placeholder

Given that Gaza has basically been rendered uninhabitable, certainly for all 2 million of its people, the desire to survive is a powerful incentive. And who says that the opposition would oppose this "voluntary" expatriation?

Genocide, no. But making Gaza so uninhabitable that its people will have to leave? "By mid-December, Israel had dropped 29,000 bombs, munitions and shells on the strip. Nearly 70% of Gaza’s 439,000 homes and about half of its buildings have been damaged or destroyed. The bombing has damaged Byzantine churches and ancient mosques, factories and apartment buildings, shopping malls and luxury hotels, theaters and schools. Much of the water, electrical, communications and healthcare infrastructure that made Gaza function is beyond repair." https://archive.ph/r6pXX https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/gaza-destruction-bombing-israel-aa528542 Later in the article it's pointed out that the estimates of damage are probably underestimates. And I know there are some who claim that the wild talk among a few right wing politicians about ethnic cleansing is not significant... Israel in talks with Congo and other countries on Gaza ‘voluntary migration’ plan The “voluntary” resettlement of Palestinians from Gaza is slowly becoming a key official policy of the government, with a senior official saying that Israel has held talks with several countries for their potential absorption. Zman Israel, The Times of Israel’s Hebrew sister site, has learned that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition is conducting secret contacts for accepting thousands of immigrants from Gaza with Congo, in addition to other nations. “Congo will be willing to take in migrants, and we’re in talks with others,” a senior source in the security cabinet said. https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-in-talks-with-congo-and-other-countries-on-gaza-voluntary-migration-plan/ Such folks are clearly not aware of a concept called the Overton Window: "The Overton window is the range of policies politically acceptable to the mainstream population at a given time.[1] It is also known as the window of discourse." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

It was 4 Republicans and 2 independents who brought the issue to the court. Among them are: "The lead plaintiff, Anderson, 91, is a former state legislator who served as a Republican in Colorado's House of Representatives and state Senate. Kafer is a professor and columnist for The Denver Post who voted for Trump in 2016 and 2020, according to Sherman. https://www.businessinsider.in/politics/world/news/why-4-gop-voters-filed-the-lawsuit-that-eventually-disqualified-trump-from-the-colorado-2024-primary-ballot/articleshow/106199241.cms

I quite agree with you actually. As I pointed out, much misplaced blame is also dogging Biden. But whatever the justice of the case that's how Brexit is seen.

That something is evasiveness.

That fact that this company actually was one of the few that gave an edge to Grexit kind of vitiates your point. And that their predictiohs about the 2019 elections was one of the 2 most accurate polls. You set an impossible standard because the fact is you've got virtually nothing. When I gave you links to actual evidence you just ignore the evidence but instead natter on about wikipedia.

Defenders of Brexit claim that the EU is out to punish the UK. All the EU has done is in many ways to treat the UK like any other country that is not a member of the EU or affiliated with it. It's really up to those people who claim EU malice to show how the UK is treated differently from other unaffiliated countries. As I have pointed out, the UK still does enjoy some special privileges with the EU.

Tariffs on electric vehicles avoided as UK and EU extend trade rules The UK and EU have agreed to extend trade rules on electric vehicles until the end of 2026 to keep costs down for manufacturers and consumers, the Prime Minister has announced today (Thursday 21 December). https://www.gov.uk/government/news/tariffs-on-electric-vehicles-avoided-as-uk-and-eu-extend-trade-rules#:~:text=Press release-,Tariffs on electric vehicles avoided as UK and EU extend,today (Thursday 21 December).

The EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) , which provisionally entered into force on 1 January 2021, provides for zero tariffs and zero quotas on all trade of EU and UK goods that comply with the appropriate rules of origin. Rules of origin are an important aspect of any free trade agreement such as the TCA. https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/customs-4/international-affairs/third-countries/united-kingdom_en#:~:text=The EU-UK Trade and,agreement such as the TCA.

For your first question, refer to the third post from the bottom of page 1. On the one hand, you accuse pollsters of giving the answers the people who pay for them want, but on the other you say that pollsters don't skew the results. Do you understand what "skew" means?

Do you read what you write? "The poll has nothing to do with the actual impact of Brexit. It only intends/pretends to show what the public's perception of what the impact of Brexit has been." And you make this ridiculous generalization without offering any evidence. In fact, if polls were faking it, there would be no relation between the actual results of elections and what polls predicted. Please share with us the evidence that poll results are bought and paid for. More on this below.

Typical post in defense of Brexit. The UK chose not to be part of the Federation. Despite the fact they it still enjoys considerable privileges that other nations don't, Brexit defenders still insist on additional privileges.

But once I did post from the sources, you ignored them. So I assumed you thought they were tainted. So you accept them as valid, then?

Do you think these institutions would say the same about the links I provided? Wikipedia is a very useful source of information. It just shouldn't be used uncritically. Do you think the links I've provided are somehow tainted by having been posted in Wikipedia?

More emptiness.

As per usual, no analysis, no logic, no reason employed. Just an unbacked claim.

Well, your first sentence makes a fair point. Just like in the US where the public is unhappy about the economy even though it's performing very strongly. But polls aren't done to establish any facts except about what the people polled perceive and/or what they intend to do. And given that the polls are unanimous for more than 2 years. one would have to posit a conspiracy to maintain that the results have been skewed on purpose.

Most articles in Wikipedia are rich in footnotes and links. It's clear why you don't read it.

That's why it's best to look at their track record. And given that the polls seem to unanimously show Brexit is unpopular, your point seems untenable. In hindsight, do you think Britain was right or wrong to vote to leave the European Union? https://www.statista.com/statistics/987347/brexit-opinion-poll/

Right. Professional pollsters don't understand statistics or just make their selections up. You've got nothing

If you follow this link, you'll find that for its final 2 polls beford the Brexit referendum Opinium had the pro-Brexit vote slightly ahead, with 11% and 12% undecided. https://ig.ft.com/sites/brexit-polling/

I'm wondering why you didn't look at the article before raising the issue of sources. You would have found the links. At any rate, the links have been posted.

Maybe anyone can edit Wikipedia without citing a source. But in this case sources were not only cited but linked to. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

I got some exciting news for you. Footnotes in Wikipedia can link. Here are the links: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50777965 https://www.britishpollingcouncil.org/performance-of-the-polls-in-the-eu-referendum/

Yes, you could do such a poll. But you wouldn't be able to make a living at it if your results proved to be consistently wrong. As I pointed out, this polling company accurately predicted the Conservative victory in 2019 and came closest to predicting the outcome of the 2016 Brexit election. It's a business. There's a footnote to that Wikipedia quote. But I guess you didn't bother to read that bit either.