Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

[RingoMcCartney]

Ultimately newspapers have a right to print pretty much what they want. It’s a shame that most are owned by a few very wealthy individuals who make sure that reporting is biased towards their world view. I suspect the numbers influenced by the red tops far outweighs those who watch Question Time or listen to the Today programme.

There is a difference when the government itself starts to decide who it will brief and who it will exclude from briefings. This from the party that banned a Mirror journalist from its battle bus, who have stopped ministers appearing on the Today radio programme and who have still, not yet, let us see the report into Russian influence on elections. I’m pointing out that this government is very quickly trying to control the release of information in a way not seen before.

As for my links, they are just to point out that the views the organisations you chose as examples are not themselves going to be necessarily free from bias.

They may not be bias free. Cant argue with that. But a simple look at the panelists on the BBC flagship political programmes and how they voted in the referendum is not rocket science.

Question time and Any Questions have , unarguably had a clear and easily measurable bias for Remain.

The decision to move from Leave voting Bolton to Remain Central Dulwich, with only ONE of five panellists being a Leave voter was as laughable as it was glaringly biased.

Still, as said previously, it didn't change the referendum result nor the subsequent general election and the fact we've left the EU.

You cant argue with that.

[RingoMcCartney]

I didn't say whether or not it was accurate, I just said it was quantifiable.

You're quite right aggi. You didn't "say whether or not it was accurate, I just said it was quantifiable."

However, my previous post included a long list of "quantifiable" predictions that, were touted as evidence that leaving the EU would be a bad thing to do.

They've all been proven, by the simple passage of time, to be lies, hysteria, utter garbage and fear mongering.

And that, is just what I'm saying.

[AndrewJB]

They may not be bias free. Cant argue with that. But a simple look at the panelists on the BBC flagship political programmes and how they voted in the referendum is not rocket science.

Question time and Any Questions have , unarguably had a clear and easily measurable bias for Remain.

The decision to move from Leave voting Bolton to Remain Central Dulwich, with only ONE of five panellists being a Leave voter was as laughable as it was glaringly biased.

Still, as said previously, it didn't change the referendum result nor the subsequent general election and the fact we've left the EU.

You cant argue with that.

The BBC generally show a bias toward the government of the day - whatever their stripe.

If you're looking at the issue of staying in or departing from the EU, why consider only the years between 2010 and 2015? The idea of brexit wasn't a big issue with the public at the time, in comparison with other issues. The combined vote of all the parties advocating leave during that period was tiny - even when we take into account the 2015 election. It would be re-writing history in a big way to suggest the BBC during that period should have considered as a matter of impartiality, whether or not a panelist was for or against our membership of the EU.

On the other hand, a large section of the print media in this country spent several decades propagandizing against the EU, and because the governments of the day were unwilling to challenge them, this propaganda went largely unanswered. So your complaint of "media bias against leave" is really nothing compared to the media bias against the EU - which as we know won out with the public (just enough to win the referendum).

[Jakubclaret]

The BBC generally show a bias toward the government of the day - whatever their stripe.

If you're looking at the issue of staying in or departing from the EU, why consider only the years between 2010 and 2015? The idea of brexit wasn't a big issue with the public at the time, in comparison with other issues. The combined vote of all the parties advocating leave during that period was tiny - even when we take into account the 2015 election. It would be re-writing history in a big way to suggest the BBC during that period should have considered as a matter of impartiality, whether or not a panelist was for or against our membership of the EU.

On the other hand, a large section of the print media in this country spent several decades propagandizing against the EU, and because the governments of the day were unwilling to challenge them, this propaganda went largely unanswered. So your complaint of "media bias against leave" is really nothing compared to the media bias against the EU - which as we know won out with the public (just enough to win the referendum).

The time period mentioned between 2010-2015 was a massive issue, people have been well & truelly jacked for years but it didn't get mentioned, well not until DC decided to call a referendum & put it to the people, the people never had a choice before like this well not for a long time. The time period you've stated it'd be very interesting to see if there was a spike in the immigration & perhaps correlation towards that, obviously sovereignty for some leavers was the reason & immigration wasn't even considered or of very little importance with swaying the decision making process.

[RingoMcCartney]

If you're looking at the issue of staying in or departing from the EU, why consider only the years between 2010 and 2015? The idea of brexit wasn't a big issue with the public at the time, in comparison with other issues. The combined vote of all the parties advocating leave during that perio"d was tiny - even when we take into account the 2015 election. It would be re-writing history in a big way to suggest the BBC during that period should have considered as a matter of impartiality, whether or not a panelist was for or against our membership of the EU.

On the other hand, a large section of the print media in this country spent several decades propagandizing against the EU, and because the governments of the day were unwilling to challenge them, this propaganda went largely unanswered. So your complaint of "media bias against leave" is really nothing compared to the media bias against the EU - which as we know won out with the public (just enough to win the referendum).

"The idea of brexit wasn't a big issue with the public at the time, in comparison with other issues."

Yet despite not being "a big issue with the public." The 2016 referendum vote to leave, was the largest single expression of democracy this nation has ever witnessed.

