I don't read the nutter press - I get the bits that leak into my life from nutter-press reading friends who swallow their propaganda hook, line and sinker. I can live with a reasonable Brexit; it's going to be bloody awful but it's probably going to be bearaby bloody awful. I'm genuinely flabbergasted that the idea of a no-deal, WTO Brexit is being breathed, let alone supported and promoted by politicians who have a voice. We don't need lies about how it would work (see above) to persuade even one more person that it makes sense. I reserve the right to point out the lunacies inherent in it and the lies that are giving it traction. Vin
Vin...... I have never totally believed what MP's say since the days of Wilson. One of the biggest liars ever to cross my path. (And yes I have crossed paths with him directly but thats another story) I also tend to take a lot of these so called experts with a pinch of salt. I have been anti EU pretty well since we joined although was prepared to go along. Until that is they started to move the goal posts, back in the mid to late 70's and early 80's. If memory serves there was quite a following then to get the hell out. Don't get me wrong somethings they have done has been good no denying. Sadly there are a few EU nations that I can never trust. My reasons for this are very private (I'm not talking necessarily about Germany incidentally) So it is very difficult to explain my full anti EU stance. Nothing to do with immigration at all. About 50% politics the rest is best kept private. Just me mate others have other their own reasons for voting out. Edit.........incidentally I totally agree with you about the no deal crowd. Most are lunatics in my view and are just trying to get air time...........
I can live with a reasonable Brexit; it's going to be bloody awful but it's probably going to be bearaby bloody awful. Vin[/QUOTE] Yeah probably,but not for ever. You don't need to reserve the right,just don't give yourself a coronary.
Vin. What you don;t notice is that most people were no advocating a "no deal WTO option" as the preferred choice. Virtually everyone wanted a FTA. No-one ever said it would be easy. The headlines even now are "it isn't the end of the world." What we should be asking is why we are at this stage and that is because all people within the parliament and in the country have spent the last 2 years fighting the result of a referendum which I am sure the EU sat back and ate popcorn as it played into their hands. You can include May and her advisors as well as those within government that wanted to remain. IF the result had ever been accepted and genuinely been approached we would not be at the point now where our government is still trying to pretend they are actioning Brexit (when they aren't) and the EU are still presenting themselves as the only adults in the room when their tactics all along (as they always are) is to state they are way off, way off and miraculously towards a deadline say we are getting closer and it is feasible. I think those who are upset about Brexit need to remember that barring a few nutters (most of which aren't in parliament anyway) no-one was really proposing no deal as a serious "probable" result or desired outcome until the last couple of months. And that is because rather than work for what was voted for we have had 2 years of fighting the result rather than working out how to action the result.
2 years of those fighting against the referendum yet Juncker spells out exactly what people thought anyway:
I think the referendum question may have been a bit vague about the details of future trade agreements, borders, jobs, immigration, emigration or the shape of bananas:
It asked whether we should be part of the union or not. Everybody told us (bar a few that people like to pull up) that leaving meant out of the lot. People voted out. Negotiating the detail of an FTA was always going to be a bit of a compromise but that is much different from the blatant lying that people "didn;t vote to leave the single market etc" because they quite clearly did after upteen messages detailing this as well as every household getting a government pamphlet stating this through their door. In other news Emperor Juncker addresses the senate "the time for European sovereignty has come."
I'm sure we will come to differing conclusions on this one. To me it says more people will be unhappy if we stay in the union that will be happy with that result. However interestingly on the topic we are discussing. More people would be happy with a no deal than Theresa May's chequers proposal (very narrowly though) While at the same time more people would be unhappy with a no deal than Chequers by a vast amount. please log in to view this image
Sorry, i missed you editing this. i can't open the spreadsheet on my mobile to check but it was the long term one. I believe the short term one means things like students and people who would be on short term visas and won't stay for over a year. I just created a formula to compared the number of immigrants with the population at then sorted it.
What is the ****ing point of asking these questions to people who have no idea of the consequences of any of them?
I just read the report. Good to know that there will be absolutely no impacts from Brexit. Its funny, if you read the report the reason he says we will benefit is by effectively reviving deals like the TTIP and reducing the regluation on the goods we import therefore allowing us to buy cheaper products like meat from the US, and says its a reasonable assumption that we would do this. i'm pretty sure Brexiteers were up in arms about that when the EU proposed it. Edit: i was against that then and i am now.
"We will always be a global payer but it is time we started being a global player too" wut?? i agree with most of what he's said though i still don't like the European Army. A framework in place to create one if we ever get attacked, sure. but there's too many individual interests and needs for a united one.
The long term one includes internal migration and makes me wonder how they have worked it out because Lincoln, being a University city, has an internal inflow and outflow yearly in many thousands which it does not show on that form. Most uni cities will have several thousand internal migration. It also suggests that Boston's "non British" number has stayed the same this year........after years of going up substantially. What I would say is you can;t include the City. Who lives in the city? Who are the 8,000? moneymen from across the world. And the Newham result is very interesting. While the population went up vastly it shows that over the space of 10 years white British reduced by 30,000 not even allowing for births in the area of White British that are still there, so it could and will be much more than 30,000 leaving. Even if there were no births and deaths a crude calculation is that over the past 10 years 40% of "white British" in Newham have left. I don;t much like the "white flight" term because I would bet that other British might also have left as well. Newham and other London / big city areas cannot be used as a counter to Boston's problems. 2% change per year into an area that had very low % immigration and small populations are going to be affected much more than areas where the immigration number grew over the past 40 years and was already high once 2004 came. You also need to dive down into the detail. I don't like looking at ethnicity or country of birth. Much better is to use the "First Language" option which then opens up the "rough idea" detail of how many people are British no matter the ethnicity or the place of birth of their parents etc. Yes there will be some outliers there like Australians, Jamaicans etc but it is a much better guide of things. The worrying things about a lot of those you have listed (including Southampton) is that there are more leaving than arriving internally. More people moving somewhere else in the country than moving to Southampton from elsewhere in the UK. It suggests that these examples have "white flight" at different levels. Southampton not as bad as other areas in London but it does show there is a problem. You could look at that as being due to racism but I would suggest it is much more about integration (or lack of) and while many might "pfft" about that happening it is not something that is good to ignore and let get worse. Bound to beccome a much bigger problem down the road. I would also suggest that while you look at those figures and talk about these areas being high immigrant yet remain voting it is a false correlation when many people who would have voted leave having moved out of the area. It is the same as "Uni City's" voting remain OR suddenly turfing out a Tory when the reality is the vast population of students can swing these votes quite easily. Lincoln being an example where 15,000 students (of course only 3-5,000 probably voted) in a constituency of 72,662 eligible voters turned a "bellweather" constituency into voting in an opposition MP.
Where’s the “we will be able to put £350m per week extra into the NHS” option? I mean, how many millions of votes were cast for that one false promise?
Probably about 1 but keep on pushing that angle. Its been doing so well calling people idiots so far, may as well continue.
The biggest correlation there(other than the obvious remainers know more what they want) is people are less unhappy the less they know. No deal? Unhappy Proposed deal? Unhappy Staying with what we've got? Unhappy Extending the transition period and creating a new unknown deal? Less unhappy Leaving and then coming up with a new unknown deal? Less unhappy. The vote is in, we want the mystery box! please log in to view this image
