Discussing the impact of Brexit

Has, and is Brexit continuing to make life and many things harder, and people poorer in the UK?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 39 78.0%
  • No.

    Votes: 11 22.0%

  • Total voters
    50

chalk40

Well-known Member
The whole premise of the ‘red bus’ was that we could invest money in the NHS if we weren’t paying into the EU.
You either accept that directly, in which case you can’t assess whether this was true or not until we stop paying those contributions.
Or you look at what has happened since Brexit and see that funding has already increased by more than that amount - arguably the government has chosen to bring forward that increase in the short term, ahead of the future savings.
Either way it is somewhat of a stretch to claim it was a lie.

Think you need do a little reading. This one has been laid to rest a long time back.

There is no-one aligning themselves with the red bus lies. You really are last man standing.

I will be generous and assume you were out of the country when this public debate was going on.
 

Diana Fire

Active Member
Think your right, but then that limits trade throughout the UK with other trading partners that aren't signed up to EU standards I think.

As a Brexit voter I'm not against something in this area but don't know all the strings/implications.
I'm not as well up on this as I should be either (you're not alone there!), but it would go a long way to solve the NI issues even as it creates some headaches of its own.
 

chalk40

Well-known Member
I’m not gleeful at all, just responding to your feeling that you weren’t fooled, by pointing out that the actual figure used was a misdirection.

The vagueness of the “let’s fund the NHS instead” was a deliberate choice to (like Brexit itself) be all things to all people, but the choice to use a financial figure that’s demonstrably false, to anyone that bothered to actually check, was a blatant lie.

And that's the concern. After all this time and discussion, can there still be people thinking this was a good think and the truth?
 
And that's the concern. After all this time and discussion, can there still be people thinking this was a good think and the truth?
Aw bless.

it’s simple, we don’t pay contributions to the EU, we have money available to do other things, which could include giving more to the NHS.
 

Diana Fire

Active Member
Not sure about that, if we could pretend the the unique situation between RNI, NI and then the GFA did not exist then I imagine the Gov would be happy with Border Checks between RNI and NI.

Ultimately the deal that the EU wanted and signed does not work. So I think it’s quite reasonably, follow Implementation to raise the issue and renegotiate.

UK wants to protect GFA which is why there are currently no checks on the border. It is clear that having to carry out checks on goods only intended for NI is not working.
The issue has always been that Brexit is incompatible with the GFA. We don't know if the NIP will work yet because it hasn't been implemented, and the Govt didn't offer a workable alternative yesterday.
 

chalk40

Well-known Member
According to Cummings' analysis at the time (iirc, a few months post-ref), he used a variety of figures online and measured how effective they were. He was also upfront about the figure not being accurate and believed it didn't matter, but at the same time optimised those ads which used the £350m figure because it resonated best with the audience.

In effect, he didn't care that it wasn't accurate and used it because he had proof it worked better for a section of the audience. (That's in terms of clicks/conversions and whatnot, so it did make a difference on the dashboard.)

As I was reading that part of the blog, I couldn't fault his strategy (including overriding Gove's 'Global Britain' and replacing it with 'Take back control', because that means more to Joe/Jo Public), just that it was nowhere near legal, decent, honest or true. I learned around the same time that ASA has no governance over political ads so they can pretty much say what they want.
100%
 

weaviemx5

Distinguished Member
How I am ignoring it, all I have been saying is

Glad Govt is trying to renegotiate
What I hoped the outcome might be
Why implementing the outcomes I mentioned do not necessarily have be classed a breaking existing EU rules through the creation of a new rule that would apply to all EU members who were in the same position
It’s better to look forward than backward
Be optimistic not defeatist
Yes I do, have you heard of exceptions to the rule. However, let’s not digress to much I was purely answering your question about allowing FOM to all of EU for frictionless trade with 1 EU member.

I was referring to this post, whereby you’re stating that GB/NI would have specific agreements with the ROI, including FOM. My point is just that the EU is a block of member states, meaning that any rule that applies to one, applies to them all, so we can’t pick and choose which members we allow FOM with.

I’m not being defeatist. It’s a conversation around what you would like to see from a renegotiated deal, but there also has to be acceptance of existing reality in any theoretical new agreement.
 

weaviemx5

Distinguished Member
EU is far more than just a Trading Block. If it was we would still be in it.
I’m sure you understand what I meant by a Trading “block”, being that they have their own rules that apply to all members of that block. The conversation was just specifically discussing the movement of goods (hence “trading”).
 

psikey

Distinguished Member
I'm not as well up on this as I should be either (you're not alone there!), but it would go a long way to solve the NI issues even as it creates some headaches of its own.
I'd pick getting free flow of cheese, sausage, fish etc. from EU over what we might get from US in future. Would also reduce red-tape for rest of UK, not just NI. This being specific to fresh/raw/live foods only.

If it stops us getting Oranges/Bananas etc. from RoW then its not so easy to agree.
 

weaviemx5

Distinguished Member
Aw bless.

it’s simple, we don’t pay contributions to the EU, we have money available to do other things, which could include giving more to the NHS.
You do seem very good at ignoring the point actually being made by posters, to suit your own posts.

The argument was that the £350m a week was a lie, which I assumed you accepted yesterday when you said that if the other side lies, you need to ramp up your own lies to compete.
 

MSW

Distinguished Member
I was referring to this post, whereby you’re stating that GB/NI would have specific agreements with the ROI, including FOM.

Steady on, that reads so wrong, I never ever suggested that, I was replying to your comment where you said


“Ok, we will remove the requirement all checks on food/goods going into NI, if you accept FOM for EU Nationals again”

Your doing your usual circles and tangents again.
 
You do seem very good at ignoring the point actually being made by posters, to suit your own posts.

The argument was that the £350m a week was a lie, which I assumed you accepted yesterday when you said that if the other side lies, you need to ramp up your own lies to compete.

What was the correct number that should have been used?
 

frenchyeurope

Active Member
I'm not as well up on this as I should be either (you're not alone there!), but it would go a long way to solve the NI issues even as it creates some headaches of its own.
Just look at how things are going with Switzerland.
There is always a border, foreign workers need a work permit (including me, valid for 5 years and paid by my company). At the beginning this permit is valid for two years. But as far as imports/exports are concerned, it goes on without problems even if some controls are systematically done.
I have been in the computer industry for more than 30 years and it is very much in demand in Switzerland, as well as in the medical field.
I really think that an alignment on the phyto-sanitary rules of the European Union would solve the problem of the Northern Irish protocol. But I'm afraid that with Boris there is no question of that.
 

4loco

Well-known Member
It’s the GFA and the inability to put up a hard border in Ireland that causes this.
And the agreement should avoid trade disruption for goods to N Ireland, providing both sides stick to their promises.
That's what the EU is saying - on the basis that negotiating and signing the NI Protocol is the promises that should be kept. The EU are going to stick to the NI Protocol and they expect the UK to do the same.

It is up to the UK to avoid trade disruption across the internal UK Border in as much as it is possible while adhering to the NI Protocol.
The UK Government is plainly lying when they say that they didn't understand what they were signing up to. Boris laid it all out very clearly in his speech to the DUP in 2018 - in fact he emphasised all the extra problems it would result in and how it would damage the integrity of the UK. So to suggest that having negotiated it and signed it, that they didn't understand what it involved is bare faced lying.
There are a number of instances of the attempts by the Government to undermine the NI Protocol right from the very start after they had signed it. Those attempts to claim that the Border didn't exist, and that there were no customs requirements at the Border were the opposite of what Boris said was the inevitable result of creating the Border in 2018.
 

chalk40

Well-known Member
Aw bless.

it’s simple, we don’t pay contributions to the EU, we have money available to do other things, which could include giving more to the NHS.
Thanks for your concern

You live in a world were you are very easily pleased. Good for you. It must be a nice post code.

