that’s a very fruitist assertion
1 Like
I had no idea the straight and bent was an indication of sexual preferences. So there is more to this Brexit lark than meets the eye.
1 Like
Should we now call it “bentit”
I’ve called this out as a myth. On reflection that is a kind description. It is actually a delusion.
What happened here is that the pro-Brexit lobby promised so much. In their own words - sunlit uplands. All was going to be great. It was being in the EU that held back the UK. There would be a tsunami of trade, deals and growth. All of which would pump money into public services. The vote was partly against the establishment but mostly for better things. More public services, more farming, more fishing, more jobs, more exports, more etc.
Bag of pish of course.
But if you believed this and voted for this and then Brexit happened - then why did all this lovely future not happen? Well there are two options here. One, it was all a bag of pish. Or. Two, something pushed it all off track.
The first option is simple. You were promised a fiction and you voted for a fiction. It is hard to swallow the acceptance of your own gullibility. But that might just be reality.
The second option is attractive. It was not a lie. You were not gullible. There were malign forces at work. Proper Brexit was not allowed to take place.
Except. Specify what did not take place. You got it all. Out of the EU. Out of paying into membership. Out of the single market. Out of the customs union. Out of all four freedoms of movement. Out of all EU institutions.
Tell me - what did you not get? Give us specifics.
Perhaps I should be more gentle and reasonable about people who claim Brexit proper has not happened. But in truth it has fully happened. And Brexit is the mistake that so many predicted. Please do not pretend that the “good” Brexit was possible. It never was. You continuing to believe that lie is not the same as it being true.
That sounds like a new challenger for Prime Minister!
Its ten years since the referendum, that’s a long time be in out, shaking it all about!
The EU is not Europe, it’s a vile, fraudulent organisation hell bent on governing Europe and beyond, using bullying tactics or buying loyalty. It only benefits the wealthy, you only have to look at the parts of England that voted to come out. London unanimously voted to stay in, why is that I wonder? Perhaps it was because the north and east was the industrial heart and food producing counties, but jobs were either given to the cheapest workers from elsewhere and stolen from the local people. Or industry was shipped out to the far east. Our own government were also to blame for the abysmal way they allowed it to happen…and still are.
We were lied to big time, telling us it was just a way for countries to do business with each other, and it’s turned into an all consuming monster doing exactly what Hitler failed to do.
It has flooded countries with mygrants to the point that crime has increased everywhere and taken away a countries identity, heritage and religion.
That didn’t start with Brexit though, that story book was already written, Brexit was just a chapter within it.
It didn’t help though did it Spitty, sending us thousands of able bodied blokes when there was no work.
Everything went tits up in Yorkshire after 1972
I was of the opinion that the machine was unstoppable, but, there was some control over the timescale of change, but, that went to the wall when folks enmasse “Sold Out” to short termism, that really gave the juggernaut impetus.
1 Like
When I was last in Europe when Britain was still part of the EU most of the wait staff I encountered in London were female, had eastern European accents and were doing a good job.
Immi grants make the economy bigger because they produce, pay taxes and spend money. Blaming them is just an excuse made by pollies for what was actually their poor management - don’t look at me, the problem is over there!
You can blame Yorkshire going tits up on your mate Thatcher. (and yes I know more pits closed under Labour blah blah but Thatcher ripped the heart out of British society by her constant, relentless, aggressive attacks on workers)
I think you need to provide examples of such behaviour. The EU set up a suite of rules and standards - so to benefit from the EU then you need to adhere to these rules and standards. What is wrong with that? Also, when the UK was in the EU, it played a part in defining these rules and standards.
I’m not sure how you reach that conclusion. A significant part of the EU budget is spent on poorer parts of the member countries - agriculture and the north of England particularly benefited from these investments over the years. This is the not-wealthy benefitting from the EU.
As for the voting tendencies of different regions - how come Scotland (with lots of deprived areas, lots of post industrial areas) voted so strongly to remain. It is not that London benefited more because it is, largely, very wealthy. It is that those in well paid jobs, senior jobs requiring good education, requiring good critical thinking skills, doing work internationally and so are more likely to understand the pros / cons of being in the EU.
Yes it is wrong that so few of these jobs are in the north. But that is not an EU issue.
But thanks for then reminding us that the decline in UK manufacturing was a UK decision and not an EU one. You can see that but still hang on to the notion it was a fault of the EU. It was not.
Here’s a line of thinking that I read about a few days ago. What if the referendum had gone the other way? It was possible - in truth it was pretty close. It could have been close the other way. What then?
First, the Tory party were fractured worse then before. Rather than silence the eurosceptics such a close referendum may likely have emboldened them.
Farage and UKIP would not have been silenced. He said himself he would seek another vote if the 2016 referendum was not in support of leaving. He likely would have got more support as nearly half the country would have been disappointed.
The economy, the city and business would have been able to carry on in the single market. Government and whitehall would have been able to carry on without the huge distraction of working out what withdrawal meant and what sort of agreement would be needed. All of this should have helped the economy.
But it strikes me that within the ten years since 2016, it is likely the Tories would have lost MPs and support to UKIP. Indeed, it seems likely Labour would have lost a few MPs but maybe even more support to UKIP.
And the referendum would have been revisited.
Brexiteers always assumed that the vote would have been to remain in the EU (I certainly did) because all the exit pole nonsense and media brainwashing everyone thought that, so it was such a surprise that the government listened to the people for a change (only because they knew they could fool the public into thinking that we had actually left)
But lets run with your theory Lincs. We would have continued to have the old boys club favourite Cameron as prime minister for a bit longer until he made another error of global proportions further down the line. Probably worse than leaving his kid in the pub while he staggered home after getting p$ssed on his Pimms.
One things for sure, I would just accept the decision and the EU would get it’s clammy fingers on some more of British sovereignty. Most Scots only voted to stay in to annoy the English.
All these Alf Garnett-like arguments and discussions just show that we should never have left on such a close result. Stands to reason!