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: 34 75.6%
  • No.

    Votes: 11 24.4%

  • Total voters
    45

MSW

Distinguished Member
Out of interest, were you influenced by the lies of the Remain campaign?

Remainers are very arrogant on this they mock the campaign and what they class as untruths, however, they never ever explain why it was that only they could see through the truths when others could not.

I have often asked them

“what is it about them that meant they were clever enough not to be influenced that others lacked”

My point is that we can all see what they can see so it made no difference and remainers do not have exclusivity on deciphering the literature both remain and leave published during the campaign.
 

MSW

Distinguished 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.

Amd I was pointing out exceptions to all rules (not just Trade / FOM / Erasmus etc) can apply, take Switzerland as an example
 

weaviemx5

Distinguished Member
Remainers are very arrogant on this they mock the campaign and what they class as untruths, however, they never ever explain why it was that only they could see through the truths when others could not.

I have often asked them

“what is it about them that meant they were clever enough not to be influenced that others lacked”

My point is that we can all see what they can see so it made no difference and remainers do not have exclusivity on deciphering the literature both remain and leave published during the campaign.
I think targeted advertising is exactly what it says, targeted. If someone already had some feelings of negativity towards the EU, or the fear of greater integration/EU army, they are therefore more likely to see specific targeted adverting as supporting their beliefs, so it perpetuates.

I’ve never personally said that an individual’s intelligence affects how they vote, but those people who are very good at marketing an idea are very good at capitalising on inherent human traits, two of which are confirmation of beliefs and feeling part of something bigger than themselves.

As campaigns, it was always easier to promote something new and shiny like Brexit, based on what “could be”, than to try and encourage people to vote for the current situation.

Once people are then told that their current personal situation is down to EU rules/FOM/red tape (regardless of that actually being the case or not), they then have a common enemy to blame, and that they can personally do something about.
 

Diana Fire

Active Member
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:
Ah, sorry for the misunderstanding.

Apart from the stuff he wrote at the time, I'm inclined to believe much of what he says firstly because he kept the receipts, and secondly because he's confirming things that were said at the time.

If I can get preachy about advertising again (scroll past if this is boring), there's no reason to concentrate a budget on people who have already bought the idea/product/service you're selling. You spend it on the undecideds, which is largely what Cummings did. His budget went mainly on the final week of the campaign and served up to 250 pieces of content a day* to targeted individuals, if memory serves. There were enough FB users in this country at the time to swing it.

*Figure is my own based on the amount he said he spent, the number he said he was targeting and the cost of a FB ad at the time. Could be a bit more or less depending on the media deal he bought.
 
£211m per week (£11bn per year) according to the ONS


But of course that’s not the whole picture, the total cost of our membership needs to include everything I.e. all those things we have committed to pay for even after we’ve left. So after you’ve added all of the stuff in the ’Brexit divorce’, how much does that get you to >£300m per week?

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.

I’m amazed that so many Brexiters were stupid enough to be convinced by this lie, yet would have seemingly done a cost-benefit analysis and come to a different conclusion if it had been say £250m
:D
 

weaviemx5

Distinguished Member
Amd I was pointing out exceptions to all rules (not just Trade / FOM / Erasmus etc) can apply, take Switzerland as an example
Definitely, but Switzerland pay into the EU, and are also members of the Schengen Agreement, so the U.K. would likely need to accept something similar for any kind of mutual agreement.
 

weaviemx5

Distinguished Member
But of course that’s not the whole picture, the total cost of our membership needs to include everything I.e. all those things we have committed to pay for even after we’ve left. So after you’ve added all of the stuff in the ’Brexit divorce’, how much does that get you to >£300m per week?



I’m amazed that so many Brexiters were stupid enough to be convinced by this lie, yet would have seemingly done a cost-benefit analysis and come to a different conclusion if it had been say £250m
:D
Watch out for those goal posts moving…

The £350m a week was before we’d even had the referendum, what does any Divorce settlement have to do with the figure we actively paid for membership?

