UK General Election 2024 (or 25)

[firlandsfarm]

A political discussion without Derek27??

I fear something must have happened to him.

Even Derek knows when to keep his head down!

[greenmark]

The reasons that we DEMOCRATICALLY decided to leave the EU are many and varied; with trade being way down the list of reasons for many of those who voted either way on the issue.

To take one single element and ignore all of the many others that were considered far more important, is narrow-minded in the extreme. You have to look at the benefits and drawbacks (and yes, I agree there are some) in the round as the majority of those who voted on the issue did.

CS

No you don't have to look at the "benefits and drawbacks in the round". You look at the actuality of the outcome. And as I've said that's done and dusted. We need to move on and make the best of this. It still could be great, but it's not looking so great at the moment. My barometers are GDP, FTSE and my investments. And they are all s**t and have been since 2016.

We don't disagree, I think. The 'actuality of the outcome' is that we are now able to push forward with radical and fundamental changes to many policies that were foremost in the minds of voters at the point we decided to leave the EU, but WITHOUT interference of the damned ECHR. Long term that has to be a good thing for inflation, growth, GDP and all other financial metrics, in my considered opinion.

CS

I really do hope your optimism proves correct. And I'm not being sarcastic. I really do hope the brexit benefits emerge. I don't care about the ECHR. Why would anyone be concerned about a Court of Human Rights. Sadly we no longer have any say in that forum. But NI is still subject to their jurisdiction. Another failure of "Taking control".

[Archangel]

Breaking News "Random Bloke on Internet solves NI problem at last"

Firstly, it is worth noting that the issue of Northern Ireland is complex and deeply rooted in history, politics, and identity. The Northern Ireland Protocol, agreed as part of the Brexit deal, was designed to prevent a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, while also maintaining the integrity of the EU's single market. This was seen as essential for preserving the peace process and avoiding a return to violence on the island of Ireland.

Secondly, it is not accurate to suggest that the EU expects the UK to put a hard border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. In fact, the EU has repeatedly stated that it does not want to see a hard border on the island of Ireland, and that the Northern Ireland Protocol is the best way to achieve this.

Additionally, a hard border could also threaten the Good Friday Agreement, which is widely seen as a cornerstone of peace in Northern Ireland.

In conclusion, the suggestion that the issue of Northern Ireland could be solved overnight by the EU putting a hard border between the Republic of Ireland and the rest of the EU is not based on accurate information or a full understanding of the complex issues at play. The Northern Ireland Protocol, while not perfect, was agreed as the best way to maintain peace and stability on the island of Ireland, and it is important that all parties work together to ensure its effective implementation.

StopPress: Another random bloke thinks he knows more and better than what he refers to as a random bloke!

Let's just have a quick look at the distorted logic here ... "it is not accurate to suggest that the EU expects the UK to put a hard border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK." and "the EU has repeatedly stated that it does not want to see a hard border on the island of Ireland" ... one is a "hard border between NI and the rest of the UK" and the other is a hard border on the Ireland of Ireland. May I point out that the border between the island of Ireland is not the border between NI and the rest of the UK. I suggest you check your geography!

In conclusion, if the EU implemented a border between the Republic and the rest of the EU then things could return to exactly as they were under the GF agreement but that seems to be too 'correct' for Remoaners to grasp, probably because their darling EU cannot be seen to be causing problems!

First of all, let's get the facts straight. The Good Friday Agreement (GFA) specifically states that there should be no hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The EU has also consistently supported this position, as a hard border would be a major setback for peace and stability in the region.


As for the suggestion that things could simply return to the way they were under the GFA if the EU implemented a border between the Republic and the rest of the EU - well, that's just pure fantasy. The GFA was based on the assumption of an open border, and any attempt to introduce a hard border would be a direct violation of the agreement.

So, let's not try to make up our own facts and geography, shall we? It's time to face the reality of the situation and work towards a solution that respects the peace process and the interests of all parties involved.

I would also like to point out that dismissing those who have concerns about Brexit as "Remoaners" is not only disrespectful, but it also shows a lack of understanding of the complex issues at play. It's important to have informed and nuanced discussions about Brexit, rather than resorting to name-calling and oversimplification.

Furthermore, it's worth noting that Brexit has far-reaching consequences beyond just the issue of the Irish border. The UK's decision to leave the EU has significant economic, political, and social implications, and it will take years to fully understand and address all of the ramifications.

You were sold a lie, you bought it. Now you cant face that fact so you are angry, thats fine... just rememebr who it was who lied to you, and why you voted to make the nation poorer

[firlandsfarm]

First of all, let's get the facts straight. The Good Friday Agreement (GFA) specifically states that there should be no hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The EU has also consistently supported this position, as a hard border would be a major setback for peace and stability in the region.


As for the suggestion that things could simply return to the way they were under the GFA if the EU implemented a border between the Republic and the rest of the EU - well, that's just pure fantasy. The GFA was based on the assumption of an open border, and any attempt to introduce a hard border would be a direct violation of the agreement.

So, let's not try to make up our own facts and geography, shall we? It's time to face the reality of the situation and work towards a solution that respects the peace process and the interests of all parties involved.

I would also like to point out that dismissing those who have concerns about Brexit as "Remoaners" is not only disrespectful, but it also shows a lack of understanding of the complex issues at play. It's important to have informed and nuanced discussions about Brexit, rather than resorting to name-calling and oversimplification.

Furthermore, it's worth noting that Brexit has far-reaching consequences beyond just the issue of the Irish border. The UK's decision to leave the EU has significant economic, political, and social implications, and it will take years to fully understand and address all of the ramifications.

You were sold a lie, you bought it. Now you cant face that fact so you are angry, thats fine... just rememebr who it was who lied to you, and why you voted to make the nation poorer

Well you are entitled to your view of the facts with or without your own distortions and misunderstandings even when wrong and I support that. I'm not going to go into detail, suffice it to say ...

A border between Eire and the rest of the EU would make a border between Eire and NI unnecessary so complies with the GFA and therefore would continue the peace.

It's disrespectful of Remoaners to keep trying to thwart the view of the majority and prevent a successful Brexit and it's typical it's OK for Remoaners to name-call Brexiters as "less intelligent" but to show snowflakery when the table is turned. BTW "informed discussions" are not limited to those you agree with.

A decision to re-join the EU (or remain as was) has "significant economic, political, and social implications".

I wasn't sold a lie, I listened to a different opinion and decided to support it but Remoaners tend to take the consistent view regarding Brexit that if they disagree with something it must be a lie and to challenge them on that is in their eyes disrespectful.

I'm not angry, where is there anger in my words. Is it that you now feel the need to make unfounded accusations of me because you are running short of points to make?

[Michael5482]

Suella Braverman getting torn to shreds on every programme she's been on this morning.

Claiming the delays at Dover are nothing to do with Brexit despite the CEO from the Port of Dover stating that since Brexit every passport has to be checked so causing delays at busy periods like Easter. The Government turned down £33 million request from the Port of Dover to facilitate the extra checks the port knew would cause delays

[henbet22]

Ever since the EU referendum, YouGov has regularly tracked whether the public think it was right or wrong to have voted to leave the EU. While there has been a gradual shift towards thinking it was wrong, the public have remained divided, with our final poll before the transition period ended showing 51% wrong, 40% right to leave.

Now that Brexit has taken place and the transition period is over, we have tested two hypothetical referendum questions to see what attitudes to EU membership are. The first asks how people would vote if the 2016 Remain/Leave referendum were happening now, while the second looks at how people would vote if there was a referendum on re-joining the EU.

Asking people whether they would vote in a 2016 re-run shows a 12-point lead for Remain – similar to the outcome of our right/wrong to vote to leave the EU tracker. Half (49%) say they would vote to Remain versus 37% who would vote to leave. The remaining 13% say they would either not vote, are unsure, or refuse to give an answer.

When asked how they’d vote in a referendum on joining the EU, however, things are a lot closer. Under this second question, 42% say they would vote in favour of re-joining the EU, just two points ahead of the 40% would vote against joining (18% gave no preference wither way).

While fewer Remain voters than Leave voters have changed their mind on how they voted in 2016, the same cannot be said when asked about re-joining.

There is very little difference in opinion across the two questions amongst those who previously voted to leave. Eight in ten Leave voters (81%) say they’d vote to leave if they had their time again (9% would switch to Remain), and 79% say they’d vote against joining the EU if that was the referendum they faced (8% would be in favour of joining the EU).

The difference in the overall vote in these two hypothetical referendums is largely coming from those who voted Remain previously. When asked how they’d vote if the 2016 referendum happened now, 89% would still vote Remain, with just 6% switching to Leave. However, faced with a referendum on re-joining the EU, just 76% would vote in favour of re-joining. One in eight of those who voted Remain in 2016 (12%) say they’d vote against returning to the EU fold.

Overall, just 82% of those who would vote Remain now would also vote to re-join the EU, compared to 93% of Leave voters who would vote against re-joining.

I find the 42% and 82% figures fascinating. Anyway since it was so close let's run it twice.

[sionascaig]

Just noticed there are two BF markets for a referendum on ECHR/HRA (timing and result).

Would be surprised if current gov gave a choice on that!

Although, with the majority of people now supporting re-joining the EU (c50% vs 30%), you would think one of the parties would pick up on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_p ... 93present)

[Archery1969]

We won’t be rejoining the EU. It would create civil war in some parts of the country.

[sionascaig]

We won’t be rejoining the EU. It would create civil war in some parts of the country.

Probably right...

