Brexit #2

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 11 Aug 18 - 12:18 PM

A very interesting article here from Gavin Esler, a former Leave supporter, on why he's now changed his mind and supports Remain.

I'm sure even the most rabid Brexiteer should be able to understand the incontestable logic and truth of Mr. Esler's piece.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Aug 18 - 12:52 PM

"And Saudi are bankrolling us by buying our fighter jets by the dozen"
All to help the SAUDIS the BRITS AND ISRAEL keep the peace
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 11 Aug 18 - 05:22 PM

It's been pointed out to me that I mis-read the opening paragraph in Gavin Esler's piece - he was not. Leave supporter, he was a Remainer but, following the referendum, he accepted the result without demur. However, he has now changed his mind and no longer accepts the result - his piece sets out the reasons for this change.

Just thought I'd put this admission of my own error 'out there' in order to 'head off at the pass' anyone who might come along being a smart-arse and pointing it out

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Aug 18 - 03:07 AM

Very good article, BWM. Thanks for the link.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Aug 18 - 04:50 AM

Thanks Dave, I thought so too.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: j0_77
Date: 12 Aug 18 - 11:23 AM

From Quora

https://www.quora.com/Why-are-British-politicians-slow-in-completing-Brexit-as-the-GBP-is-suffering

"Why are British politicians slow in completing Brexit, as the GBP is suffering?


Answered Fri

Because a small cadre of the #LyingUKIP, the news group “The Exres", “The Telegraph” etc are heavily invested in shorting the British pound. It will continue to fall until March 19th 2019. Then on the next day it well rebound and those #LyingUKIP and their chums will be making a killing on the backs of the chumps that actually have to pay them for #BrokesIt, IOW the average person in the UK is PAYING for the whole self destructive catastrophe.

Hope that helps"

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Aug 18 - 08:07 AM

Yet another unintended consequence of Brexit has been raised (again) today.

"The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) said the number of applicants per vacancy had fallen since last summer across all levels of skilled jobs, and said shortages were forcing many companies to raise wages."

Any good news yet?

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/13/companies-brexit-supply-shock-fewer-eu-citizens-arrive-uk

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Aug 18 - 08:12 AM

It would seem that more and more people are having such serious concerns about Brexit that they are no changing their minds on which way they would vote if a referendum was held today.

This is not at all surprising as we learn more and more about the potential negative impacts that Brexit may have.

The report suggests that up to 100 constituencies have now changed.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/11/more-than-100-pro-leave-constituencies-switch-to-remain

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 13 Aug 18 - 10:10 AM

From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Aug 18 - 08:07 AM
Yet another unintended consequence of Brexit has been raised (again) today.
"The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) said the number of applicants per vacancy had fallen since last summer across all levels of skilled jobs, and said shortages were forcing many companies to raise wages."

If Brexit is causing a rise in wages, how do you square that with the insistence that membership of the EU, and EU immigration was not supressing wages?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Aug 18 - 10:29 AM

Logical fallacy, Nigel. Post hoc ergo proper hoc.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Aug 18 - 12:52 PM

Propter hoc. My iPad "corrected" propter to an English word and I didn't have my reading specs on. There is no obligation to put Latin phrases in italics. That's one hundred percent my choice. Anyway, logical fallacy, Nigel. You're not getting away with it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 13 Aug 18 - 07:20 PM

Not a logical fallacy at all. Although there may be a phrase which might describe the possibility of it being one.

Yet another unintended consequence of Brexit has been raised (again) today.
"The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) said the number of applicants per vacancy had fallen since last summer across all levels of skilled jobs, and said shortages were forcing many companies to raise wages."

If Brexit is causing a rise in wages, how do you square that with the insistence that membership of the EU, and EU immigration was not supressing wages?

The only logic required is the logic of the marketplace, of supply and demand.
Looking at available labour being the commodity supplied, if there is a shortage of available labour, and demand is constant, the cost of the labour will rise.
If there is a glut of available labour, and demand is constant, the cost of labour will fall (Although it can be propped up by 'minimum wage' rules).

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: j0_77
Date: 13 Aug 18 - 08:30 PM

My gears are squealing again!

CIPD is picking and choosing which jobs it claims lack applicants. Typically these sort of numpty professions lack applicants EVERYWHERE, including China, Russia, Africa, oh and the rest of the world. It's a BS call, again sourced in the fake news sphere resting somewhere in the east ... hint hint.

