Justin Smith

I remember listening to a prog on R4 in which the Cornish did not come to the same conclusion at all..... Still, you could say it`s their own fault, they voted to leave. ---------- Post added 11-03-2017 at 12:45 ---------- I`m not entirely sure he called you an idiot, you, in this context, can refer to the third person. Personally I`d have said "unless one is an idiot", then there is no doubt. ---------- Post added 11-03-2017 at 12:52 ---------- Originally Posted by retep : Where do you think that money comes from? Of course, but one cannot say we contribute £350 million a day (which the NHS will have.....), if we get billions a year back into this country. Particularly as the Govt have said they`d compensate the farmers for any lost EU subsidy. I know they`ve only guaranteed that to 2020, but I think it`s a good bet they`ll continue with quite a bit of it afterwards, if for no other reason than farmers, and many living in the country, tend to vote Tory. And the way things are going with the labour party the Tories will be in power for at least another 5 years after 2020.

That`s interesting. I do wonder how they get round the sex equality laws, though having said that, are they just a myth ? ! ?

Well, in terms of the cost, we get a billions back for our own farmers ! Now I know, unless I`ve got mixed up, you said you think they get too much anyway, but the point, is that money does come back here, And that, was not made clear by the Leave campaign.

When Retep, or whoever, goes on about "club fees" we should really examine what they`re talking about. Let`s ignore the £12.7 billion figure because net that`s incorrect anyway, and just talk about what these monies are for. As far as I know, correct me if I am wrong, most of this money is redistributed around the EU for environmental projects and to the poorer more economically backward areas. If that`s the case the obvious motivation for Brexiteers for wanting to keep that is they don`t want to give any money to poorer areas, particularly if they're not in the UK. So let`s just be honest about it shall we ? Forget all this "club fees" nonsense and just say "I don`t want to give any money to poorer areas, particularly if they`re not in the UK". OK now we`ve got that out of the way, have any of these people heard of the Marshall plan ? I`d have thought many ardent Brexiteers would have done so because they tend to be older (they may even have been around when it was in motion, only joking ! ). Basically after the War the USA gave shed loads of money and other aid to Europe to help it get back to economic health. This was partly to ensure the health of capitalism, but also because they realised that a richer Europe was good for them, they could sell more stuff to it. So, even if we forget about the moral side of wealth redistribution are we not also forgetting that in the long term, just like for America, it`s better for us to make these areas wealthier ?

I'm not sure I agree with you over the immediate post Brexit predictions, but in any case what really counts is the longer term, and we shall see. However, I think we`re missing a significant point, other than the Osborne Emergency budget, predictions are just that, the £350 million promise was a lie and the Leave campaign knew it. As was the assurance we`d get a good (implying "as good", we won`t suffer) trade deal, that was either a lie or those making it were unbelievably naïve. ---------- Post added 11-03-2017 at 08:31 ---------- Oh Retep, what are you talking about ? Where do you get that from ? From the Daily Mail or Daily Express ? In the first place the "club fees" as you call them aren`t as high as the DM or DE say they are, and in the second place, after paying all the compensation to the farmers and the auto industry and Gawd knows who else there will be no club fees to be given to the NHS or anyone else.

I`m unsure whether to put this in the Sports section, or the General, because, let`s face it, it`s a wider point than when Heeley pool is available..... I was thinking of going to Heeley pool this afternoon, a Saturday. I then discovered that most of the afternoon it`s advertised as "Ladies only". Now, is it just me, or is that sexist and unfair ? I`m not sure I agree with Ladies only sessions at all, but if you do have them surely you should also have Gents only sessions to balance it up ? It seems to me that women want their cake and eat it. They want to be treated the same as men, but also a bit better as well. Is that not the case ?

I don`t see how you can say whether the Remain campaign was or was not misleading, for the very simple reason that we haven`t actually left the EU yet. On the other hand it`s interesting, is it not, how many of the Leave "promises" are already being revised, or dropped completely. Don`t get me wrong, you may (or more likely may not) be right in the end, but we`ll see what is going on over the next two years shall we ?

That`s just the problem, me, and millions of others, to varying degrees I admit, will not get over it. My position, and I suspect many others, is in my signature.

More so, yes, significantly more, apart from Osbornes ridiculous emergency budget (which nobody believed anyway).