The fact is, it's not difficult to look at who has appeared on the BBC flagship political programmes and see how they voted in the referendum. And when it has been done , the figure shows a clear, unambiguous bias for Remain and againt Leave.

The "government of the day's" official position since 2017 Tory manifesto pledge was to Leave the EU . In fact the Cameron government, in the booklet that was sent to every household in the land stated " its your decision and the government will implement that decision " . So it could be said from 24th June 2016 it was to implement the referendum result and leave the EU. Your assertion that "The BBC generally show a bias toward the government of the day - whatever their stripe," given the clear bias for Remain (contrary to the government's position) on its 2 flagship political programmes, is clearly wrong.

To be fair, since last friday, its pretty much irrelevant now.




We've left.

[dsr]

The BBC generally show a bias toward the government of the day - whatever their stripe.

If you're looking at the issue of staying in or departing from the EU, why consider only the years between 2010 and 2015? The idea of brexit wasn't a big issue with the public at the time, in comparison with other issues. The combined vote of all the parties advocating leave during that period was tiny - even when we take into account the 2015 election.

So you keep saying. It is your continued belief that if only 4 million people are willing to use their vote at a general election, for a single issue party with little hope of MPs and no hope of power, than that issue is trivial.

How many votes would a single issue party need to get to be counted as not being tiny? for example, UKIP's 26% in the 2014 Euro elections and 12.6% in the general election is tiny; how about SNP's 29% of the Scottish vote in the 2009 Euros and 19.9% in the 2010 general election? Were they also a tiny party who could be ignored, even when the BBC was in Scotland? I wouldn't have thought so.

[AndrewJB]

"The idea of brexit wasn't a big issue with the public at the time, in comparison with other issues."

Yet despite not being "a big issue with the public." The 2016 referendum vote to leave, was the largest single expression of democracy this nation has ever witnessed.

The fact is, it's not difficult to look at who has appeared on the BBC flagship political programmes and see how they voted in the referendum. And when it has been done , the figure shows a clear, unambiguous bias for Remain and againt Leave.

The "government of the day's" official position since 2017 Tory manifesto pledge was to Leave the EU . In fact the Cameron government, in the booklet that was sent to every household in the land stated " its your decision and the government will implement that decision " . So it could be said from 24th June 2016 it was to implement the referendum result and leave the EU. Your assertion that "The BBC generally show a bias toward the government of the day - whatever their stripe," given the clear bias for Remain (contrary to the government's position) on its 2 flagship political programmes, is clearly wrong.

To be fair, since last friday, its pretty much irrelevant now.




We've left.

As I've pointed out to you before, when over twenty percent of people did not participate (unlike previous elections or votes), it was not the largest ever "single ever expression of democracy". It was the seventeenth most in our history.

The conversation was about bias in our media, and again - which you pointedly ignore - the media was massively biased against the EU for a very long time.

Your side won the vote, and their lies and rubbish have already been shown to be what they are. You were conned, so it'll be interesting to see who you blame all the downside on.

[AndrewJB]

So you keep saying. It is your continued belief that if only 4 million people are willing to use their vote at a general election, for a single issue party with little hope of MPs and no hope of power, than that issue is trivial.

How many votes would a single issue party need to get to be counted as not being tiny? for example, UKIP's 26% in the 2014 Euro elections and 12.6% in the general election is tiny; how about SNP's 29% of the Scottish vote in the 2009 Euros and 19.9% in the 2010 general election? Were they also a tiny party who could be ignored, even when the BBC was in Scotland? I wouldn't have thought so.

Your argument cries out for PR - and I'll agree with you on that. Under your argument Corbyn did better than Labour in 2005 when they won - for the record.

Before 2015 Brexit wasn't an issue with the public. Look it up yourself.

[Jakubclaret]

Your argument cries out for PR - and I'll agree with you on that. Under your argument Corbyn did better than Labour in 2005 when they won - for the record.

Before 2015 Brexit wasn't an issue with the public. Look it up yourself.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/election-2017-40015269


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15868793

The immigration figures rocketed between the 2010-2015 & in 2016 the figure dipped around the referendum time period. The country was at a point in 2010 recording the highest figure on record prompting the government to cut net migration to tens of thousands by 2015 bear in mind all this is prior to the referendum. If this wasn't a issue why was the government trying to reduce net migration?

[AndrewJB]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/election-2017-40015269


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15868793

The immigration figures rocketed between the 2010-2015 & in 2016 the figure dipped around the referendum time period. The country was at a point in 2010 recording the highest figure on record prompting the government to cut net migration to tens of thousands by 2015 bear in mind all this is prior to the referendum. If this wasn't a issue why was the government trying to reduce net migration?

Immigration was highest in London where I live, and where people voted remain. If you live in Burnley where there are relatively few immigrants, how did immigration become a big issue/ How was your life negatively impacted by immigration? How is it you got angry about immigration (seemingly on my behalf), when I haven't felt put out by it? I've never come on this board to complain about people coming over here to take my job or healthcare, or housing; so where did you get your information from? What is it that impelled you to become so agitated about people moving here to contribute to our society? Living in London I know lots of immigrants, and they all work and pay tax - so if you're going to tell me they just consume benefits, where did you get that information from?