But as folks earlier on have well explained, the clever lies were crafted to precisely fit your narrative. Why, because superficially it's believable. And as I say, if that works for you, super stuff.

There isn't anyone else it's working for.
 
Thanks for your concern

You live in a world were you are very easily pleased. Good for you. It must be a nice post code.

But as folks earlier on have well explained, the clever lies were crafted to precisely fit your narrative. Why, because superficially it's believable. And as I say, if that works for you, super stuff.

There isn't anyone else it's working for.

What amount should have been used?
Out of interest, were you influenced by the lies of the Remain campaign?
 

Diana Fire

Active Member
Can't be 100% as its coming from cummings ;)

How can you tell if a liar is lying ? Unless things have changed, still little to back up his words.
Because he's all about data. It's common practice in media to optimise the ads in a campaign which are working better (it's all measured by the dashboard and digital wizardry, but basically clicks/conversions). There would be no reason to give more prominence in a campaign to an ad which isn't working as well over and above one that is.

You can't really tell outside of testing/groups which messages will work for an audience, but you can when a campaign is running online, and optimise it in real time. Every agency does it.
 

weaviemx5

Distinguished Member
Steady on, that reads so wrong, I never ever suggested that, I was replying to your comment where you said




Your doing your usual circles and tangents again.
No I’m not, I quoted your post where you said you’d personally “agree to FOM with the whole EU, in return for frictionless trade with 1 member”.

I then clarified that it’s not possible to cherry pick frictionless trade with 1 member, as the Single Market is a combined geographical group of 26 members. If you trade into one member state, your goods then have frictionless access to all member states.
 

psikey

Distinguished Member
Because he's all about data. It's common practice in media to optimise the ads in a campaign which are working better (it's all measured by the dashboard and digital wizardry, but basically clicks/conversions). There would be no reason to give more prominence in a campaign to an ad which isn't working as well over and above one that is.

You can't really tell outside of testing/groups which messages will work for an audience, but you can when a campaign is running online, and optimise it in real time. Every agency does it.
I meant what he says about Boris/Government/Brexit, not just some data he may have exaggerated.

The bus logo had no baring on my vote. I'm on no social media, just this forums, email & texts.

Actually with the volume Richp007 posts I might as well be on twitter! :rotfl:
 

weaviemx5

Distinguished Member
What amount should have been used?
Out of interest, were you influenced by the lies of the Remain campaign?
£211m per week (£11bn per year) according to the ONS


I’d say everyone is influenced by campaigning. I’d expect that everyone would essentially filter out some of the more dramatic stuff that’s clearly not the case, but we’re all human. If we couldn’t be swayed, why do campaigns throw millions of pounds at targeted social media? Anyone who says they’re not, is a liar.
 

4loco

Well-known Member
The issue has always been that Brexit is incompatible with the GFA. We don't know if the NIP will work yet because it hasn't been implemented, and the Govt didn't offer a workable alternative yesterday.
The Government haven't been making enough effort to make the NI Protocol work. The solution is for the UK Government to minimise the problems from having the trade Border between NI and GB. The problems are part of the Protocol and have always been understood to be the price that has to be paid to get this part of the Brexit solution.
 

psikey

Distinguished Member
Do you read newspapers (online or physical), or watch TV?

I may have seen Express until you educated me :blush:

But yes, BBC, Sky, Independent, Guardian (🤮), Times, Telegraph, France24...

As many as possible to filter through the bias.

TV, mostly BBC so pro Remain :rotfl:
 

The latest video from AVForums

Toy Stories - Turning Toys into Blockbuster Movies
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Latest News

AVForums Podcast: 4th August 2021
  • By Phil Hinton
  • Published
KEF adds Ci160ES to Architectural Speaker range
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Hisense increases Laser TV sales following Euros
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Samsung Smart Start offer grants access to premium TV apps
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
DS Audio launches third generation DS003 optical cartridge
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom