UK's Johnson plans full border checks on EU goods - Telegraph

[nauseus]

13 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

.

No data required when your opinion runs contrary to a universally observed phenomenon of economics? In what significant way does your opinion differ from fiction?

 

Your favourite economic (gravity) theory is one of several that are widely used and accepted but they are all subject to variables. In this case the most significant "variable" affecting g is the protective and failing EU.

[Monomial]

20 hours ago, bristolboy said:

I guess you can assert whatever you like. But since the biggest exporters to the UK are Belgium and the Netherlands with a little over 7% and little under 7% in respect to their total exports, whereas  for the UK's exports to the EU amount to 45%, what you're claiming makes no sense at all.

 

This is true, and in the short term the UK is certainly more vulnerable to losing exports than the EU. However, there are some fundamental issues which means the UK is likely to recover much quicker than the EU, and it is likely in the UK's interest to forgo a comprehensive deal unless the EU makes serious concessions.

 

1) While exports to the EU from the UK may represent a larger percentage than the reverse, they represent a much smaller absolute value. Thus, it will be easier for the rest of the world to absorb the totality of UK exports than for the rest of the world to absorb the much larger value of lost EU exports.

2) The UK exports mostly services, which are relatively easy to retool for other, radically different markets. The EU exports primarily physical goods to the UK, which mean they have to find other markets which want very similar goods.

3) The UK will have the advantage of being small and nimble and able to sign new trade deals quickly. They will not be weighed down by the inertia and brobdignagian bulk of rules and regulations that will require 8 years of trade negotiations in EU-land before those lost exports can be replaced.

 

Yes, the UK is going to be more vulnerable in the very short term. But they are more flexible and that should allow them to recover quickly and grow much faster than the larger, more lethargic EU. Consider it is relatively easy for small companies to maintain year over year double digit growth. It is impossible for very large ones. There is a price to be paid for size and complexity in a rapidly changing world.

 

[bristolboy]

4 hours ago, nauseus said:

Your favourite economic (gravity) theory is one of several that are widely used and accepted but they are all subject to variables. In this case the most significant "variable" affecting g is the protective and failing EU.

There are theories to explain economic gravity but it itself is not a theory but a universally observed phenomenon. So it doesn't just apply to the EU and the UK but to all nations everywhere. Maybe you should look up how much the EU exports and imports before you decide that its level of protectionism makes economic gravity inapplicable.

[nauseus]

59 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

There are theories to explain economic gravity but it itself is not a theory but a universally observed phenomenon. So it doesn't just apply to the EU and the UK but to all nations everywhere. Maybe you should look up how much the EU exports and imports before you decide that its level of protectionism makes economic gravity inapplicable.

I've never seen this called a phenomenon - it is generally termed a model - and because the EU is on one side of this model the variables are multiple and significant. I did not say that economic gravity does not apply. But if distance is such a great weakener, then how come the US and China trade so much with the EU? 

[bristolboy]

53 minutes ago, Monomial said:

 

This is true, and in the short term the UK is certainly more vulnerable to losing exports than the EU. However, there are some fundamental issues which means the UK is likely to recover much quicker than the EU, and it is likely in the UK's interest to forgo a comprehensive deal unless the EU makes serious concessions.

 

1) While exports to the EU from the UK may represent a larger percentage than the reverse, they represent a much smaller absolute value. Thus, it will be easier for the rest of the world to absorb the totality of UK exports than for the rest of the world to absorb the much larger value of lost EU exports.

2) The UK exports mostly services, which are relatively easy to retool for other, radically different markets. The EU exports primarily physical goods to the UK, which mean they have to find other markets which want very similar goods.

3) The UK will have the advantage of being small and nimble and able to sign new trade deals quickly. They will not be weighed down by the inertia and brobdignagian bulk of rules and regulations that will require 8 years of trade negotiations in EU-land before those lost exports can be replaced.

 

Yes, the UK is going to be more vulnerable in the very short term. But they are more flexible and that should allow them to recover quickly and grow much faster than the larger, more lethargic EU. Consider it is relatively easy for small companies to maintain year over year double digit growth. It is impossible for very large ones. There is a price to be paid for size and complexity in a rapidly changing world.

 

"1) While exports to the EU from the UK may represent a larger percentage than the reverse, they represent a much smaller absolute value. Thus, it will be easier for the rest of the world to absorb the totality of UK exports than for the rest of the world to absorb the much larger value of lost EU exports."

This is just nuts. International trade isn't conducted on a country to country basis. It's done by business in one place exporting and importing to businesses in other countries. So while the exports of the EU may be somewhat greater than those of the UK, they are divided among a far greater number of businesses. On a per business basis EU businesses would have much less excess exports to contend with.

"2) The UK exports mostly services, which are relatively easy to retool for other, radically different markets. The EU exports primarily physical goods to the UK, which mean they have to find other markets which want very similar goods."

Why wouldn't UK businesses already be exporting these services to those countries? Keep in mind that lots of those services depends on the permission of other governments to engage in selling those services.  Domestic service industries such as those in the financial and insurance fields are widely protected and regulated in much of the world. Why would they view it as being in their interests to let the UK muscle their domestic business aside? What could the UK offer them? Also, in markets that are relatively open, the UK is already there. Although, most of the major financial houses in the UK are now owned by American firms.

3) The UK will have the advantage of being small and nimble and able to sign new trade deals quickly. They will not be weighed down by the inertia and brobdignagian bulk of rules and regulations that will require 8 years of trade negotiations in EU-land before those lost exports can be replaced.

Once again the bizarre claim the the UK economy is "small and nimble" In nominal value it's the 5 biggest economy in the world. Once again, it has to be asked, when has a nation with a big economy been able to quickly negotiate a major transformative trade deal? I believe that the answer is never. Of course if the UK is particularly eager for such a deal and is willing to make major concessions quickly, it could happen.

"Yes, the UK is going to be more vulnerable in the very short term. But they are more flexible and that should allow them to recover quickly and grow much faster than the larger, more lethargic EU. Consider it is relatively easy for small companies to maintain year over year double digit growth. It is impossible for very large ones. There is a price to be paid for size and complexity in a rapidly changing world."

2 obvious errors here.

1)The UK is not a small economy. It is a mature developed economy. Being a developed economy necessarily means that it grows more slowly than less developed economies. It's easier to grown when a nation is playing catch-up than when it's a leader.

Secondly, once again your analogy of a country to a business is just bizarre. A country is not a business. It's size has no relation to how quickly its business grows. But, if it did, as pointed out above, the UK has the 5th biggest economy in the world. In terms of complexity, it ranks #14. At least it did in 2017,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_economic_complexity

 

 

 

[tomacht8]

3 hours ago, bristolboy said:

"1) While exports to the EU from the UK may represent a larger percentage than the reverse, they represent a much smaller absolute value. Thus, it will be easier for the rest of the world to absorb the totality of UK exports than for the rest of the world to absorb the much larger value of lost EU exports."

This is just nuts. International trade isn't conducted on a country to country basis. It's done by business in one place exporting and importing to businesses in other countries. So while the exports of the EU may be somewhat greater than those of the UK, they are divided among a far greater number of businesses. On a per business basis EU businesses would have much less excess exports to contend with.

"2) The UK exports mostly services, which are relatively easy to retool for other, radically different markets. The EU exports primarily physical goods to the UK, which mean they have to find other markets which want very similar goods."

Why wouldn't UK businesses already be exporting these services to those countries? Keep in mind that lots of those services depends on the permission of other governments to engage in selling those services.  Domestic service industries such as those in the financial and insurance fields are widely protected and regulated in much of the world. Why would they view it as being in their interests to let the UK muscle their domestic business aside? What could the UK offer them? Also, in markets that are relatively open, the UK is already there. Although, most of the major financial houses in the UK are now owned by American firms.

3) The UK will have the advantage of being small and nimble and able to sign new trade deals quickly. They will not be weighed down by the inertia and brobdignagian bulk of rules and regulations that will require 8 years of trade negotiations in EU-land before those lost exports can be replaced.

Once again the bizarre claim the the UK economy is "small and nimble" In nominal value it's the 5 biggest economy in the world. Once again, it has to be asked, when has a nation with a big economy been able to quickly negotiate a major transformative trade deal? I believe that the answer is never. Of course if the UK is particularly eager for such a deal and is willing to make major concessions quickly, it could happen.