I'm genuinely curious.

[dsr]

Your argument cries out for PR - and I'll agree with you on that. Under your argument Corbyn did better than Labour in 2005 when they won - for the record.

Before 2015 Brexit wasn't an issue with the public. Look it up yourself.

No, my argument cries out for people like you to recognise that when 4m people vote for a single issue party with little hope of getting a seat, that it isn't a tiny issue with no-one interested.

[Jakubclaret]

Immigration was highest in London where I live, and where people voted remain. If you live in Burnley where there are relatively few immigrants, how did immigration become a big issue/ How was your life negatively impacted by immigration? How is it you got angry about immigration (seemingly on my behalf), when I haven't felt put out by it? I've never come on this board to complain about people coming over here to take my job or healthcare, or housing; so where did you get your information from? What is it that impelled you to become so agitated about people moving here to contribute to our society? Living in London I know lots of immigrants, and they all work and pay tax - so if you're going to tell me they just consume benefits, where did you get that information from?

I'm genuinely curious.

At that particular time Burnley & Pendle had plenty of immigrants in some instances actually outnumbered us in terms of a workforce, if you live in a London bubble & say things like that, it's pointless engaging on this subject if you are so far removed away from reality. No disrespect just pointless nothing to further the debate I can add & the original question wasn't answered regarding a issue you seem to think didn't exist whilst the government was trying to reduce net migration or pretending to the electorate it was.

[Burnley Ace]

At that particular time Burnley & Pendle had plenty of immigrants in some instances actually outnumbered us in terms of a workforce, if you live in a London bubble & say things like that, it's pointless engaging on this subject if you are so far removed away from reality. No disrespect just pointless nothing to further the debate I can add & the original question wasn't answered regarding a issue you seem to think didn't exist whilst the government was trying to reduce net migration or pretending to the electorate it was.

When has the “workforce” in Burnley ever been made up of over 50% immigrants?

[Spijed]

At that particular time Burnley & Pendle had plenty of immigrants in some instances actually outnumbered us in terms of a workforce, if you live in a London bubble & say things like that, it's pointless engaging on this subject if you are so far removed away from reality. No disrespect just pointless nothing to further the debate I can add & the original question wasn't answered regarding a issue you seem to think didn't exist whilst the government was trying to reduce net migration or pretending to the electorate it was.

As many of the immigrants are from Asia in places like Burnley how will leaving the EU help in that respect?

[Jakubclaret]

As many of the immigrants are from Asia in places like Burnley how will leaving the EU help in that respect?

It won’t but that’s a problem we can’t solve, but there’s a problem we can solve, basically we’ve piled 1 problem onto another & walked away without giving a s**t, I’m not really talking about me or you or anybody on this board more a criticism aimed at the politicians.

[RingoMcCartney]

As I've pointed out to you before, when over twenty percent of people did not participate (unlike previous elections or votes), it was not the largest ever "single ever expression of democracy". It was the seventeenth most in our history.

The conversation was about bias in our media, and again - which you pointedly ignore - the media was massively biased against the EU for a very long time.

Your side won the vote, and their lies and rubbish have already been shown to be what they are. You were conned, so it'll be interesting to see who you blame all the downside on.

The number of votes that Leave received in the 2016 EU referendum was the largest single expression of democracy this nation has ever witnessed. Fact.

If it's not. Tell me which other option on a ballot paper, in either a uk general election or referendum, received more votes.

Over to you. Good luck finding it, you'll need it, as IT DOES NOT EXIST!

[AndrewJB]

No, my argument cries out for people like you to recognise that when 4m people vote for a single issue party with little hope of getting a seat, that it isn't a tiny issue with no-one interested.

I'm sure we can both agree that any voting system that produces no representation for about eight percent of voters is a broken one. This country would benefit greatly from introducing PR.

As for Europe being an issue in 2010: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/ar ... rtant-issu

It wasn't enough to register with most voters.

[RingoMcCartney]

As I've pointed out to you before, when over twenty percent of people did not participate (unlike previous elections or votes), it was not the largest ever "single ever expression of democracy". It was the seventeenth most in our history.

The conversation was about bias in our media, and again - which you pointedly ignore - the media was massively biased against the EU for a very long time.

Your side won the vote, and their lies and rubbish have already been shown to be what they are. You were conned, so it'll be interesting to see who you blame all the downside on.

The guardian- remain

The independent - remain

Daily mirror - remain

Sunday mirror - remain

The People - remain

Top selling Scottish papers - remain

The observer - remain

The financial times- remain.

The BBC flagship political programmes- clear Remain bias

Channel 4 news- laughable Remain bias

The IMF - Pro EU and regularly announcing bleak economic forecasts that never materialised

The treasury - Pro EU regularly announcing bleak economic forecasts that never materialised

2 former prime ministers Bliar and Major

1 Then, Current PM! ( Teresa May admitted she would still vote Remain in a 2nd referendum !)

The House of Lords - vast majority Remain

The three quarters of MPs in the previous parliament

The Speaker John Bercow.

The supreme court - who gave judgement on the Miller case. All remain

Google - research showed that when people enquired about brexit on google, the top search results were, the BBC , Guardian and The independent!!!!! That's Google sending millions of people to europhile websites!

And yet!! And yet. In your myopic metropolitan bubble, you've managed to convince yourself that the Daily Mail, the Sun and Express still managed to convince 17.4 gullible sheep on how to vote!!

[AndrewJB]

The number of votes that Leave received in the 2016 EU referendum was the largest single expression of democracy this nation has ever witnessed. Fact.

If it's not. Tell me which other option on a ballot paper, in either a uk general election or referendum, received more votes.

Over to you. Good luck finding it, you'll need it, as IT DOES NOT EXIST!

An expression of democracy should count those who voted on either side, so it's actually more like thirty million. As a percentage of the voting public it's still well behind seventeen other expressions of democracy though.

[RingoMcCartney]

As I've pointed out to you before, when over twenty percent of people did not participate (unlike previous elections or votes), it was not the largest ever "single ever expression of democracy". It was the seventeenth most in our history.

The conversation was about bias in our media, and again - which you pointedly ignore - the media was massively biased against the EU for a very long time.

Your side won the vote, and their lies and rubbish have already been shown to be what they are. You were conned, so it'll be interesting to see who you blame all the downside on.

Did you believe the absolute copper bottomed lies that were spouted by the Remain side? Here's just a few of my favourites-

Emergency budget the morning after a vote to leave

Tax increase of around 4000 per annum for individuals.

Stock market crash.

Housing market crash

Water shortage.

Medicine shortages

Upto 850,000 extra unemployed within 18 months of a vote to Leave.

An "immediate and protracted recession" George Osborne

Planes unable to take off and land.

45,000 dairy cows to be slaughtered in Ireland.

Siemans , the massive German engineering company to relocate following brexit.

Food shortages.

Nissan to shut Sunderland.

"Confidence in the British economy will evaporate overnight, should we vote to leave " former chancellor of the exchequer, Labour's Alistair darling. June 2016

"A vote to leave will be like putting a nuclear bomb under the UK economy" David Cameron june 2016

You believed it all Andrew didn't you!



You have the audacity to claim that I and 17.4 million people fell for lies. Yet , the simple passage of time has proven, that it was you and countless other, dwellers of the metropolitan London borough of Ivory Towers, that have been, well and truly, royally mugged off!

[AndrewJB]

When has the “workforce” in Burnley ever been made up of over 50% immigrants?

I live in a "bubble" - despite the fact the very issue you're talking about is all around me, and hardly affects you? If Immigration has adversely affected you, you should be able to tell me how. As you already know, it hasn't adversely affected many in London where it is hugely higher, because few of us voted to leave because of it.

I think it's more likely that you live in a Daily Mail or Sun bubble. They tell you what to think, and when you come across someone with an actual lived experience that illustrates what a lie you've been fed, you tell them they're out of touch.

[RingoMcCartney]

An expression of democracy should count those who voted on either side, so it's actually more like thirty million. As a percentage of the voting public it's still well behind seventeen other expressions of democracy though.

Still waiting Andrew.

I'll ask again.


Which other option on a ballot paper, in either a uk general election or referendum, received more votes, than those received by the Leave vote in the 2016 EU referendum ?

[AndrewJB]

Did you believe the absolute copper bottomed lies that were spouted by the Remain side? Here's just a few of my favourites-

Emergency budget the morning after a vote to leave

Tax increase of around 4000 per annum for individuals.

Stock market crash.

Housing market crash

Water shortage.

Medicine shortages

Upto 850,000 extra unemployed within 18 months of a vote to Leave.

An "immediate and protracted recession" George Osborne

Planes unable to take off and land.

45,000 dairy cows to be slaughtered in Ireland.

Siemans , the massive German engineering company to relocate following brexit.

Food shortages.

Nissan to shut Sunderland.

"Confidence in the British economy will evaporate overnight, should we vote to leave " former chancellor of the exchequer, Labour's Alistair darling. June 2016

"A vote to leave will be like putting a nuclear bomb under the UK economy" David Cameron june 2016

You believed it all Andrew didn't you!



You have the audacity to claim that I and 17.4 million people fell for lies. Yet , the simple passage of time has proven, that it was you and countless other, dwellers of the metropolitan London borough of Ivory Towers, that have , well and truly, royally mugged off!

I'm sorry that you don't like it when I point out you were conned, but i'm not going to lie to make you feel better. Nothing of what Cameron or Osborne said has ever resonated with me, and I've said before that project fear was stupid. The Greens for example provided many good positive reasons to remain. I think most of your list above concerned a no deal exit - which thus far thankfully hasn't happened.

[Jakubclaret]

When has the “workforce” in Burnley ever been made up of over 50% immigrants?

In some instances I stated, Boohoo I'm back by the way I can name others such as wellocks, shall I continue.

[RingoMcCartney]

I'm sorry that you don't like it when I point out you were conned, but i'm not going to lie to make you feel better. Nothing of what Cameron or Osborne said has ever resonated with me, and I've said before that project fear was stupid. The Greens for example provided many good positive reasons to remain. I think most of your list above concerned a no deal exit - which thus far thankfully hasn't happened.

Again, you're wrong Andrew. Many of the predictions were promised just by virtue of voting Leave. Not actually leaving.

When they didn't materialise, remoaners claimed theyd happen once Article 50 was triggered. They didn't!

Then it moved on to when we left. Well, we've left! None, absolutely none of it has come to pass!

And I know what you'll say.

"Well, we haven't really left yet. We're in a transition period.

Exactly! That's to avoid the "Economic armageddon cliff edge " lie that the likes of Peter Mandelson used to pedal. The kind of fear mongering lie that people like you were gleefully willing to believe!

Never ever. Not once did it occur to you that you can officially leave the EU, as we have done. Followed by a period where by business can prepare for whatever outcome is arrived at the end of transition. If needs be extending that transition period further to iron out any potential issues that avoid economic adversity.

No, you much preferred to adopt the unthinking, Henny Penny "the skys falling in," approach. Whilst simply seeing anybody who thought leaving the EU would be a positive thing as easily lead gullible sheep falling for the lies of "the right wing media"

And today, nearly 4 years after the referendum. After the European elections that made the brexit party the winners. And after a general election that saw labours worse result for decades. With places like Burnley voting for a tory party , that pledged to finally take us our of the EU, for the first time in nearly a hundred years. You still think that you got it right, and millions of working class people all over the north West, north east and Midlands got it wrong!

As I suggested to you previously. Could be time for some quiet reflection on your part Andrew.

[CombatClaret]

And today, nearly 4 years after the referendum. After the European elections that made the brexit party the winners. And after a general election that saw labours worse result for decades. With places like Burnley voting for a tory party , that pledged to finally take us our of the EU, for the first time in nearly a hundred years. You still think that you got it right, and millions of working class people all over the north West, north east and Midlands got it wrong!

It's easier to con a man than convince him he's been conned.

[RingoMcCartney]

It's easier to con a man than convince him he's been conned.

Agreed.


Given that all prophecies of economic armageddon that we were promised would happen , should we have the audacity to vote Leave. Or worse still , be so stupid enough to actually go through with "economic self harm" and actually leave. Yet none of them have actually materialized. Its patently obvious that there is a rump of remoaners that, are yet to come to terms with the fact they were royally sold a pup!

[dsr]

I'm sure we can both agree that any voting system that produces no representation for about eight percent of voters is a broken one. This country would benefit greatly from introducing PR.

As for Europe being an issue in 2010: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/ar ... rtant-issu

It wasn't enough to register with most voters.

Even there, you're wrong. There are pluses and minuses to the UK system and on balance I prefer what we have now. Neither abolishing the principle of each constituency having its own MP, nor having a system designed to produce hung parliaments like 2017-19, seems to me a good thing.

In 2009, 2.5m people voted UKIP. In 2004, it was 2.6m. I am not going to give an opinion poll more validity than a nationwide election. To a lot of people, Brexit was a big issue.

[Burnley Ace]

In some instances I stated, Boohoo I'm back by the way I can name others such as wellocks, shall I continue.

Sorry you didn’t really make yourself clear. What you meant to say was that there are some minimum wage factories in Burnley where the unskilled workforce make up more than 50% of the employees. I thought you were trying to suggest that over 50% of the workforce were immigrants (or descendants of immigrants)

[CombatClaret]

To a lot of people, Brexit was a big issue.

Where as in 2010 only 1% of people according to polls saw it as a serious issue effecting the country, what changed?
The right wing press and a political party found their new body body man to distract fro their own failings.

[Burnley Ace]

The guardian- remain

The independent - remain

Daily mirror - remain

Sunday mirror - remain

The People - remain

Top selling Scottish papers - remain

The observer - remain

The financial times- remain.

The BBC flagship political programmes- clear Remain bias

Channel 4 news- laughable Remain bias

The IMF - Pro EU and regularly announcing bleak economic forecasts that never materialised

The treasury - Pro EU regularly announcing bleak economic forecasts that never materialised

2 former prime ministers Bliar and Major

1 Then, Current PM! ( Teresa May admitted she would still vote Remain in a 2nd referendum !)

The House of Lords - vast majority Remain

The three quarters of MPs in the previous parliament

The Speaker John Bercow.

The supreme court - who gave judgement on the Miller case. All remain

Google - research showed that when people enquired about brexit on google, the top search results were, the BBC , Guardian and The independent!!!!! That's Google sending millions of people to europhile websites!

And yet!! And yet. In your myopic metropolitan bubble, you've managed to convince yourself that the Daily Mail, the Sun and Express still managed to convince 17.4 gullible sheep on how to vote!!

Cutting through your waffle - people who read newspapers and watch current affairs programmes vote remain, those that don’t understand newspapers and current affairs vote leave. That’s a fair assumption.

[AndrewJB]

Again, you're wrong Andrew. Many of the predictions were promised just by virtue of voting Leave. Not actually leaving.

When they didn't materialise, remoaners claimed theyd happen once Article 50 was triggered. They didn't!

Then it moved on to when we left. Well, we've left! None, absolutely none of it has come to pass!

And I know what you'll say.

"Well, we haven't really left yet. We're in a transition period.

Exactly! That's to avoid the "Economic armageddon cliff edge " lie that the likes of Peter Mandelson used to pedal. The kind of fear mongering lie that people like you were gleefully willing to believe!

Never ever. Not once did it occur to you that you can officially leave the EU, as we have done. Followed by a period where by business can prepare for whatever outcome is arrived at the end of transition. If needs be extending that transition period further to iron out any potential issues that avoid economic adversity.

No, you much preferred to adopt the unthinking, Henny Penny "the skys falling in," approach. Whilst simply seeing anybody who thought leaving the EU would be a positive thing as easily lead gullible sheep falling for the lies of "the right wing media"

And today, nearly 4 years after the referendum. After the European elections that made the brexit party the winners. And after a general election that saw labours worse result for decades. With places like Burnley voting for a tory party , that pledged to finally take us our of the EU, for the first time in nearly a hundred years. You still think that you got it right, and millions of working class people all over the north West, north east and Midlands got it wrong!

As I suggested to you previously. Could be time for some quiet reflection on your part Andrew.

You won't find a single example of me endorsing project fear. I've never had time for the Tory practice of lying and deceit to win votes. I think it's despicable. If Mandelson jumped on the bandwagon, that doesn't surprise me, but you won't find any Green Party members doing it, or reputable Labour people.

[Jakubclaret]

Sorry you didn’t really make yourself clear. What you meant to say was that there are some minimum wage factories in Burnley where the unskilled workforce make up more than 50% of the employees. I thought you were trying to suggest that over 50% of the workforce were immigrants (or descendants of immigrants)

If you are counting the Asians as well it wouldn't be far off, remember some of these companies are massive employers you are not talking small firms with skilled employees & I'm not even factoring in the illegals working cash in hand we don't know about. When you sit down & think about it, it's a fair old number you are dealing with.

[aggi]

Even there, you're wrong. There are pluses and minuses to the UK system and on balance I prefer what we have now. Neither abolishing the principle of each constituency having its own MP, nor having a system designed to produce hung parliaments like 2017-19, seems to me a good thing.

In 2009, 2.5m people voted UKIP. In 2004, it was 2.6m. I am not going to give an opinion poll more validity than a nationwide election. To a lot of people, Brexit was a big issue.

UKIP was very tied up with immigration as well as the EU though. I'd personally say that for many voters that's what prompted their UKIP vote rather than the EU.

[dsr]

Where as in 2010 only 1% of people according to polls saw it as a serious issue effecting the country, what changed?
The right wing press and a political party found their new body body man to distract fro their own failings.

Partly the 1% is clearly too low because 3.1% of the electorate voted for UKIP in the 2010 general election. But what changed? Partly people got more interested, but principally people realised that momentum was growing and that this "lost cause" was no longer lost.

UKIP in 2010 got more votes than the Green Party did in 2019. That doesn't mean that no-one sees Green Party politics as irrelevant.

[nil_desperandum]

If you are counting the Asians as well it wouldn't be far off, remember some of these companies are massive employers you are not talking small firms with skilled employees & I'm not even factoring in the illegals working cash in hand we don't know about. When you sit down & think about it, it's a fair old number you are dealing with.

If you're referring to the percentage of the Burnley workforce who are "non-white British heritage" it's 11%, so just a bit short of the 50% you appeared to be suggesting. Of that 11% the vast majority are of Asian heritage.
I would imagine that the percentage "unrecorded" (because they work "cash in hand") will be similar to the percentage of "white British" working "illegally" ("cash in hand"), so that percentage would most likely remain about the same.

[Jakubclaret]

If you're referring to the percentage of the Burnley workforce who are "non-white British heritage" it's 11%, so just a bit short of the 50% you appeared to be suggesting. Of that 11% the vast majority are of Asian heritage.
I would imagine that the percentage "unrecorded" (because they work "cash in hand") will be similar to the percentage of "white British" working "illegally" ("cash in hand"), so that percentage would most likely remain about the same.

I can't imagine the fleets of taxi drivers & other businesses declaring every penny, it does seem a small number, which source have you unearthed this information from, I'm surprised a supporting link hasn't been attached, regarding the illegal workers it'd be absolutely impossible to ascertain 100% a accurate figure but it'd be quite high.

[RingoMcCartney]

Cutting through your waffle - people who read newspapers and watch current affairs programmes vote remain, those that don’t understand newspapers and current affairs vote leave. That’s a fair assumption.

It's a wrong assumption.

Given events which actually took place very recently. I'd say that people who read remain supporting newspapers and watch current affairs programmes were on the losing side of the brexit debate. While those that read leave supporting papers and watch, the very same, current affairs programmes, were on the winning side of the debate.

My evidence for that?

We left the European Union last Friday!!!