I will not let #LyingUKIP sugar coat their lies onto unsuspecting good people, and I shall at every opportunity debunk the St Petersburg Russian lie factory whenever I see it.

Including here on Mudcat.

Because I have dozens of close family living in the UK and the ROI.

Now! as BrokesIt is the Law there is nothing that can be done, this side of Parliamentary action, to stop it. Best I can hope for is that Britain survives the outcome whole and undamaged, even if it results in Ire-brokesIt as well.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Aug 18 - 08:51 PM

There are various facets to your logical fallacy, Nigel, but the main one is that we haven't had brexit yet, as far as I know. :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Aug 18 - 06:46 AM

A report today on Buzzfeed relates to various aspects of leaving the EU without a deal and apparently government papers will be released over the next few weeks.

I wonder if any of the pro-brexit lobby on here even consider one of the items on the list. I somehow doubt it.

Before I am asked did I consider them I will say they would not be issues had we voted to remain within the EU and this the question is negated.

Link

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 Aug 18 - 07:22 AM

I didn't consider most, if any, of those things, because we were given no information prior to the Referendum. My philosophy is that it is reckless and stupid to vote for something when you have no real information regarding the outcome and effects of that vote. So I voted Remain, on the basis that my knowledge of how membership of the EU affects my daily life was considerably greater, and in far greater depth, than the meagre crumbs of 'information' (a.k.a. Xenophobic, Nationalistic propaganda) which we were given by the Leave campaign about what life would be like outside the EU.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 Aug 18 - 07:26 AM

Oooops - hit the 'Go' button too soon, was going on to say...

And I've seen nothing by way of information since the Referendum that would change my mind should there be a second Referendum. I was convinced in June 2016 that voting Remain was the sane option, I'm even more convinced now in August 2018.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Aug 18 - 07:32 AM

Me too Backwoodsman, each and every report I have seen has been most negative. The odd post from pro-brexits containing news in support of them have not convinced me one iota that leaving would be beneficial.

I don't really expect any response from them because I think even the most committed of them if now having serious doubts about the wisdon of voting to leave and that rather than admit they have made a mistake will merely not respond.

My latest link serves to underline just how little they did know when they voted leave.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Aug 18 - 08:09 AM

Remember the old programme 'Take Your Pick'? I am reminded of that. Either stick with a fair amount of cash or open an box containing anything from a mousetrap to a holiday. Except in the case of the referendum the choice was either carry on with a comfortable lifestyle or open the unknown box containing anything from a pair of Union Jack underpants to financial ruin.

Two years on andI still don't understand how so many chose the latter. All through this thread and the previous ones I have been asking for good reasons to be optimistic and no-one has, to date, come up with anything remotely reassuring.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 Aug 18 - 11:51 AM

I can't vouch for the accuracy of this piece but, if it's correct in what it's saying, it's very worrying indeed.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: peteglasgow
Date: 17 Aug 18 - 11:58 AM

remoaners are often accused of treating the brexit voters with contempt and with good reason. i have tried to understand and tried to have reasoned discussions with folk at work and elsewhere. however, now i'm no longer capable of trying to be so tolerant. aside from the personal - all 5 of our children have many friends/partners from all over and 2 of them live on the mainland in italy/estonia - it is just become ludicrous and an insult to the intelligence to be asked to assent to something that -as you say dave- has no visible positives. if you brexiteers wish to be treated with respect you do really have to give the rest of us something to work with. i'm currently switching between trying to not engage with this insanity and just getting cross. while listening in to an adjoining conversation in the pub on sunday (the usual scroungers, muslim , EU, brexit nonsense) i was forced to give out the archiest eyebrow and sulkiest pout that a man can do. my friend gave me the scrabble dictionary saying 'just chuck it at them - go on!' i didn't want to scare the dog is my feeble excuse.......(by the way it's 33 points for 'insanity' on a triple word)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 Aug 18 - 12:11 PM

Another little piece that I can't vouch for the accuracy of but, if true, I find it very telling about the kind of people who have led the xenophobes, the racists, and the simple-minded by the nose into voting to leave the EU.

I hope and pray that May is edging the U.K. towards a Brexit compromise which keeps us in the EU Customs Union, and maintains the trade agreements we enjoy as part of the EU, along with a system for individual UK-ers to opt to retain EU citizenship. The prospect of a 'No-Deal Brexit' is simply too disastrous to contemplate.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Aug 18 - 01:25 PM

MOGGIE
REDWOOD
BAKER
LAWSON

Full house Baccie
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 19 Aug 18 - 04:02 AM

Here's a link To an article in the Independent regarding the turd-polishing job that Jacob ("Call me Jake") Rich-Mong and his bunch of rich, self-serving Brexit Crazies are doing on their Hard-Brexit plan. Changing its name to 'Clean Brexit' is an obvious ploy to 'clean up its act' and confuse feeble-minded people into thinking it's A Good Idea. More dishonesty and obfuscation from a shameless bunch of greedy bastards who put their own substantial wealth before the good of the country as a whole.

What an utter donkey's breakfast.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: peteglasgow
Date: 19 Aug 18 - 04:25 AM

i was buying euros in carlisle m and s yesterday - cost £303 for 325 euros. i'm sure i got a lot more than that last time i bought them. should i go back and complain? have i been cheated?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 19 Aug 18 - 04:31 AM

No Pete, that's about par for the High Street. Ramsdens (pawn shops) provide the best High Street rates at a tad over 1.08 euro to the pound.

You can get better rates if you have a euro account with a foreign bank. Transferwise offer 1.11 euro to the pound today (which would have given you 335.81 euro, but I think you need to transfer to a bank account.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Aug 18 - 05:05 AM

If I want euro notes, as opposed to loading my Caxton travel card, I use Tesco travel money. You can get 1.0979 this morning. You get the cash via Royal Mail Special Delivery. I think there may be a £4.99 delivery charge unless you order a minimum of £500-worth, in which case delivery is free.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 19 Aug 18 - 05:39 AM

I should point out that on the day before the referendum would have received 396.93 euros for your £303.

71.93 euros more.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 19 Aug 18 - 05:49 AM

Ah but, ah but, ah but....Brexit hasn't happened yet! Not fair to blame bad news on something that hasn't happened yet!

Any good news of Brexit, BTW?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Aug 18 - 01:52 PM

Something the Brexiters didn't mention during the referendum campaign...

Not exactly good Brexit news though?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 20 Aug 18 - 05:49 PM

1. The EU is corrupt, It has failed to produce audited accounts for approximately ever. Good News! we will no longer have to pay for their gravy train.
2. The EU is incompetent. Had the EU offered any kind of effective reform before the referendum we may not have voted to leave. Good News! We will no longer have our common sense subordinated to their doctrinaire incompetencies.
3. The EU is dishonest. It disguised the plan to transform into a United States of Europe because it knew no one would vote for that. Good News! We will no longer be deceived in this particular fashion.
4. The EU is undemocratic. We were never allowed to vote on stuff they reckoned we would reject. We cannot elect any of the people who originate policy. Good News! We will become a Democracy again.
%. The EU is a train wreck in the process of happening. Good News! The light at the end of the tunnel is our escape, not a train coming the other way.

Let's see if this gets deleted.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Aug 18 - 07:08 PM

It won't get deleted but it does make you look foolish. Let's take a look.

"The EU is corrupt, It has failed to produce audited accounts for approximately ever."

Classic non sequitur.

"The EU is incompetent. Had the EU offered any kind of effective reform before the referendum we may not have voted to leave."

We had a referendum because the hubris-ridden Cameron (65 million) thought he could swan into Europe, little-Englander style, and make big demands of Johnny Foreigner (450 million). He failed, rightly so, then thought he could win the vote. What a deluded twat. And, Stanron, he was your twat, not mine, lest you forget.

"The EU is dishonest. It disguised the plan to transform into a United States of Europe because it knew no one would vote for that."

The most dishonest thing I've seen in my whole lifetime was the leave campaign. No need to revisit that. There can be no "United States of Europe" while we are members. We have the veto over any significant moves towards closer integration. To give you the supreme example, there will be no European army because we have vetoed the idea. Twenty-eight sovereign nations, each with their own nationalist sentiments going back decades or hundreds of years, are not going to stand by and see their sovereignty demolished.

"The EU is undemocratic. We were never allowed to vote on stuff they reckoned we would reject. We cannot elect any of the people who originate policy."

