FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Brexit hard man wobbling
Brexit hard man wobbling
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"Brexit hard man Steve Baker says the Brexit vote should probably have required a 60% super majority with the 52/48 not being enough , ooooops " That's the difference between being a backbencher and a cabinet member stuck with collective responsibility | |||
"Brexit hard man Steve Baker says the Brexit vote should probably have required a 60% super majority with the 52/48 not being enough , ooooops " Not quite Northern Ireland Office minister and leading Brexiteer Steve Baker made the comments as he suggested a “50% plus one” majority would not be advisable for a vote on Irish unification. Oops | |||
| |||
| |||
"Brexit hard man Steve Baker says the Brexit vote should probably have required a 60% super majority with the 52/48 not being enough , ooooops Not quite Northern Ireland Office minister and leading Brexiteer Steve Baker made the comments as he suggested a “50% plus one” majority would not be advisable for a vote on Irish unification. Oops" . I think you are wrong , but do not mind being corrected if I have misunderstood ,as I haven't heard his speech , but the media are reporting that while pushing for a vote on Irish unification to be a vote of 60% super majority he regretted the same was not implemented in the Brexit vote | |||
"Brexit hard man Steve Baker says the Brexit vote should probably have required a 60% super majority with the 52/48 not being enough , ooooops Not quite Northern Ireland Office minister and leading Brexiteer Steve Baker made the comments as he suggested a “50% plus one” majority would not be advisable for a vote on Irish unification. Oops. I think you are wrong , but do not mind being corrected if I have misunderstood ,as I haven't heard his speech , but the media are reporting that while pushing for a vote on Irish unification to be a vote of 60% super majority he regretted the same was not implemented in the Brexit vote " Nothing wrong about it. This is the direct quote. What do you think is wrong sorry? | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Responding to a question about whether he had any regrets from the Brexit campaign, Mr Baker said: “One regret is it probably should have been a supermajority. “That’s a huge thing for me to say – because if it had been a supermajority we’d have lost and we’d still be in. But the reason I say that is if we’d had to have 60 per cent, everybody would have abided by the result.” He added: “If it had been a 60-40 result, it’s inconceivable to me that we would have had all of the political difficulty which followed from members of parliament in particular refusing to accept the result.” Source: indy. I haven't seen the speech to see if context is missing. " If that is the general thrust if his speech then I think he has a point. Of course there would still be some trying to overturn it, not legally binding and all that but in general it would probably be fewer and the back and fourth less | |||
"Responding to a question about whether he had any regrets from the Brexit campaign, Mr Baker said: “One regret is it probably should have been a supermajority. “That’s a huge thing for me to say – because if it had been a supermajority we’d have lost and we’d still be in. But the reason I say that is if we’d had to have 60 per cent, everybody would have abided by the result.” He added: “If it had been a 60-40 result, it’s inconceivable to me that we would have had all of the political difficulty which followed from members of parliament in particular refusing to accept the result.” Source: indy. I haven't seen the speech to see if context is missing. If that is the general thrust if his speech then I think he has a point. Of course there would still be some trying to overturn it, not legally binding and all that but in general it would probably be fewer and the back and fourth less" Indeed but the key point is an arch brexiter has recognised what us “remoaners” said all along that a 52/48 results is not unanimous enough. | |||
"Responding to a question about whether he had any regrets from the Brexit campaign, Mr Baker said: “One regret is it probably should have been a supermajority. “That’s a huge thing for me to say – because if it had been a supermajority we’d have lost and we’d still be in. But the reason I say that is if we’d had to have 60 per cent, everybody would have abided by the result.” He added: “If it had been a 60-40 result, it’s inconceivable to me that we would have had all of the political difficulty which followed from members of parliament in particular refusing to accept the result.” Source: indy. I haven't seen the speech to see if context is missing. If that is the general thrust if his speech then I think he has a point. Of course there would still be some trying to overturn it, not legally binding and all that but in general it would probably be fewer and the back and fourth less Indeed but the key point is an arch brexiter has recognised what us “remoaners” said all along that a 52/48 results is not unanimous enough." I’m sure you’d have been saying the same thing if were 52/48 the other way. Seven years on and Remoaners are still bleating. | |||
"Responding to a question about whether he had any regrets from the Brexit campaign, Mr Baker said: “One regret is it probably should have been a supermajority. “That’s a huge thing for me to say – because if it had been a supermajority we’d have lost and we’d still be in. But the reason I say that is if we’d had to have 60 per cent, everybody would have abided by the result.” He added: “If it had been a 60-40 result, it’s inconceivable to me that we would have had all of the political difficulty which followed from members of parliament in particular refusing to accept the result.” Source: indy. I haven't seen the speech to see if context is missing. If that is the general thrust if his speech then I think he has a point. Of course there would still be some trying to overturn it, not legally binding and all that but in general it would probably be fewer and the back and fourth less Indeed but the key point is an arch brexiter has recognised what us “remoaners” said all along that a 52/48 results is not unanimous enough. I’m sure you’d have been saying the same thing if were 52/48 the other way. Seven years on and Remoaners are still bleating." Actually I would have. The whole thing was too important to be approached in a flawed way. It should have been a two step process with a second referendum focused on the nature of the future relationship. I was prepared to accept the referendum result but none of the leave camps could agree on what it actually meant and what they really wanted! | |||
"Responding to a question about whether he had any regrets from the Brexit campaign, Mr Baker said: “One regret is it probably should have been a supermajority. “That’s a huge thing for me to say – because if it had been a supermajority we’d have lost and we’d still be in. But the reason I say that is if we’d had to have 60 per cent, everybody would have abided by the result.” He added: “If it had been a 60-40 result, it’s inconceivable to me that we would have had all of the political difficulty which followed from members of parliament in particular refusing to accept the result.” Source: indy. I haven't seen the speech to see if context is missing. " So then. Not as per OP. | |||
"Responding to a question about whether he had any regrets from the Brexit campaign, Mr Baker said: “One regret is it probably should have been a supermajority. “That’s a huge thing for me to say – because if it had been a supermajority we’d have lost and we’d still be in. But the reason I say that is if we’d had to have 60 per cent, everybody would have abided by the result.” He added: “If it had been a 60-40 result, it’s inconceivable to me that we would have had all of the political difficulty which followed from members of parliament in particular refusing to accept the result.” Source: indy. I haven't seen the speech to see if context is missing. If that is the general thrust if his speech then I think he has a point. Of course there would still be some trying to overturn it, not legally binding and all that but in general it would probably be fewer and the back and fourth less Indeed but the key point is an arch brexiter has recognised what us “remoaners” said all along that a 52/48 results is not unanimous enough." No he said on an issue like unification...you'd maybe need a super majority. And acknowledged that had that been required for brexit brexkt wouldn't have happened . No suggestion be felt is should jave happened for brexit vote. The quotations have been provided. | |||
| |||
"Then again The uk should have never been taken I to the e.u without a super majority vote So we should have never had to have a brexit vote. " Then again - it wasn't as simple as you are protraying. The British economy was in a shambles and the British Government saw a chance to improve it by joining. They were refused twice before finally being accepted in 1973. There is a lot more to it than that as I am sure you know but it wasn't as simple as a yes no vote to get in. I am no expert but there is plenty of information available on the internet on this subject. | |||
"Then again The uk should have never been taken I to the e.u without a super majority vote So we should have never had to have a brexit vote. " who knows what the vote would have been. The 75 referendum may have been indicative. | |||
| |||
"Then again The uk should have never been taken I to the e.u without a super majority vote So we should have never had to have a brexit vote. " This only makes sense if the electorate understand the EU, and/or are able to discern real life information from bullshit. | |||
"Then again The uk should have never been taken I to the e.u without a super majority vote So we should have never had to have a brexit vote. This only makes sense if the electorate understand the EU, and/or are able to discern real life information from bullshit." I assume you rank yourself as part of the electorate that are able to understand the EU and are bullshit proof? I voted remain, after the vote I realised I was out of step in social thinking. It hurt but now I'm over it | |||
"Then again The uk should have never been taken I to the e.u without a super majority vote So we should have never had to have a brexit vote. This only makes sense if the electorate understand the EU, and/or are able to discern real life information from bullshit. I assume you rank yourself as part of the electorate that are able to understand the EU " Basic understanding yes. " and are bullshit proof? " No of course not. " I voted remain, after the vote I realised I was out of step in social thinking. " Can you define "social thinking" in this context for me? " It hurt but now I'm over it" Fair play, brexit is going to hurt the country for decades. | |||
" I voted remain, after the vote I realised I was out of step in social thinking. Can you define "social thinking" in this context for me?" There were more people who thought differently to me, I expected a remain win. I have accepted the vote and, that I did not acknowledge how other people felt and that was my poor judgement. | |||
" I voted remain, after the vote I realised I was out of step in social thinking. Can you define "social thinking" in this context for me? There were more people who thought differently to me, I expected a remain win. I have accepted the vote and, that I did not acknowledge how other people felt and that was my poor judgement." Would you have voted differently if you realised that you were not voting with the majority of voters? | |||
| |||
