Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Brexit in Name Only – BINO – or the BEANO!

1235»

Comments

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    Voters knew exactly what they were voting for.

    £350m a week for the NHS, right?

    I am sure I read that somewhere...
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    edited February 2018

    Voters knew exactly what they were voting for.

    That has to be the funniest line on Brexit written anywhere by anyone.
  • stevef said:

    I think Remoaners believe in DINO -democracy in name only.

    What the voters really voted for, they argue is that we leave the EU, but that we remain under its control.

    Quite aside from Brexit, liberal centrists need to consider how they make liberal centrism attractive in future given how many votes it's lost over the last 15-20 years.

    Right now, their only answer seems to be to call voters mad, bad or stupid, and hoping to be able to say "told you so."
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited February 2018
    Scott_P said:

    Voters knew exactly what they were voting for.

    £350m a week for the NHS, right?

    I am sure I read that somewhere...
    A claim which was rubbished by the Remain camp, just as the Leave camp rubbished the economic models. Voters had to make a choice, and they did (the wrong choice, in my view). No doubt in forming their view many voters decided that some of the claims on both sides were overblown, so pointing to one particular daft claim by one side doesn't really advance things, any more than it would invalidate a GE result to point out after the event that Labour's numbers don't add up. The time to win the argument is BEFORE the vote, a point which seems rather to have been missed by sum.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,557

    Scott_P said:

    Voters knew exactly what they were voting for.

    £350m a week for the NHS, right?

    I am sure I read that somewhere...
    A claim which was rubbished by the Remain camp, just as the Leave camp rubbished the economic models. Voters had to make a choice, and they did (the wrong choice, in my view). No doubt in forming their view may voters decided that some of the claims on both sides were overblown.
    Equally, to say they knew 'exactly' what they were voting for is overegging it more than a little.
  • Gove now best-priced at 12-1.Of the 3 ST Brexiteer amigos,Gove looks the most likely to me even though he does have the face of a fish.

    I wonder whether Boris has drifted too far? For all his faults as an administrator, he's a good campaigner and in an election, that matters. Gove, on the other hand, is entirely untested in that environment. Which wins in a fight between visceral and cerebral?
    If you combine Boris's campaigning style and Gove's brains I reckon you have an election winning te..

    Oh, wait a minute.
  • From memory the Americans actually spend a higher percentage of GDP in state-provisioned care than the UK does.

    That's not counting the private insurance etc costs, out of pocket costs and the fact people are uncovered.

    Nobody in their right mind could ever look at the American system and think it is anything other than broken.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    President Nixon organised the Watergate burglary and other illegal activities on the grounds of "national interest."

    Hitler set up a dictatorship in 1933 on the grounds of "national interest."

    Every military coup in history has been justified on the grounds of national interest.

    In 1940, those who opposed Churchill and advocated surrender did so on the grounds of "national interest"

    Everyone has a different concept of what constitutes the national interest.

    Any scoundrel can try to justify his actions on grounds of his own perceived subjective concept of national interest.

    Remoaners are trying to halt Brexit claiming that it is in "the national interest"

    Balderdash! They want to halt it, because they personally disagree with it and they cant accept the result of the referendum.

  • Gove now best-priced at 12-1.Of the 3 ST Brexiteer amigos,Gove looks the most likely to me even though he does have the face of a fish.

    I wonder whether Boris has drifted too far? For all his faults as an administrator, he's a good campaigner and in an election, that matters. Gove, on the other hand, is entirely untested in that environment. Which wins in a fight between visceral and cerebral?
    If you combine Boris's campaigning style and Gove's brains I reckon you have an election winning te..

    Oh, wait a minute.
    Indeed LOL.

    If those two could unite again they could be as successful at leading the party as Cameron/Osborne.
  • stevef said:

    Anorak said:

    stevef said:

    This is the sort of garbage we are getting from Remoaners : where a respected newspaper (allegedly the "guardian" of our liberties, openly calls for the halting of a Brexit which a majority of people voted for -and justifying it on the spurious grounds of national interest.

