In his dreams
May be not only in his dreams. Judging by information from this thread he has very good chances to be the next PM.
That’s like saying all SNP voters want Scottish Independence.
Nonesense Bruce, most people will have never heard of Maastricht in 1992. You’re just wrong and you won’t admit it. We never voted to join the EU.
2 Likes
You have inferred this quite a few times and each time I have been very clear why your ‘feeling’ is completely wrong. Can you please stop and if you have an ounce of self-respect (and respect for others simply sharing their views) could you apologise for this slur?
1 Like
Hi
The we send the EU £350 million a week was an absolute lie, it really is as simple as that.
The money did not leave the UK and leaving the EU did not mean that we had an additional £350 Million which we could have spent on the NHS.
3 Likes
Better & Better!
A long but satisfying report, from the DT today:-
"The looming anniversary of the 2016 vote to leave the European Union is already prompting a flurry of assessments on the impact of Brexit on the British economy.
These evaluations range from the sensible and balanced, through to the silly or even hysterical. It is unfortunate, but perhaps not surprising, that the latter seem to be the most popular.
Take the services sector. If one thinks back to all the apocalyptic claims made by Remainers, our services industry should be a smoking ruin by now.
Instead, the opposite is true: it has been a success story, and that will only become more obvious.
For a start, the UK’s exports of services have performed strongly over the last year.
This partly reflects buoyant global demand for the types of services in which the UK is comparatively strong, including financial services, other business services such as advertising or legal services, and education.
But there is no sign of a Brexit hit here.
This applies to individual sectors as well. Brexit is supposed to have dealt a severe blow to the UK financial services industry by ending unfettered access to the EU’s Single Market.
This has made it harder for many firms to do business in the rest of Europe and some have had to increase their presence in EU member states.
However, the overall impact has been far less than feared. As much as £1.3 trillion of assets may have been transferred from the UK to the EU, but this is largely just a question of where transactions are booked.
Very few jobs have followed – perhaps 7,000 in a sector employing over a million – and much of the associated tax revenue seems to have stayed in the UK.
In the meantime, London remains by far Europe’s most competitive financial centre. Indeed, according to the latest Global Financial Centres Index, Edinburgh and Glasgow both ranked above Dublin and Milan.
Of course, it is not enough just to say that Brexit has been less damaging than expected. It was supposed to benefit the City. But this is a process.
There are worries that the EU will succeed in using its regulatory powers to force more activities to migrate to the bloc, including more euro-denominated business.
It says a lot that the EU is unwilling to play fair here, though perhaps we should not be surprised that countries like Germany and France are putting the interests of their own financial centres above those of the households and businesses that benefit from access to the City.
However, the UK now has the opportunity to build on its existing competitive strengths in financial services.
As in many other areas, the jury is still out on the willingness of this government (or perhaps that should be “the Blob”) to take advantage of the post-Brexit freedoms.
But the “Edinburgh Reforms” – a package of measures to boost the financial services sector announced in December – are a large step in the right direction.
Britain’s universities remain the envy of Europe, if not the world.
The UK could surely come up with its own programme of international research and collaboration to rival the EU’s Horizon scheme. But more clarity here would ease concerns over the post-Brexit arrangements too.
Other services sectors have also faced new challenges. Instead of automatically gaining access to all EU markets, the ability of UK professionals such as accountants and lawyers (as well as people working in the performing arts) to do business in each country depends on the local rules.
However, the situation here is improving as businesses become more familiar with the rules in each country. And the direction of travel is towards mutual recognition of a wider range of professional qualifications.
As for the services economy in the UK itself, the labour shortages faced by many businesses are often blamed on an exodus of EU workers after Brexit. But this is hard to square with the fact that net migration to the UK hit a new record of 606,000 last year.
In reality, the end of “free movement” has reduced the UK’s dependency on cheap labour from the EU, with the transition made easier by the more liberal rules for migration from the rest of world.
Many European countries that have previously relied heavily on migrant workers are in the same boat. Germany, in particular, is also struggling with labour shortages as workers from the rest of the EU returned home during Covid and have not come back.
What’s more, it is harder for any country to attract workers from Eastern European economies, notably Poland, which are now booming themselves.
Admittedly, the post-Brexit migration system is not working perfectly. The headline figures hide a number of mismatches in individual sectors.
For example, hospitality businesses now need more part-time workers to offset the loss of full-time staff from the EU.
There is also a case for more flexibility on visas in sectors such as social care and seasonal work in agriculture. However, these bugs can be fixed. Given time, the UK’s relatively flexible labour market will adjust.
Economic inactivity is already falling as better pay and conditions attract more people back to work.
Finally, the UK has only just started to take advantage of the freedom to negotiate new agreements which will open up more opportunities for international trade in services, as well as goods.
These opportunities too will only grow over time.
This does not necessarily require giant trade deals. A good example is the mutual recognition of professional qualifications under a “Memorandum of Understanding”, now in place with some US states.
But liberalising the trade in services will be a key benefit of joining the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, spanning Asia and the Americas.
In short, Britain’s services industries continue to thrive – despite Brexit scaremongering."
1 Like
Numbers man all the media outlets you said you read are biased towards Labour and were anti-Brexit, so I can only assume you’ve been brainwashed by them.
And you said you watch Laura Kuenssberg interviews, she’s one of the worst interviewers I’ve come across, she’s more interested in herself than politics, how she ever became the BBC political editor I’ll never know. John Pienaar was an excellent political editor, he used to report on what was going on, without bitching.
You said you don’t like the Daily Express, but don’t say why. If you look at the front pages of the Daily Express they’re well known for just reporting the weather. I’m not too impressed with them either because all they seem to do is bitch about Harry and Meghan so if that’s why you don’t like them then I’ll agree with you.
Me thinks you’re just following suit with others on here and elsewhere because the Express was a Brexit supporting paper.
Are you this bossy off the internet or do you just save it for the internet.
The express is a rubbish right wing rag .
Anti Brexit / anti immigration
A good paper for old reactionaries.
1 Like
As I said I think numbers man just listens to people who make silly comments on here rather than making up his mind for himself.
I don’t know about you, but I browse majority of the papers that are free to read that way I think you get a balanced view.
The Guardian is full of bull, but I still browse that and if somebody posts an article from it, I discuss what I disagree with the article, I don’t slag off the publication, with the same old same old spin.
I guess you are right.
Some month ago the DE had a headline on the front page like (dont remember the exact words) “now the EU collapses”.
The “article” itself was then only text which some bloke had written in a forum. Ah, I see. Quality newspaper… 
In Germany we have only 1 “newspaper” of the kind like the DE and that is “BILD”. Nobody here would call it an actual newspaper, it is just rubbish.
You have just said the Guardian is full of bull !
I am curious: is there a reason for calling me that?
“… so I can only assume you’ve been brainwashed by them.”
My impression is that you are very quick with assumptions, judging from some of your recent responses to my posts. Too quick in my opinion.
Whenever I have assumptions I try to prove or disprove them. Therefore I try to judge based on facts.
Words in a right/left/green/whatever newspaper cannot be judged as far as their truthfulness is concerned. Radio/TV interviews (or e. g. parliament sessions) however work better to prove things as you can see/hear what the people actually say.
If you then actually whitness someone say “there will be no downsides, only considerable upsides”, it does not matter wether you read a left or right wing newspaper.
About the DE: having built my opinion from what I have seen/read I cannot call it an actual newspaper and therefore do not waste time on it. The royal family is of as much interest to me as football: zero
“…Me thinks you’re just following suit with others on here and elsewhere because the Express was a Brexit supporting paper.”
As I mentioned earlier, just out of bare curiousity did I start reading/watching how the Brexit saga works. Since then I am adjusting my opinion based on facts and as tangible real benefits (in my view) of Brexit seem to have materialized rarely, my personal opinion is that Brexis seems not to have been so great yet.
Believe me, I am capable and willing to have my own opinion.
More ‘ bull’ on Brexit .
Could you please be so kind and give one example of a “silly comment” and explain, why it is silly and why you think that I make up my mind based on that example?
Thank you in advance.
Does anyone else think that it is odd that those who denigrate Brexit, on the Forum, quite often don’t live in the UK, although they might have been originally brought up here?
Is it because of what benefits they have lost because of Brexit?
I know I did, but then went on to say that I discuss the article that’s been posted, not go on about how much bull it comes out with.
The post you made was just about what you thought about the Express, I never do that about The Guardian
Prime example.
And it true .
The Guardian does at least have some integrity.
I wouldn’t be seen dead reading the Express it says it all what the right wing thinks that the plebs like .
1 Like
Yup they’ve taken over this thread. There is another who has just started posting again, but before Brexit she said on another thread that she wanted to leave this country, but wished to move to Australia, if the EU is so fantastic why didn’t she want to move to one of those countries and I’ve posted there are more Brits who’ve moved to Australia than all the EU countries, so that just goes to show how brill the EU is.