Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Robin-H

  • Rank
    Registered User

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. No wonder they're empty if they're trying to let them out at £100pcm over market value.
  2. Seems like Sheffield is head and shoulders above the rest too according to that article... Sheffield had a 12% rise in Londoners moving to buy or rent in 2018, followed by Newcastle and Leeds, which both recorded 5% increases.
  3. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of continuity Corbyn from the Jewish Labour movement.
  4. I'm not irked at all. Unfortunately, the examples you've given don't refute what I've said. For the avoidance of doubt, I will reassert my position. I don't believe that between 2016 and 2019 the Tory party were guaranteeing frictionless trade under all circumstances, as I believe you suggested in your post. That's not to say that if you searched you wouldn't be able to find a speech or an article where a Conservative MP asserted we would have frictionless trade with the EU after Brexit. I am referring to the official Conservative position, evidenced either through their manifesto, or through repeating their position in interviews, news articles, etc etc. It may well be the someone once or twice sloppily said frictionless trade when they meant free trade, or indeed that they personally believed we could have frictionless trade. As has been made very clear in the past few years Conservative MPs don't agree on a lot when it comes to Brexit.. The 2016 article about Gove doesn't mention frictionless trade, it mentions free trade. Turkey is in the European Free Trade Zone that Gove mentions in that article, however Turkey doesn't have frictionless trade with the EU. Documentation is needed to cross the border, including things such as export licences, invoices and transport permits etc etc. I have already quoted parts of Theresa's speech written up in the 2018 Reuters article myself. Again, rather than contradict my position, it reaffirms it. In her speech, May mentions trade being 'as frictionless as possible'. Those two words 'as possible' are important. We have frictionless trade with the EU at the moment, so repeated mentions of 'as frictionless as possible' in the future clearly indicates that the level of friction is going to increase. May wasn't guaranteeing frictionless trade. Your last article is about trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not the UK and the EU. I would absolutely agree that Johnson (and others) have repeatedly claimed that trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland can be frictionless after Brexit, and I think it is clear that he was (and is) incorrect about that, which is why he ended up agreeing to a 'border' in the irish sea rather than border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. I've never claimed otherwise. (I can't read the Financial Times article as it is behind a paywall).
  5. Reading his full quote puts a slightly different spin on things.. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/30/brexit-spirit-crushing-green-directives-minister-george-eustice "...the pro-Brexit minister said a leave vote in the 23 June referendum would free up a £2bn green dividend that could be spent on insurance schemes and incentives for farmers. Our objective would be to put in place a government-backed insurance scheme, similar to the one in Canada, to protect farmers from bad weather, crop failures and drops in prices,” Eustice said. “We would also have a whole suite of accreditation schemes run by the Soil Association, Rivers Trust and RSPCA to incentivise farmers to do positive things for the environment.” I think it's too early to say one way or the other whether Eustace will do things positive for the environment or not. I hope he does, but let's wait and see.
  6. I'm sorry, but think about what you're actually saying for a minute... Every single post on this forum will be interpreted by the reader. It is not possible to magically know the mind of the person writing a particular comment, and so we interpret the words that have been written to come to an understanding of what has been said. Sometimes, that will be very straight forward. If a comment said 'I like cats' it is very simple to infer the meaning. We all know what 'I like cats' means, and there is no room for the meaning to be lost between the writer and the reader (though this being Sheffield Forum, nothing would surprise me). Not all comments however are as clear, and so it is perfectly legitimate for someone to think a comment implies something that was never the intention of the writer. If you think I am interpreting your comment incorrectly then just say so, and explain what you actually meant. If everybody on this forum complained when someone inferred something in someone's post, or interpreted their understanding of what was meant by reading between the lines (either correctly or incorrectly) then no discussion would ever get anywhere. In post #4051 you said 'Thanks for reconfirming that Tory voters knew what they were voting for' in reply to my comment that actually said nothing to do with that at all. Nowhere had I written that. You interpreted my post and came to the conclusion that is what I was implying. That's how discussion works... If my interpretation was wrong, just tell me. We're all adults.
  7. That's my interpretation, yes. Under the claims in that post, someone voting Tory in 2017 or 2019 would have done so with the belief that the Tories were promising frictionless trade post-brexit. You then claim that it wasn't until 2020 that Tories suddenly said that they'd been saying there would be post-brexit border checks all along, so surely anyone voting Tory in 2017 or 2019 wouldn't have known that they were actually voting for a party that had secretly intended for border checks all along....
  8. Prove what? Prove that your comment implied that Tory voters didn't know what they were voting for? I think that's clear from reading it. You claimed (incorrectly) that the Tories were promising frictionless trade in 2016-2019, and so anyone who voted Tory during this time were being mislead. If you mean can I prove that Tory voters actually didn't know what they were voting for, then of course not no. I would have to interview a huge number of Tory voters and analyse what they believed at the time and what we know to be the truth now..
  9. Or it could be because he was an actual banker... (he worked for Goldman Sachs). Just wondering what being the son in law of an Indian billionaire has got to do with anything.
  10. I would say Aesthete in Walkley is quite upmarket (£5.60 for some scrambled eggs, £6 for porridge). It seems to be doing very well.
  11. They said 40 mile, not 40 minute.
  12. There is a big difference between tree maintenance (removing dead or dangerous branches) and the unnecessary removal of thousands of street trees.
  13. Your post claimed that Tory voters didn't know what they were voting for, and that the Tories have consistently promised frictionless trade. I refute that. It wasn't in their manifesto for a start. I believe that people who voted for Brexit (I wouldn't know exactly, as I wasn't one..) voted because they no longer wanted to be so closely intertwined with the EU.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.