Jump to content

Brexit slowly becoming a Farce.


John Lambies Doos

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, LongTimeLurker said:

The massive miscalculation was really David Cameron's in holding the two referenda in the manner in which he did. The independence referendum should have been a warning signal that the side with the rational arguments could lose the Brexit one to the side with the irrational emotional appeal.

Yes weren't the side screaming about history and turning children into foreigners, tbf. You are confusing technical arguments with rational ones. No was king of the irrational fearmongering.

Cameron's misjudgement was believing that No had been a tremendous success when it haemorrhaged 15 to 20 points of support to a movement that insisted on playing nice, and then going up against people as willing to indulge irrational dog whistle politics as his own side had been in Scotland.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, welshbairn said:

Except from what I've seen the UUP haven't diverted from the DUP position by a bawhair. Missed opportunity imo....

It would be difficult for any Unionist party to support the back stop, because it is transparently obviously the EU saying that we will only let you leave easily if you leave NI with us so that there is no land border involved. The NI back stop is expected to be permanent so cannot be made time-limited, because that doesn't fit the agenda of either Brussels or Westminster moving forward.

The ERG and the DUP have very different core goals on what they want to achieve,  so most of the ERG types will no doubt throw Ulster Unionism under the bus next week.  The question is more whether all of them will and how many Labour rebels will back the deal. Hopefully, May's deal gets rejected once and for all, because I think there is a good chance now that Brexit can be fully reversed after a long extension.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Baxter Parp said:

D1vQw_RWoAAYkBN.jpg:large

EU structural funds lost by nation/region.

 

https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7886

According to the link we have a net contribution of £8.9bn but according to your map we get £9.3 bn back.

Seems like a good deal to me.

 

 

ETA and why has the north of Scotland been cut off your map? Typical central belt bias.

Edited by Suspect Device
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Suspect Device said:

 

https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7886

According to the link we have a net contribution of £8.9bn but according to your map we get £9.3 bn back.

Seems like a good deal to me.

 

 

ETA and why has the north of Scotland been cut off your map? Typical central belt bias.

 

Probably making the usual central belt assumption that everyone knows where it is, but no one wants to go there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7886
According to the link we have a net contribution of £8.9bn but according to your map we get £9.3 bn back.
Seems like a good deal to me.
 
 
ETA and why has the north of Scotland been cut off your map? Typical central belt bias.
Net contribution is the amount we pay net of the money we get back.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:
43 minutes ago, Suspect Device said:
 
https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7886
According to the link we have a net contribution of £8.9bn but according to your map we get £9.3 bn back.
Seems like a good deal to me.
 
 
ETA and why has the north of Scotland been cut off your map? Typical central belt bias.

Net contribution is the amount we pay net of the money we get back.

Exactly. We get more than half the money back that we pay in.

That seems like a good deal. Except that we could argue that it wastes a lot on paper shufflers and if we cut out the middleman we could just spend the same amount in those areas without the money merry-go-round. Not sure we would though. Then the argument is that the EU spends our money more fairly than the UK government. Wales needs it more than London for instance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Suspect Device said:

Exactly. We get more than half the money back that we pay in.

That seems like a good deal. Except that we could argue that it wastes a lot on paper shufflers and if we cut out the middleman we could just spend the same amount in those areas without the money merry-go-round. Not sure we would though. Then the argument is that the EU spends our money more fairly than the UK government. Wales needs it more than London for instance.

Make no mistake, the areas of the U.K. most in need will no longer get it.  I don’t believe for one minute that the money we save by not paying into the EU will all be spent anywhere in the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

Make no mistake, the areas of the U.K. most in need will no longer get it.  I don’t believe for one minute that the money we save by not paying into the EU will all be spent anywhere in the country.

 

It does happen in Scotland as well. The money gets spent where the party in power reckons they'll get the most votes back.

Happens in the UK where the party in power will channel money where they reckon it'll buy them votes.

The EU doesn't have that problem. Very few folk give a shite enough about European elections so I assume that is why they don't have to buy votes. That would be one pro for staying in the EU. Possibly not enough to change my mind but another to chalk up in the EU's favour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. We get more than half the money back that we pay in.
That seems like a good deal. Except that we could argue that it wastes a lot on paper shufflers and if we cut out the middleman we could just spend the same amount in those areas without the money merry-go-round. Not sure we would though. Then the argument is that the EU spends our money more fairly than the UK government. Wales needs it more than London for instance.
The other argument is that our net contribution to the EU is worth it for the advantages of being in the EU. Theresa May would just spend any surplus on London and the Home Counties.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watched a video on Ebbw Vale (I think) and one of the main reasons they didn't vote remain despite being major beneficiaries from the EU is that the money they received wasn't being spent on things that improved their lives. It's all very well having a great motorway running past you if the town you live in has absolutely nothing of worth in it. 

I think the way EU money got spent should have been used more effectively but the idea they came out with is that "it can't get any worse" is laughable, as Westminster are just going to cut what little they have already if given the chance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:


I remember at the time of the vote, a vox pop with a woman in wales who said she voted no because the local authority closed the public toilets on the high street.

Was she taking the piss?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...