"Responding to a question about whether he had any regrets from the Brexit campaign, Mr Baker said: “One regret is it probably should have been a supermajority. “That’s a huge thing for me to say – because if it had been a supermajority we’d have lost and we’d still be in. But the reason I say that is if we’d had to have 60 per cent, everybody would have abided by the result.” He added: “If it had been a 60-40 result, it’s inconceivable to me that we would have had all of the political difficulty which followed from members of parliament in particular refusing to accept the result.” Source: indy. I haven't seen the speech to see if context is missing. If that is the general thrust if his speech then I think he has a point. Of course there would still be some trying to overturn it, not legally binding and all that but in general it would probably be fewer and the back and fourth less Indeed but the key point is an arch brexiter has recognised what us “remoaners” said all along that a 52/48 results is not unanimous enough." But for very different reasons. When I first read this threads title I thought it was going to say that this guy now regrets the vote and wished there had been a super majority rule that would have prevented leave winning. But if what is stated by others is accurate then he only wanted a super majority to make brexit happen quicker after the vote, not to in anyway cancel it. I may be wrong but I suspect you did not want brexit at all let alone quicker | |||
" I voted remain, after the vote I realised I was out of step in social thinking. Can you define "social thinking" in this context for me? There were more people who thought differently to me, I expected a remain win. I have accepted the vote and, that I did not acknowledge how other people felt and that was my poor judgement. Would you have voted differently if you realised that you were not voting with the majority of voters?" Of course not... My point is acceptance of the facts and moving on and not being consumed by things that you have no control over. | |||
" I voted remain, after the vote I realised I was out of step in social thinking. Can you define "social thinking" in this context for me? There were more people who thought differently to me, I expected a remain win. I have accepted the vote and, that I did not acknowledge how other people felt and that was my poor judgement. Would you have voted differently if you realised that you were not voting with the majority of voters? Of course not... My point is acceptance of the facts and moving on and not being consumed by things that you have no control over. " Has anyone not accepted that brexit has happened? Being aware of the impact of brexit isn't being "consumed" by it. | |||
"Responding to a question about whether he had any regrets from the Brexit campaign, Mr Baker said: “One regret is it probably should have been a supermajority. “That’s a huge thing for me to say – because if it had been a supermajority we’d have lost and we’d still be in. But the reason I say that is if we’d had to have 60 per cent, everybody would have abided by the result.” He added: “If it had been a 60-40 result, it’s inconceivable to me that we would have had all of the political difficulty which followed from members of parliament in particular refusing to accept the result.” Source: indy. I haven't seen the speech to see if context is missing. If that is the general thrust if his speech then I think he has a point. Of course there would still be some trying to overturn it, not legally binding and all that but in general it would probably be fewer and the back and fourth less Indeed but the key point is an arch brexiter has recognised what us “remoaners” said all along that a 52/48 results is not unanimous enough. But for very different reasons. When I first read this threads title I thought it was going to say that this guy now regrets the vote and wished there had been a super majority rule that would have prevented leave winning. But if what is stated by others is accurate then he only wanted a super majority to make brexit happen quicker after the vote, not to in anyway cancel it. I may be wrong but I suspect you did not want brexit at all let alone quicker" Correct I didn’t want Brexit. But I have accepted the result even if I do not like it. I WANT to be proven wrong and for it to be a massive success. I also do not think we should rejoin as any deal we got would not be as good as what we had. We can all try to twist what Baker said. The point is it is hypocritical to say this needs a super majority but that didn’t. It isn’t regret it is a realism that maybe that would have been a better approach, if for nothing else it may have avoided years of chaos and arguing. | |||
"Responding to a question about whether he had any regrets from the Brexit campaign, Mr Baker said: “One regret is it probably should have been a supermajority. “That’s a huge thing for me to say – because if it had been a supermajority we’d have lost and we’d still be in. But the reason I say that is if we’d had to have 60 per cent, everybody would have abided by the result.” He added: “If it had been a 60-40 result, it’s inconceivable to me that we would have had all of the political difficulty which followed from members of parliament in particular refusing to accept the result.” Source: indy. I haven't seen the speech to see if context is missing. If that is the general thrust if his speech then I think he has a point. Of course there would still be some trying to overturn it, not legally binding and all that but in general it would probably be fewer and the back and fourth less Indeed but the key point is an arch brexiter has recognised what us “remoaners” said all along that a 52/48 results is not unanimous enough. I’m sure you’d have been saying the same thing if were 52/48 the other way. Seven years on and Remoaners are still bleating. Actually I would have. The whole thing was too important to be approached in a flawed way. It should have been a two step process with a second referendum focused on the nature of the future relationship. I was prepared to accept the referendum result but none of the leave camps could agree on what it actually meant and what they really wanted!" . The referendum seemed very straight forward to me . Everyone was presented with the advantages and disadvantages of leaving the EU. The government even sent a leaflet to every household. There were endless discussions on news channels . Prior to voting I sat down with a piece of paper and wrote down the advantages and disadvantages of being a member. Every person in the country had the same opportunity. In the end I ignored the result generated on my decision . I decided to ignore economic predictions and be a true patriot. I often wonder how much higher the vote to leave would have been if the government had not presented gloomy scenarios about leaving the EU and the country falling into a recession. Basic common sense states that we would carry on trading with a few marginal adjustments . The only damage to the Economy was by remainers trying to obstruct the leaving process resulting in dragging it out for years . | |||
"Responding to a question about whether he had any regrets from the Brexit campaign, Mr Baker said: “One regret is it probably should have been a supermajority. “That’s a huge thing for me to say – because if it had been a supermajority we’d have lost and we’d still be in. But the reason I say that is if we’d had to have 60 per cent, everybody would have abided by the result.” He added: “If it had been a 60-40 result, it’s inconceivable to me that we would have had all of the political difficulty which followed from members of parliament in particular refusing to accept the result.” Source: indy. I haven't seen the speech to see if context is missing. If that is the general thrust if his speech then I think he has a point. Of course there would still be some trying to overturn it, not legally binding and all that but in general it would probably be fewer and the back and fourth less Indeed but the key point is an arch brexiter has recognised what us “remoaners” said all along that a 52/48 results is not unanimous enough. I’m sure you’d have been saying the same thing if were 52/48 the other way. Seven years on and Remoaners are still bleating. Actually I would have. The whole thing was too important to be approached in a flawed way. It should have been a two step process with a second referendum focused on the nature of the future relationship. I was prepared to accept the referendum result but none of the leave camps could agree on what it actually meant and what they really wanted!. The referendum seemed very straight forward to me . Everyone was presented with the advantages and disadvantages of leaving the EU. The government even sent a leaflet to every household. There were endless discussions on news channels . Prior to voting I sat down with a piece of paper and wrote down the advantages and disadvantages of being a member. Every person in the country had the same opportunity. In the end I ignored the result generated on my decision . I decided to ignore economic predictions and be a true patriot. I often wonder how much higher the vote to leave would have been if the government had not presented gloomy scenarios about leaving the EU and the country falling into a recession. Basic common sense states that we would carry on trading with a few marginal adjustments . The only damage to the Economy was by remainers trying to obstruct the leaving process resulting in dragging it out for years ." Oh Pat you are funny... "In the end I ignored the result generated on my decision . I decided to ignore economic predictions and be a true patriot." Without a shadow of a doubt both sides talked a load of shit. In very simple terms the messaging from Leave appealed to basic emotions of tribalism and jingoism and the messaging from Remain was patronising and dismissive of people’s concerns. The problem is that 48% of people voted remain signifying they were broadly satisfied with the status quo. Of the 52% who voted Leave there was no consensus on what that actually meant in terms of the future relationship with the EU. That is why I believe there should have been a two step process: 1. Remain / Leave the EU 2. A vote on the preferred future relationship outside of the EU It would have stopped so much arguing and chaos and actually would have shut a lot of remainers up as this was core to much of the argument. | |||
"Responding to a question about whether he had any regrets from the Brexit campaign, Mr Baker said: “One regret is it probably should have been a supermajority. “That’s a huge thing for me to say – because if it had been a supermajority we’d have lost and we’d still be in. But the reason I say that is if we’d had to have 60 per cent, everybody would have abided by the result.” He added: “If it had been a 60-40 result, it’s inconceivable to me that we would have had all of the political difficulty which followed from members of parliament in particular refusing to accept the result.” Source: indy. I haven't seen the speech to see if context is missing. If that is the general thrust if his speech then I think he has a point. Of course there would still be some trying to overturn it, not legally binding and all that but in general it would probably be fewer and the back and fourth less Indeed but the key point is an arch brexiter has recognised what us “remoaners” said all along that a 52/48 results is not unanimous enough. I’m sure you’d have been saying the same thing if were 52/48 the other way. Seven years on and Remoaners are still bleating. Actually I would have. The whole thing was too important to be approached in a flawed way. It should have been a two step process with a second referendum focused on the nature of the future relationship. I was prepared to accept the referendum result but none of the leave camps could agree on what it actually meant and what they really wanted!. The referendum seemed very straight forward to me . Everyone was presented with the advantages and disadvantages of leaving the EU. The government even sent a leaflet to every household. There were endless discussions on news channels . Prior to voting I sat down with a piece of paper and wrote down the advantages and disadvantages of being a member. Every person in the country had the same opportunity. In the end I ignored the result generated on my decision . I decided to ignore economic predictions and be a true patriot. I often wonder how much higher the vote to leave would have been if the government had not presented gloomy scenarios about leaving the EU and the country falling into a recession. Basic common sense states that we would carry on trading with a few marginal adjustments . The only damage to the Economy was by remainers trying to obstruct the leaving process resulting in dragging it out for years ." I don't disagree with most of this, but let's not ignore that ERG and DUP had more influence than remainers over delays. Hell, we lost a PM over the "how" we deal with NI. | |||
"Then again The uk should have never been taken I to the e.u without a super majority vote So we should have never had to have a brexit vote. who knows what the vote would have been. The 75 referendum may have been indicative. " Not at all. The e.u is completely different to the community and it had been 20 years. We deserved the vote and didn't get it. | |||
"Then again The uk should have never been taken I to the e.u without a super majority vote So we should have never had to have a brexit vote. Then again - it wasn't as simple as you are protraying. The British economy was in a shambles and the British Government saw a chance to improve it by joining. They were refused twice before finally being accepted in 1973. There is a lot more to it than that as I am sure you know but it wasn't as simple as a yes no vote to get in. I am no expert but there is plenty of information available on the internet on this subject." Wh the uk economy was pretty strong in the 90s. | |||
"Responding to a question about whether he had any regrets from the Brexit campaign, Mr Baker said: “One regret is it probably should have been a supermajority. “That’s a huge thing for me to say – because if it had been a supermajority we’d have lost and we’d still be in. But the reason I say that is if we’d had to have 60 per cent, everybody would have abided by the result.” He added: “If it had been a 60-40 result, it’s inconceivable to me that we would have had all of the political difficulty which followed from members of parliament in particular refusing to accept the result.” Source: indy. I haven't seen the speech to see if context is missing. If that is the general thrust if his speech then I think he has a point. Of course there would still be some trying to overturn it, not legally binding and all that but in general it would probably be fewer and the back and fourth less Indeed but the key point is an arch brexiter has recognised what us “remoaners” said all along that a 52/48 results is not unanimous enough. But for very different reasons. When I first read this threads title I thought it was going to say that this guy now regrets the vote and wished there had been a super majority rule that would have prevented leave winning. But if what is stated by others is accurate then he only wanted a super majority to make brexit happen quicker after the vote, not to in anyway cancel it. I may be wrong but I suspect you did not want brexit at all let alone quicker Correct I didn’t want Brexit. But I have accepted the result even if I do not like it. I WANT to be proven wrong and for it to be a massive success. I also do not think we should rejoin as any deal we got would not be as good as what we had. We can all try to twist what Baker said. The point is it is hypocritical to say this needs a super majority but that didn’t. It isn’t regret it is a realism that maybe that would have been a better approach, if for nothing else it may have avoided years of chaos and arguing." It's not. On is changing an entire country. Another was leaving a trading bloc thay became a political union. | |||
"Responding to a question about whether he had any regrets from the Brexit campaign, Mr Baker said: “One regret is it probably should have been a supermajority. “That’s a huge thing for me to say – because if it had been a supermajority we’d have lost and we’d still be in. But the reason I say that is if we’d had to have 60 per cent, everybody would have abided by the result.” He added: “If it had been a 60-40 result, it’s inconceivable to me that we would have had all of the political difficulty which followed from members of parliament in particular refusing to accept the result.” Source: indy. I haven't seen the speech to see if context is missing. If that is the general thrust if his speech then I think he has a point. Of course there would still be some trying to overturn it, not legally binding and all that but in general it would probably be fewer and the back and fourth less Indeed but the key point is an arch brexiter has recognised what us “remoaners” said all along that a 52/48 results is not unanimous enough. I’m sure you’d have been saying the same thing if were 52/48 the other way. Seven years on and Remoaners are still bleating. Actually I would have. The whole thing was too important to be approached in a flawed way. It should have been a two step process with a second referendum focused on the nature of the future relationship. I was prepared to accept the referendum result but none of the leave camps could agree on what it actually meant and what they really wanted!. The referendum seemed very straight forward to me . Everyone was presented with the advantages and disadvantages of leaving the EU. The government even sent a leaflet to every household. There were endless discussions on news channels . Prior to voting I sat down with a piece of paper and wrote down the advantages and disadvantages of being a member. Every person in the country had the same opportunity. In the end I ignored the result generated on my decision . I decided to ignore economic predictions and be a true patriot. I often wonder how much higher the vote to leave would have been if the government had not presented gloomy scenarios about leaving the EU and the country falling into a recession. Basic common sense states that we would carry on trading with a few marginal adjustments . The only damage to the Economy was by remainers trying to obstruct the leaving process resulting in dragging it out for years .I don't disagree with most of this, but let's not ignore that ERG and DUP had more influence than remainers over delays. Hell, we lost a PM over the "how" we deal with NI. " TM lost her leadership because she lost her majority gifted to her. | |||
"Responding to a question about whether he had any regrets from the Brexit campaign, Mr Baker said: “One regret is it probably should have been a supermajority. “That’s a huge thing for me to say – because if it had been a supermajority we’d have lost and we’d still be in. But the reason I say that is if we’d had to have 60 per cent, everybody would have abided by the result.” He added: “If it had been a 60-40 result, it’s inconceivable to me that we would have had all of the political difficulty which followed from members of parliament in particular refusing to accept the result.” Source: indy. I haven't seen the speech to see if context is missing. If that is the general thrust if his speech then I think he has a point. Of course there would still be some trying to overturn it, not legally binding and all that but in general it would probably be fewer and the back and fourth less Indeed but the key point is an arch brexiter has recognised what us “remoaners” said all along that a 52/48 results is not unanimous enough. I’m sure you’d have been saying the same thing if were 52/48 the other way. Seven years on and Remoaners are still bleating. Actually I would have. The whole thing was too important to be approached in a flawed way. It should have been a two step process with a second referendum focused on the nature of the future relationship. I was prepared to accept the referendum result but none of the leave camps could agree on what it actually meant and what they really wanted!. The referendum seemed very straight forward to me . Everyone was presented with the advantages and disadvantages of leaving the EU. The government even sent a leaflet to every household. There were endless discussions on news channels . Prior to voting I sat down with a piece of paper and wrote down the advantages and disadvantages of being a member. Every person in the country had the same opportunity. In the end I ignored the result generated on my decision . I decided to ignore economic predictions and be a true patriot. I often wonder how much higher the vote to leave would have been if the government had not presented gloomy scenarios about leaving the EU and the country falling into a recession. Basic common sense states that we would carry on trading with a few marginal adjustments . The only damage to the Economy was by remainers trying to obstruct the leaving process resulting in dragging it out for years . Oh Pat you are funny... In the end I ignored the result generated on my decision . I decided to ignore economic predictions and be a true patriot. Without a shadow of a doubt both sides talked a load of shit. In very simple terms the messaging from Leave appealed to basic emotions of tribalism and jingoism and the messaging from Remain was patronising and dismissive of people’s concerns. The problem is that 48% of people voted remain signifying they were broadly satisfied with the status quo. Of the 52% who voted Leave there was no consensus on what that actually meant in terms of the future relationship with the EU. That is why I believe there should have been a two step process: 1. Remain / Leave the EU 2. A vote on the preferred future relationship outside of the EU It would have stopped so much arguing and chaos and actually would have shut a lot of remainers up as this was core to much of the argument." Disagree witb this. Give tbe people a straight up option. We weren't given the vote to take us in or how we wanted those terms. We leave on those same options that were never given to us Many leavers never had a problem with ec eec including myself. It was up to the e.u to Co e to the negotiating table before they felt themselves inclined to and they could have had a better option for remainers and leavers. Such as something asking to efta. They decided they felt they had the upper hand. Now tbe uk ploughs on with its growth, strength in services and manufacturing Pound holding strong. New deals with other nations creating more trade. The e.u could have enjoyed being a strong partner. It chose not to engage. | |||
"Responding to a question about whether he had any regrets from the Brexit campaign, Mr Baker said: “One regret is it probably should have been a supermajority. “That’s a huge thing for me to say – because if it had been a supermajority we’d have lost and we’d still be in. But the reason I say that is if we’d had to have 60 per cent, everybody would have abided by the result.” He added: “If it had been a 60-40 result, it’s inconceivable to me that we would have had all of the political difficulty which followed from members of parliament in particular refusing to accept the result.” Source: indy. I haven't seen the speech to see if context is missing. If that is the general thrust if his speech then I think he has a point. Of course there would still be some trying to overturn it, not legally binding and all that but in general it would probably be fewer and the back and fourth less Indeed but the key point is an arch brexiter has recognised what us “remoaners” said all along that a 52/48 results is not unanimous enough. I’m sure you’d have been saying the same thing if were 52/48 the other way. Seven years on and Remoaners are still bleating. Actually I would have. The whole thing was too important to be approached in a flawed way. It should have been a two step process with a second referendum focused on the nature of the future relationship. I was prepared to accept the referendum result but none of the leave camps could agree on what it actually meant and what they really wanted!. The referendum seemed very straight forward to me . Everyone was presented with the advantages and disadvantages of leaving the EU. The government even sent a leaflet to every household. There were endless discussions on news channels . Prior to voting I sat down with a piece of paper and wrote down the advantages and disadvantages of being a member. Every person in the country had the same opportunity. In the end I ignored the result generated on my decision . I decided to ignore economic predictions and be a true patriot. I often wonder how much higher the vote to leave would have been if the government had not presented gloomy scenarios about leaving the EU and the country falling into a recession. Basic common sense states that we would carry on trading with a few marginal adjustments . The only damage to the Economy was by remainers trying to obstruct the leaving process resulting in dragging it out for years . Oh Pat you are funny... In the end I ignored the result generated on my decision . I decided to ignore economic predictions and be a true patriot. Without a shadow of a doubt both sides talked a load of shit. In very simple terms the messaging from Leave appealed to basic emotions of tribalism and jingoism and the messaging from Remain was patronising and dismissive of people’s concerns. The problem is that 48% of people voted remain signifying they were broadly satisfied with the status quo. Of the 52% who voted Leave there was no consensus on what that actually meant in terms of the future relationship with the EU. That is why I believe there should have been a two step process: 1. Remain / Leave the EU 2. A vote on the preferred future relationship outside of the EU It would have stopped so much arguing and chaos and actually would have shut a lot of remainers up as this was core to much of the argument. Disagree witb this. Give tbe people a straight up option. We weren't given the vote to take us in or how we wanted those terms. We leave on those same options that were never given to us Many leavers never had a problem with ec eec including myself. It was up to the e.u to Co e to the negotiating table before they felt themselves inclined to and they could have had a better option for remainers and leavers. Such as something asking to efta. They decided they felt they had the upper hand. Now tbe uk ploughs on with its growth, strength in services and manufacturing Pound holding strong. New deals with other nations creating more trade. The e.u could have enjoyed being a strong partner. It chose not to engage. " I know and understand how you would disagree. Of course I disagree with you. As you say when the UK joined the EEC it was a blunt yes/no vote. But by your own admission the world changed over those 40 ish years and the EEC evolved. The relationship had changed from a purely trade based one to something far more engrained throughout society, economy, law etc. As it had become so pervasive then the complexity was far higher than the decision to join the EEC. So that is why I think a simple Leave / Remain vote was flawed. | |||
| |||
"Responding to a question about whether he had any regrets from the Brexit campaign, Mr Baker said: “One regret is it probably should have been a supermajority. “That’s a huge thing for me to say – because if it had been a supermajority we’d have lost and we’d still be in. But the reason I say that is if we’d had to have 60 per cent, everybody would have abided by the result.” He added: “If it had been a 60-40 result, it’s inconceivable to me that we would have had all of the political difficulty which followed from members of parliament in particular refusing to accept the result.” Source: indy. I haven't seen the speech to see if context is missing. If that is the general thrust if his speech then I think he has a point. Of course there would still be some trying to overturn it, not legally binding and all that but in general it would probably be fewer and the back and fourth less Indeed but the key point is an arch brexiter has recognised what us “remoaners” said all along that a 52/48 results is not unanimous enough. I’m sure you’d have been saying the same thing if were 52/48 the other way. Seven years on and Remoaners are still bleating. Actually I would have. The whole thing was too important to be approached in a flawed way. It should have been a two step process with a second referendum focused on the nature of the future relationship. I was prepared to accept the referendum result but none of the leave camps could agree on what it actually meant and what they really wanted!. The referendum seemed very straight forward to me . Everyone was presented with the advantages and disadvantages of leaving the EU. The government even sent a leaflet to every household. There were endless discussions on news channels . Prior to voting I sat down with a piece of paper and wrote down the advantages and disadvantages of being a member. Every person in the country had the same opportunity. In the end I ignored the result generated on my decision . I decided to ignore economic predictions and be a true patriot. I often wonder how much higher the vote to leave would have been if the government had not presented gloomy scenarios about leaving the EU and the country falling into a recession. Basic common sense states that we would carry on trading with a few marginal adjustments . The only damage to the Economy was by remainers trying to obstruct the leaving process resulting in dragging it out for years . Oh Pat you are funny... In the end I ignored the result generated on my decision . I decided to ignore economic predictions and be a true patriot. Without a shadow of a doubt both sides talked a load of shit. In very simple terms the messaging from Leave appealed to basic emotions of tribalism and jingoism and the messaging from Remain was patronising and dismissive of people’s concerns. The problem is that 48% of people voted remain signifying they were broadly satisfied with the status quo. Of the 52% who voted Leave there was no consensus on what that actually meant in terms of the future relationship with the EU. That is why I believe there should have been a two step process: 1. Remain / Leave the EU 2. A vote on the preferred future relationship outside of the EU It would have stopped so much arguing and chaos and actually would have shut a lot of remainers up as this was core to much of the argument. Disagree witb this. Give tbe people a straight up option. We weren't given the vote to take us in or how we wanted those terms. We leave on those same options that were never given to us Many leavers never had a problem with ec eec including myself. It was up to the e.u to Co e to the negotiating table before they felt themselves inclined to and they could have had a better option for remainers and leavers. Such as something asking to efta. They decided they felt they had the upper hand. Now tbe uk ploughs on with its growth, strength in services and manufacturing Pound holding strong. New deals with other nations creating more trade. The e.u could have enjoyed being a strong partner. It chose not to engage. I know and understand how you would disagree. Of course I disagree with you. As you say when the UK joined the EEC it was a blunt yes/no vote. But by your own admission the world changed over those 40 ish years and the EEC evolved. The relationship had changed from a purely trade based one to something far more engrained throughout society, economy, law etc. As it had become so pervasive then the complexity was far higher than the decision to join the EEC. So that is why I think a simple Leave / Remain vote was flawed. " The eec isn't a vote to join the e.u. we were energy given that vote. | |||
"Separate point re “pound holding strong” I read something recently that suggested that this was the main reason the BoE have raised interest rates. To protect the £ in the face of other central banks (US Fed and EU) doing the same. That it was less about tackling inflation (which in the UK is not being driven by consumer spending) and more about offering higher bond/gilt yields to attract investors to the £. Any of our resident economists have a view on that?" They realised them to stop credit borrowing and control inflation. | |||
"Responding to a question about whether he had any regrets from the Brexit campaign, Mr Baker said: “One regret is it probably should have been a supermajority. “That’s a huge thing for me to say – because if it had been a supermajority we’d have lost and we’d still be in. But the reason I say that is if we’d had to have 60 per cent, everybody would have abided by the result.” He added: “If it had been a 60-40 result, it’s inconceivable to me that we would have had all of the political difficulty which followed from members of parliament in particular refusing to accept the result.” Source: indy. I haven't seen the speech to see if context is missing. If that is the general thrust if his speech then I think he has a point. Of course there would still be some trying to overturn it, not legally binding and all that but in general it would probably be fewer and the back and fourth less Indeed but the key point is an arch brexiter has recognised what us “remoaners” said all along that a 52/48 results is not unanimous enough. I’m sure you’d have been saying the same thing if were 52/48 the other way. Seven years on and Remoaners are still bleating. Actually I would have. The whole thing was too important to be approached in a flawed way. It should have been a two step process with a second referendum focused on the nature of the future relationship. I was prepared to accept the referendum result but none of the leave camps could agree on what it actually meant and what they really wanted!. The referendum seemed very straight forward to me . Everyone was presented with the advantages and disadvantages of leaving the EU. The government even sent a leaflet to every household. There were endless discussions on news channels . Prior to voting I sat down with a piece of paper and wrote down the advantages and disadvantages of being a member. Every person in the country had the same opportunity. In the end I ignored the result generated on my decision . I decided to ignore economic predictions and be a true patriot. I often wonder how much higher the vote to leave would have been if the government had not presented gloomy scenarios about leaving the EU and the country falling into a recession. Basic common sense states that we would carry on trading with a few marginal adjustments . The only damage to the Economy was by remainers trying to obstruct the leaving process resulting in dragging it out for years .I don't disagree with most of this, but let's not ignore that ERG and DUP had more influence than remainers over delays. Hell, we lost a PM over the "how" we deal with NI. TM lost her leadership because she lost her majority gifted to her. " she was in charge for 2 years after that. Had she kept her majority do you think shed have been safe ? | |||
" The e.u is completely different to the community and it had been 20 years. " There were two Communities, for a start. Not just one. There was the European Economic Community, and the European Atomic Energy Community. Euratom is still around. The UK, Denmark and Ireland joined both Treaties of Rome in 1973. The UK has now lost its Euratom membership as well. Was Euratom mentioned in the referendum? The freedom of movement of workers was extended to all citizens of member countries. That's one thing that changed between the start of the EEC and today's EU. Free movement is not a free for all with conditions on residence rights. Access to benefits is limited because you have to prove you normally live in a country before you can get benefits there. The 3 month rule and the habitual residence test is another change since at least 2004. The start of the EU added police and courts cooperation, and a common sanctions policy like freezing the EU bank accounts and property of suspected members of the Taliban. The bureaucracy-saving EU agencies like the European Food Safety Agency are all post-EEC. Setting up the euro currency has been a big deal, the UK declining to join. The groundwork for the Schengen travel area was done when the EEC still existed. A shared diplomatic service for the EU was brought in by Lisbon in 2007. The Treaty on Stability and Governance was brought in to help the euro currency. It was non-EU and all eurozone and non-euro countries signed up apart from the UK and the Czech Rep. Enhanced Cooperation is another thing brought in since the start of the EEC. So is PESCO defence cooperation. I do not think it is fair to say the EU is "completely different". From the original six countries at the beginning of the EEC to 27 now is a big change. It has been added to, and improved. More powers for the European Parliament. The accounts have always been signed off in the end every year. At first there were more mistakes that had to be put right. Since 2007 it has been "signed off" every year first time. But the basic principles are the same now as they were then. | |||
"Responding to a question about whether he had any regrets from the Brexit campaign, Mr Baker said: “One regret is it probably should have been a supermajority. “That’s a huge thing for me to say – because if it had been a supermajority we’d have lost and we’d still be in. But the reason I say that is if we’d had to have 60 per cent, everybody would have abided by the result.” He added: “If it had been a 60-40 result, it’s inconceivable to me that we would have had all of the political difficulty which followed from members of parliament in particular refusing to accept the result.” Source: indy. I haven't seen the speech to see if context is missing. If that is the general thrust if his speech then I think he has a point. Of course there would still be some trying to overturn it, not legally binding and all that but in general it would probably be fewer and the back and fourth less Indeed but the key point is an arch brexiter has recognised what us “remoaners” said all along that a 52/48 results is not unanimous enough. I’m sure you’d have been saying the same thing if were 52/48 the other way. Seven years on and Remoaners are still bleating. Actually I would have. The whole thing was too important to be approached in a flawed way. It should have been a two step process with a second referendum focused on the nature of the future relationship. I was prepared to accept the referendum result but none of the leave camps could agree on what it actually meant and what they really wanted!. The referendum seemed very straight forward to me . Everyone was presented with the advantages and disadvantages of leaving the EU. " Although the "advantages" of leaving we're all lies. " The government even sent a leaflet to every household. There were endless discussions on news channels . Prior to voting I sat down with a piece of paper and wrote down the advantages and disadvantages of being a member. Every person in the country had the same opportunity. " Lolz " In the end I ignored the result generated on my decision . I decided to ignore economic predictions and be a true patriot. " Proper lolz. This is amazing. " I often wonder how much higher the vote to leave would have been if the government had not presented gloomy scenarios about leaving the EU and the country falling into a recession. Basic common sense states that we would carry on trading with a few marginal adjustments . The only damage to the Economy was by remainers trying to obstruct the leaving process resulting in dragging it out for years ." Amazing. This really is some of your best work.  | |||
"Responding to a question about whether he had any regrets from the Brexit campaign, Mr Baker said: “One regret is it probably should have been a supermajority. “That’s a huge thing for me to say – because if it had been a supermajority we’d have lost and we’d still be in. But the reason I say that is if we’d had to have 60 per cent, everybody would have abided by the result.” He added: “If it had been a 60-40 result, it’s inconceivable to me that we would have had all of the political difficulty which followed from members of parliament in particular refusing to accept the result.” Source: indy. I haven't seen the speech to see if context is missing. If that is the general thrust if his speech then I think he has a point. Of course there would still be some trying to overturn it, not legally binding and all that but in general it would probably be fewer and the back and fourth less Indeed but the key point is an arch brexiter has recognised what us “remoaners” said all along that a 52/48 results is not unanimous enough. I’m sure you’d have been saying the same thing if were 52/48 the other way. Seven years on and Remoaners are still bleating. Actually I would have. The whole thing was too important to be approached in a flawed way. It should have been a two step process with a second referendum focused on the nature of the future relationship. I was prepared to accept the referendum result but none of the leave camps could agree on what it actually meant and what they really wanted!. The referendum seemed very straight forward to me . Everyone was presented with the advantages and disadvantages of leaving the EU. The government even sent a leaflet to every household. There were endless discussions on news channels . Prior to voting I sat down with a piece of paper and wrote down the advantages and disadvantages of being a member. Every person in the country had the same opportunity. In the end I ignored the result generated on my decision . I decided to ignore economic predictions and be a true patriot. I often wonder how much higher the vote to leave would have been if the government had not presented gloomy scenarios about leaving the EU and the country falling into a recession. Basic common sense states that we would carry on trading with a few marginal adjustments . The only damage to the Economy was by remainers trying to obstruct the leaving process resulting in dragging it out for years .I don't disagree with most of this, but let's not ignore that ERG and DUP had more influence than remainers over delays. Hell, we lost a PM over the "how" we deal with NI. TM lost her leadership because she lost her majority gifted to her. she was in charge for 2 years after that. Had she kept her majority do you think shed have been safe ?" If she'd had a majority like.BJ. she'd have been a lot better off I feel. Her problem was not having an 80 seat majority in parliament to push through proposals without worrying about the rebels. | |||
" The e.u is completely different to the community and it had been 20 years. There were two Communities, for a start. Not just one. There was the European Economic Community, and the European Atomic Energy Community. Euratom is still around. The UK, Denmark and Ireland joined both Treaties of Rome in 1973. The UK has now lost its Euratom membership as well. Was Euratom mentioned in the referendum? The freedom of movement of workers was extended to all citizens of member countries. That's one thing that changed between the start of the EEC and today's EU. Free movement is not a free for all with conditions on residence rights. Access to benefits is limited because you have to prove you normally live in a country before you can get benefits there. The 3 month rule and the habitual residence test is another change since at least 2004. The start of the EU added police and courts cooperation, and a common sanctions policy like freezing the EU bank accounts and property of suspected members of the Taliban. The bureaucracy-saving EU agencies like the European Food Safety Agency are all post-EEC. Setting up the euro currency has been a big deal, the UK declining to join. The groundwork for the Schengen travel area was done when the EEC still existed. A shared diplomatic service for the EU was brought in by Lisbon in 2007. The Treaty on Stability and Governance was brought in to help the euro currency. It was non-EU and all eurozone and non-euro countries signed up apart from the UK and the Czech Rep. Enhanced Cooperation is another thing brought in since the start of the EEC. So is PESCO defence cooperation. I do not think it is fair to say the EU is "completely different". From the original six countries at the beginning of the EEC to 27 now is a big change. It has been added to, and improved. More powers for the European Parliament. The accounts have always been signed off in the end every year. At first there were more mistakes that had to be put right. Since 2007 it has been "signed off" every year first time. But the basic principles are the same now as they were then." Why you needed to bring up erratum i dont know. But thanks for also bringing up the multiple areas that the e.u changed vs the eec. Backing up my point. That we weren't given a referendum when it drastically changed. | |||
"Responding to a question about whether he had any regrets from the Brexit campaign, Mr Baker said: “One regret is it probably should have been a supermajority. “That’s a huge thing for me to say – because if it had been a supermajority we’d have lost and we’d still be in. But the reason I say that is if we’d had to have 60 per cent, everybody would have abided by the result.” He added: “If it had been a 60-40 result, it’s inconceivable to me that we would have had all of the political difficulty which followed from members of parliament in particular refusing to accept the result.” Source: indy. I haven't seen the speech to see if context is missing. If that is the general thrust if his speech then I think he has a point. Of course there would still be some trying to overturn it, not legally binding and all that but in general it would probably be fewer and the back and fourth less Indeed but the key point is an arch brexiter has recognised what us “remoaners” said all along that a 52/48 results is not unanimous enough. I’m sure you’d have been saying the same thing if were 52/48 the other way. Seven years on and Remoaners are still bleating. Actually I would have. The whole thing was too important to be approached in a flawed way. It should have been a two step process with a second referendum focused on the nature of the future relationship. I was prepared to accept the referendum result but none of the leave camps could agree on what it actually meant and what they really wanted!. The referendum seemed very straight forward to me . Everyone was presented with the advantages and disadvantages of leaving the EU. Although the "advantages" of leaving we're all lies. The government even sent a leaflet to every household. There were endless discussions on news channels . Prior to voting I sat down with a piece of paper and wrote down the advantages and disadvantages of being a member. Every person in the country had the same opportunity. Lolz In the end I ignored the result generated on my decision . I decided to ignore economic predictions and be a true patriot. Proper lolz. This is amazing. I often wonder how much higher the vote to leave would have been if the government had not presented gloomy scenarios about leaving the EU and the country falling into a recession. Basic common sense states that we would carry on trading with a few marginal adjustments . The only damage to the Economy was by remainers trying to obstruct the leaving process resulting in dragging it out for years . Amazing. This really is some of your best work. "Lols reply. | |||
| |||
"Responding to a question about whether he had any regrets from the Brexit campaign, Mr Baker said: “One regret is it probably should have been a supermajority. “That’s a huge thing for me to say – because if it had been a supermajority we’d have lost and we’d still be in. But the reason I say that is if we’d had to have 60 per cent, everybody would have abided by the result.” He added: “If it had been a 60-40 result, it’s inconceivable to me that we would have had all of the political difficulty which followed from members of parliament in particular refusing to accept the result.” Source: indy. I haven't seen the speech to see if context is missing. If that is the general thrust if his speech then I think he has a point. Of course there would still be some trying to overturn it, not legally binding and all that but in general it would probably be fewer and the back and fourth less Indeed but the key point is an arch brexiter has recognised what us “remoaners” said all along that a 52/48 results is not unanimous enough. I’m sure you’d have been saying the same thing if were 52/48 the other way. Seven years on and Remoaners are still bleating. Actually I would have. The whole thing was too important to be approached in a flawed way. It should have been a two step process with a second referendum focused on the nature of the future relationship. I was prepared to accept the referendum result but none of the leave camps could agree on what it actually meant and what they really wanted!. The referendum seemed very straight forward to me . Everyone was presented with the advantages and disadvantages of leaving the EU. Although the "advantages" of leaving we're all lies. The government even sent a leaflet to every household. There were endless discussions on news channels . Prior to voting I sat down with a piece of paper and wrote down the advantages and disadvantages of being a member. Every person in the country had the same opportunity. Lolz In the end I ignored the result generated on my decision . I decided to ignore economic predictions and be a true patriot. Proper lolz. This is amazing. I often wonder how much higher the vote to leave would have been if the government had not presented gloomy scenarios about leaving the EU and the country falling into a recession. Basic common sense states that we would carry on trading with a few marginal adjustments . The only damage to the Economy was by remainers trying to obstruct the leaving process resulting in dragging it out for years . Amazing. This really is some of your best work.