Weasel words. The Commission may suggest policy but they have no powers to enforce it. All policy is agreed by elected representatives only. Would you like me to say that again in capital letters, by any chance, so that you might actually take it in this time? And we vote on every proposed new law or change in the law or on any new regulation. More often, we come to a consensus rather than taking things to votes. You can't keep twenty-eight sovereign states happy any other way. You are either lying or you are ignorant. I'll be charitable to you and assume the latter. Check your facts before you decide to parrot out your brexiteer received unwisdom. Sorry to be harsh, but you do have form when it comes to churning out this rubbish, and, when corrected, you neither listen nor bother to actually check your facts.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 21 Aug 18 - 07:48 AM

What I had overlooked was the fact that good news for leavers is, of course, bad news for remainiacs. Did I just hear on the news about a budget surplus this month? Bad news if you need scare stories to support your position. Apparently there was an equivalent one this time last year, but not as large. Oh dear, we must all be doomed!

Steve, I posted on EU corruption because of their failure to produce audited accounts and you say 'Classic non sequitur'. But my accusation follows directly from their failure to account for the money they spend, a large proportion of which comes from our pockets. No business would be allowed to continue in the absence of audited accounts so why should a political institution like the EU? The only other excuse for this failure, if you reject corruption (and I do not), is incompetence, and that is my next point.

I posted that the EU is incompetent. Your answer to that was a stream of abusive invective directed at David Cameron. That is not an argument.

I posted that the EU had been dishonest. Your answer to that seems to be that it was OK for the EU to have been dishonest back in the 1970s because the leave campaign ,forty or fifty years later was also dishonest. Now that is non sequitur. How can that which precedes follow?

I posted that the EU is undemocratic and your response is 'Weasel words. The Commission may suggest policy but they have no powers to enforce it.' The only policy that gets voted on is policy initiated or allowed by the Commission. The Commission is a body of unelected ex politicians. The voting public cannot vote them in and cannot vote them out. Your suggestion that they cannot enforce policy can only be believed by people who have not seen how they have made people vote again if they vote the wrong way. There is a serious attempt right now to get the UK to have another vote about leaving.

"You fools! Keep voting until you give the answer we want!" is not my idea of democracy.

You end by saying 'Sorry to be harsh, but you do have form when it comes to churning out this rubbish, and, when corrected, you neither listen nor bother to actually check your facts. '

I can quite confidently bat that last sentence back to you.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Aug 18 - 08:13 AM

Did I just hear on the news about a budget surplus this month?

You may well have done. What was the cost in terms of loss to our health service, people dying because we are no longer capable of looking after them, people committing suicide because their benefits have been axed and families forced to use food banks to make ends meet while the upper echelons continue to pay themselves massive amounts while paying no tax? Any budget surplus that this administration achieve means a severe loss to the most vulnerable and has sweet FA to do with brexit.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Aug 18 - 09:48 AM

You allege that EU money is not properly audited. But the thing is, it is, and errors are regularly flagged, and their importance is not swept under the carpet, ever. It's just that it suits you to think that then lie about it. The sheer complexity of the EU budget and its distribution leads to errors both at EU level and at member state level. You assume that this implies corruption, somehow. It doesn't, and it's about time you stopped making these unjustified accusations in order to bolster your entirely false case for brexit. The amount of EU money paid in error amounts to a low single-figure percentage each year and the vast proportion of that relatively small amount arises from not sticking to allocation regulations rather than fraud.

From the Full Fact website:

A small minority of the cases that the auditors look at each year involve suspected fraud [Steve sez, that's a small minority within that low single-figures I mentioned]. The UK’s Public Accounts Committee of MPs has concluded for years that the complexity of the EU’s spending programmes, which creates misunderstandings, contributes towards these errors."

It also doesn’t necessarily mean the money was ‘wasted’, just that it wasn’t paid out according to the rules. One way to run afoul of the rules, for instance, is to award an EU-funded contract directly without holding a proper bidding process. Even though the rules haven’t been followed, it's not always the case that another firm would have been able to put in a lower bid.

The Court [the European Court of Auditors] explains:

“Our estimate of the level of error is not a measure of fraud, inefficiency or waste. It is an estimate of the money that should not have been paid out because it was not used in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations.”

Your comment about the EU being incompetent was "supported" by a remark that it had failed to offer reform before the referendum. It "failed to offer reform" in response to Cameron breezing into Europe making demands, in effect attempting to blackmail the EU into accepting his reforms in order to appease his own backbenchers. If you think the EU's refusal to comply amounts to their "incompetence," then the little England you inhabit must be on another planet somewhere.

As for "making" countries vote again if they "vote the wrong way," this is another lie. The EU has no power to force referendums on anybody. Whether to hold a referendum is always an a individual nation's decision. In any case, the alleged "second referendums" were successful attempts for those treaties to be explained to the electorate in any case, to allay fears that were hyped up in the initial campaigns. There was no browbeating and no coercion. Like a typical frightened brexiteer you fear a better-educated public reconsidering their opinion. And you dishonestly ally the move to have a people's vote on the final deal here with your twisted view of the EU "making people vote again." Calls for a reconsideration in this country are being driven internally, not by the EU. The trouble with you brexiteers is that you simply can't help twisting things to blacken the EU as much as possible. Well you're certainly taking a leaf out of the leave campaign's book there, aren't you. The people need the facts, both convenient and inconvenient if you don't mind, not some mad reinterpretations of them which you think suits your argument.

And I note that you just fell slightly short of parroting the ould lie that "we have laws forced on us by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels," as much as we know you'd love to say it. Go on, we don't mind!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Aug 18 - 09:51 AM

There's an unjustified singular in that lot. Oh reading glasses, where art thou?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Aug 18 - 12:12 PM

Good post Steve. Very nice to see real-world answers to Brexiteer-propaganda, distortions and bare-faced lies. How can the Brexit brigade be so gullible?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Aug 18 - 07:47 PM

It takes effort to look this stuff up, John, and when you do you realise that the brexiteers totally rely on the Farage/Fox/Johnson/Gove bullshit. They chunter out the same tired old crap, all that received wisdom, and they never look anything up for themselves. They're parrots, and that's being bloody rude to parrots. What a shame we can't reset the starting point, but here it is anyway:

1. There will not and cannot be a "United States of Europe." Larger states have the power of veto over any moves towards the mythological "ever-closer union" and twenty-eight states with strong national identities will never allow such a thing in any case.

2. Not one law, ever, has EVER been imposed by "unelected bureaucrats in Brussels." Changes to laws and regulations may be suggested by the Commission, but NOTHING can be agreed without the consent of the twenty-eight member states via their ELECTED representatives, and, what's more, the way the EU works has to be on the basis of consensus. Do you really think that twenty-eight fiercely sovereign states would ever put up with a bunch of bureaucrats telling 'em all what to do? Do I see a flock of cloud cuckoos arriving?

3. The EU money is audited and always has been, and the bad practice that amounts to less than five percent of EU allocations, pretty good when compared with many large corporations, has rarely been shown to be allied to corruption. Yet it is conspicuously flagged up, year on year. Stanron and co clearly fail to see that sort of flag, presumably concentrating tbeir energies on the Union Jack.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 22 Aug 18 - 03:56 AM

Absolutely correct. Unfortunately, the Brexiteer Brain seems to allow propaganda, slogans, and sound bites to over-ride truth and common sense.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 22 Aug 18 - 04:09 AM

A monthly budget surplus is pretty meaningless when receipts are accrued and payments made quarterly. What is meaningful is the rolling annual figure. Even that needs to be looked at carefully as you need to separate capital from revenue expenditure. As always, brexiteers latch on to one remotely positive figure in a sea of negative ones, and a desperate attempt to justify their puerile and worthless project.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Aug 18 - 05:49 AM

And here's another fact for the brexiteers to inevitably fail to digest: the UK's net contribution to the EU is ONE PERCENT of total government spending. Any bets as to how much brexit will force the UK to cut spending as the economy contracts? Any takers for more than one percent?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 22 Aug 18 - 08:21 AM

Very pertinent questions here for leave voters to ask themselves, and answer honestly.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 22 Aug 18 - 09:18 AM

2. Not one law, ever, has EVER been imposed by "unelected bureaucrats in Brussels." Changes to laws and regulations may be suggested by the Commission, but NOTHING can be agreed without the consent of the twenty-eight member states via their ELECTED representatives

Not "Changes to laws and regulations may be suggested by the Commission" but "Changes to laws and regulations may ONLY be suggested by the Commission".
In other words, if the unelected commissioners don't wish something to become law, they don't even put it to the European parliament.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 22 Aug 18 - 09:52 AM

Seems fair enough to me. Prevents parliament from doing something stupid. Would that we had something similar in the UK.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Aug 18 - 10:01 AM

Changes to laws and regulations may ONLY be suggested by the Commission

I do not know whether that is true for the EU or not but changes to any member countries individual laws are not "only suggested by the commission". They are suggested by that countries own government and if the commission feels that the law is good enough to incorporate into EU legislature than they will recommend that it happens.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Aug 18 - 11:16 AM

Correct, Dave. And agreed, David. Come on Nigel, force yourself to say what Stanron couldn't: "We have laws imposed on us by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels." We don't mind if you do!