    This is a very dangerous for democracy. Where it would all end if we can overturn democratic elections on the grounds of national interest. What the Guardian say for example if a group of right wingers were to argue that if Jeremy Corbyn were to win the next election on 42% of the vote (10% below the Leave vote in 2016) we should have a military coup "in the national interest"?

    "The spurious ground of national interest."

    Wow. Well at least you've been honest about it.
    I think a better way of phrasing it would be "spurious ground of asserted national interest".

    People have different views of what the national interest is. Higher growth v less inequality; stronger security v civil liberties; lower taxes v higher spending etc. This is why we have elections: to decide whose view of the national interests prevails for the time being.

    Isn't the problem with the Guardian's thinking here not that the process should be stopped on the grounds of national interest but that it should be stopped purely on the grounds of what they (and people like them) perceive to be the national interest, without reference to the public at large, who actually took the original decision?
    You're right it should be put to the public at large in a new Referendum once the choices are clear.
    The choices were clear in 2016. The Remain booklet sent to all homes at huge public cost stated clearly that a leave vote would mean leaving the Single Market. You just want a second referendum because you lost.
    Yes, that leaflet was, as you rightly say, the very embodiment of expertise and honesty. It's just a shame the Leave campaign went out of its way to discredit it at the time. Things might have been different if all sides had treated it as the bible.
  • stevef said:

    Anorak said:

    stevef said:

    This is the sort of garbage we are getting from Remoaners : where a respected newspaper (allegedly the "guardian" of our liberties, openly calls for the halting of a Brexit which a majority of people voted for -and justifying it on the spurious grounds of national interest.

    This is a very dangerous for democracy. Where it would all end if we can overturn democratic elections on the grounds of national interest. What the Guardian say for example if a group of right wingers were to argue that if Jeremy Corbyn were to win the next election on 42% of the vote (10% below the Leave vote in 2016) we should have a military coup "in the national interest"?

    "The spurious ground of national interest."

    Wow. Well at least you've been honest about it.
    I think a better way of phrasing it would be "spurious ground of asserted national interest".

    People have different views of what the national interest is. Higher growth v less inequality; stronger security v civil liberties; lower taxes v higher spending etc. This is why we have elections: to decide whose view of the national interests prevails for the time being.

    Isn't the problem with the Guardian's thinking here not that the process should be stopped on the grounds of national interest but that it should be stopped purely on the grounds of what they (and people like them) perceive to be the national interest, without reference to the public at large, who actually took the original decision?
    You're right it should be put to the public at large in a new Referendum once the choices are clear.
    The choices were clear in 2016. The Remain booklet sent to all homes at huge public cost stated clearly that a leave vote would mean leaving the Single Market. You just want a second referendum because you lost.
    Yes, that leaflet was, as you rightly say, the very embodiment of expertise and honesty. It's just a shame the Leave campaign went out of its way to discredit it at the time. Things might have been different if all sides had treated it as the bible.
    They discredited some of the assertions but not the fact that we would be leaving the Single Market. The government, Vote Leave and the leading politicians on all sides all explicitly explicitly ruled out Single Market membership. No ifs, no buts, no prevarication on either side.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,880
    Is the stock market in trouble?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited February 2018
    Nigelb said:

    Scott_P said:

    Voters knew exactly what they were voting for.

    £350m a week for the NHS, right?

    I am sure I read that somewhere...
    A claim which was rubbished by the Remain camp, just as the Leave camp rubbished the economic models. Voters had to make a choice, and they did (the wrong choice, in my view). No doubt in forming their view may voters decided that some of the claims on both sides were overblown.
    Equally, to say they knew 'exactly' what they were voting for is overegging it more than a little.
    Well, they knew exactly that they were voting for an option which, according to the vast majority of economic models, would make them poorer. No new information on that point has emerged, except that so far at least the effect seems to be less than the experts expected.