As you know we've got very different takes on if that (tight) result was the result of an honest campaign, and, in fact, what the voters were voting for. I`m also interested to know if the support for Brexit remains at its present level * (hasn`t it started to drop already ? ) if and when the full price starts coming through. I wonder if any workers at Toyota Burnaston have changed their minds..... * If it has it proves to me there are many voters out there who don`t think very hard (or they read the Mail or Express, which amounts to the same thing....). For those who actually think about it I`d have thought Trump`s Presidency should make those who weren`t hard core Brexiteers waver I`d have thought.

Tell me UB, since, as has been pointed out, you do not have to use your EU citizenship if you don`t want to*, why does it upset you so much that you have it ? * Here`s an interesting one, do you use the EU citizens queue at airports ? I wouldn`t have thought you have to do that, even if the queue does tend to move faster !

I half heard an interview with that chap on R4`s today programme. Was he hinting there could be some chance that UK citizens who wanted to could still hold an EU passport ? I`d like that for me and my family. If you think about it why should that be impossible ? Loads of people have dual nationality.

Whenever I go on Rightmove, once I`ve established exactly where the property is, the floor plan is the first thing I look at.

I was reading my mother-in-law`s copy of the Daily Mail yesterday. it was a painful experience but I thought of it as "research". The article below caught my eye and I have copied it out exactly, I thought it`d be a good example of how the DM`s bias works : Daily Mail (9 Mar 17) £13bn a year Brexit boost. Britain will bank nearly £13 billion a year from leaving the UU, official estimates suggest. By the time the UK leaves in 2019, ending payments into the EU budget will boost the Government finances by £12.7 billion, the office for Budget Responsibility said yesterday. However, the OBR risked further criticism for other more characteristically downbeat forecasts about Brexit. It warned that leaving will result in a decade of lower growth in exports to the European Union, and that as a result, Britain will have a “lower share of EU markets”. Now, I looked for this £12.7 billion figure on the OBRs website but Google was unable to find it. Maybe the DM is getting mixed up with the infamous and discredited £12.7 billion we pay to the EU which the Leave campaign have trumpeted in the past. This page explains that it may be a figure we pay into the EU, but we get £4 billion back again. There was no mention of that in the DM article. It also says "the OBR risked further criticism", by whom ? I read the Times and the Telegraph before that and they`d never come out with such an unattributed comment, they`d say who was doing the criticising and, if it was a "think tank" whether it was left or right leaning. Lastly the article never mentions the moneys which have been promised to the farmers, Nissan and Gawd knows who else. Nor does it mention any other calls on that £12.7 billion due directly to the EU exit. It`s classic biased journalism. Can anyone else spot any other bias in it which I may have missed ? All in all it really is no wonder that Daily Mail and Daily Express readers have such an inaccurate and biased view of the world around us all. Without wishing to sound too patronising, it`s not all their own fault if they read the DM or DE. The problem is those people vote and those votes affect the rest of us.

Nigel old son, good to see you on, don`t forget to answer this question : ---------- Post added 10-03-2017 at 13:20 ---------- Justin Smith wrote : Careful UB, that makes you sound like a Daily Mail / Daily Express reader..... Sorry are you saying that calling someone a Daily Mail reader is abuse ? I would half agree with you as it happens, it`s just I`m a bit surprised you think that as well. I`m sure UB took the comment in the light hearted manner it was intended, didn`t you UB ?

Careful UB, that makes you sound like a Daily Mail / Daily Express reader..... ---------- Post added 10-03-2017 at 10:18 ---------- It`s not just about economics, though I feel we`ll be better off in the EU. I don`t think we`ll go way down hill as some Remainers have predicted, I think we`ll be just a bit worse off in the long term, probably more so in the short to medium term*. However, I feel the UK and by definition my family, is safer and more secure in the EU. Even more so now we`ve got an idiot loose cannon in the Whitehouse, and, indeed, the rise of Nationalism generally. * If that perfectly reasonable prediction comes true, I would suggest that, had the voting population known it, Britain would have voted to stay in the EU. Comfortably more than 2% changing sides (or 4% not voting at all) would have given a different result. One has to remember, only a relatively small proportion of Leave voters were hard core types (less than 15% in Apr 2015),

More than ever I think the advent of Rightmove and Zoopla has changed how people sell their homes and expensive "full package" estate agents are not required for most people. BUT, looking on Rightmove has repeatedly reminded me , why do so many sellers not have floorplans on their Rightmove entries ? It really is so stupid and such a false economy. Always have a floorplan in your house sale info ! ! !

I said this back in September, it`s the oldest quote I could find, but I`m sure I was saying the same thing before that. Anyway, it`s just as true now : I doubt very much that the EU will give the UK free access to the single market without free movement of people or the payment of huge sums of money. At the end of the day if they do that, the whole of the EU project will start to unravel, so they won`t, and why should they ? It`s probably more likely, but by no means certain, that the EU itself could start to introduce certain restrictions on the free movement of people within the EU itself (because of internal pressures, i.e. the right in various EU richer countries). But that would then beg the question, shouldn`t the UK have another referendum because the whole question has changed ? Again we all know what the Brexit campaign will say "we had a referendum, we don`t want a another one (whatever has changed)". Or, to put it another way "we`re not listening"...... If the economic meltdown happens as you say, you don`t think Britain leaving the EU would have had anything to do with it ? Because much of it was entirely predictable. None of it was ever spouted by the Leave campaign before the referendum, absolutely none of it. As I`ve said before, arch Brexiteers wouldn`t be worried about it anyway, but we both know more then enough Leave voters would have been for a different result to have occurred. And that, to me, is the reason I`ve lost all respect for British democracy, and have none for the Leave vote.

How so ? I just want them to be consistent. UB is making a fist of it, or going as far as he can, it`ll be interesting to see what the other say, if anything.

Critically, that`s not what Boris Johnson et al said in the campaign...... Oh, and I think they (the EU) would be stupid to give us a good deal. The logical starting point for their negotiating strategy should be it will be worse than we had as a member, significantly so. Anyway, that`s UB answered, probably as expected, we`re just waiting for Nigel Fargate, Apelike and Gamston, plus any others prepared to put their heads above the parapet.

Why are you even quoting a Daily Express story ?

The two biggest lies, or at least gross distortions of the Leave referendum campaign were the NHS`s £350 million a week, and the often quoted reply to "won`t our European trade suffer if we leave the EU". Their frequently repeated line was, more or less : "They sell more to us than we sell to them so we`ll get a good deal (implying as good) as we`ve got now, that`s just common sense" They kept at this line, in fact still are peddling it, despite everyone else saying that wouldn`t happen. Now, why I`ve brought this up now is it`s all about to kick off, and what I, and most other Europhiles, do not want to happen is for the Brexiteers to come up with something like this : "The EU not giving us a good deal is illogical so we could not have foreseen it" We can`t control what Boris Johnson or Nigel Farage says, but I think we`d like the Sheffield Forum Brexiteers to at least promise they won`t come up with some similar, totally bogus, line. So come on Unbeliever, Nigel Fargate, Apelike, Gamston et al, are you prepared to make such an undertaking ? Incidentally, the workers at Toyota Burnaston must be a bit nervous, what with Toyota saying they will delay taking a decision on the new model for that plant. Some would say it serves them right, 57% in Derby voted to leave, though I do wonder what the vote was amongst Burnaston workers..... Still, the Leave campaign said it`d be fine, so they don`t need to worry do they ?

Originally Posted by Justin Smith : Crime prevention is exceptionally important. It isn`t just the cost of crime, which is massive, it`s the blight on people`s lives, both actual and imagined. Thus, if having extremely well resourced special schools improves the educational attainment of the excluded pupils, enables the kids in the other schools to study better without disruption, and reduces crime, it`s worth it, more or less however much it costs. So what do you think we should be doing with these disruptive pupils ? The question is even more relevant to anyone in favour, or at least not against, Grammar schools, because those kids going to a Grammar are much less likely to have to put up with the disruptive pupils.....

I`m only going by what my bloke said. I suppose if it was absolutely ear splitting, such as it was painful for them to test it, it might be different. But, as has been said on here a few times, many of the bike owners swap the exhaust for a quieter one then back again after the test. Incidentally, that by itself would prove they know they`re doing something wrong and, at best, anti social.

The police rarely stop bikes or cars however noisy they are, despite the fact I pay them to do so. I assume they think they`re not there to improve the environment. In a way they`re correct, there should arguably be a separate agency tasked with doing that. Not just loud cars and bikes, but for all the other anti environment stuff, such as fly tipping. They should be given real teeth and big fines would be imposed. Very few MOT centres will fail a bike (or car) for having an illegal exhaust, I`ve asked the garage I use and that`s what they told me. ---------- Post added 08-03-2017 at 13:40 ---------- It worries me that you, and others, think that objecting to ear splitting, and, in fact, illegal, exhausts, makes me self righteous. I`d have thought it just makes me normal, I`ve never met anyone who likes being deafened by some noisy vehicle. Why would they ?