mandy made his intervention and motivated the discussion before you had a senior's moment and went off track.

 

Let's see how tight-knit the motley crew of contradictory hopes, objectives and frustrations that defined vote leave is at the end of negotiations. Not everyone who voted leave is like you Les and believes in the Brexiter equivalent of 72 virgins as the reward for sacrificing pragmatism for dogmatism and ideology.

 

Your naivety regarding opinion polls is rather touching, especially following the inability of them to predict the results of the two major political events of the past year with any accuracy. By all means try and justify that confidence in them by assurances that they are prepared on a scientific basis, just as economic forecasting is, and that is never wrong either, is it? I reiterate, it is a nothing poll.

 

As for all the froth about what will be acceptable to the 52% who voted to Leave the EU, I suggest that we wait and see what deal we get with the EU regarding trade and accept that the other aspects of control of immigration, return of sovereignty and the supremacy of our law courts over the EU's are things that most Brexiteers wanted.

 

I ask for responses to my two questions for a fourth time. If you don't want to, or can't respond, then just say so.

[Guided Missile]

Meanwhile, in Germany, it appears that the third bailout package, put in place to enable the Greeks to pay their interest, is quickly going down the sh!tter. Merkel will host IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker in separate meetings at the Chancellery on Wednesday, Ulrike Demmer, a government spokeswoman, told reporters in Berlin on Friday. The German government still insists on the IMF making a financial contribution to Greece’s bailout, Finance Ministry spokeswoman Friederike von Tiesenhausen said at the same press conference. The fund "will" contribute as much as 5 billion euros ($5.33 billion) to the country’s third rescue package, German magazine Der Spiegel reported Friday, without saying where it obtained the information.

 

The IMF are digging their heels in and as a result, 2 year Greek bonds have hit a Wonga level of 10%.

 

Sit back and watch the fun. The meltdown begins...

[shurlock]

Your naivety regarding opinion polls is rather touching, especially following the inability of them to predict the results of the two major political events of the past year with any accuracy. By all means try and justify that confidence in them by assurances that they are prepared on a scientific basis, just as economic forecasting is, and that is never wrong either, is it? I reiterate, it is a nothing poll.

 

As for all the froth about what will be acceptable to the 52% who voted to Leave the EU, I suggest that we wait and see what deal we get with the EU regarding trade and accept that the other aspects of control of immigration, return of sovereignty and the supremacy of our law courts over the EU's are things that most Brexiteers wanted.

 

I ask for responses to my two questions for a fourth time. If you don't want to, or can't respond, then just say so.

 

Where have I endorsed polls wholesale? Your poor comprehension is making you look silly again.

 

I made a discrete point about willingness to pay surveys (the yougov one is a stripped down variant). They are fundamentally different in design and purpose from election polls where respondents have all kinds of incentives to conceal their voting intentions, not to mention the time pressures involved in assembling a representative sample. And they have noting to do with forecasting which I haven't endorsed here at all

 

Let's also be clear the majority of online polls were well within the margin of error in predicting Brexit, so it was not quite the mare you claim.

Edited 20 February, 2017 by shurlock

[trousers]

[badgerx16]

The UK negotiating team meet to formulate their Brexit strategy.

[Portugalsaint]

Meanwhile, in Germany, it appears that the third bailout package, put in place to enable the Greeks to pay their interest, is quickly going down the sh!tter. Merkel will host IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker in separate meetings at the Chancellery on Wednesday, Ulrike Demmer, a government spokeswoman, told reporters in Berlin on Friday. The German government still insists on the IMF making a financial contribution to Greece’s bailout, Finance Ministry spokeswoman Friederike von Tiesenhausen said at the same press conference. The fund "will" contribute as much as 5 billion euros ($5.33 billion) to the country’s third rescue package, German magazine Der Spiegel reported Friday, without saying where it obtained the information.

 

The IMF are digging their heels in and as a result, 2 year Greek bonds have hit a Wonga level of 10%.

 

Sit back and watch the fun. The meltdown begins...

 

They can't pay, they never will. Their only way is out. Italy next.

[Lord Duckhunter]

They can't pay, they never will. Their only way is out. Italy next.

 

You're right. They need to devalue their currency, but that would of course harm Germany, so that will never happen.