    As I've said a couple of times, it would be far better for those worried about Brexit on economic grounds to accept the result rather than trying to re-run the Remain campaign, and to unite in advocating an option which respects that result in spirit and in letter, but which minimises the economic damage.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    Ive just been looking at the Remain propaganda sent to every home at vast expense in 2016. It states clearly that if we left the EU we would be voting to leave the Single Market too. Every voter therefore understood that by leaving the EU we would be leaving the Single Market.

    Those Remoaners who claim therefore we should have another referendum on the grounds that we were not voting for the detail are lying, are therefore arguing for the overthrow of a democratic election.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,841
    Nigelb said:

    Scott_P said:

    Voters knew exactly what they were voting for.

    £350m a week for the NHS, right?

    I am sure I read that somewhere...
    A claim which was rubbished by the Remain camp, just as the Leave camp rubbished the economic models. Voters had to make a choice, and they did (the wrong choice, in my view). No doubt in forming their view may voters decided that some of the claims on both sides were overblown.
    Equally, to say they knew 'exactly' what they were voting for is overegging it more than a little.
    The number of voters who knew exactly what "leaving" would mean can be counted on one hand, as can the number of voters who knew precisely what "remaining" would entail.

    My leaver colleagues vote was entirely regarding immigration generally.
  • Gove now best-priced at 12-1.Of the 3 ST Brexiteer amigos,Gove looks the most likely to me even though he does have the face of a fish.

    I wonder whether Boris has drifted too far? For all his faults as an administrator, he's a good campaigner and in an election, that matters. Gove, on the other hand, is entirely untested in that environment. Which wins in a fight between visceral and cerebral?
    If you combine Boris's campaigning style and Gove's brains I reckon you have an election winning te..

    Oh, wait a minute.
    History suggests so. The problem with Boris is not winning elections, it's what comes afterwards.
  • stevef said:

    Ive just been looking at the Remain propaganda sent to every home at vast expense in 2016. It states clearly that if we left the EU we would be voting to leave the Single Market too. Every voter therefore understood that by leaving the EU we would be leaving the Single Market.

    Those Remoaners who claim therefore we should have another referendum on the grounds that we were not voting for the detail are lying, are therefore arguing for the overthrow of a democratic election.

    So why the Leave campaign seek to rubbish what they knew was an honest and accurate document?
  • Anorak said:

    stevef said:

    This is the sort of garbage we are getting from Remoaners : where a respected newspaper (allegedly the "guardian" of our liberties, openly calls for the halting of a Brexit which a majority of people voted for -and justifying it on the spurious grounds of national interest.

    This is a very dangerous for democracy. Where it would all end if we can overturn democratic elections on the grounds of national interest. What the Guardian say for example if a group of right wingers were to argue that if Jeremy Corbyn were to win the next election on 42% of the vote (10% below the Leave vote in 2016) we should have a military coup "in the national interest"?

    "The spurious ground of national interest."

    Wow. Well at least you've been honest about it.
    I think a better way of phrasing it would be "spurious ground of asserted national interest".

    People have different views of what the national interest is. Higher growth v less inequality; stronger security v civil liberties; lower taxes v higher spending etc. This is why we have elections: to decide whose view of the national interests prevails for the time being.

    Isn't the problem with the Guardian's thinking here not that the process should be stopped on the grounds of national interest but that it should be stopped purely on the grounds of what they (and people like them) perceive to be the national interest, without reference to the public at large, who actually took the original decision?
    You're right it should be put to the public at large in a new Referendum once the choices are clear.
    I refer the Hon person to the article I wrote some days ago.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044

    stevef said:

    Ive just been looking at the Remain propaganda sent to every home at vast expense in 2016. It states clearly that if we left the EU we would be voting to leave the Single Market too. Every voter therefore understood that by leaving the EU we would be leaving the Single Market.

    Those Remoaners who claim therefore we should have another referendum on the grounds that we were not voting for the detail are lying, are therefore arguing for the overthrow of a democratic election.

    So why the Leave campaign seek to rubbish what they knew was an honest and accurate document?
    Because the same document predicted (wrongly) that there would be an immediate economic crash in the UK the moment we voted Leave. That has been proved to be a lie.
  • [snip]

    Isn't the problem with the Guardian's thinking here not that the process should be stopped on the grounds of national interest but that it should be stopped purely on the grounds of what they (and people like them) perceive to be the national interest, without reference to the public at large, who actually took the original decision?

    Precisely so. What's more, the grounds seem to be that economic models show that it's better to stay in the EU. However, that's not information which might justify a re-think or a re-run of the referendum, it was information widely available and widely pushed by the Remain camp before the referendum. Voters knew exactly what they were voting for.
    Voters knew what they were voting for, as witnessed by the fact that few people have changed their minds since. The problem is that the politicians don't know how to deliver it.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,557

    Nigelb said:

    Scott_P said:

    Voters knew exactly what they were voting for.

    £350m a week for the NHS, right?

    I am sure I read that somewhere...
    A claim which was rubbished by the Remain camp, just as the Leave camp rubbished the economic models. Voters had to make a choice, and they did (the wrong choice, in my view). No doubt in forming their view may voters decided that some of the claims on both sides were overblown.
    Equally, to say they knew 'exactly' what they were voting for is overegging it more than a little.
    Well, they knew exactly that they were voting for an option which, according to the vast majority of economic models, would make them poorer. No new information on that point has emerged, except that so far at least the effect seems to be less than the experts expected.

    As I've said a couple of times, it would be far better for those worried about Brexit on economic grounds to accept the result rather than trying to re-run the Remain campaign, and to unite in advocating an option which respects that result in spirit and in letter, but which minimises the economic damage.
    I don't disagree with much of that - and without a much larger shift in public opinion, attempts to rerun the vote are pointless - but expecting a united position from those opposed to Brexit is far more unrealistic that asking for one from a government whose raison d'être is to produce one.
  • [snip]

    Isn't the problem with the Guardian's thinking here not that the process should be stopped on the grounds of national interest but that it should be stopped purely on the grounds of what they (and people like them) perceive to be the national interest, without reference to the public at large, who actually took the original decision?

    Precisely so. What's more, the grounds seem to be that economic models show that it's better to stay in the EU. However, that's not information which might justify a re-think or a re-run of the referendum, it was information widely available and widely pushed by the Remain camp before the referendum. Voters knew exactly what they were voting for.
    Voters knew what they were voting for, as witnessed by the fact that few people have changed their minds since. The problem is that the politicians don't know how to deliver it.
    Oh it's not that bad, politicians are delivering most of the economic hit people voted for.
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 2,138

    Yes, that leaflet was, as you rightly say, the very embodiment of expertise and honesty. It's just a shame the Leave campaign went out of its way to discredit it at the time. Things might have been different if all sides had treated it as the bible.

    They discredited some of the assertions but not the fact that we would be leaving the Single Market. The government, Vote Leave and the leading politicians on all sides all explicitly explicitly ruled out Single Market membership. No ifs, no buts, no prevarication on either side.
    When you say "leading politicians on all sides", presumably you mean "on all sides of the Conservative Party".
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited February 2018
    Nigelb said:

    I don't disagree with much of that - and without a much larger shift in public opinion, attempts to rerun the vote are pointless - but expecting a united position from those opposed to Brexit is far more unrealistic that asking for one from a government whose raison d'être is to produce one.

    You are right. I am just pointing out that the disunity amongst the government's critics leaves Theresa May in the odd position of simultaneously being very weak and being protected (both in leadership and policy terms) by there being no clear alternative.
  • stevef said:

    stevef said:

    Ive just been looking at the Remain propaganda sent to every home at vast expense in 2016. It states clearly that if we left the EU we would be voting to leave the Single Market too. Every voter therefore understood that by leaving the EU we would be leaving the Single Market.