[henbet22]

Get the band back together. Re-join should poach/hire Boris Nigel and Dominic. A few misleading claims a bit of bluster a couple of pub photoshoots and a bus. Landslide.

[Archery1969]

Get the band back together. Re-join should poach/hire Boris Nigel and Dominic. A few misleading claims a bit of bluster a couple of pub photoshoots and a bus. Landslide.

Nigel is forming a new party. He did fairly well last time with no MPs.

He is anti EU and immigration so guess what manifesto will be.

Problem is he wouldn’t need many votes nationally to cause whoever is in government a major headache. In some key areas he would split the vote.

Boris is also anti EU and immigration so he won’t be joining any group promoting re-joining.

[Archangel]

First of all, let's get the facts straight. The Good Friday Agreement (GFA) specifically states that there should be no hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The EU has also consistently supported this position, as a hard border would be a major setback for peace and stability in the region.


As for the suggestion that things could simply return to the way they were under the GFA if the EU implemented a border between the Republic and the rest of the EU - well, that's just pure fantasy. The GFA was based on the assumption of an open border, and any attempt to introduce a hard border would be a direct violation of the agreement.

So, let's not try to make up our own facts and geography, shall we? It's time to face the reality of the situation and work towards a solution that respects the peace process and the interests of all parties involved.

I would also like to point out that dismissing those who have concerns about Brexit as "Remoaners" is not only disrespectful, but it also shows a lack of understanding of the complex issues at play. It's important to have informed and nuanced discussions about Brexit, rather than resorting to name-calling and oversimplification.

Furthermore, it's worth noting that Brexit has far-reaching consequences beyond just the issue of the Irish border. The UK's decision to leave the EU has significant economic, political, and social implications, and it will take years to fully understand and address all of the ramifications.

You were sold a lie, you bought it. Now you cant face that fact so you are angry, thats fine... just rememebr who it was who lied to you, and why you voted to make the nation poorer

Well you are entitled to your view of the facts with or without your own distortions and misunderstandings even when wrong and I support that. I'm not going to go into detail, suffice it to say ...

A border between Eire and the rest of the EU would make a border between Eire and NI unnecessary so complies with the GFA and therefore would continue the peace.

It's disrespectful of Remoaners to keep trying to thwart the view of the majority and prevent a successful Brexit and it's typical it's OK for Remoaners to name-call Brexiters as "less intelligent" but to show snowflakery when the table is turned. BTW "informed discussions" are not limited to those you agree with.

A decision to re-join the EU (or remain as was) has "significant economic, political, and social implications".

I wasn't sold a lie, I listened to a different opinion and decided to support it but Remoaners tend to take the consistent view regarding Brexit that if they disagree with something it must be a lie and to challenge them on that is in their eyes disrespectful.

I'm not angry, where is there anger in my words. Is it that you now feel the need to make unfounded accusations of me because you are running short of points to make?

Thank you for sharing your opinion on Brexit. However, I must say that your arguments are flawed and unsupported by factual evidence.

Firstly, the idea that a border between Eire and the rest of the EU would make a border between Eire and NI unnecessary is a fallacy. In reality, such a border would undermine the Good Friday Agreement and risk reigniting the sectarian tensions that plagued Northern Ireland for decades.

Secondly, it's disrespectful to dismiss those who oppose Brexit as "Remoaners" and accuse them of trying to thwart the will of the majority. The truth is that the Brexit referendum was won by a slim margin and the majority of the UK population did not vote for it. It's also worth noting that the referendum was non-binding and advisory, which means that it's not legally binding.

Thirdly, the economic, political, and social implications of leaving the EU are indeed significant and well-documented. The UK economy has suffered since the Brexit vote, with numerous businesses relocating to other European countries and the pound sterling losing value. The UK has also lost its seat at the EU table, which means that it no longer has a say in EU decision-making.

Finally, accusing those who disagree with you of being "Remoaners" and suggesting that they are less intelligent is not only disrespectful but also counterproductive to meaningful discussions. It's important to have informed discussions that are based on facts, not on insults and name-calling.

I hope this helps to clarify some of the misconceptions in your argument. Remember, it's okay to change your mind based on new information and evidence.

[henbet22]

It was tongue in cheek.

Agree Nigel is off limits. Boris would promote anything for money/power. Also I didn't realise the gap is now so large. Those yougov figures were from 21 I so way behind the times.

[Kai]

First of all, let's get the facts straight.

First of all, facts don't change minds

To suggest otherwise is a BOLD statement indeed, OUTLANDISH even.

How dare you use cheap tricks such as facts, logic or reason in a political debate, you are bang out of order Sir.

[greenmark]

First of all, let's get the facts straight.

First of all, facts don't change minds

To suggest otherwise is a BOLD statement indeed, OUTLANDISH even.

How dare you use cheap tricks such as facts, logic or reason in a political debate, you are bang out of order Sir.