 

I just can't believe that European politicians are prepared to abandon a whole generation of young people across Europe because of their ideology. Just as bad are millions of "so called " progressives, who give this warped ideology respectability by refusing to acknowledge the harm & suffering it has caused the continent.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[shurlock]

Meanwhile, in Germany, it appears that the third bailout package, put in place to enable the Greeks to pay their interest, is quickly going down the sh!tter. Merkel will host IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker in separate meetings at the Chancellery on Wednesday, Ulrike Demmer, a government spokeswoman, told reporters in Berlin on Friday. The German government still insists on the IMF making a financial contribution to Greece’s bailout, Finance Ministry spokeswoman Friederike von Tiesenhausen said at the same press conference. The fund "will" contribute as much as 5 billion euros ($5.33 billion) to the country’s third rescue package, German magazine Der Spiegel reported Friday, without saying where it obtained the information.

 

The IMF are digging their heels in and as a result, 2 year Greek bonds have hit a Wonga level of 10%.

 

Sit back and watch the fun. The meltdown begins...

 

[buctootim]

You're right. They need to devalue their currency, but that would of course harm Germany, so that will never happen.

 

I just can't believe that European politicians are prepared to abandon a whole generation of young people across Europe because of their ideology. Just as bad are millions of "so called " progressives, who give this warped ideology respectability by refusing to acknowledge the harm & suffering it has caused the continent.

 

Returning to the drachma and devaluing would guarantee default as the debt would become even larger in drachma terms. Its not EU policies which is causing the problems, its German nationalist ones. Continuing euro crisis rather than resolving it is in their interests - avoiding debt relief saves them money and makes the euro cheaper than it would otherwise be relative to the dollar and other currencies. German exports benefit and they have near record balance of trade surpluses. British debt during WW2 reached 238% of GDP, so its not impossible to recover from - just very hard and very long.

 

Greece isnt going to inflict more pain on their citizens if all the benefits flow to foreign banks. The IMF approach of some debt forgiveness and a lower budget surplus requirement but labour market and pension reforms seems more viable to me. The creditor nations dont want that because it would encourage the other debtor nations - the ones who could pay but dont want to - to demand the same terms.

Edited 21 February, 2017 by buctootim

[shurlock]

More s**ts and giggles -can we just tax the Brexit jihadis instead?

 

Hammond warns ‘no pot of money’ for extra Budget funds

 

Chancellor refuses to spend £27bn set aside for Brexit uncertainty

 

https://www.ft.com/content/6c786540-f844-11e6-bd4e-68d53499ed71

[Guided Missile]

Government finances recorded a £9.4bn in surplus in January, £0.3bn higher than the same month last year. Boosted by self-assessment tax receipts, January is typically a strong month for government finances. For the financial year-to-date, borrowing stands at £49.3bn, the lowest since the comparable period of 2008.

Economists say strong tax receipts mean the government could undershoot the forecast deficit of £68bn for the current financial year.

The forecast was made by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) in November's Autumn Statement, although this estimate marked a sharp revision from the previous prediction of £55.5bn.

[shurlock]

Government finances recorded a £9.4bn in surplus in January, £0.3bn higher than the same month last year. Boosted by self-assessment tax receipts, January is typically a strong month for government finances. For the financial year-to-date, borrowing stands at £49.3bn, the lowest since the comparable period of 2008.

Economists say strong tax receipts mean the government could undershoot the forecast deficit of £68bn for the current financial year.

The forecast was made by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) in November's Autumn Statement, although this estimate marked a sharp revision from the previous prediction of £55.5bn.

 

Thought I was on ignore Trident? Guess it was a one-off, seemingly like these figures. Indeed the surplus is less than analysts had predicted.

 

 

Self-assessment income tax receipts in January 2017, which related to income received in the 2015-16 financial year, were boosted by people bringing forward dividend payments to avoid paying a higher rate of tax from April 2016. The OBR said this explained a large part of the £3.7bn increase in revenues in January this year compared with last...The OBR warned on Tuesday that this should not be seen as a moment to loosen the purse strings, saying: “One should not necessarily assume that a large undershoot of the forecast this year would feed through fully into future years.”

[Lord Duckhunter]

Its not EU policies which is causing the problems, its German nationalist ones.

 

 

They are exactly the same thing

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Wes Tender]

 

Talking about one-offs, I do believe that this must be one of the very few, if not the only post from you that I can remember that doesn't contain some insult, or puerile name calling. There's hope for you yet.

[adrian lord]

A "hefty bill" to pay for EU officials' pensions and private health into the future.

