RayC

I've had regular exchanges with around half a dozen posters. More often than not, we hold different opinions and these exchanges can be robust. However, I can't recall accusing any of them of being racist. The reason being that they have never posted anything which I would construe as being racist. However, you're correct. 'Religious discrimination' and xenophobia are both different from racism although imo no more attractive. As I said before. If the cap fits ...

It may be difficult but that is exactly what the various studies attempt to do. Imo the criticism of these studies is rarely more than a tautology: It's difficult to separate the effects of Brexit, therefore you can't conclude anything about the effects of Brexit. Imo poor and lazy criticism. The original report was indeed a few years ago but it is regularly updated. I disagree. A few examples: The UK was one of the major influences in the formation of the Single Market and a strong supporter of the EU's attempts to forge trade deals. It can be argued be that the UK - together with France - largely dictated the EU foreign policy and diplomatic efforts. This was especially true when it came to defence issues. It's true that with the expansion of the membership and more QMV, the influence of any one individual member state is lessened .... at least, in theory ... but let's not pretend all member states are equal. France and Germany have more influence and power than Cyprus and Malta. When the UK was a member, it was one of the 'Big 3'. Perhaps not. But the UK likes to think of itself as having a significant presence and influence on the world stage. In terms of size of the economy and population, the UK is somewhat smaller than Japan. As an individual nation, what real influence does Japan wield on the world state? Imo any influence that the UK had on the world stage was dependent on our membership of the larger bloc i.e. EU. Moreover, inside the EU we were of use to the US, outside of it less so. I'm about to board a flight. You'll be pleased to know that I'll return to this point😂😉

The one doing the race baiting is you. Irrespective of whether religion and/or ethnicity is relevant to the story, you never hesitate to mention it if it portrays Islam in a negative sense. You're never slow to use 'Irish' or 'Oirish' in a derogatory sense when referring to Biden. You profess to having nothing against Europeans but, hey, here's a negative story about France or Germany. If the cap fits ....

I assume that you are referring to this paragraph: "Whenever a report or poll appears showing Brexit in a negative light you raise two objections: Firstly, it is not possible to separate the effects of the various other issues which have affected the UK over the past five years."? If so, it's unclear to me what you agree/ disagree with? Regarding "pressing": I have repeatedly challenged you, and others who refuse to accept the conclusions of reports such as the OBR's, to state precisely their objections. Imo simply objecting because the conclusions do not fit your narrative is not a valid reason. Take this as another such challenge. It is undeniable that events such as the pandemic, war in Ukraine, etc have had a negative effect on the UK, but in what way does that explain away the negative impact of Brexit? It's a shame that more 'Leave' voters did not realise this pre, rather than post, referendum. If they had, perhaps the result would have been different. I don't accept the premise but, even if true, the conclusion doesn't follow. Surely there is more chance of influencing the direction of an organisation from within, rather than from the outside? Nevertheless others may have been influenced by, and believed, false claims such as 'their need of us is greater', 'easier deal in history', etc. Notwithstanding the fact that much of the data offered by 'Leave' was based on wishful thinking, and some outright lies, they run a much more effective campaign than 'Remain' who seemed very blasé. And 'No deal' would have been even more of a disaster. By 'easy and amicable' I assume that you mean that the EU could have offered the UK a better deal? Well, it did. Remain (sic) much as we were but the UK government did not want to know. In any event, why expect any favours? The EU acted in what it saw as it's members own best interests. How else was it meant to act?