    Those Remoaners who claim therefore we should have another referendum on the grounds that we were not voting for the detail are lying, are therefore arguing for the overthrow of a democratic election.

    So why the Leave campaign seek to rubbish what they knew was an honest and accurate document?
    Because the same document predicted (wrongly) that there would be an immediate economic crash in the UK the moment we voted Leave. That has been proved to be a lie.
    Really? Care to share that part of the text where it asserts that?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    The time to win the argument is BEFORE the vote, a point which seems rather to have been missed by sum.

    BoZo did win the argument for £350m a week for the NHS before the vote.

    The after the vote said he was kidding.

    And is now trying to rerun the argument.
  • Scott_P said:

    The time to win the argument is BEFORE the vote, a point which seems rather to have been missed by sum.

    BoZo did win the argument for £350m a week for the NHS before the vote.

    The after the vote said he was kidding.

    And is now trying to rerun the argument.
    He never said he was kidding. He also said before the vote that some of the £350 million would go to the NHS, eg £100 million. He also said that some of it would go elsewhere eg to farmers etc.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    edited February 2018
    stevef said:

    stevef said:

    Ive just been looking at the Remain propaganda sent to every home at vast expense in 2016. It states clearly that if we left the EU we would be voting to leave the Single Market too. Every voter therefore understood that by leaving the EU we would be leaving the Single Market.

    Those Remoaners who claim therefore we should have another referendum on the grounds that we were not voting for the detail are lying, are therefore arguing for the overthrow of a democratic election.

    So why the Leave campaign seek to rubbish what they knew was an honest and accurate document?
    Because the same document predicted (wrongly) that there would be an immediate economic crash in the UK the moment we voted Leave. That has been proved to be a lie.
    I wish people (on both sides) wouldn’t use the word “lie” so much.

    The Treasury forecasts were exaggerated, the assumptions manipulated to produce the worst expected outcome, designed with a political objective in mind. But all they were was forecasts that have been proved wrong, not “a lie”
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    He never said he was kidding. He also said before the vote that some of the £350 million would go to the NHS, eg £100 million. He also said that some of it would go elsewhere eg to farmers etc.

    Nope

    image
  • PClipp said:

    Yes, that leaflet was, as you rightly say, the very embodiment of expertise and honesty. It's just a shame the Leave campaign went out of its way to discredit it at the time. Things might have been different if all sides had treated it as the bible.

    They discredited some of the assertions but not the fact that we would be leaving the Single Market. The government, Vote Leave and the leading politicians on all sides all explicitly explicitly ruled out Single Market membership. No ifs, no buts, no prevarication on either side.
    When you say "leading politicians on all sides", presumably you mean "on all sides of the Conservative Party".
    Is Gisela Stuart a member of the Conservative Party?

    You're right that the Conservative Party did feature prominently in the leadership of both sides of the debate, but then is a lack of leadership from other parties a quality you look for?
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    edited February 2018

    I was fascinated by Leavers' response to my thread yesterday. Not a single Leaver sought to defend the way in which the government is approaching its decision-making process. There was a lot of annoyance with me, but no real challenge to the actual argument on that point.

    What did you expect Alistair? Plaudits? Reasoned argument?

    This is WW1 all over again - everyone in their trenches lobbing explosives at each other and neither side moving an inch.
    Why should any leaver have a reasoned argument with a guy who keeps calling leavers xenophobes /racist,he's already lost the argument.

    This from the guy who has a second home in a country which openly welcomes immigrants,migrants or asylum seekers ? (Hungary )

    (Two faced pr@t)
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,786
    stevef said:

    Those Remoaners who claim therefore we should have another referendum on the grounds that we were not voting for the detail are lying, are therefore arguing for the overthrow of a democratic election.

