For All Those Who Claim We are Leaving The EU, A Spanner In The Works

[Gerrydelasel]

It's pretty much general knowledge. Look up the voting statistics. If you can't, if you don't know how, I'll do it for you.

Evidence of lower qualifications/social position is not the same thing as evidence of naivety, delusion, or believing £350M will be handed over the NHS. That's the claim you're making, you need to back it up.

It was the Brexiters slogan and it was what the Brexiters voted for.

So, you interviewed several million Brexiters about their specific motives to vote, right? Or you can point to the evidence where you learned it? Should be easy if it's general knowledge.

 

[Himaginn]

It's pretty much general knowledge. Look up the voting statistics. If you can't, if you don't know how, I'll do it for you.

Evidence of lower qualifications/social position is not the same thing as evidence of naivety, delusion, or believing £350M will be handed over the NHS. That's the claim you're making, you need to back it up.

I don't need to prove it. It's common knowledge that the less educated, less qualified are not the sharpest tool in the box.
It's how a meritocracy works.

It was the Brexiters slogan and it was what the Brexiters voted for.

So, you interviewed several million Brexiters about their specific motives to vote, right? Or you can point to the evidence where you learned it? Should be easy if it's general knowledge.

I don't need to ask all the Brexit voters. A poll of a few hundred or thousand would suffice.
The common reasons given by the intending Brexiters prior to the referendum was; immigration, NHS and Sovereignty.
Where have you been?
That was the themes campaigned by the Brexiters.
Now they're admitting they can't deliver!
As Juncker put it: "The Brexiters campaigned on those issues, so they should have appraised the situation prior to producing their campaign. In which case, they should already know what they want from the negotiations. So why the silence? Why the disappearing act? Why the need for delay? Why do they now need to appraise the situation?"

 

[^woody^]

Unfortunately, as in all, referendums/elections, etc, there are voters who are less educated, less qualified, and are easily misled

One of the good or bad things about democratic voting, depending on your perspective, is that it allows everyone regardless of their education, to vote based on the specific issues relevent to them. I find it bizarre that the young voters are blaming the old, the educated blaming the less educated, or the x's blaming the y's. With a vote everyone is equal and voters should not be critised for voting on their beliefs. That's the system.

It's not just the campaigners that influence, but everyone tends to have converstaions with friends, family, colleagues etc, so the issues are discussed and decisions can be made or changed. So the oportunity is there for the messages to get across and ideas challenged in more ways than one.

The idea is to tune into the electorate and explain things not just honestly, but in ways that people understand and are relevent to the individual.

One of the massive mistakes of the Remain camp, and one which they are not acepting responsibility for or being criticised for by the losing side, is that their tales of doom and gloom were just not believeable (whether true or not). They did not get their message across to the electorate in any way that would change minds.

Thats where I think the dissapointed voters should be directing their frustrations.

 

[Gerrydelasel]

That was the themes campaigned by the Brexiters.
Now they're admitting they can't deliver!

No, they've only said they can't deliver the straw men being erected by Remainers like you. No, they can't deliver £350M per week to the NHS, but they can (with Remain MPs support) deliver some money to the NHS, and reduce immigration to some extent, and acheive soverignty by leaving the EU.

Why do they now need to appraise the situation?

Because as Cameron pointed out in PMQ today, you can't make uniform promises on a hypothetical situation that hasn't happened yet. The narrow outcome of the vote, the distribution of voting, the PM's resignation, the amount of economic hit, the EU and other countries' reactions, are all factors that need consideration. Politics is more complex than you seem to appreciate.

 

[Himaginn]

One of the massive mistakes of the Remain camp, and one which they are not acepting responsibility for or being criticised for by the losing side, is that their tales of doom and gloom were just not believeable (whether true or not). They did not get their message across to the electorate in any way that would change minds.

You mean the Remainers should have twisted it a bit to make it more believable, even though it may be the truth?

Thats where I think the dissapointed voters should be directing their frustrations.

Rather than at those who did (or tried to) mislead the general electorate?

 

[EFLImpudence]

One of the good or bad things about democratic voting, depending on your perspective, is that it allows everyone regardless of their education, to vote based on the specific issues relevent to them. I find it bizarre that the young voters are blaming the old, the educated blaming the less educated, or the x's blaming the y's. With a vote everyone is equal and voters should not be critised for voting on their beliefs. That's the system.

Yes, but they all foolishly believed they would get a new drill.