Unlike you and many of your fellow right-wing, Brexiter supporters who seemingly dismiss anything appearing in newspapers such as The Guardian as biased, left-wing propaganda, I am prepared to believe the right-wing, Brexiter, Tory supporting 'Daily Telegraph' is capable of reporting objectively on a serious statistical report. Sadly, in this instance, this article is not objective - although tbf it is simply the author's opinion so there is no reason why it should be - and the survey appears to have little statistical validity. According to the article, "News-watch put every speaker in every item into one of three categories: either "pro-EU/anti-Brexit" or "anti-EU/pro-Brexit" or "neutral". And – in broad terms – what this scrupulous (🤦: my disbelief) investigation shows is that there was a pro-EU bias in roughly a 2:1 ratio". Presumably the author of this opinion piece believes that this is an example of what he claims is News-week employing "best practice social science" research techniques? Some of us would suggest otherwise.

That was very thoughtful of you, Jonny but completely unnecessary: I have no problem following simple arguments. If by 'playing the race card' you mean pointing out what I perceive as racist comments, I've used it against two people: In hindsight, perhaps I have used it too sparingly, but I like to give people the benefit of doubt until the evidence becomes too weighty to ignore.

So you quote an article which is critical of the (relatively) small number of complaints against the BBC which were upheld, and in the next instance you then criticise the BBC because you think that the number of complaints which were upheld were too many! Methinks that someone might have their own set of prejudices and bias.

😂 Very good. Btw: Nice bit of evasion😉

Who knows? Certainly a low number but it depends whether the individual complaints had any substance. Of course, no one could accuse 'The Express' of having an anti-BBC bias!

Ms. Fraser accuses the BBC of bias, but is unable to cite any evidence to support her premise. You cite an example where an individual journalist got it wrong - subsequently corrected - and claim that it means that the whole institution of the BBC whole is therefore biased. Gaslighting? Maybe but not from the standpoint you infer.

It's unfortunate that the methodology used by Opinium is not available without buying the report. Whenever a report or poll appears showing Brexit in a negative light you raise two objections: Firstly, it is not possible to separate the effects of the various other issues which have affected the UK over the past five years. Basically, you question the methodology but when pressed on which parts of the methodology you consider flawed, you do not reply but bring out the same generic objections. (I imagine that like me, you are not willing to fork out for the Opinium report; however, many other freely available reports exist and can be analysed e.g. the OBR reports, the plethora of 'UK in a Changing Europe' material). ... and your second line of defence. Successive Tory governments have blotched the process and implementation of Brexit. I would agree with the slightly different premise that successive Tory governments have proved themselves incompetent but, tbf no UK government of whatever colour would have fared much better during the Brexit negotiation for the simple reason that the EU held all the negotiating cards. Despite the nonsense spouted by the 'Leave' during the referendum campaign about 'the EU needing us more than we need them', it's increasingly clear that the opposite is the case. To that end, the UK was only ever going to get what the EU was prepared to offer, and only on the EU's terms. The UK's only independent option would have been to walk away with 'No deal', which would have been even more of a disaster. Can you please outline how - other than a 'No deal' - things might have been different? What cards did the UK hold during negotiations? How could they have been played? How should the current UK government be using its' Brexit 'freedoms'? Funny how two individuals starting from two different premises can sometimes arrive at the same conclusion 🤷😁 Again, we are in agreement: Definitely worth repeating.

Difficult to disagree with that statement. Problem is that May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak (so far) have all failed to find it Were/ are they all incapable and/or does a route actually exist?

Rachel Wolf co-authored the 2019 Conservative Manifesto, so I assume that she was a Brexit supporter. Fair play to her if she has now been persuaded by the weight of evidence showing that Brexit has had a negative impact and has changed her mind. https://www.publicfirst.co.uk/team.html

Sadly, Wolf may be proved correct. For the benefit of those unable to view the article, his reasons for thinking that we won't rejoin are: "first, it would create a host of new and damaging uncertainties; second, it would tear British politics apart just as they were calming down; third, the deal the UK would get would be quite different from the one it had ..." Wolf certainly wasn't a supporter of the decision to leave.