But I'm so so glad you've mentioned "assumptions!"

Remember, im sure you do, our long running arguement about you claiming to have "evidence" that leaving the EU would be bad for the UK economy? Where I as I said we both only had an opinion, time would tell, and only once we had left would we know who's opinion would be proven correct?

I also pointed out you cannot take evidence from an event that had not happened yet. And given that, at that point we hadn't left the EU yet, you only had an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information. Which was the dictionary definition of conjecture!

My actual words were-


"Not for the first, second or God knows how many times. Another poster points out that when you claim to have "facts" or "evidence" , your wrong.

Like everybody else on here. You have an opinion. Nothing more. Nothing less."

To which you replied-

Post Mon Feb 04, 2019 2:57 pm


Hasn’t the difference already been explained to you?

Evidence - the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid

Opinion - a view or judgment formed about something not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

If it helps you - my comments are evidence yours are opinion.

You followed it up by a further claim of you having "evidence" while I was the one with just an "opinion"

Post Mon Feb 04, 2019 4:42 pm


What I am saying is based on the available body of facts (evidence) and your comments on Brexit aren’t based on facts or knowledge that’s why they are an opinion.

That’s one of the reasons you are unable to answer any Brexit questions that require you to highlight the benefits of Brexit because there is no evidence that it’s a positive

Well , well, well. !!!!

None of your predictions, assumptions , forecasts, economic modelling and presumptions on what would happen when we left the EU, that you were claiming to be "evidence" have materialized. None!

We've left. The simple passage of time has proven that all you had was conjecture!! All you had was an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.

Conjecture- yes

Evidence - zero.

[RingoMcCartney]

You won't find a single example of me endorsing project fear. I've never had time for the Tory practice of lying and deceit to win votes. I think it's despicable. If Mandelson jumped on the bandwagon, that doesn't surprise me, but you won't find any Green Party members doing it, or reputable Labour people.

Andrew, is it fair to say that you genuinely believe that the EU referendum result , was largely brought about by lies by the eurosceptic, right wing, of the Tory party, and UKIP/Farage. Perpetuated by the right wing media. Such as the Sun, Daily Mail and Daily Express . With an electorate that swallowed those lies?

[Burnley Ace]

It's a wrong assumption.

Given events which actually took place very recently. I'd say that people who read remain supporting newspapers and watch current affairs programmes were on the losing side of the brexit debate. While those that read leave supporting papers and watch, the very same, current affairs programmes, were on the winning side of the debate.

My evidence for that?

We left the European Union last Friday!!!

But I'm so so glad you've mentioned "assumptions!"

Remember, im sure you do, our long running arguement about you claiming to have "evidence" that leaving the EU would be bad for the UK economy? Where I as I said we both only had an opinion, time would tell, and only once we had left would we know who's opinion would be proven correct?

I also pointed out you cannot take evidence from an event that had not happened yet. And given that, at that point we hadn't left the EU yet, you only had an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information. Which was the dictionary definition of conjecture!

My actual words were-


"Not for the first, second or God knows how many times. Another poster points out that when you claim to have "facts" or "evidence" , your wrong.

Like everybody else on here. You have an opinion. Nothing more. Nothing less."

To which you replied-




You followed it up by a further claim of you having "evidence" while I was the one with just an "opinion"





Well , well, well. !!!!

None of your predictions, assumptions , forecasts, economic modelling and presumptions on what would happen when we left the EU, that you were claiming to be "evidence" have materialized. None!

We've left. The simple passage of time has proven that all you had was conjecture!! All you had was an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.

Conjecture- yes

Evidence - zero.

We have only symbolically left, we are still in the transition period so you have until the end of the year to clutch that particular straw. Again you are mistaken to draw any sort of conclusion from your list that leavers either read those papers watched those programmes or perhaps most importantly understood them.

There is a reason that there were so few leavers on any TV programme, they were embarrassing and in general unable to put forward any coherent arguments other than parroting the general “No Surrender take back our Sovereignty” line.

As for evidence of economic woe the picture is still building - stock market, pound, gdp, wages, investment, bmi, industrial output, consumer confidence are all lower or haven’t increased as expected.

[Burnley Ace]

We left the European Union last Friday!!!

We've left.

Just to preempt the inevitable as you might be confused about “transition”

Are we still in the Single Market? Yes/no
Are we still in the Customs Union? Yes/no
Is there still “free movement “? Yes/no
Are we still bound by ECJ rulings? Yes/no

[dsr]

[edit]

[RingoMcCartney]

We have only symbolically left, we are still in the transition period so you have until the end of the year to clutch that particular straw. Again you are mistaken to draw any sort of conclusion from your list that leavers either read those papers watched those programmes or perhaps most importantly understood them.

There is a reason that there were so few leavers on any TV programme, they were embarrassing and in general unable to put forward any coherent arguments other than parroting the general “No Surrender take back our Sovereignty” line.

As for evidence of economic woe the picture is still building - stock market, pound, gdp, wages, investment, bmi, industrial output, consumer confidence are all lower or haven’t increased as expected.