Lols reply."
Really enjoy that contributers satirical posts. | |||
"Responding to a question about whether he had any regrets from the Brexit campaign, Mr Baker said: “One regret is it probably should have been a supermajority. “That’s a huge thing for me to say – because if it had been a supermajority we’d have lost and we’d still be in. But the reason I say that is if we’d had to have 60 per cent, everybody would have abided by the result.” He added: “If it had been a 60-40 result, it’s inconceivable to me that we would have had all of the political difficulty which followed from members of parliament in particular refusing to accept the result.” Source: indy. I haven't seen the speech to see if context is missing. If that is the general thrust if his speech then I think he has a point. Of course there would still be some trying to overturn it, not legally binding and all that but in general it would probably be fewer and the back and fourth less Indeed but the key point is an arch brexiter has recognised what us “remoaners” said all along that a 52/48 results is not unanimous enough. I’m sure you’d have been saying the same thing if were 52/48 the other way. Seven years on and Remoaners are still bleating. Actually I would have. The whole thing was too important to be approached in a flawed way. It should have been a two step process with a second referendum focused on the nature of the future relationship. I was prepared to accept the referendum result but none of the leave camps could agree on what it actually meant and what they really wanted!" . The process was as fair as it could be. The vote to leave was probably understated due to a government minister predicting an immediate economic recession and substantial job losses. Any interested in the future relationship with the EU could have asked the question during the campaign. I feel rather foolish as I nearly fell for the prediction of a recession. I am confident that some people did and that the leave vote was understated due to this. We still trade with the EU . As a result of leaving we still trade with the EU and have the added benefit of negotiating deals with other countries on our terms . | |||
"Responding to a question about whether he had any regrets from the Brexit campaign, Mr Baker said: “One regret is it probably should have been a supermajority. “That’s a huge thing for me to say – because if it had been a supermajority we’d have lost and we’d still be in. But the reason I say that is if we’d had to have 60 per cent, everybody would have abided by the result.” He added: “If it had been a 60-40 result, it’s inconceivable to me that we would have had all of the political difficulty which followed from members of parliament in particular refusing to accept the result.” Source: indy. I haven't seen the speech to see if context is missing. If that is the general thrust if his speech then I think he has a point. Of course there would still be some trying to overturn it, not legally binding and all that but in general it would probably be fewer and the back and fourth less Indeed but the key point is an arch brexiter has recognised what us “remoaners” said all along that a 52/48 results is not unanimous enough. I’m sure you’d have been saying the same thing if were 52/48 the other way. Seven years on and Remoaners are still bleating. Actually I would have. The whole thing was too important to be approached in a flawed way. It should have been a two step process with a second referendum focused on the nature of the future relationship. I was prepared to accept the referendum result but none of the leave camps could agree on what it actually meant and what they really wanted!. The process was as fair as it could be. The vote to leave was probably understated due to a government minister predicting an immediate economic recession and substantial job losses. Any interested in the future relationship with the EU could have asked the question during the campaign. I feel rather foolish as I nearly fell for the prediction of a recession. I am confident that some people did and that the leave vote was understated due to this. We still trade with the EU . As a result of leaving we still trade with the EU and have the added benefit of negotiating deals with other countries on our terms . " First of all why are you replying to a post you have already replied to? The conversation has moved on. Keep up Pat! Second who said trade would stop with the EU? Nobody! No rational person would have thought that even for a second. It was argued that trade would be more difficult and barriers not there within the EU would be put in place and logistics and paperwork/administration would have a negative impact. That is not the same as trading with the EU stopping! In the real world people weigh up all the arguments they hear and then some of them ignore the evidence and vote based purely on patriotism (without knowing what actually constitutes being patriotic). | |||
"Second who said trade would stop with the EU? Nobody!" I don't know where you were living, but about 50% of the people I spoke to before the referendum thought that we would not be able to trade with the EU at all if we left. One woman told me that she was voting Remain because she liked French wine, and that the shops would be empty if we voted to leave. I told her that there would be no shortage of French wine, and she just refused to believe me. | |||
"Second who said trade would stop with the EU? Nobody! I don't know where you were living, but about 50% of the people I spoke to before the referendum thought that we would not be able to trade with the EU at all if we left. One woman told me that she was voting Remain because she liked French wine, and that the shops would be empty if we voted to leave. I told her that there would be no shortage of French wine, and she just refused to believe me." Well you can’t stop stupid! Nobody in my circles thought any such thing. Just supply chain issues, delays and price increases. Which is what we have had right? | |||
"Second who said trade would stop with the EU? Nobody! I don't know where you were living, but about 50% of the people I spoke to before the referendum thought that we would not be able to trade with the EU at all if we left. One woman told me that she was voting Remain because she liked French wine, and that the shops would be empty if we voted to leave. I told her that there would be no shortage of French wine, and she just refused to believe me. Well you can’t stop stupid! Nobody in my circles thought any such thing. Just supply chain issues, delays and price increases. Which is what we have had right?" . Why would there be any supply chain issues. ? We simply added a few extra bits of paperwork. Anyone involved in the haulage of goods to Europe quickly adopted. The events to which you refer were worldwide and related to Covid and other world factors . | |||
"Second who said trade would stop with the EU? Nobody! I don't know where you were living, but about 50% of the people I spoke to before the referendum thought that we would not be able to trade with the EU at all if we left. One woman told me that she was voting Remain because she liked French wine, and that the shops would be empty if we voted to leave. I told her that there would be no shortage of French wine, and she just refused to believe me. Well you can’t stop stupid! Nobody in my circles thought any such thing. Just supply chain issues, delays and price increases. Which is what we have had right?. Why would there be any supply chain issues. ? We simply added a few extra bits of paperwork. Anyone involved in the haulage of goods to Europe quickly adopted. The events to which you refer were worldwide and related to Covid and other world factors . " It’s been widely reported. Brexit did create supply chain issues and delays which exacerbated the worldwide issues caused by Covid. Pretty sure not all the “admin” and checks have even been instigated yet as they were postponed to provide a grace period (and to minimise overall impact due to Covid). It certainly impacts some sectors more than others. In the real world any rational person who mixes with a wide circle of people professionally and personally will have been able to understand these impacts. | |||
| |||
"Second who said trade would stop with the EU? Nobody! I don't know where you were living, but about 50% of the people I spoke to before the referendum thought that we would not be able to trade with the EU at all if we left. One woman told me that she was voting Remain because she liked French wine, and that the shops would be empty if we voted to leave. I told her that there would be no shortage of French wine, and she just refused to believe me. Well you can’t stop stupid! Nobody in my circles thought any such thing. Just supply chain issues, delays and price increases. Which is what we have had right?. Why would there be any supply chain issues. ? We simply added a few extra bits of paperwork. Anyone involved in the haulage of goods to Europe quickly adopted. The events to which you refer were worldwide and related to Covid and other world factors . " Quite right. Nothing to see here. What about that thing over there? | |||
"Responding to a question about whether he had any regrets from the Brexit campaign, Mr Baker said: “One regret is it probably should have been a supermajority. “That’s a huge thing for me to say – because if it had been a supermajority we’d have lost and we’d still be in. But the reason I say that is if we’d had to have 60 per cent, everybody would have abided by the result.” He added: “If it had been a 60-40 result, it’s inconceivable to me that we would have had all of the political difficulty which followed from members of parliament in particular refusing to accept the result.” Source: indy. I haven't seen the speech to see if context is missing. So then. Not as per OP." Maybe you should read the OP again ,if you think this differs (from the OP) | |||
"Second who said trade would stop with the EU? Nobody! I don't know where you were living, but about 50% of the people I spoke to before the referendum thought that we would not be able to trade with the EU at all if we left. One woman told me that she was voting Remain because she liked French wine, and that the shops would be empty if we voted to leave. I told her that there would be no shortage of French wine, and she just refused to believe me. Well you can’t stop stupid! Nobody in my circles thought any such thing. Just supply chain issues, delays and price increases. Which is what we have had right?. Why would there be any supply chain issues. ? We simply added a few extra bits of paperwork. Anyone involved in the haulage of goods to Europe quickly adopted. The events to which you refer were worldwide and related to Covid and other world factors . It’s been widely reported. Brexit did create supply chain issues and delays which exacerbated the worldwide issues caused by Covid. Pretty sure not all the “admin” and checks have even been instigated yet as they were postponed to provide a grace period (and to minimise overall impact due to Covid). It certainly impacts some sectors more than others. In the real world any rational person who mixes with a wide circle of people professionally and personally will have been able to understand these impacts. " . So you are now saying that you rely on the opinions of people with whom you mix as opposed to hard facts from a variety of different sources. I prefer to make a more objective analysis and maintain an impartial view. If you are relying on the opinions of those with whom you mix your sample reflection process will be biased. The topic hardly ever gets a mention in most financial publications now. Those involved in the haulage industry have no regrets about Brexit . It has created additional opportunities for them . Removal of freedom of movement means that their is a greater emphasis on mechanisation and efficiency . In theory it should have also removed the pressure on supply of rented accommodation. In any event following normal accounting practice you would capitalise the initial costs of Brexit and expense them over the life of the project. | |||
"Second who said trade would stop with the EU? Nobody! I don't know where you were living, but about 50% of the people I spoke to before the referendum thought that we would not be able to trade with the EU at all if we left. One woman told me that she was voting Remain because she liked French wine, and that the shops would be empty if we voted to leave. I told her that there would be no shortage of French wine, and she just refused to believe me. Well you can’t stop stupid! Nobody in my circles thought any such thing. Just supply chain issues, delays and price increases. Which is what we have had right?. Why would there be any supply chain issues. ? We simply added a few extra bits of paperwork. Anyone involved in the haulage of goods to Europe quickly adopted. The events to which you refer were worldwide and related to Covid and other world factors . It’s been widely reported. Brexit did create supply chain issues and delays which exacerbated the worldwide issues caused by Covid. Pretty sure not all the “admin” and checks have even been instigated yet as they were postponed to provide a grace period (and to minimise overall impact due to Covid). It certainly impacts some sectors more than others. In the real world any rational person who mixes with a wide circle of people professionally and personally will have been able to understand these impacts. . So you are now saying that you rely on the opinions of people with whom you mix as opposed to hard facts from a variety of different sources. I prefer to make a more objective analysis and maintain an impartial view. If you are relying on the opinions of those with whom you mix your sample reflection process will be biased. The topic hardly ever gets a mention in most financial publications now. Those involved in the haulage industry have no regrets about Brexit . It has created additional opportunities for them . Removal of freedom of movement means that their is a greater emphasis on mechanisation and efficiency . In theory it should have also removed the pressure on supply of rented accommodation. In any event following normal accounting practice you would capitalise the initial costs of Brexit and expense them over the life of the project. " Amazing! 