"Yes, the UK is going to be more vulnerable in the very short term. But they are more flexible and that should allow them to recover quickly and grow much faster than the larger, more lethargic EU. Consider it is relatively easy for small companies to maintain year over year double digit growth. It is impossible for very large ones. There is a price to be paid for size and complexity in a rapidly changing world."

2 obvious errors here.

1)The UK is not a small economy. It is a mature developed economy. Being a developed economy necessarily means that it grows more slowly than less developed economies. It's easier to grown when a nation is playing catch-up than when it's a leader.

Secondly, once again your analogy of a country to a business is just bizarre. A country is not a business. It's size has no relation to how quickly its business grows. But, if it did, as pointed out above, the UK has the 5th biggest economy in the world. In terms of complexity, it ranks #14. At least it did in 2017,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_economic_complexity

 

 

 

Wow. This is a very good and educational posting. The scientific stations of Cesar A. Hidalgo and Ricardo Hausman are also interesting. The complexitivity model is 

a relatively new approach to explain the success of export business.

Every now and then there are educational events in the flat Brexit and no Brexit argumentation chaos. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Monomial]

 

  Quote

This is just nuts. International trade isn't conducted on a country to country basis. It's done by business in one place exporting and importing to businesses in other countries. So while the exports of the EU may be somewhat greater than those of the UK, they are divided among a far greater number of businesses. On a per business basis EU businesses would have much less excess exports to contend with.

 

This makes no sense to me at all.  The issue at hand is that governments need to sign trade deals in order to find alternate markets for the lost trade. While that ultimately comes down to businesses doing deals, it presupposes the trade deals are effective. It is easier for the UK to find small markets to make deals with than it is for the EU to find markets for its much larger volumes.

 

Quote

Why wouldn't UK businesses already be exporting these services to those countries? Keep in mind that lots of those services depends on the permission of other governments to engage in selling those services.  Domestic service industries such as those in the financial and insurance fields are widely protected and regulated in much of the world. Why would they view it as being in their interests to let the UK muscle their domestic business aside? What could the UK offer them? Also, in markets that are relatively open, the UK is already there. Although, most of the major financial houses in the UK are now owned by American firms.

 

The point is that the UK is currently selling those services to companies in the EU. Both the UK and the EU are going to be affected by a failure to negotiate a trade deal. Why they aren't already bigger is irrelevant. Perhaps it is too expensive for them to expand. When they suddenly lose access to a market, businesses are going to scramble to replace the lost revenue. Once the UK has established trade deals with other countries, they will have an easier time of adapting than someone selling physical commodities,.

 

 

Quote

Once again the bizarre claim the the UK economy is "small and nimble" In nominal value it's the 5 biggest economy in the world. Once again, it has to be asked, when has a nation with a big economy been able to quickly negotiate a major transformative trade deal? I believe that the answer is never. Of course if the UK is particularly eager for such a deal and is willing to make major concessions quickly, it could happen.

 

You keep using this word bizarre, and yet I find it bizarre you think that the EU is somehow as flexible and nimble as the UK. That to me is totally bizarre. It takes the EU *8 YEARS* to negotiate a trade agreement. The UK is a relatively sprightly compared to this.

 

 

Quote

1)The UK is not a small economy. It is a mature developed economy. Being a developed economy necessarily means that it grows more slowly than less developed economies. It's easier to grown when a nation is playing catch-up than when it's a leader.

Secondly, once again your analogy of a country to a business is just bizarre. A country is not a business. It's size has no relation to how quickly its business grows. But, if it did, as pointed out above, the UK has the 5th biggest economy in the world. In terms of complexity, it ranks #14. At least it did in 2017,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_economic_complexity

 

 

Compared to the EU, the UK is a very small economy. That is what you argued earlier. We are comparing the UK to the lumbering EU, not compared to a developing country. And I disagree that countries have nothing in common with businesses. Certainly complexity of rules and regulations applies equally well to both of them

 

 

 

Edited February 5, 2020 by Monomial

[7by7]

On 2/3/2020 at 7:22 PM, Loiner said:

Your warped and twisted logic may try and spin the numbers, all to no avail. 
We are out. Your mates the Remainers lost.

 

Neither warped nor twisted, not even spun.

 

52.4% voted for parties who promised a referendum on whether to accept the deal or cancel Brexit; or the LibDems who promised to simply cancel Brexit if they got a majority of the popular vote.

 

Yes, those voting for one or other of those parties lost because our first past the post system meant that despite only getting 43.6% of the votes, the Tories got 56.1% of the seats.

 

As someone who constantly proclaims their belief in the will of the people, surely that should at the very least trouble you?

 

Unless, of course, your oft repeated 'championing' of the will of the people only applies when that will agrees with you?

[Jip99]

11 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

Neither warped nor twisted, not even spun.

 

52.4% voted for parties who promised a referendum on whether to accept the deal or cancel Brexit; or the LibDems who promised to simply cancel Brexit if they got a majority of the popular vote.

 

Yes, those voting for one or other of those parties lost because our first past the post system meant that despite only getting 43.6% of the votes, the Tories got 56.1% of the seats.

 

As someone who constantly proclaims their belief in the will of the people, surely that should at the very least trouble you?

 

Unless, of course, your oft repeated 'championing' of the will of the people only applies when that will agrees with you?

 

I imagine you will stop whining like a little girl one day.

 

Move on.....as per above post, we are OUT.

 

 

 

[7by7]

7 minutes ago, Jip99 said:

 

I imagine you will stop whining like a little girl one day.

 

Move on.....as per above post, we are OUT.

 

 

 

 So. it seems you are also the type who believes the will of the people is only important when you agree with it?

 

Yes, we are out.

 

But this is a democracy, and if referendum decisions cannot be changed then that of 1975 should still stand!

 

I and all the ever increasing majority can, and will, continue to campaign to give the people a say on any final deal and not let Cummings get away with imposing his Trump led deal on us.

[codebunny]

On 2/3/2020 at 1:24 AM, 7by7 said:

48.11% in 2016.

 

But in the 2019 election, 52.4% voted for parties who promised, at least, a referendum on whether to accept the final exit deal, or cancel Brexit.

 

The many Brexiteers on this board who live 6000 miles away do not know how the mood of the British people has changed since 2016 as the full effects of Brexit become more and more apparent.

No... many of us are there regularly, and are far more in touch than the Labour party and the remainer mobs.

The left-learning LSE still has results online showing that until the Jo Cox murder was hijacked by the remain campaign and horribly abused to try and mischaracterise leave voters, the vote was heading for 60% in favour of leave.

The remain establishment had all the resources it wanted at its command, it abused its position repeatedly, using public funds to spread pro-EU propaganda (e.g.: the £9,000,000 info pack) and fearmongering lies, the constant bias of the coercion/state-funded broadcaster and remainer newspapers (including financial outlets, skewing stories against brexit) and pro-remain online companies, like search engines and social media to try and control and warp the debate. Journalists, and broadcasters of every type conspired to try and steer the fear to control the result, and they still lost... and then for 3.5 years they continued to campaign against the result, which is unheard of.

the remainer speaker undermined the executive, and foreign millionaires injected huge sums of cash to try and use the newly-invented "supreme court" to try and undermine and overrule the executive, openly attempting to govern the country by judiciary and a remain blocking faction in parliament that had lost legitimacy... finally the public got an election to sack the lot of them, and begin the purge of the establishment which has been steadliy infested with mock-liberal elites since New Labour.

Finally, the people get what they voted for, and can be freed from the economic failure of the EU, and the full effects of Brexit are exciting, and desperately needed to repair the UK after all this krap.

 

On 2/3/2020 at 1:24 AM, 7by7 said:

Unfortunately, the vagaries of our first past the post electoral system means Cummings and his puppet PM can ignore the will of the majority for the next 5 years.

You can blame them if you want to, but the fact remains that Labour were rejected by working class voters in droves, and it was their election to win, and they failed. It will be more than 5 years, until Labour is slapped back into reality and purges itself of militants and middleclass mor-ons.

On 2/3/2020 at 1:24 AM, 7by7 said:

Something  those Brexiteers who have spent the last 3.5 years banging on about democracy seem happy to ignore.

There's nothing to ignore, other than the silly fantasy that somehow voters didn't elect a Tory government. They weren't tricked into it, they voted for what they wanted, and end to remainers trying to sabotage democracy, and end to a Labour party that doesn't represent them any more.

[codebunny]

On 2/4/2020 at 7:51 PM, Rookiescot said:

OK from now on I will use the word "stupid" instead of rabid.

Until you sort your spelling and grammar out, you might want to hold fire on words as long as that.

[codebunny]

On 2/3/2020 at 9:08 AM, Chomper Higgot said:

“us knuckle dragging, beer swilling, bovver boot wearing brexiters”.

 

If you can find me making any such suggestions ever, let me know.

 

The only time I ever see such derogatory remarks made against Brexit supporters, they are claims being made by Brexiteers, and like your own claims, lacking evidence to support them.

You still haven't responded to the requests for substantiating your own claims.

[codebunny]

On 2/2/2020 at 9:16 PM, bannork said:

45% of UK exports go to the EU.

6.6% of German exports go to the UK.

The EU is not Germany. 40% of UK exports to the EU go to about 7 countries, all adjacent to the UK.

Germany sells about £75Bn of exports to the UK, a lot more than the UK sells to Germany.

That trading relationship is important to Germany; the UK can find new/additional export customers.

[7by7]

@codebunny the larger part of your reply to me is the usual expat Brexiteer short on facts, long on propaganda ranting; so I'll not bother to repeat the responses such have been given so many times before; and not just by me. Look them up if you wish.

 

12 minutes ago, codebunny said:

Quote

Unfortunately, the vagaries of our first past the post electoral system means Cummings and his puppet PM can ignore the will of the majority for the next 5 years.

You can blame them if you want to, but the fact remains that Labour were rejected by working class voters in droves, and it was their election to win, and they failed. It will be more than 5 years, until Labour is slapped back into reality and purges itself of militants and middleclass mor-ons.

Earlier I posted, if not in this topic than another, that Labour lost the election rather than the Tories winning it. But where did those labour voters go?

 

The Tories only increased their share of the vote by 1.2%, so not many to them! Indeed, have a trawl through the results and you will see that in many of the seats they won from Labour, whilst the Tory vote remained fairly stable. the labour one dropped and the LibDem increased. Showing that many former Labour voters either voted LibDem or abstained.

 

21 minutes ago, codebunny said:

Quote

Something  those Brexiteers who have spent the last 3.5 years banging on about democracy seem happy to ignore.

There's nothing to ignore, other than the silly fantasy that somehow voters didn't elect a Tory government. They weren't tricked into it, they voted for what they wanted, and end to remainers trying to sabotage democracy, and end to a Labour party that doesn't represent them any more.

I have not denied that we have a Tory government; how can I when it is a fact? 

 

But as the figures show, the majority of people did not get what they voted for; The majority voted for at the very least a referendum on the deal; and we are not going to get that.

[codebunny]

27 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

@codebunny the larger part of your reply to me is the usual expat Brexiteer short on facts, long on propaganda ranting; so I'll not bother to repeat the responses such have been given so many times before; and not just by me. Look them up if you wish.

I'm not an expat, but I have been involved in the UK Independence movement since 1992, and I do know about this subject and have plenty of experience with lefties, short on facts, big on bluster.

Quote

Earlier I posted, if not in this topic than another, that Labour lost the election rather than the Tories winning it. But where did those labour voters go?

They voted Brexit and Tory mostly. I come from these council estates, I know what people think.

Quote

The Tories only increased their share of the vote by 1.2%, so not many to them! Indeed, have a trawl through the results and you will see that in many of the seats they won from Labour, whilst the Tory vote remained fairly stable. the labour one dropped and the LibDem increased. Showing that many former Labour voters either voted LibDem or abstained.

It's more complex than that, and if you go to a psephology site, you can see detailed analysis.

Have a play with this map, if you don't like dry polling documents: 

https://principalfish.co.uk/electionmaps/?map=predictit

What often happens is a lot of hidden shifting between parties, so it can look like a simple shift happened, when it's actually a net result of a number of shifts.

A bit like this:

 

The picture varies from region to region, and in seats that were never Labour ones, shifts in overall vote also occurred.

What you see in some constituencies is Brexit party taking around 10% from Labour, weakening them.

In some constituencies with a large remainer demographic, you will see shifts to the LibDems.

Turnout was pretty similar for the last few elections, so abstentions are not as big a factor.

Labour has failed to recover in Scotland, and it is at real risk of that in the north of England, if Labour does not change, and if a credible alternative is on offer. The Toryphobia is not the phenomenon it once was, clearly.

Quote

I have not denied that we have a Tory government; how can I when it is a fact? 

You are implying that Cummings is Rasputin, and somehow the Tory government is undemocratic.

Why don't you explain what you mean?

Quote

But as the figures show, the majority of people did not get what they voted for; The majority voted for at the very least a referendum on the deal; and we are not going to get that.

No they really didn't. They voted for a functioning government, and Labour cannot offer that.

The LibDems could only offer more years of EU-related disruption, and people are tired of it.

What should have happened is Article 50 in July 2016, and none of the last 3.5 years of chaos.

 

Here's some analysis:

 

 

https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2019/12/how-britain-voted-and-why-my-2019-general-election-post-vote-poll/

 

The latter part of data shows that a significant portion of Labour, LibDem, SNP, Green, and other voters, accepted the result, even if their party of choice didn't.

 

Edited February 10, 2020 by codebunny

[7by7]

@codebunny, you have produced many charts etc.

 

Not all of them relate to the subject of my posts; the 2019 General Election!

 

Those that do come from a poll of 13,000 voters. 13,000 out of a total turnout of 47,587,254!

 

Number crunch all you like; but is a sample of 0.027% really representative?

 

Do those numbers have more truth to them than the actual numbers and percentages of voters for each party in each constituency?

 

A poll, by the way, conducted by an organisation owned and run by a Tory tax exile peer? Sorry, that should be a non UK domiciled dual British and Belize citizen domiciled in Belize for tax purposes.

[codebunny]

16 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

@codebunny, you have produced many charts etc.

 

Not all of them relate to the subject of my posts; the 2019 General Election!

I was genuinely hoping for a better quality reply than this, but it seems like it might be a lost cause.

Quote

Those that do come from a poll of 13,000 voters. 13,000 out of a total turnout of 47,587,254!

 

Number crunch all you like; but is a sample of 0.027% really representative?

It's an exit poll by a professional polling organisation, what do you want for nowt?

Quote

Do those numbers have more truth to them than the actual numbers and percentages of voters for each party in each constituency?

Exit polls are usually pretty reliable.

I don't have the time to indulge you with large datasets, you can back up your own claims.

If you want a poll that agrees with what you think, you'll have to make it up yourself.

Quote

A poll, by the way, conducted by an organisation owned and run by a Tory tax exile peer? Sorry, that should be a non UK domiciled dual British and Belize citizen domiciled in Belize for tax purposes.

So what?! Do you trust polls funded by George Soros? If you're going to make claims about people making fake polls, or claims about what people thought when they voted, or claims about anything, at least make the effort to support them.

[7by7]

23 hours ago, codebunny said:

23 hours ago, 7by7 said:

@codebunny, you have produced many charts etc.

 

Not all of them relate to the subject of my posts; the 2019 General Election!

I was genuinely hoping for a better quality reply than this, but it seems like it might be a lost cause.

 

If you don't want to be reminded that you have wandered off topic, don't wander off topic!

 

23 hours ago, codebunny said:

Quote

Those that do come from a poll of 13,000 voters. 13,000 out of a total turnout of 47,587,254!

 

Number crunch all you like; but is a sample of 0.027% really representative?

It's an exit poll by a professional polling organisation, what do you want for nowt?

 But an exit poll of 0.027% of voters is never going to be as accurate as the total votes cast for each party by  all 100% who voted; no matter how professional the polling organisation.

 

23 hours ago, codebunny said:

Quote

Do those numbers have more truth to them than the actual numbers and percentages of voters for each party in each constituency?

Exit polls are usually pretty reliable.

Exit polls are only as reliable as the answers given by those who are asked; not all tell the truth.

 

The lager the sample, the more reliable the exit poll is likely to be.

 

The companies who conduct such polls, the reputable ones at least, will tell you that if the result comes within 15 seats of the actual result then it's considered accurate enough. They are a guide. Sometimes they predict the winner, other times not.  For example, in 2015 no exit poll predicted a Conservative majority. 

 

23 hours ago, codebunny said:

I don't have the time to indulge you with large datasets, you can back up your own claims

I have already backed up my claims by referring to the total number of votes cast. Not a sample, not even a sample larger than the meagre one you provided. But the real, factual number of votes cast for each party. 

 

23 hours ago, codebunny said:

If you want a poll that agrees with what you think, you'll have to make it up yourself.

I don't need to make up a poll to agree with what I think; because the facts prove it. That you don't like those facts and have had to search out a poll based upon an extremely small sample in an effort to prove me wrong only shows your desperation.

 

23 hours ago, codebunny said:

Quote

A poll, by the way, conducted by an organisation owned and run by a Tory tax exile peer? Sorry, that should be a non UK domiciled dual British and Belize citizen domiciled in Belize for tax purposes.

So what?! Do you trust polls funded by George Soros? If you're going to make claims about people making fake polls, or claims about what people thought when they voted, or claims about anything, at least make the effort to support them.

 

As far as I am aware Soros has never lied about his UK non dom tax status; Ashcroft has.

 

I am unaware of UK opinion polls funded by Soros; do you have an example?

 

Soros is, to put it mildly, disliked by Fox News, Breitbart and Rees-Mogg among others; which probably accounts for your use of him as some sort of left wing, Remainer bogey man.

 

I have supported all my claims with reference to the actual election results which show how many people voted for each party. Not just in total throughout the county, but also in each constituency.  You have attempted to prove those figures to be incorrect by producing an exit poll based on a miniscule 0.027% of those who voted!

 

How any intelligent person can seriously claim that a survey based upon 0.027% of voters is more accurate than counting the total, 100% of all votes cast is beyond my comprehension.

[impulse]

Just out of curiosity, how much of the added infrastructure have they built to date in order to do full border checks?

 

Anyone else envisioning monthlong queues at the ports of entry?

 

[7by7]

18 minutes ago, impulse said:

Just out of curiosity, how much of the added infrastructure have they built to date in order to do full border checks?

 

Anyone else envisioning monthlong queues at the ports of entry?

 

The Brexiteers have been telling us since 2016 that there is no need for new infrastructure and there will be no long queues because there will be no new border checks post Brexit!

 

Seems someone forgot to tell Boris that!

[CG1 Blue]

1 hour ago, impulse said:

Just out of curiosity, how much of the added infrastructure have they built to date in order to do full border checks?

 

Anyone else envisioning monthlong queues at the ports of entry?

 

I envision a dedicated queue for UK passport holders, and zipping through in 10 minutes 

[impulse]

13 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

I envision a dedicated queue for UK passport holders, and zipping through in 10 minutes 

 

Maybe so.  But that doesn't help shipments of goodies.  Which is the topic of this thread...

 

In any case,  you'd better stock up on your French wine and cheese.

 

Edited February 11, 2020 by impulse

[CG1 Blue]

3 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Maybe so.  But that doesn't help shipments of goodies.  Which is the topic of this thread...

 

In any case,  you'd better stock up on your French wine and cheese.

 

My mistake - I thought you were talking about immigration queues. Half asleep! 

 

We have plenty of alternatives to French wine and cheese - which is why the French food & beverage industry will lobby their government to get a deal done with the UK. 

 

[Mavideol]

10 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

I envision a dedicated queue for UK passport holders, and zipping through in 10 minutes 

wishful (thinking) hopping, UK passports will get the same line as NON EU citizens... I can hear the IMO guy screaming ""Get on line you Brexiter"" 555

[Mavideol]

12 hours ago, impulse said:

Just out of curiosity, how much of the added infrastructure have they built to date in order to do full border checks?

 

Anyone else envisioning monthlong queues at the ports of entry?

 

wonder what will happen to the FRESH dairies while waiting at the long queues ???? no longer be called FRESH 555

[samran]

2 hours ago, Mavideol said:

wonder what will happen to the FRESH dairies while waiting at the long queues ???? no longer be called FRESH 555

yeah, but think of the upside!

 

Yogurt, sour cream and blue cheese exports will BOOM! 

[RuamRudy]

With the rest of the devolved administrations resisting the push by England to relax lockdown, the last thing that unionists will want to see is further evidence of internal barriers within the kingdom. I guess this could not have come at a worse time for them.  

Brexit will mean checks on goods crossing Irish Sea, government admits

"The government has privately conceded there will be post-Brexit checks on goods crossing the Irish Sea, months after Boris Johnson insisted there would be no such trade barriers.

In a letter to the executive office in Stormont the government confirmed there would be border control posts in three ports, Belfast, Warrenpoint and Larne."