Nigel Farage: ‘Brexit has failed’

[billd766]

3 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

 

What about the above?

You asked me and I explained it to you.

 

I cannot understand it for you. That is down to you.

[youreavinalaff]

2 minutes ago, billd766 said:

You asked me and I explained it to you.

 

I cannot understand it for you. That is down to you.

So your original post explained why your wife doesn't get 700 a month? No it didn't. Hence my further question.

[billd766]

32 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

So your original post explained why your wife doesn't get 700 a month? No it didn't. Hence my further question.

Which I answered. You misunderstood it in the first place.

 

You could have easily have asked how old my wife was and you would have got the same answer.

[RayC]

54 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

It's not quite as simple as all that though, is it?

 

There were too many MPs not doing their job. MPs are supposed to represent their constituents. Too many voted on Brexit matters according to their own views. Hence delays in deals and decisions. That was a major issue.

Imo it is pretty much as simple as @dunroaming suggests.

 

MPs are not delegates and are under no constitutional obligation to vote according the majority view in their constituency: Their remit is to vote in what they consider their constituents' best interests. Having said that, imo there was a strong moral argument that MPs should have voted according to the majority view in their constituency.

 

Nevertheless that is all besides the point. The UK served Article 50 in March 2017. If the process had run to the planned schedule, the UK would have left the EU in April/May 2019 (after the Withdrawal bill had been passed by the UK parliament). As you know, we actually left on 1 February 2020; imo leaving the EU eight months earlier wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference. There would still be no sign of the 'sunny uplands'.

[youreavinalaff]

3 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Nevertheless that is all besides the point. The UK served Article 50 in March 2017. If the process had run to the planned schedule, the UK would have left the EU in April/May 2019 (after the Withdrawal bill had been passed by the UK parliament). As you know, we actually left on 1 February 2020; imo leaving the EU eight months earlier wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference. There would still be no sign of the 'sunny uplands'.

Oh, but it would have. It would have meant leaving almost a full year prior to being plunged into disarray by a global pandemic. Plenty of time to have made inroads.

Edited May 19, 2023 by youreavinalaff

[RayC]

51 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Oh, but it would have. It would have meant leaving almost a full year prior to being plunged into disarray by a global pandemic. Plenty of time to have made inroads.

Two years on from the pandemic and is there any sign of Brexit delivering any economic benefits?

 

It's a rhetorical question: The answer is 'No'.

[Chomper Higgot]

5 hours ago, James105 said:

I don't think you will ever understand why people voted for it and looking for micro reasons such as specific EU laws that individual people wanted to see removed is probably not very helpful, and only serves to make the asker of such an inane question feel superior.

 

People voted for change.   They were fed up with the way the country was being run (for whatever reason) and that referendum gave them the single opportunity they will ever see in their lifetimes where (theoretically) their vote counted for something.   Voting for Labour/Tory is a vote for more of the same, whereas the referendum was.... different.   The fact that neither establishment party wanted it, or were willing to implement any kind of radical change despite being given a mandate in 2019 to enact those kind of changes is not the fault of people who voted for it, nor for that matter, who campaigned for it.   

 

Was it a mistake to leave the EU if nothing was actually going to change and the UK would still be tied into the EU regardless without making some kind of radical change?  Yes.   If radical changes could have been made (such as massively reducing business taxes and VAT to encourage investment/jobs, or actually reducing net inwards migration to the level of the 90s) then maybe it would have been a success.   Sadly, we will never know.  

A long post missing why I asked the question of Bild766.

 

Here’s a clue, it was Bild766 who mentioned getting rid of EU laws and regulations.

[youreavinalaff]

41 minutes ago, RayC said:

Two years on from the pandemic and is there any sign of Brexit delivering any economic benefits?

 

It's a rhetorical question: The answer is 'No'.

And that has nothing to do with what I said. 

 

You comment and twist to suit  yourself, as usual.

[RayC]

1 hour ago, youreavinalaff said:

And that has nothing to do with what I said. 

 

You comment and twist to suit  yourself, as usual.

It is directly relevant to the conversation. I haven't twisted anything to suit myself. I have simply challenged you to defend your position; something you appear unable to do.

 

You suggest that the 8-month - sorry, "nearly a year" - delay in our initially planned departure from the EU and the Covid crisis was instrumental in the benefits of Brexit not being realized: No one would doubt that the Covid restrictions had an impact (although it would have been possible for some work on, for example, trade deals to have continued during lockdown).  But why would this eight month delay have made all the difference? What would have been possible during the period between April 2019 and January 2020 that wasn't possible thereafter?

 

As I stated previously, it is two years since the pandemic restrictions were lifted; surely (the beginnings of) these Brexit benefits should have started to become visible by now? (I'll preempt the Ukraine war card being played by asking how it affects the Brexit benefits being realised?)

Edited May 19, 2023 by RayC
Clarification

[onthedarkside]

A post has been removed due to the quoted reply being edited to just on word. Please reply with the whole quote included and not take a lengthy post out of context.

 

28. You will not make changes to messages quoted from other members posts, except for purposes of shortening the quoted post. Do not shorten any post in a way that alters the context of the original post. Do not change the formatting of the post you are quoting.

[david555]

Can you blame us E.U. if we watching this from the sideline ,... smiling saying : "we told you so...!!    so many times before...????

Edited May 19, 2023 by david555

[bendejo]

On 5/17/2023 at 3:41 AM, OneMoreFarang said:

The only thing he is capable of doing is saying: You didn't do it right.

The way the Congressional GOP in the US does it is:

"Yes, we're against [enter social/governmental ill here] but the bill in question does not address the problem correctly."  They usually say they will come up with their own bill, and if they do it will be a joke.  More likely they'll never mention it again.

My favorite Farage stories involve people throwing milk shakes at him

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/20/nigel-farage-doused-with-milkshake-in-newcastle

 

 

[youreavinalaff]

4 hours ago, RayC said:

It is directly relevant to the conversation. I haven't twisted anything to suit myself. I have simply challenged you to defend your position; something you appear unable to do.

 

You suggest that the 8-month - sorry, "nearly a year" - delay in our initially planned departure from the EU and the Covid crisis was instrumental in the benefits of Brexit not being realized: No one would doubt that the Covid restrictions had an impact (although it would have been possible for some work on, for example, trade deals to have continued during lockdown).  But why would this eight month delay have made all the difference? What would have been possible during the period between April 2019 and January 2020 that wasn't possible thereafter?

 

As I stated previously, it is two years since the pandemic restrictions were lifted; surely (the beginnings of) these Brexit benefits should have started to become visible by now? (I'll preempt the Ukraine war card being played by asking how it affects the Brexit benefits being realised?)

I didn't say " Covid crisis was instrumental in the benefits of Brexit not being realized". That's a twist from you.

 

I merely pointed out there would have been plenty of time to work on intricacies.

 

I'm sure you'll disagree so please confirm that you feel the subject of Brexit would not have cropped up in Parliament, during cabinet meetings, at PMQs or any debates between April 2019 and Feb 1st 2020.

 

No wriggles, now. 

[Chomper Higgot]

Let’s pretend the Pandemic didn’t hide and hasn’t been used to hide the negative impacts of Brexit.

 

 

[RayC]

30 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

I didn't say " Covid crisis was instrumental in the benefits of Brexit not being realized". That's a twist from you.

 

I merely pointed out there would have been plenty of time to work on intricacies.

Ok, there would have been "plenty of time" - sigh ... in reality, an 'extra' eight months - to work on the intricacies .... and ...?

 

You seem to be making great play of this 8-month delay in the original schedule but are unable to explain why and what the effects have been.

 

30 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

 

I'm sure you'll disagree

You're right????

 

30 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

so please confirm that you feel the subject of Brexit would not have cropped up in Parliament, during cabinet meetings, at PMQs or any debates between April 2019 and Feb 1st 2020.

Parliament continued to meet remotely throughout the Covid crisis. If the Minister for Brexit had developed a solution for, say, the Irish border question, it could have been discussed during cabinet meetings and presented to Parliament if needs be.

 

30 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

 

No wriggles, now. 

Would you now care to try to explain why there is little sign of any Brexit benefits two years after the pandemic restrictions ended?

 

No wriggles, now.

[youreavinalaff]

3 minutes ago, RayC said:

Ok, there would have been "plenty of time" - sigh ... in reality, an 'extra' eight months - to work on the intricacies .... and ...?

 

You seem to be making great play of this 8-month delay in the original schedule but are unable to explain why and what the effects have been.

 

You're right????

 

Parliament continued to meet remotely throughout the Covid crisis. If the Minister for Brexit had developed a solution for, say, the Irish border question, it could have been discussed during cabinet meetings and presented to Parliament if needs be.

 

Would you now care to try to explain why there is little sign of any Brexit benefits two years after the pandemic restrictions ended?

 

No wriggles, now.

That is not the question in hand.

 

You said there would have been no difference to negotiations if the withdrawal agreement had gone through 8 months before it did. I suggested there might have been.

 

I asked you to confirm a suggestion. You appear to be unable to. That's it. I've proved my point. With your help, it appears. Thanks for that.

[youreavinalaff]

30 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Let’s pretend the Pandemic didn’t hide and hasn’t been used to hide the negative impacts of Brexit.

 

 

Why not? You love to play kids games. 

[Chomper Higgot]

15 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Why not? You love to play kids games. 

Ad hominem.

[youreavinalaff]

26 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Ad hominem.

Like I said......

[RayC]

50 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

That is not the question in hand.

 

You said there would have been no difference to negotiations if the withdrawal agreement had gone through 8 months before it did. I suggested there might have been.

 

I asked you to confirm a suggestion. You appear to be unable to. That's it. I've proved my point. With your help, it appears. Thanks for that.