"leavers either read those papers watched those programmes or perhaps most importantly understood them."

It's this very attitude that helped to bring brexit about!

The Brexit where , despite remoaners reading the "correct newspapers" watching the tv programmes they still came out on the losing side of the arguement!!

[yTib]

gloating about brexit is like setting fire to your house then laughing at your next door neighbour.

[Burnley Ace]

"leavers either read those papers watched those programmes or perhaps most importantly understood them."

It's this very attitude that helped to bring brexit about!

The Brexit where , despite remoaners reading the "correct newspapers" watching the tv programmes they still came out on the losing side of the arguement!!

The important argument is far from over. If you think that “are we going to leave” was the important topic then it’s just further reinforces the idea that those that vote Brexit Etc etc.

[Burnley Ace]

"leavers either read those papers watched those programmes or perhaps most importantly understood them."

It's this very attitude that helped to bring brexit about!

The Brexit where , despite remoaners reading the "correct newspapers" watching the tv programmes they still came out on the losing side of the arguement!!

Note that you haven’t answered my questions, they aren’t that difficult, a bit awkward for you, but not difficult!!

[RingoMcCartney]

Just to preempt the inevitable as you might be confused about “transition”

Are we still in the Single Market? Yes/no
Are we still in the Customs Union? Yes/no
Is there still “free movement “? Yes/no
Are we still bound by ECJ rulings? Yes/no

We have left the European Union. It's been in all the newspapers and on tv! And you claimed that remoaners understood what they were reading and watching!



We have entered a transition period. Which means as you know-

Are we still in the Single Market? Yes
Are we still in the Customs Union? Yes
Is there still “free movement “? Yes
Are we still bound by ECJ rulings? Yes

However, when you boasted about you having "evidence" . Not for a moment, not for one second, did it occur to you that, that after leaving the EU, (whether or not you have the intellectual capacity to absorb what you read in newspapers and see on tv or not.) which has happened. Would we be able to enter an transition stage that would give the country the breathing space to alleviate and negate any of the forecasts, presumptions, assumptions, economic modelling that you claimed to be "evidence".

Until we left, I said you had an opinion and I had an opinion. But no, you had "evidence"

We've left, your "evidence" has been proven to have fallen flat on its, face.

I'm listening to the radio as speak. There's an official government advert. Not verbatim but its saying. "We have left the European Union, we've entered a transition period. During this period the government will be able to forge new relationships and partnerships and make new arrangements for trade, commerce , travel and education"

Remoaners claimed they had "evidence" simply voting to leave would trigger economic disaster. It didn't.

Then you claimed you had "evidence" that triggering Article 50

Then you claimed you had "evidence" that leaving without a trade deal would trigger economic disaster. It didn't.

Then you claimed you had "evidence" that leaving without a trade deal would trigger economic disaster. It didn't.

Then you claimed you had "evidence" that leaving on 31st January would trigger economic disaster. It hasn't!!

You didn't have "evidence" . You never had "evidence" you just had an opinion , and never considered the possibility of transition and gobbed off spouting conjecture!!

[RingoMcCartney]

gloating about brexit is like setting fire to your house then laughing at your next door neighbour.

Talking about "houses"

In January house prices have risen across the country.

Nationwide building society reported fabulous levels of first time buyer applications. The highest for 12 years!

Right Move said their January viewing figures were their highest ever!

We didn't have "Brexit" uncertainty. We had a parliament stuffed to the rafters with remoaners determined to stop us leaving the EU . We had Remain uncertainty.

Since the general election we've had "Brexit certainty" and just look at the housing market.

And what did the pessimism riddled remoaners claim?

If we left the EU, thered be a housing market crash!

Its been the complete opposite.

[Burnley Ace]

Are we still in the Single Market? Yes
Are we still in the Customs Union? Yes
Is there still “free movement “? Yes
Are we still bound by ECJ rulings? Yes

That’s all that was needed, the rest was your usual waffle. I’m looking forward to you trying to explain the new trade deal that will be as good as or better than the deal we had. In anticipation perhaps you can put up a link to one good piece of economic news that’s happened since we “left” the EU? Just one? (European stock markets hitting record highs doesn’t count!)

[Burnley Ace]

Talking about "houses"

In January house prices have risen across the country.

Nationwide building society reported fabulous levels of first time buyer applications. The highest for 12 years!

Right Move said their January viewing figures were their highest ever!

We didn't have "Brexit" uncertainty. We had a parliament stuffed to the rafters with remoaners determined to stop us leaving the EU . We had Remain uncertainty.

Since the general election we've had "Brexit certainty" and just look at the housing market.

And what did the pessimism riddled remoaners claim?

If we left the EU, thered be a housing market crash!

Its been the complete opposite.

From April 2015-16 House prices rose by 8%.
From Oct 2018 - 19 House prices rose by 1.3%

Even with the certainty of Brexit and foreign property speculators returning to the market, and even with an increase in regional prices you are crowing about even at the wildest end of speculation 4 or 5% growth!!!

The question of wether a property boom is good (bubble etc) is good is also moot. Next you will be saying that increased spending on credit cards is good.