Why not just accept that we never paid £350m a week for EU membership and move on, like everyone else has. Also, I’m just pointing out the fact that the £350m figure was a blatant lie. If people still choose to ignore that, rather than acknowledge it, that’s not my issue.
 

guest7789

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.
From my understanding, the EU wants alignment on SPS standards and the UK wants equivalence. It's a matter of which side wants to give away the precedence setting advantage and currently neither party does, which is causing a good chunk of the current impasse.
 
Watch out for those goal posts moving…

The £350m a week was before we’d even had the referendum, what does any Divorce settlement have to do with the figure we actively paid for membership?

Because it was a cost of membership!

Why not just accept that we never paid £350m a week for EU membership and move on, like everyone else has. Also, I’m just pointing out the fact that the £350m figure was a blatant lie. If people still choose to ignore that, rather than acknowledge it, that’s not my issue.

See above. What was the true cost of membership?
 

MSW

Distinguished Member
Definitely, but Switzerland pay into the EU, and are also members of the Schengen Agreement, so the U.K. would likely need to accept something similar for any kind of mutual agreement.

That’s my point, exception to the rules does exist so no need to be defeatist and say the EU is not going to renegotiate
 

weaviemx5

Distinguished Member
Because it was a cost of membership!



See above. What was the true cost of membership?
No it wasn’t, it’s a cost of ending our membership.

oh, have you got any more details about the EU failing to implement the NIP yet, as you seem to have conveniently moved on instead after throwing names at others.
 

weaviemx5

Distinguished Member
That’s my point, exception to the rules does exist so no need to be defeatist and say the EU is not going to renegotiate
Again, it’s not defeatist to be realistic.

The U.K. Government has been pretty clear in their approach with regards to flexibility on our side (essentially, blame the EU for everything and keep their populism with their core voters). So, in the real world, there would be an expectation of flexibility from both sides, and I personally haven’t seen a lot of evidence of that being forthcoming from either.
 

psikey

Distinguished Member
I mentioned the Island that was discussed in the Lords virtual meeting with Frost that had non-EU trade freely moving across the split island.

It was raised by Tory MP Craig Mackinlay and a Sunday Express article (with bias) can be seen here if anyone interested


EU's Saint Martin has no border with Sint Maarteen

1626956204614.png



All those lovely US imports (maybe even Chlorine Chicken) that can freely move around

Saint Martin imports
1626957092929.png
 
Last edited:
No it wasn’t, it’s a cost of ending our membership.
No, it 100% was not.

These were amounts we had committed to pay as part of our membership and would have had to pay has we not left.

“In the early years, a lot of the payments will be paying for a share of spending that the EU committed to while the UK was a member, but has not yet funded.
Most of the money paid in later years will be contributions towards funding the pensions of EU staff.”
 

chalk40

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

Is the whole point .... it does not matter what the number or the cause was .... call it £350m, call it NHS, call it what you want.

The data was suspected at the time, it was proven by many credible organisations later, and now the hand build designer of the lies has told us directly. And wait, get this .... this is the kicker .... no-one from No.10 has denied it!

On your point about remain campaign lies ..... that's actually a very fair point. And one I don't have an off the top answer to. But I'm obliged to think about that. it could be the case.

You are new here but just so you know, I am on the remain side of the debate but open minded to facts that change that. Most days and weeks there is an absolute absence of facts that might change thinking. I look for "good Brexit news"every day .... I find .... nothing. I ask for it on here .... and nearly as often, nothing comes. Just every now and again something is posted by the likes of psikey and co that we could think of, as good news. Fair enough.

The likes of Dianafire explain the data manipulation a few posts earlier very well and credibility

But to read this stuff and start trying cut jigsaw pieces of data to fit the puzzle is way too far out there for me.
 
Is the whole point .... it does not matter what the number or the cause was .... call it £350m, call it NHS, call it what you want.

The data was suspected at the time, it was proven by many credible organisations later, and now the hand build designer of the lies has told us directly. And wait, get this .... this is the kicker .... no-one from No.10 has denied it!

On your point about remain campaign lies ..... that's actually a very fair point. And one I don't have an off the top answer to. But I'm obliged to think about that. it could be the case.

