Nightmare or comedy ? Boris and Trump, together..

[Justin Smith 10]

Its not available until we leave, but once we have left he can vote for a party that is offering to give the NHS £350,000 a week.

 

You know as well as I do that`s a totally false answer, and, it was not what was said (or heavily implied) by the Leave campaign during the referendum. Haven`t the Govt already said that they`ll ensure nobody will be worse off if we leave the EU ? If they haven`t they`ve certainly implied it, so, already, half that money won`t be available. Any that`s left (plus some possibly....) will be used to compensate the farmers and large companies with clout (e.g. Nissan).

[unbeliever 10]

Its not available until we leave, but once we have left he can vote for a party that is offering to give the NHS £350,000 a week.

 

Again we're on generally the same side, but it's very hard to defend that figure.

 

If the effect of leaving were completely neutral, about half of that amount would be available.

If the effect were positive an arbitrary additional amount would be available, but it would be very unlikely to come out near enough £350m/week to validate this argument.

If the effect were negative, it's possible we will have less money for the NHS over the next few years.

 

Still, we can always move money from elsewhere to top it up as you say, but then we could have done that without leaving the EU.

Altogether, I would like to gently suggest to all leave supporters and (most especially Gisela Stuart) that they should stop defending the figure (or at least the phrasing of the bus slogan, which was literally false).

[Justin Smith 10]

There's no need. It doesn't contradict anything I've said.

The UK was in preparation for Euro membership right up until 2010. It would have returned to that state of affairs as soon as things had quieted down post referendum (if we'd voted to remain).

Schengen is of no significance on way or there other.

 

We transferred many additional powers with Lisbon as we had with all previous treaties and that trend had been continuing for over 40 years.

On what possible grounds can you argue that this had suddenly changed and our integration had permanently ceased?

 

Your point seemed to be that the UK, along with all the other members would have no choice but end up in a "European Superstate". I`m simply pointing out you`re wrong, if the UK isn`t in Schengen or the Euro, how exactly would that happen.

There`s a sad, vary sad, irony here, I wasn`t in favour of a European state before, but, after the Referendum and its aftermath, I`m way less patriotic than I was, so now I`m not so sure. I know others who feel the same way, patriotism (or lack of it) wise.

Incidentally UB, did you ever answer my question : purely theoretically speaking how bad would things have to be for you to think the whole thing was just not worth it ? Or do you take the view it doesn`t matter how bad things might get, it`s still all been worth it ?

[unbeliever 10]

Your point seemed to be that the UK, along with all the other members would have no choice but end up in a "European Superstate". I`m simply pointing out you`re wrong, if the UK isn`t in Schengen or the Euro, how exactly would that happen.

There`s a sad, vary sad, irony here, I wasn`t in favour of a European state before, but, after the Referendum and its aftermath, I`m way less patriotic than I was, so now I`m not so sure. I know others who feel the same way, patriotism (or lack of it) wise.

Incidentally UB, did you ever answer my question : purely theoretically speaking how bad would things have to be for you to think the whole thing was just not worth it ? Or do you take the view it doesn`t matter how bad things might get, it`s still all been worth it ?

 

 

I don't know if I can honestly put a price on sovereignty. It's not something I'm comfortable selling. The worst predictions I've seen don't come close to deterring me.

 

You ask how we could enter a super-state as we're not in Schengen or the Euro. The answer is rather obvious. By joining Schengen and the Euro. We could have opted into these things at any time and as every other opt-in we've ever had has been activated it was only a matter of time.

I'm not very nationalistic myself. But I don't like to see people suffer needlessly as a result of an ideologically driven massive experiment.

[Petminder 10]

Again we're on generally the same side, but it's very hard to defend that figure.

 

If the effect of leaving were completely neutral, about half of that amount would be available.

If the effect were positive an arbitrary additional amount would be available, but it would be very unlikely to come out near enough £350m/week to validate this argument.

If the effect were negative, it's possible we will have less money for the NHS over the next few years.

 

Still, we can always move money from elsewhere to top it up as you say, but then we could have done that without leaving the EU.

Altogether, I would like to gently suggest to all leave supporters and (most especially Gisela Stuart) that they should stop defending the figure (or at least the phrasing of the bus slogan, which was literally false).

 

I agree, they should have used the actual figure we do send which is still a large amount, nothing wrong though with the "lets fund the NHS instead" because that's just an idea on what the money could be used for. I would have probably said "lets increase funding to our public services instead".

[gomgeg 10]

The UK people wanted nothing to do with a European superstate and yet have spent the last 40 years being gradually drawn into one.

 

 

 

You`re absolutely correct of course, the proof being we aren`t in the Euro or the Schengen area. Not that a couple of objective facts will stand in the way of a bit of propaganda, it certainly didn`t during the referendum......

 

---------- Post added 21-11-2016 at 14:32 ----------

 

 

My nephew voted for an extra £350 million a week for the NHS, to be frank he was a bit ambivalent about the EU. How are his views taking precedence ?

My nephew's next door neighbour's brother in law works with a bloke who's wife's sister has got an uncle who goes in the pub with someone who voted to remain because Cameron said he wouldn't resign if the vote went against him.

He's absolutely gutted.

[Justin Smith 10]

My nephew's next door neighbour's brother in law works with a bloke who's wife's sister has got an uncle who goes in the pub with someone who voted to remain because Cameron said he wouldn't resign if the vote went against him.

He's absolutely gutted.

 

What`s unfortunate here is you appear to be implying I`ve made up my nephew. That`s not the case, and I`m sure he`s typical of a percentage of those who voted to leave. Remember, even if only 4% of those who voted toleave had decided not to vote, or only 2% had voted the other way, the result would have been different.

[unbeliever 10]

What`s unfortunate here is you appear to be implying I`ve made up my nephew. That`s not the case, and I`m sure he`s typical of a percentage of those who voted to leave. Remember, even if only 4% of those who voted toleave had decided not to vote, or only 2% had voted the other way, the result would have been different.

 

That's absolute rubbish. And frankly it's a cheap trick to try and destroy the democratic principles on which all decent people depend.

There people on BOTH sides of the vote who might easily have been swayed by misleading statements. And I've given you ample evidence already to show that more people were intimidated into voting remain by false prophecies of doom than those who fell for the £350m/week gimmick.

 

You don't like the result. You set aside all questions of honour, integrity or general righteousness and try to con yourself as much as anybody into a pathetic moral case for the result to be ignored, reversed or in some other way undone.

It's shameless.

[Justin Smith 10]

I agree, they should have used the actual figure we do send which is still a large amount, nothing wrong though with the "lets fund the NHS instead" because that's just an idea on what the money could be used for. I would have probably said "lets increase funding to our public services instead".

 

It`s an interesting area this infamous battle bus slogan (plus a some other stuff, notably the "Breaking Point" poster). I can`t help thinking many in the Leave campaign really rather wished it`d never been used, because it does weaken the acceptance of the result by a significant number of people*. The problem is, of course, would Leave still have won ?

 

* Personally I`d have accepted a tight result in an honest campaign, or a large majority in a dishonest campaign. But I have problems with a tight majority in a dishonest campaign.....

[unbeliever 10]

It`s an interesting area this infamous battle bus slogan (plus a some other stuff, notably the "Breaking Point" poster). I can`t help thinking many in the Leave campaign really rather wished it`d never been used, because it does weaken the acceptance of the result by a significant number of people*. The problem is, of course, would Leave still have won ?

 

* Personally I`d have accepted a tight result in an honest campaign, or a large majority in a dishonest campaign. But I have problems with a tight majority in a dishonest campaign.....

 

But the staggering dishonestly of the remain campaign doesn't bother you because they didn't post it on a bus?

[unbeliever 10]

 

The Remain campaign was so woeful I never heard that much I can even remember about it. But, and I plead naivety here, I never bothered about it at the time because I never thought Leave would win. The basic problem I feel.

The one exception was the infamous Osborne Emergency Budget, I was embarrassed by that, but nobody took it seriously anyway. That said, Hammond is announcing the return of austerity due to the UK`s books looking distinctly dodgy in the medium term.

 

Perhaps you should look into it now and then and come back and see if you can still maintain your claim that leave dishonesty won.

 

You must have been watching a different budget statement from me.

Or did you in fact not watch it, but in fact read somebody's partisan characterisation of it.

[gomgeg 10]

What`s unfortunate here is you appear to be implying I`ve made up my nephew. That`s not the case, and I`m sure he`s typical of a percentage of those who voted to leave. Remember, even if only 4% of those who voted toleave had decided not to vote, or only 2% had voted the other way, the result would have been different.

What's which side your nephew voted on got to do with anything?

We all know people who change their minds on all sorts of subjects. What I remember and you seem to forget is that the majority voted to leave and we're not having votes forever until you get the right result.

That's how democracy works, if we leave the EU then a future government gives a referendum and the vote is to rejoin, fair enough.

How big do you think the majority would have been if we weren't already members and the vote was to join? I'm fairly confident the NO vote would have been massive.