    I don't know about lying, but I suggest you go and have a lie down.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,786
    "Britain is drowning trying to land trade deals"

    https://www.standard.co.uk/business/sam-lowe-britain-is-drowning-trying-to-land-trade-deals-a3758206.html

    It will be many years before the UK will have the bandwidth to start concluding deals with new countries. In the meantime, it is destined to spend the coming months and years treading water, arms up in the air, begging the EU to throw it a lifebuoy.
  • Corbyn has also responded to Trump’s tweet:
    https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/960509403643498498
  • Philip_Thompson said:
    » show previous quotes
    They discredited some of the assertions but not the fact that we would be leaving the Single Market. The government, Vote Leave and the leading politicians on all sides all explicitly explicitly ruled out Single Market membership. No ifs, no buts, no prevarication on either side.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    “Our trade will almost certainly continue with the EU on similar to current circumstances…The reality is that the hard-headed, pragmatic businessmen on the continent will do everything to ensure that trade with Britain continues uninterrupted.” David Davis, speech, 26 May 2016

    “The EU’s supporters say ‘we must have access to the Single Market’. Britain will have access to the Single Market after we vote leave”. Vote Leave, What Happens When We Vote Leave?

    “there will continue to be free trade, and access to the single market”, Boris Johnson, The Telegraph, 26 June 2016

    "It should be win-win for us and it will be if we vote to leave and we can maintain free trade, stop sending money and also have control of our borders", Michael Gove, BBC, 8 May 2016

    “The idea that our trade will suffer…is silly”, Vote Leave, What Happens When We Vote Leave
    http://www.open-britain.co.uk/leave_campaigners_try_to_drop_their_false_promises
  • Scott_P said:

    He never said he was kidding. He also said before the vote that some of the £350 million would go to the NHS, eg £100 million. He also said that some of it would go elsewhere eg to farmers etc.

    Nope

    image
    Yep.

    https://www.politicshome.com/news/europe/eu-policy-agenda/brexit/news/75748/leave-campaign-brexit-would-give-nhs-£100-million

    “If we Vote Leave, we can take back control of our borders and our money,” Mr Gove, Boris Johnson and Gisela Stuart said.

    “By 2020, we can give the NHS a £100 million per week cash injection, and we can ensure that the wealthy interests that have rigged the EU rules in their favour at last pay their fair share.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453



    Yep.

    image

    Bozo did not stand in front of that poster and say "You see the bit where it says £350m, that should actually read £100m, and where is says NHS, that means lots of other things that are not the NHS"
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,786
    Vote Leave should make more of their successful salvation of the British curry. We no longer hear of the threat to it thanks to our historic vote in 2016.
  • I see Trump is demonstrating once again today that he is the most anti-British president we have seen in the White House for many decades. Has any US president in living memory told so many lies about the UK?
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921

    PClipp said:

    Yes, that leaflet was, as you rightly say, the very embodiment of expertise and honesty. It's just a shame the Leave campaign went out of its way to discredit it at the time. Things might have been different if all sides had treated it as the bible.

    They discredited some of the assertions but not the fact that we would be leaving the Single Market. The government, Vote Leave and the leading politicians on all sides all explicitly explicitly ruled out Single Market membership. No ifs, no buts, no prevarication on either side.
    When you say "leading politicians on all sides", presumably you mean "on all sides of the Conservative Party".
    Is Gisela Stuart a member of the Conservative Party?

    You're right that the Conservative Party did feature prominently in the leadership of both sides of the debate, but then is a lack of leadership from other parties a quality you look for?
    If it is, he must be a big fan of Uncle Vince...

    Has he forgotten he is leader? Haven't heard from him in months....
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    I see Trump is demonstrating once again today that he is the most anti-British president we have seen in the White House for many decades. Has any US president in living memory told so many lies about the UK?