Actually I should restate my original comment. The article is a damning indictment of populist politics in general, of which Brexit is a good example. In fact, imo the article doesn't offer anything particularly new or revealing, but it serves as a reminder of what has been lost as a result of Brexit. Wolf, citing Peter Foster's book 'What went wrong with Brexit: And what we can do about it', contends that Brexit enabled a " ... populist alliance of fanatics and opportunists (to) mix simplistic analysis with heated rhetoric and outright lies (and therefore) weaken the UK’s most important economic relationship and threaten its domestic stability" Wolf begins by stating the obvious: Nations cannot be fully sovereign in trade because there is, at least, one other nation involved. He suggests that the evolution of the Single Market was simply the result of a natural desire for greater efficiency in regulation and economies of scale (compared with having numerous bi-lateral agreements). Clearly these rules needed a mechanism to enforce them, hence the need for the ECJ (Wolf does not mention the Commission but imo, a similar argument applies). By leaving the Single Market and its' single set of regulations, the UK has therefore increased the complexity and cost to companies who want to do business in both the EU and the UK. Wolf also makes another obvious point: that the withdrawal of freedom of movement has reduced the freedom of individuals in both the UK and EU. Wolf also states that there is no evidence to suggest that the problems faced by the UK economy e.g. inadequate infrastructure, low investment, etc are any more likely to be solved outside the EU than inside. Wolf further argues that any political freedoms as a result of Brexit have been wasted as it is "....a natural result of the classic populist blend of paranoia, ignorance, xenophobia, intolerance of opposition and hostility to constraining institutions". Wolf suggests a way forward would be for the UK to forge closer ties with the EU e.g. relax rules on freedom of movement, avoid diverging too much on regulation and, "more boldly", to consider rejoining the Customs Union. Wolf offered a couple of graphs and some accompanying narrative to support his arguments.

Not a poll this time but another damning indictment of Brexit from a journalist at the famously left-wing FT (hopefully link is not behind a paywall): https://www.ft.com/content/717c3c59-795b-4620-ad9b-a44a359077ca

In the words of David Liddington, former Tory Deputy PM, Johnson should be seen as ".. a significant prime minister, but not seen as good for the country". Another former Tory MP, Paul Goodman suggests that Johnson " ... was never any good at actually governing (...he was like ...) a Turkish sultan or a Tudor monarch, ruling by whim, constantly changing his mind, with no clear strategic direction". Pretty much spot on imo. Johnson was also shown to be a liar who never accepted responsibility for his actions. Maybe best for Trump's campaign if his strategists distanced themselves from his endorsement although, perhaps, dishonesty and incompetence are viewed as positive attributes nowadays?

Article about the Australian solution https://www.futurelearn.com/info/courses/migration-facts/0/steps/34241

Steady on. I'm all for banning tennis players (domestic as well as overseas😉) but where would English football and cricket be without immigrant labour?

Leaving aside the illegal migrants for the time being, what is it about the legal migrants that you object to? In what way are they unneeded if they are coming to the UK to work?

I assume that you didn't read my post before embarking on your rant? There are 5.9 million foreign born workers in the UK There are 1.5 million unemployed in the UK There are 2.4 people on long-term sickness benefits (all "scroungers"? Not a genuine one amongst them?) If we send all the foreigners back home and get all the long-term sick back to work there will be still be, at least, 2 million unfilled job vacancies (5.9 - (1.5+2.4)) So, same question as before: How do we fill those 2 million jobs?

No exceptions. She's got to go.

"The foreign born made up an estimated 18% of the employed population (5.9 million) in the third quarter (July-September) of 2021" (Source: Migration Observeratory) Latest figures (Source: Commons Library) show 1.46m unemployed in UK. Notwithstanding the slight discrepancy in the dates, assuming (1) all the unemployed are UK-born and (2) they are willing and able to fill all the jobs vacated by 'sending the foreigners back home', that leaves +/-4.4m employment vacancies. Any ideas how to fill those jobs?

A subjective opinion with no evidence to support it.

It does in the eyes of the law.