 

[JohnD]

Gerry pretends that the Outist campaign was straw men.

It would be interesting to know which bits of the Outist campaign he thinks were straw, and which bits he thinks are to be taken seriously.

If any.

 

[Himaginn]

That was the themes campaigned by the Brexiters.
Now they're admitting they can't deliver!

No, they've only said they can't deliver the straw men being erected by Remainers like you. No, they can't deliver £350M per week to the NHS, but they can (with Remain MPs support) deliver some money to the NHS, and reduce immigration to some extent, and acheive soverignty by leaving the EU.

Those weren't the campaign arguments. You know it, they know it, we knew it, the referendum Authority knew it. Sadly, some easily led people believed them.

Why do they now need to appraise the situation?

Because as Cameron pointed out in PMQ today, you can't make uniform promises on a hypothetical situation that hasn't happened yet. The narrow outcome of the vote, the distribution of voting, the PM's resignation, the amount of economic hit, the EU and other countries' reactions, are all factors that need consideration. Politics is more complex than just "promise, deliver, promise, deliver".

But if the Brexiters now need time to set out their stall, they hadn't given it sufficient consideration before campaigning for Brexit. I am talking about the Brexiters declaring waht kind of relationship they hope to achieve. The a la carte access to free market is not available. We knew, they knew it, the EU knew it.
The fact is, they didn't know what they wanted, they didn't know how to achieve it, yet they told us all what the benefits would be, despite not knowing what was achievable!
As I said the other day, if you don't know where you want to go, you won't know how to get there, and you won't know when you've arrived!

 

[Gerrydelasel]

Gerry pretends that the Outist campaign was straw men.

John likes talking to an imaginary friend who is standing next to him, or something?

It would be interesting to know which bits of the Outist campaign he thinks were straw, and which bits he thinks are to be taken seriously.

£350m a week to the NHS = Straw man; never literally claimed.

Cut migration to tens of thousands a year = Straw man. Only claimed under leading questioning in high pressure interviews, and the figure is derived from Cameron anyway.

keep foreign fishing boats out of water near our coast = Nonsensical

erect barriers against imported steel = Semi straw man. Leaving the EU is itself an encouragement to domestic trade, although not strictly a 'barrier' to foreign steel

give us full access to the Open Market without us having to follow EU rules or laws = Straw man. No one said those who trade with the open market would somehow be exempt from its rules

maintain agricultural subsidies = Not straw man, although with (hopefully) increasing domestic produce the subsidies could be reduced over time.

ensure UK citizens still have the right to move to EU countries = Not straw man. No reason why they wouldn't have the right to move, just like they already have the right to move to almost everywhere except N Korea.

As I said the other day, if you don't know where you want to go, you won't know how to get there, and you won't know when you've arrived!

You forget, there was but one, single, unifying aim of the whole thing: leave the EU. We'll know when we arrive.

 

[JohnD]

£350m a week to the NHS = Straw man

.

It's really funny that Gerry can look at a big red poster or a big red bus and pretend it doesn't exist.

Monday: Vote for me and everyone gets a free new drill!

Tuesday: I never promised anyone a drill.

 

[Gerrydelasel]

It's really funny that Gerry can look at a big red poster or a big red bus and pretend it doesn't exist.

See posts #41 through #52

 

[Himaginn]

Gerry pretends that the Outist campaign was straw men.
It would be interesting to know which bits of the Outist campaign he thinks were straw, and which bits he thinks are to be taken seriously.

John likes talkign to an imaginary person standing next to him.

£350m a week to the NHS = Straw man; never literally claimed.

Then why didn't they remove it or explain after being pulled up by the referendum authority?

Cut migration to tens of thousands a year = Straw man. Only claimed under leading questioning in high pressure interviews, and the figure is derived from Cameron anyway.

And adopted by the Brexiters.

keep foreign fishing boats out of water near our coast = Nonsensical

Criticisms of Fishing Policy!

erect barriers against imported steel = Semi straw man. Leaving the EU is itself an encouragement to domestic trade, although not strictly a 'barrier' to foreign steel

Look up the arguments against EU for preventing UK government financial assistance to industry.

give us full access to the Open Market without us having to follow EU rules or laws = Straw man. No one said those who trade with the open market would somehow be exempt from its rules

Wow.....that's a howler! Remember this one: "Only 6% of industry trades with EU, other 94% don't need to comply with EU regulations."

maintain agricultural subsidies = Not straw man, although with (hopefully) increasing domestic produce the subsidies could be reduced over time.

How will domestic produce be increased? Another pie-in-the-sky?

ensure UK citizens still have the right to move to EU countries = Not straw man. No reason why they wouldn't have the right to move, just liek they have the right to move to Australia.

Only if EU citizens have the similar right to live/work in UK. Oh yes that immigration quota again.
Oh, and they don't have the right to move to Australia. It's a privilege.

As I said the other day, if you don't know where you want to go, you won't know how to get there, and you won't know when you've arrived!

You forget, there was but one, single, unifying aim of the whole thing: leave the EU. We'll know when we get there.

At what cost?
Like a gambler, he/she will know when they win the jackpot...........if they ever do.......if they're not bankrupt before.

 

[Himaginn]

It's really funny that Gerry can look at a big red poster or a big red bus and pretend it doesn't exist.

See posts #41 through #52

Even Farage admits it was a mistake, after trying to deny his involvement.
Gerry just keeps saying we didn't really meant that!

IDS says the immigration target is unachievable. Gerry just says it wasn't really our target.

 

[Gerrydelasel]

Then why didn't they remove it or explain after being pulled up by the referendum authority?

They explained it was the gross figure.

And adopted by the Brexiters.

No evidence for this. Need specific interviews from thousands of people.

Criticisms of Fishing Policy!

No explanation of what you even mean. Station military guns with orders to fire on foreign ships? No point answering nonsense.

Look up the arguments against EU for preventing UK government financial assistance to industry.

So subsidise the steel industry, then.

Remember this one: "Only 6% of industry trades with EU, other 94% don't need to comply with EU regulations."

Correct.

How will domestic produce be increased?

Without EU quotas, farmers can produce instead of being subsidised not to produce. That domestic produce becomes cheaper than imported, so people buy it.

Only if EU citizens have the similar right to live/work in UK.

If someone has means of income/self support, no criminal record, and a visa, what's wrong with that?

 

[Himaginn]

Then why didn't they remove it or explain after being pulled up by the referendum authority?

They explained it was the gross figure.

And adopted by the Brexiters.

No evidence for this. Need specific interviews from thousands of people.

Don't be utterly ridiculous. Voters decide on the campaign promises/slogans call it what you will, not on some weird idea of their own!

Criticisms of Fishing Policy!

No explanation of what you even mean. Station military guns with orders to fire on foreign ships? No point answering nonsense.

Mr Johnson, from the Leave campaign, told BBC's Countryfile British fishermen needed to be freed from "crazy" EU rules.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-36453416
You have a short memory, or a selective one.

Look up the arguments against EU for preventing UK government financial assistance to industry.

So subsidise the steel industry, then.

But it was your argument that the steel industry was a straw man argument. Now you're ducking and diving your assertion.

Remember this one: "Only 6% of industry trades with EU, other 94% don't need to comply with EU regulations."

Correct.

Except that the 6% use many of the other 94% as subsidiary contributions. Are you aware of the Canadian trade agreement/ 100% of goods must be of Canadian origin and produce, and comply with EU rules. So 6% of UK industry directly trades with EU, but the produce is an accumulation of much of the other 94%.

How will domestic produce be increased?

Without EU quotas, farmers can produce instead of being subsidised not to produce. That domestic produce becomes cheaper than imported, so people buy it.

Is it the EU's fault that so many dairy farms are packing up? Strange, they seem to be blaming the supermarkets. Are they mistaken?
Another weird point is that UK Farming subsidies are to blame for lack of food security in UK, not EU policies:

Food security is far more complex and relies on revising many of the UK’s agricultural policies. Some of these are related to production. The UK has failed to invest enough in agricultural research over the past few decades, meaning homegrown techniques and technologies to sustainably increase production have not been developed. But increased production can also conflict with a healthy environment or the survival of small farms. These “externalities” must be addressed in order to provide long term food security and are more important than the raw amount of food grown.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...d-the-uk-feed-itself-farming-self-sufficiency

Only if EU citizens have the similar right to live/work in UK.

If someone has means of income/self support, no criminal record, and a visa, what's wrong with that?

It means that we'd need visas, live and work in EU. Your original argument, which you haven't included:

ensure UK citizens still have the right to move to EU countries = Not straw man. No reason why they wouldn't have the right to move, just like they already have the right to move to almost everywhere except N Korea.

If one needs a visa it's not a right. It's a privilege. Privileges can be withdrawn.