You are new here but just so you know, I am on the remain side of the debate but open minded to facts that change that. Most days and weeks there is an absolute absence of facts that might change thinking. I look for "good Brexit news"every day .... I find .... nothing. I ask for it on here .... and nearly as often, nothing comes. Just every now and again something is posted by the likes of psikey and co that we could think of, as good news. Fair enough.

But to read this stuff and start trying cut jigsaw pieces of data to fit the puzzle is way too far out there for me.
It does not matter what the number was? So the amount we pay to the EU is not relevant in deciding whether we want to be part of the EU?

That’s an interesting point of view.
 

psikey

Distinguished Member
Ah, sorry for the misunderstanding.

Apart from the stuff he wrote at the time, I'm inclined to believe much of what he says firstly because he kept the receipts, and secondly because he's confirming things that were said at the time.

If I can get preachy about advertising again (scroll past if this is boring), there's no reason to concentrate a budget on people who have already bought the idea/product/service you're selling. You spend it on the undecideds, which is largely what Cummings did. His budget went mainly on the final week of the campaign and served up to 250 pieces of content a day* to targeted individuals, if memory serves. There were enough FB users in this country at the time to swing it.

*Figure is my own based on the amount he said he spent, the number he said he was targeting and the cost of a FB ad at the time. Could be a bit more or less depending on the media deal he bought.
I've seen the big data documentary so appreciate this can defiantly manipulate some people.
 

weaviemx5

Distinguished Member
No, it 100% was not.

These were amounts we had committed to pay as part of our membership and would have had to pay has we not left.

“In the early years, a lot of the payments will be paying for a share of spending that the EU committed to while the UK was a member, but has not yet funded.
Most of the money paid in later years will be contributions towards funding the pensions of EU staff.”
So you’re actually saying the bus should have said;

“we might have to send £350m per week to the EU, after we leave, depending on when that is, to cover any future funding we’ve currently agreed to, but we currently actually send £211m per week due to the healthy rebates and EU funding returned to us, so let’s spend it on the NHS instead”, not really as catchy as just putting a really big number on the bus though is it.

Watch you don’t cut yourself clutching for those straws though.
 

weaviemx5

Distinguished Member
It does not matter what the number was? So the amount we pay to the EU is not relevant in deciding whether we want to be part of the EU?

That’s an interesting point of view.
Is it 2016 again?

Considering you only joined on Saturday, there’s a whole lot of old ground being dug up, rather than acknowledging what actually happened and move on.
 

guest7789

Member
So you’re actually saying the bus should have said;

“we might have to send £350m per week to the EU, after we leave, depending on when that is, to cover any future funding we’ve currently agreed to, but we currently actually send £211m per week due to the healthy rebates and EU funding returned to us, so let’s spend it on the NHS instead”, not really as catchy as just putting a really big number on the bus though is it.

Watch you don’t cut yourself clutching for those straws though.
Can't we just say "gross vs net" and let that be the end of it?
 

psikey

Distinguished Member
Is it 2016 again?

Considering you only joined on Saturday, there’s a whole lot of old ground being dug up, rather than acknowledging what actually happened and move on.
Pro EU membership members keep bringing up the bus. You still clinging to the straws?
 
So you’re actually saying the bus should have said;

“we might have to send £350m per week to the EU, after we leave, depending on when that is, to cover any future funding we’ve currently agreed to, but we currently actually send £211m per week due to the healthy rebates and EU funding returned to us, so let’s spend it on the NHS instead”, not really as catchy as just putting a really big number on the bus though is it.

Watch you don’t cut yourself clutching for those straws though.

Sorry you didn’t appear to understand that the contributions were only part of the cost of membership and that the £39bn also needed to be added in to the analysis, as it had nothing to do with leaving the EU.

it would appear that our membership was costing us in the region of let’s say c. £350m per week at the time of Brexit after all!
 
Last edited:

The latest video from AVForums

Oculus Quest 2 VR headset + Rotel A14 MkII Amp Reviews & Best of the Month
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Latest News

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
JBL announces L52 Classic speaker and L75ms all-in-one
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom