The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[DCJonah]

Independent - British public still belive Vote Leave Myth.

Quote

Nearly half of the British public still believe the false claim from the Brexit referendum that the UK sends £350m a week to the EU, despite persistent attempts to debunk the myth.

A new study by King’s College London of attitudes to Brexit found that 42 per cent of people who had heard of the claim still believe it is true, while just 36 per cent thought it was false and 22 per cent were unsure.

It was quite clearly a lie and it quite clearly had the desired impact to confuse or to manipulate people. 

 

[blandy]

47 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Our gross contribution in 2018 was £20 billion. The abatement was to be renegotiated every 7 years and had to be agreed unanimously. The next review was due in 2021. You cannot guarantee that from 2021 we would still have the abatement. Highly highly likely, but absolutely not a proveable fact. If the whole of the abatement was paid (there is still a strong argument within the EU to do this for other states) then we would have been paying in £20 billion per year, or £380 million a week. Yes, it was unlikely the 2021 renegotiation would totally remove the abatement. Yes we get some back, but for EU projects and road widening and knitting art bombing projects. Without the EU, those funds didn’t have to go to arts installations they could (in theory) go to the NHS. (I got all of that from the ONS).

Yes, the government could at any time spend more on the NHS, that doesn’t make the bus advert wrong.

 

The advert was (from memory) “we pay [or send, or can take back, whatever the exact phrase was] 350 million a week to the EU….”, that was factually untrue.  We did not ever send 350 mill a week, so we could not take it back (and spend it on the NHS or whatever). It was a lie, the advert was wrong. The government stats body ombudsman, fact checkers, all kinds said so, as well.

I mean it’s in the past now, so what’s done is done, but even the people who made the claim (apart from Bunter) have said it was bollocks.

[blandy]

1 hour ago, Risso said:

Why would anybody want to rejoin the EU, or align to their rules in a sort of soft realignment?

Because their businesses have been tanked by it?  Whiskey, fish, meat, farmers, cheese people, book people…just loads of small businesses, big businesses have been shafted by Brexit. Those folk have said they regret it. Then there’s students, tourists, people who have overseas homes…there’s loads of people worse off financially and in terms of freedoms.

I mean like a few on here I was no EU enthusiast and reluctantly voted remain and if there was a vote again tomorrow to rejoin, I’d vote against, I think, but we absolutely need the trade and access that the single market brings.

[chrisp65]

11 minutes ago, blandy said:

The advert was (from memory) “we pay [or send, or can take back, whatever the exact phrase was] 350 million a week to the EU….”, that was factually untrue.  We did not ever send 350 mill a week, so we could not take it back (and spend it on the NHS or whatever). It was a lie, the advert was wrong. The government stats body ombudsman, fact checkers, all kinds said so, as well.

I mean it’s in the past now, so what’s done is done, but even the people who made the claim (apart from Bunter) have said it was bollocks.

Yeah, as an exercise in trying to argue a point there’s only so far it can be taken.

[romavillan]

3 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

So, two things here:

Firstly I presume the statement ‘why not take Cummings word for it?’ Is some sort of joke? I wouldn’t take Cummings word for it that water is wet.

Secondly, have you actually read that article? It’s an opinion piece and the ‘lie’ it quotes doesn’t actually contain an actual lie.

 

You appear to be wilfully avoiding any possibility of cognitive dissonance, so I'll be gentle.

Dominic Cummings was the mastermind of the leave campaign, in the link I posted there are quotes from him detailing that the lie on the bus was crucial to sway the "swing fifth" (the 20% of undecided voters who might lean leave's way). He states that immigration was a key issue but that the huge lie they made up for the bus was key to getting enough votes as immigration alone would not have cut it.

You are not in any way insinuating that the £350m a week for the NHS was true are you? Or that the NHS is now funded to the tune of £350m a week more than before the UK left the EU? 

I'm also assuming you voted leave, that being the case it would appear that you were taking Cummings' word as gospel until fairly recently. 

[Genie]

They said there would be no barriers to trading with Europe.

They said the union would be stronger

They said food would be cheaper

They said there would be no shortages

They said we’d have better control of immigration

They said we had all the cards regards negotiating a trade deal

They said it would be the easiest trade deal in history

plus lots more.

Arguing there were no lies is like arguing the sun isn’t hot.

[Seat68]

**** Welsh outpost of the Cummings fanclub. 

[ml1dch]

16 minutes ago, romavillan said:

I'm also assuming you voted leave, that being the case it would appear that you were taking Cummings' word as gospel until fairly recently. 

 I wouldn't put too much money on any of that if I were you.

[romavillan]

Just now, ml1dch said:

 I wouldn't put too much money on any of that if I were you.

Thank **** for that. It's been a long while since I was in this thread and I was struggling to believe what I was reading.

[Davkaus]

Knowing the above is wrong, I'm genuinely baffled about the last few pages

I'm not sure if you're trolling or if it's time to put you in a home

 

[chrisp65]

10 minutes ago, romavillan said:

You appear to be wilfully avoiding any possibility of cognitive dissonance, so I'll be gentle.

Dominic Cummings was the mastermind of the leave campaign, in the link I posted there are quotes from him detailing that the lie on the bus was crucial to sway the "swing fifth" (the 20% of undecided voters who might lean leave's way). He states that immigration was a key issue but that the huge lie they made up for the bus was key to getting enough votes as immigration alone would not have cut it.

You are not in any way insinuating that the £350m a week for the NHS was true are you? Or that the NHS is now funded to the tune of £350m a week more than before the UK left the EU? 

I'm also assuming you voted leave, that being the case it would appear that you were taking Cummings' word as gospel until fairly recently. 

Ok, I haven’t got a clue what your first sentence even means, so I’ll skip over it.

Could you help me out and post up the bit where Cummings, in quotes, states its a lie.

No, I’m not suggesting the NHS is getting an extra £350 million, I’m not sure where you’d have got that from?

You assume wrong on how I voted, I voted remain, I’ve already stated that several times. I think you might be reading what you want to be there, not what is there. Which is kind of the point of this whole thing. I think I might already have stated I wouldn’t believe anything Cummings says.

[chrisp65]

13 minutes ago, Genie said:

They said there would be no barriers to trading with Europe.

They said the union would be stronger

They said food would be cheaper

They said there would be no shortages

They said we’d have better control of immigration

They said we had all the cards regards negotiating a trade deal

They said it would be the easiest trade deal in history

plus lots more.

Arguing there were no lies is like arguing the sun isn’t hot.

 

We’ll never know what could have been, a botched negotiation by the wrong people, followed by a pandemic, followed by a government determined to antagonise all sides have somewhat muddied the waters on what was actually possible, pre referendum.

Something turning out to be wrong in retrospect due to events doesn’t make it a lie originally.

 

 

[blandy]

2 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

Something turning out to be wrong in retrospect due to events doesn’t make it a lie originally

As a general point I agree. On this specific point, no, it was a lie, a calculated lie that aided a case.

[Enda]

21 hours ago, Risso said:

Why would anybody want to rejoin the EU, or align to their rules in a sort of soft realignment? They’ve proved time and time again what a set of absolute ass hats they are. They’re only interested in the EU as a project, and it’s utterly messed up as such. Whatever the short term pains are, I remain convinced that we’re far better off out of it.

Who’s “they”, Risso?

[HanoiVillan]

Ryanair confirming today that they are going to go ahead with delisting in London, as they need to ensure they are majority EU-owned.

[Rodders]

Post-Brexit scheme to lure Nobel winners to UK fails to attract single applicant | Immigration and asylum | The Guardian

 

Quote

 

A post-Brexit scheme to draw the world’s most celebrated academics and other leading figures to the UK has failed to attract a single applicant in the six months since it opened, it has been reported...

“Chances that a single Nobel or Turing laureate would move to the UK to work are zero for the next decade or so,” the Nobel prize winner Andre Geim told New Scientist magazine, which first reported the news.

The University of Manchester academic, who was awarded the Nobel prize for physics in 2010 for his work on graphene, added: “The scheme itself is a joke – it cannot be discussed seriously. The government thinks if you pump up UK science with a verbal diarrhoea of optimism – it can somehow become a self-fulfilling prophecy.”

 

this government and verbal diarrhoea... hmm, where I have seen that yesterday 

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, Rodders said:

Post-Brexit scheme to lure Nobel winners to UK fails to attract single applicant | Immigration and asylum | The Guardian

IMO this is indicative of a big confusion about immigration among Tories. We hear a lot about how they're not anti-immigrant because they want to encourage more high-skilled migration; they talk about wanting to grow a tech sector, the 'silicon roundabout', we have a visa scheme that encourages (or at least doesn't discourage) high-skilled migration. 

The problem, though, is that migrants *who are already extremely highly skilled* can go to America where they can have bigger houses and cars, experience nicer weather, have much much better financial prospects, and live and work in high-growth areas full of people like them.

Meanwhile, the Silicon Valley giants who the Tories admire were mostly not started by people who already had long track records of success: Steve Jobs was the son of a Syrian immigrant; Sergey Brin was born in Russia and arrived in the US at 6; Jeff Bezos' (non-biological) father was a Cuban migrant. The benefits of letting people migrate to the country can take a long time to occur, they're mostly not already in full fruit when they move. 

[sidcow]

24 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

IMO this is indicative of a big confusion about immigration among Tories. We hear a lot about how they're not anti-immigrant because they want to encourage more high-skilled migration; they talk about wanting to grow a tech sector, the 'silicon roundabout', we have a visa scheme that encourages (or at least doesn't discourage) high-skilled migration. 

The problem, though, is that migrants *who are already extremely highly skilled* can go to America where they can have bigger houses and cars, experience nicer weather, have much much better financial prospects, and live and work in high-growth areas full of people like them.

Meanwhile, the Silicon Valley giants who the Tories admire were mostly not started by people who already had long track records of success: Steve Jobs was the son of a Syrian immigrant; Sergey Brin was born in Russia and arrived in the US at 6; Jeff Bezos' (non-biological) father was a Cuban migrant. The benefits of letting people migrate to the country can take a long time to occur, they're mostly not already in full fruit when they move. 

At least they won't get shot here!

(Probably stabbed though)

[chrisp65]

Brilliant question to the French politician on Radio 4 just now: ‘why are you so resistant to British troops on the ground in northern France?’

Genuinely made me laugh. 

 

[desensitized43]

1 minute ago, chrisp65 said:

Brilliant question to the French politician on Radio 4 just now: ‘why are you so resistant to British troops on the ground in northern France?’

Genuinely made me laugh. 

 

It is bonkers that the same people who were all about taking back sovereignty in 2016 now want another country to compromise theirs.

The French government don’t want them any more than the British government does.

Truth is they don’t want to claim asylum in France otherwise they’d have already done it. If we opened up a processing centre in northern France we’d still have this problem because it either would take too long to process them or they’d be rejected and go straight back to the dinghy’s.

The only way it gets resolved is if we and the rest of the world make their home countries a bit more livable.