 

When will the penny drop with these insightless, grey mediocrities? This is a typical example of why people voted to get out. No more us being mugs paying to feather-nest jobsworth dullard Eurocrats.

[buctootim]

A "hefty bill" to pay for EU officials' pensions and private health into the future.

 

When will the penny drop with these insightless, grey mediocrities? This is a typical example of why people voted to get out. No more us being mugs paying to feather-nest jobsworth dullard Eurocrats.

 

Do you not have any thoughts beyond a headline from the Express or Mail?

 

Its about far more than pensions - and even if it were just that we're talking about the contractual pensions owed to "insightless grey mediocrities" like Farage and the other UKIP MEPs. We could save a bit if they resigned now instead pf hanging on for every last pound. Britain has been 'wedded' to the EU for over 40 years with longstanding financial commitments on both sides. We wont leave for around another two years, if we ever do. Unravelling all of that is going to be complex.

Edited 22 February, 2017 by buctootim

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Do you not have any thoughts beyond a headline from the Express or Mail?

 

Its about far more than pensions - and even if it were just that we're talking about the contractual pensions owed to "insightless grey mediocrities" like Farage and the other UKIP MEPs. We could save a bit if they resigned now instead pf hanging on for every last pound. Britain has been 'wedded' to the EU for over 40 years with longstanding financial commitments on both sides. We wont leave for around another two years, if we ever do. Unravelling all of that is going to be complex.

 

I am not sure it has been particularly helpful for Juncker who has decreed that no negotiations can be held until Article 50 has been triggered to be mouthing off like this. I think it increasingly suggests that the EU is going to use the Brexit bill as a deterrent to others having recognised that nobody will gain from a hard Brexit. What do I know though, I thought we would get another vote after another renegotiation!

 

I think we all acknowledge that we will have to pay for the Kinnock family for another thirty or forty years but apart from that most of our commitments should be offset by the £158billion in assets that we should have a share of.

[shurlock]

Talking about one-offs, I do believe that this must be one of the very few, if not the only post from you that I can remember that doesn't contain some insult, or puerile name calling. There's hope for you yet.

 

[Wes Tender]

Do you not have any thoughts beyond a headline from the Express or Mail?

 

Its about far more than pensions - and even if it were just that we're talking about the contractual pensions owed to "insightless grey mediocrities" like Farage and the other UKIP MEPs. We could save a bit if they resigned now instead pf hanging on for every last pound. Britain has been 'wedded' to the EU for over 40 years with longstanding financial commitments on both sides. We wont leave for around another two years, if we ever do. Unravelling all of that is going to be complex.

 

http://www.cityam.com/259550/jean-claude-juncker-re-emphasises-britain-faces-hefty

 

I realise that you take the line that only articles and opinions in your favoured rags are acceptable to you, but that is because you are blinkered against opinion that paints a positive picture of the implications of our decision to leave your beloved EU. Juncker has insisted that the UK would not be able to negotiate a cut-price or zero cost exit, but this is complete and utter nonsense. Both of the commentators argue that we would be entitled to a share of the assets of the EU which we contributed towards, so that constitutes a cut-price exit to anybody with any intelligence. And as Isaby points out, Juncker's bluster is just hot air, an opening gambit before negotiations have even began.

 

I admire the stubborn but forlorn hope that you cling to, that there is still a remote possibility that we might not leave the EU after all. It's the hope that kills you, isn't it?

[buctootim]

http://www.cityam.com/259550/jean-claude-juncker-re-emphasises-britain-faces-hefty

 

I realise that you take the line that only articles and opinions in your favoured rags are acceptable to you, but that is because you are blinkered against opinion that paints a positive picture of the implications of our decision to leave your beloved EU. Juncker has insisted that the UK would not be able to negotiate a cut-price or zero cost exit, but this is complete and utter nonsense. Both of the commentators argue that we would be entitled to a share of the assets of the EU which we contributed towards, so that constitutes a cut-price exit to anybody with any intelligence. And as Isaby points out, Juncker's bluster is just hot air, an opening gambit before negotiations have even began.

 

I admire the stubborn but forlorn hope that you cling to, that there is still a remote possibility that we might not leave the EU after all. It's the hope that kills you, isn't it?

 

Your ability to get the wrong end of the stick, to misread, or simply see what you want is legendary. Thats why Shurlock calls you out. Your own quote endorses what Ive said you utter dimwit.

 

It will be a process of negotiation. There will be assets and liabilities on both sides. Working it all out will be a long process. It cant be completed until there is a leaving date.