For your delectation again, Nigel, here's how it works. Agreement on new or changed laws or regulations is often reached by consensus among nations before a vote is even considered. Over 95% of EU laws that have been debated during our membership have been fully agreed to by the UK without demur. Of the few remaining, we have abstained on about half and opposed the rest. In other words, there are very few laws that have been "imposed" without our agreement, and certainly nothing major. Here's a clue, Nigel. There are 28 countries in the EU. In every one of them the vast majority of domestic laws have nothing to do with the EU. When it comes to those EU laws and regulations, there are various degrees of veto available, to blocs of member states or even to individual larger members. You can't keep 28 countries happy by constant impositions of rules they don't want to accept. Every one of those 28 enjoys a good degree of nationalistic fervour and distinct national identity. Not saying for a minute that there haven't been issues, sometimes significant. But what do you expect in a club of 28 sovereign nations with a population of nearly half a billion? Let's consider how well Theresa May has handled a club of one with an eighth of that population, shall we?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 22 Aug 18 - 12:14 PM

Sorry Steve, not good enough, you'll have to do better than that. The Brexiteers are not at all impressed by facts, especially if they're presented by 'experts' - the Brexiteers have said many times that they are 'fed up with experts'

And I'm sorry to have to bring this up here, but you must remember that the Brexiteers are 'taking are cuntry back', and they're going to do it despite people like you coming along, muddying the water with facts! :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Aug 18 - 01:46 PM

Nigel will tell you, however, that my "facts" are not facts at all, just my opinions. So that's all right then, John! :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 22 Aug 18 - 05:14 PM

Re posting of 21 Aug 18 - 09:48 AM

The first thing I discovered about the Full Fact website is that it's claims for impartiality are strongly contested, and not only by pro Brexiteers. The consensus is that it is a left wing propaganda site, so I can see how the echo chamber here will be all in favour.

A partial quote from your quote of the Pro EU biased Full Fact website;

"It also doesn’t necessarily mean the money was ‘wasted’, just that it wasn’t paid out according to the rules."

And your argument is that that is not corrupt?

The EU does have form on selectively not following rules. But that's OK folks. Steve thinks it's not corrupt.

And, of course, offering politicians and ex-politicians super high salaries and pensions to work for the EU at the expense of, and not always in the interest of, their own countries is not corrupt? You'll be pleased about the £10 million pension pot earned by the Kinnocks won't you? You have paid some of it.

Your quote;

"If you think the EU's refusal to comply amounts to their "incompetence," then the little England you inhabit must be on another planet somewhere."

The UK has been the second largest financial contributor to the EU budget after Germany. The EU will now have to do without that contribution or raise it from the remaining membership. Neither option is going to be popular or constructive. Reforms could have resulted with the avoidance of this loss and it's ensuing problems. The EU position was inflexible and doctrinaire. If it is not incompetent, what is it?

As for the 'Little Englander' sneer, I usually associate this sort of thing as coming from that part of the far left who, in the fifties and sixties, felt more loyalty towards the Soviet Union than their own country. Patriotism was something to sneer at. Same thing here?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Aug 18 - 05:49 PM

Tell you what, Stanron: drop your incredibly stupid echo chamber sneer (after all, it's meaningless drivel compared to your "take back control" mantra which goes way beyond echo and well into brainless parrot territory) and I'll consider dropping my rather accurate "little Englander" characterisation. No promises, mind, and you will have to promise not to TALK like a little Englander, constantly pitching our country against the EU and refusing to try to be a constructive partner.

As for EU corruption, a charge that you have consistently demonstrated that you can't substantiate, a payment made in error is likely to be just that with no dishonest intent. We are talking here about a tiny percentage, low single figures, of EU money. You have no evidence bar your rather silly "no smoke without fire" smear. Some of those wonderful Tory MPs fighting your shabby brexit corner were guilty of severe dishonesty over expenses claims, but I suppose that's all right, even though that was provable whereas your EU nasty corruption smear can't be corroborated. Piss or get off tbe pot, Stan. Give us your proof. Put up or shut up. You don't get to convince anyone except your fellow brexiteer suckers who, unlike thinking people, need bus slogans instead of facts.