What is the estimated life of the brexit clusterfuck project?
JRM said we might start to see something after 50 years. | |||
"Second who said trade would stop with the EU? Nobody! I don't know where you were living, but about 50% of the people I spoke to before the referendum thought that we would not be able to trade with the EU at all if we left. One woman told me that she was voting Remain because she liked French wine, and that the shops would be empty if we voted to leave. I told her that there would be no shortage of French wine, and she just refused to believe me. Well you can’t stop stupid! Nobody in my circles thought any such thing. Just supply chain issues, delays and price increases. Which is what we have had right?. Why would there be any supply chain issues. ? We simply added a few extra bits of paperwork. Anyone involved in the haulage of goods to Europe quickly adopted. The events to which you refer were worldwide and related to Covid and other world factors . It’s been widely reported. Brexit did create supply chain issues and delays which exacerbated the worldwide issues caused by Covid. Pretty sure not all the “admin” and checks have even been instigated yet as they were postponed to provide a grace period (and to minimise overall impact due to Covid). It certainly impacts some sectors more than others. In the real world any rational person who mixes with a wide circle of people professionally and personally will have been able to understand these impacts. . So you are now saying that you rely on the opinions of people with whom you mix as opposed to hard facts from a variety of different sources. I prefer to make a more objective analysis and maintain an impartial view. If you are relying on the opinions of those with whom you mix your sample reflection process will be biased. The topic hardly ever gets a mention in most financial publications now. Those involved in the haulage industry have no regrets about Brexit . It has created additional opportunities for them . Removal of freedom of movement means that their is a greater emphasis on mechanisation and efficiency . In theory it should have also removed the pressure on supply of rented accommodation. In any event following normal accounting practice you would capitalise the initial costs of Brexit and expense them over the life of the project. " Like most sensible people I make sure I have a wide range of sources of information. I find that The Daily Mail is a particularly accurate and objective news source whose award winning journalists are careful to always present a balanced view. Clearly, based on the high circulation figures, many other people feel the same way and want to share in this excellent example of a British success story. | |||
"Second who said trade would stop with the EU? Nobody! I don't know where you were living, but about 50% of the people I spoke to before the referendum thought that we would not be able to trade with the EU at all if we left. One woman told me that she was voting Remain because she liked French wine, and that the shops would be empty if we voted to leave. I told her that there would be no shortage of French wine, and she just refused to believe me. Well you can’t stop stupid! Nobody in my circles thought any such thing. Just supply chain issues, delays and price increases. Which is what we have had right?. Why would there be any supply chain issues. ? We simply added a few extra bits of paperwork. Anyone involved in the haulage of goods to Europe quickly adopted. The events to which you refer were worldwide and related to Covid and other world factors . It’s been widely reported. Brexit did create supply chain issues and delays which exacerbated the worldwide issues caused by Covid. Pretty sure not all the “admin” and checks have even been instigated yet as they were postponed to provide a grace period (and to minimise overall impact due to Covid). It certainly impacts some sectors more than others. In the real world any rational person who mixes with a wide circle of people professionally and personally will have been able to understand these impacts. . So you are now saying that you rely on the opinions of people with whom you mix as opposed to hard facts from a variety of different sources. I prefer to make a more objective analysis and maintain an impartial view. If you are relying on the opinions of those with whom you mix your sample reflection process will be biased. The topic hardly ever gets a mention in most financial publications now. Those involved in the haulage industry have no regrets about Brexit . It has created additional opportunities for them . Removal of freedom of movement means that their is a greater emphasis on mechanisation and efficiency . In theory it should have also removed the pressure on supply of rented accommodation. In any event following normal accounting practice you would capitalise the initial costs of Brexit and expense them over the life of the project. " Economic headwinds blew Cross Transport off course Shortly after it entered insolvency proceedings, administrator David Kemp said many haulage firms had struggled during 2022, blaming rising fuel prices and the professional driver shortage as well as many companies in the industry operating under the pressure of thin margins.” motortransport.co.uk 8 September 2023 | |||
"Second who said trade would stop with the EU? Nobody! I don't know where you were living, but about 50% of the people I spoke to before the referendum thought that we would not be able to trade with the EU at all if we left. One woman told me that she was voting Remain because she liked French wine, and that the shops would be empty if we voted to leave. I told her that there would be no shortage of French wine, and she just refused to believe me. Well you can’t stop stupid! Nobody in my circles thought any such thing. Just supply chain issues, delays and price increases. Which is what we have had right?. Why would there be any supply chain issues. ? We simply added a few extra bits of paperwork. Anyone involved in the haulage of goods to Europe quickly adopted. The events to which you refer were worldwide and related to Covid and other world factors . " Any one who didn't adapt was just ignorant and lazy. There's that guy Daniel lambert wines or something on twitter. Ran a French wine import to wales. Theyw ere all made aware to get chief and to familiarise themselves. He left it u til the month of full brexit Jan 21 to seek guidance o it. The Complained he couldn't use it and blamed the gov. A fuse 100 logistics company I worked for had already sorted all their brexit planning 4 years in advance a d were ready by April 2019. 5 years was ample time to prepare. | |||
"Second who said trade would stop with the EU? Nobody! I don't know where you were living, but about 50% of the people I spoke to before the referendum thought that we would not be able to trade with the EU at all if we left. One woman told me that she was voting Remain because she liked French wine, and that the shops would be empty if we voted to leave. I told her that there would be no shortage of French wine, and she just refused to believe me. Well you can’t stop stupid! Nobody in my circles thought any such thing. Just supply chain issues, delays and price increases. Which is what we have had right?. Why would there be any supply chain issues. ? We simply added a few extra bits of paperwork. Anyone involved in the haulage of goods to Europe quickly adopted. The events to which you refer were worldwide and related to Covid and other world factors . It’s been widely reported. Brexit did create supply chain issues and delays which exacerbated the worldwide issues caused by Covid. Pretty sure not all the “admin” and checks have even been instigated yet as they were postponed to provide a grace period (and to minimise overall impact due to Covid). It certainly impacts some sectors more than others. In the real world any rational person who mixes with a wide circle of people professionally and personally will have been able to understand these impacts. . So you are now saying that you rely on the opinions of people with whom you mix as opposed to hard facts from a variety of different sources. I prefer to make a more objective analysis and maintain an impartial view. If you are relying on the opinions of those with whom you mix your sample reflection process will be biased. The topic hardly ever gets a mention in most financial publications now. Those involved in the haulage industry have no regrets about Brexit . It has created additional opportunities for them . Removal of freedom of movement means that their is a greater emphasis on mechanisation and efficiency . In theory it should have also removed the pressure on supply of rented accommodation. In any event following normal accounting practice you would capitalise the initial costs of Brexit and expense them over the life of the project. Economic headwinds blew Cross Transport off course Shortly after it entered insolvency proceedings, administrator David Kemp said many haulage firms had struggled during 2022, blaming rising fuel prices and the professional driver shortage as well as many companies in the industry operating under the pressure of thin margins.” motortransport.co.uk 8 September 2023" Ironically. The uk has one of the best driver shorts he stats Most problems were driven by the dvla not re issuing licenses. https://truckmobility-info.com/shortage-of-drivers-in-the-eu/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20latest%20research,10%25%20of%20the%20total%20demand Ir35 ruined a lot of haulage too. It became more profitable to work as a white van man for amazon than drive a haulage truck once new or35 rules kicked in stopping your contracting. | |||
| |||
"Second who said trade would stop with the EU? Nobody! I don't know where you were living, but about 50% of the people I spoke to before the referendum thought that we would not be able to trade with the EU at all if we left. One woman told me that she was voting Remain because she liked French wine, and that the shops would be empty if we voted to leave. I told her that there would be no shortage of French wine, and she just refused to believe me. Well you can’t stop stupid! Nobody in my circles thought any such thing. Just supply chain issues, delays and price increases. Which is what we have had right?. Why would there be any supply chain issues. ? We simply added a few extra bits of paperwork. Anyone involved in the haulage of goods to Europe quickly adopted. The events to which you refer were worldwide and related to Covid and other world factors . It’s been widely reported. Brexit did create supply chain issues and delays which exacerbated the worldwide issues caused by Covid. Pretty sure not all the “admin” and checks have even been instigated yet as they were postponed to provide a grace period (and to minimise overall impact due to Covid). It certainly impacts some sectors more than others. In the real world any rational person who mixes with a wide circle of people professionally and personally will have been able to understand these impacts. . So you are now saying that you rely on the opinions of people with whom you mix as opposed to hard facts from a variety of different sources. I prefer to make a more objective analysis and maintain an impartial view. If you are relying on the opinions of those with whom you mix your sample reflection process will be biased. The topic hardly ever gets a mention in most financial publications now. Those involved in the haulage industry have no regrets about Brexit . It has created additional opportunities for them . Removal of freedom of movement means that their is a greater emphasis on mechanisation and efficiency . In theory it should have also removed the pressure on supply of rented accommodation. In any event following normal accounting practice you would capitalise the initial costs of Brexit and expense them over the life of the project. Economic headwinds blew Cross Transport off course Shortly after it entered insolvency proceedings, administrator David Kemp said many haulage firms had struggled during 2022, blaming rising fuel prices and the professional driver shortage as well as many companies in the industry operating under the pressure of thin margins.” motortransport.co.uk 8 September 2023" They failed because they were doing low margin work with Amazon . Culina have recently ordered 2500 new Scanias !!! . Culina Group companies Fowler Welch and Great Bear Distribution fought against “challenging market conditions” last year to increase both revenue and pre-tax profits. Latest financial results, for the year ending 31 December 2022, showed that chilled food supply chain business Fowler Welch increased turnover by 23% during the period to £201m, from £163m in 2021. Pre-tax profit increased from £4.6m to £12.4m, although the business pointed out that almost £2.7m of this was an exceptional profit from the disposal of joint venture Integrated Services Solutions. In February 2022, Fowler Welch acquired Robert Burns Logistics, in order to boost its presence in the fresh logistics market. It said this purchase had allowed it to increase its scale and expertise in the sector, which had accelerated growth. Meanwhile, fellow Culina subsidiary Great Bear Distribution saw revenues and profits soar in 2022; turnover increased at the UK ambient 3PL by 16.4% to £399m and pre-tax profit more than doubled to £42m, compared to £17.7m in 2021. In late 2022, the decision was taken to transfer the warehousing activity of group undertaking Eddie Stobart over to Great Bear and the firm said this had allowed it to expand its storage portfolio, which would help with further growth. “The company is well funded and financially robust, so the directors are confident the company is well placed to meet the challenges of the ongoing economic climate and market conditions,” it said. Culina Group itself reported a 37.8% increase in pre-tax profit, to £5.7m in 2022. Turnover increased by 43% to £88.3m, which it attributed mainly to increased recharges following the acquisition of Stobart umbrella company Greenwhitestar Acquisitions in July 2021. The Birmingham haulier, which provided road transport services across the UK and Ireland, brought in financial experts on 5 June after being hit by a series of economic headwinds. The company was formed in 2010 and had a depot in Swadlincote and an operating licence for 20 HGVs. An administrator’s report into the haulier’s financial struggles quoted Cross Transport company director Dean Cross, who explained that the business was funded through an invoice financing agreement and that it had “grown fast due to a contract with Amazon.” Cross said the work with the retail giant constituted 90% of its turnover. He added that when the business began to struggle the haulier entered into a moratorium and a company voluntary arrangement was proposed, but eventually the firm entered administration, with SFP taking control of its affairs. In its report, SFP said the initial strategy was to try and sell the business and its assets, but given the lack of available funding it became apparent it was not viable to continue to trade the business. SFP added that it was unlikely there would be funds available for preferential and non-preferential creditors. Shortly after it entered insolvency proceedings, administrator David Kemp said many haulage firms had struggled during 2022, blaming rising fuel prices and the professional driver shortage: “With many companies in the industry operating under the pressure of thin margins, we urge directors to seek professional guidance at the earliest sign of trouble,” he said. “It would increase the chances of saving the business and securing the best result for the company and its employees.” | |||
| |||
"Second who said trade would stop with the EU? Nobody! I don't know where you were living, but about 50% of the people I spoke to before the referendum thought that we would not be able to trade with the EU at all if we left. One woman told me that she was voting Remain because she liked French wine, and that the shops would be empty if we voted to leave. I told her that there would be no shortage of French wine, and she just refused to believe me. Well you can’t stop stupid! Nobody in my circles thought any such thing. Just supply chain issues, delays and price increases. Which is what we have had right?. Why would there be any supply chain issues. ? We simply added a few extra bits of paperwork. Anyone involved in the haulage of goods to Europe quickly adopted. The events to which you refer were worldwide and related to Covid and other world factors . Any one who didn't adapt was just ignorant and lazy. There's that guy Daniel lambert wines or something on twitter. Ran a French wine import to wales. Theyw ere all made aware to get chief and to familiarise themselves. He left it u til the month of full brexit Jan 21 to seek guidance o it. The Complained he couldn't use it and blamed the gov. A fuse 100 logistics company I worked for had already sorted all their brexit planning 4 years in advance a d were ready by April 2019. 5 years was ample time to prepare." Imagine if businesses didn't have to prepare for the brexit clusterfuck and could carry on trading with ease and being a part of a connected and prosperous Britain. Oh well. | |||
| |||
"IR35 has been around for years under different guises. The one I know of is CIS. No one has ever liked it but its designed to stop self employed people avoiding tax by making contractors do the work for them. It is a fucking shambles, and I agree it needs dissapearing. " It has created a group of no rights employees. If you are inside IR35 you are taxed like an employee but get none of the benefits or protections that being employed gives you. So no: - Employer pension contributions - Holiday pay - Sick pay - Redundancy - Notice period - Maternity/Paternity pay - TUPE - Learning & Development You also aren’t self employed so no: - Offsetting business expenses against tax - Payment by dividends (lower tax) - Ltd company protection from liabilities | |||
"Brexit hard man Steve Baker says the Brexit vote should probably have required a 60% super majority with the 52/48 not being enough , ooooops " Admitting to learning. Yes indeed. Oops | |||
"IR35 has been around for years under different guises. The one I know of is CIS. No one has ever liked it but its designed to stop self employed people avoiding tax by making contractors do the work for them. It is a fucking shambles, and I agree it needs dissapearing. " CIS is outside IR35I believe. I worked under it from it's inception until 2021. Oddly in all that time the only time HMRC asked to see a receipt was the time I got investigated. | |||
"IR35 has been around for years under different guises. The one I know of is CIS. No one has ever liked it but its designed to stop self employed people avoiding tax by making contractors do the work for them. It is a fucking shambles, and I agree it needs dissapearing. It has created a group of no rights employees. If you are inside IR35 you are taxed like an employee but get none of the benefits or protections that being employed gives you. So no: - Employer pension contributions - Holiday pay - Sick pay - Redundancy - Notice period - Maternity/Paternity pay - TUPE - Learning & Development You also aren’t self employed so no: - Offsetting business expenses against tax - Payment by dividends (lower tax) - Ltd company protection from liabilities" . However usually if you are inside IR35 you simply adjust your pay rate to cover all the factors to which you refer . | |||
"IR35 has been around for years under different guises. The one I know of is CIS. No one has ever liked it but its designed to stop self employed people avoiding tax by making contractors do the work for them. It is a fucking shambles, and I agree it needs dissapearing. It has created a group of no rights employees. If you are inside IR35 you are taxed like an employee but get none of the benefits or protections that being employed gives you. So no: - Employer pension contributions - Holiday pay - Sick pay - Redundancy - Notice period - Maternity/Paternity pay - TUPE - Learning & Development You also aren’t self employed so no: - Offsetting business expenses against tax - Payment by dividends (lower tax) - Ltd company protection from liabilities. However usually if you are inside IR35 you simply adjust your pay rate to cover all the factors to which you refer ." Some can but ultimately it comes down to the day rare the end customer is prepared to pay. If it was £500 a day outside IR35 generally client want to still pay £500 a day so their budgets remain the same. So the unless the contractor can negotiate an uplift then going forward that now inside IR35 contractor has to pay employer NI and apprenticeship Levy out of their day rate and in many cases also pay an Umbrella Company a fee to manage their payroll (PAYE and NIC). So that £500 day rate drops significantly for the contractor but the end client remains quid in! | |||
"IR35 has been around for years under different guises. The one I know of is CIS. No one has ever liked it but its designed to stop self employed people avoiding tax by making contractors do the work for them. It is a fucking shambles, and I agree it needs dissapearing. CIS is outside IR35I believe. I worked under it from it's inception until 2021. Oddly in all that time the only time HMRC asked to see a receipt was the time I got investigated." It is outside IR35 but I think legitimately comparable in this conversation | |||