    EU leader after EU leader lines up to slate the Uk for Brexit but Trump points out clear flaws in the NHS model which Corbyn does every week at PMQs and the pearls are clutched.
  • Mortimer said:

    PClipp said:

    Yes, that leaflet was, as you rightly say, the very embodiment of expertise and honesty. It's just a shame the Leave campaign went out of its way to discredit it at the time. Things might have been different if all sides had treated it as the bible.

    They discredited some of the assertions but not the fact that we would be leaving the Single Market. The government, Vote Leave and the leading politicians on all sides all explicitly explicitly ruled out Single Market membership. No ifs, no buts, no prevarication on either side.
    When you say "leading politicians on all sides", presumably you mean "on all sides of the Conservative Party".
    Is Gisela Stuart a member of the Conservative Party?

    You're right that the Conservative Party did feature prominently in the leadership of both sides of the debate, but then is a lack of leadership from other parties a quality you look for?
    If it is, he must be a big fan of Uncle Vince...

    Has he forgotten he is leader? Haven't heard from him in months....
    He was out today, proposing that the taxes that fund the NHS should be hypothecated and set by an independent group of experts (presumably like the one that wrote the report).

    No chance of producer capture there, to say nothing of democratic accountability. And that's before you ask what happens when there's a recession and the tax take falls (yes, you can make up the difference with borrowing but then once you establish that principle, you can always make up the difference with borrowing, in which case all sense of a link between the tax and the spend is lost).
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621

    I see Trump is demonstrating once again today that he is the most anti-British president we have seen in the White House for many decades. Has any US president in living memory told so many lies about the UK?

    I'm not sure we've been singled out. He's lied about almost everyone and everything.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    I see Trump is demonstrating once again today that he is the most anti-British president we have seen in the White House for many decades. Has any US president in living memory told so many lies about the UK?

    Well, which is it? Deducing from "Save the NHS march" that the marchers believe that the NHS needs saving looks pretty reasonable to me. If the NHS does not in fact need saving, who is the liar?
  • NEW THREAD

  • calumcalum Posts: 3,046

    Scott_P said:

    He never said he was kidding. He also said before the vote that some of the £350 million would go to the NHS, eg £100 million. He also said that some of it would go elsewhere eg to farmers etc.

    Nope

    image
    Yep.

    https://www.politicshome.com/news/europe/eu-policy-agenda/brexit/news/75748/leave-campaign-brexit-would-give-nhs-£100-million

    “If we Vote Leave, we can take back control of our borders and our money,” Mr Gove, Boris Johnson and Gisela Stuart said.

    “By 2020, we can give the NHS a £100 million per week cash injection, and we can ensure that the wealthy interests that have rigged the EU rules in their favour at last pay their fair share.
    JRM in Nov 2017

    " We promised £350 million for the NHS so we must deliver it. This is £18.2 billion a year, just under half the Brexit growth dividend from 2025, but the money is needed sooner so in 2019/2020 the cash boost needs to be there as far as possible. "
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Anorak said:

    Sandpit said:

    Scott_P said:

    DavidL said:

    But somehow, magically, not being in the Customs Union or the Single Market will make it much more difficult to export to the EU? It makes no sense whatsoever.

    Oh dear.

    Ask the car manufacturers if leaving the single market makes things "much more difficult" then get back to us
    McLaren have already relocated their carbon composites factory from a supplier in Austria to their own facility in Sheffield, onshoring a bunch of very skilled jobs in the process. These things work both ways.
    https://twitter.com/McLarenAuto/status/953536565707460608
    Saw that beast being tested in South Africa a couple of weeks ago. Looks and sounds incredible.
    Well let’s face it no-one is going to call a crap car “Senna”, and McLaren have been killing their Italian competition recently. This one has 800bhp and no weight at all, will smash all sorts of production car records. They have 500 of them, for sale at £750k plus options. All gone already, they auctioned the demonstrator (that mad orange one) for £2m for charity.
    Best British manufacturing startup since Dyson. F...ing awesome what they’re doing.
This discussion has been closed.