Sliding doors! If we had left the EU in March 2019, everything could have been different. That's the extent of your argument? 

[RayC]

https://www.ft.com/content/e6682422-67cb-47a8-a7d0-fb47f09d4301

 

Not sure if the above link is behind a paywall? Contained in the link are examples of the EU laws which will be repealed later this year. My take on some of the content is given below.

 

Fortunately, those of us in the UK will shortly no longer have to worry about being prosecuted for any overfishing of anchovies, which we might have undertaken in the Bay of Biscay during the 2012 fishing season. Likewise, those who recklessly disregarded the measures relating to fishing in Sao Tome and Principe will shortly be able to rest easy in their beds, as will drivers who breached the limits to working hours during the 2001 foot-and-mouth outbreak.

 

So this is what was meant by "taking back control"!?

[Chomper Higgot]

3 hours ago, RayC said:

https://www.ft.com/content/e6682422-67cb-47a8-a7d0-fb47f09d4301

 

Not sure if the above link is behind a paywall? Contained in the link are examples of the EU laws which will be repealed later this year. My take on some of the content is given below.

 

Fortunately, those of us in the UK will shortly no longer have to worry about being prosecuted for any overfishing of anchovies, which we might have undertaken in the Bay of Biscay during the 2012 fishing season. Likewise, those who recklessly disregarded the measures relating to fishing in Sao Tome and Principe will shortly be able to rest easy in their beds, as will drivers who breached the limits to working hours during the 2001 foot-and-mouth outbreak.

 

So this is what was meant by "taking back control"!?

Rees Mogg has an eye in repealing thousands of laws by simply striking them down with no regard for what laws are or what is their purpose and certainly no regard for the sovereignty of Parliament or the representation of the people through Parliament.

 

Brexit has failed, and not because the executive have not yet stripped Parliament of it’s sovereignty.

[youreavinalaff]

10 hours ago, RayC said:

Sliding doors! If we had left the EU in March 2019, everything could have been different. That's the extent of your argument? 

"Could have been different"? Yes, it's possible. Care to prove that wrong?

 

The extent of my arguement? I'm not arguing. Just making a suggestion. Care to prove it wrong? 

 

 

[RayC]

10 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

"Could have been different"? Yes, it's possible. Care to prove that wrong?

 

The extent of my arguement? I'm not arguing. Just making a suggestion. Care to prove it wrong? 

 

 

'Argument' as in reasons to support a premise. Whether you call it an argument or suggestion, it is facile: It can be applied to any situation. It's effectively meaningless.

 

If Theresa May had remained PM, relations with the EU might have been better. If Jacob Rees-Moog was PM, then relations might be worse. If Man City didn't have mega rich owners, then they might not be in the CL final but instead been fighting relegation from L3, etc, etc, ad infinitum.

[youreavinalaff]

1 minute ago, RayC said:

'Argument' as in reasons to support a premise. Whether you call it an argument or suggestion, it is facile: It can be applied to any situation. It's effectively meaningless.

 

If Theresa May had remained PM, relations with the EU might have been better. If Jacob Rees-Moog was PM, then relations might be worse. If Man City didn't have mega rich owners, then they might not be in the CL final but instead been fighting relegation from L3, etc, etc, ad infinitum.

So, as expected, you can't prove me wrong. I knew that all along as I was only making a suggestion. 

 

Your churlish reply above just goes to add more substance to your failed attempts.

 

However, my suggestion is not meaningless. It is possible things could have been different and is a valid suggestion.

 

The problem is you believe anyone disagreeing with you is wrong when, quite simply, they just have a different view.

[RayC]

18 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

So, as expected, you can't prove me wrong. I knew that all along as I was only making a suggestion. 

 

Your churlish reply above just goes to add more substance to your failed attempts.

 

However, my suggestion is not meaningless. It is possible things could have been different and is a valid suggestion.

 

The problem is you believe anyone disagreeing with you is wrong when, quite simply, they just have a different view.

An essay was once returned to me ungraded but with the remark: "Well, if that's what you think".

 

Make of it what you will.

[youreavinalaff]

13 minutes ago, RayC said:

An essay was once returned to me ungraded but with the remark: "Well, if that's what you think".

 

Make of it what you will.

Many of my thesis, while studying for my degree, were returned with good grades and remarks such as " a good, balanced view".

 

Make of that what you will.

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, youreavinalaff said:

Many of my thesis, while studying for my degree, were returned with good grades and remarks such as " a good, balanced view".

 

Make of that what you will.

Always convincing when an anonymous party cites glowing reviews by other anonymous parties of what they've done.

Edited May 20, 2023 by placeholder

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

"Could have been different"? Yes, it's possible. Care to prove that wrong?

 

The extent of my arguement? I'm not arguing. Just making a suggestion. Care to prove it wrong? 

 

 

‘It could have been different’ is not an argument.

It’s a call to fantasy.

 

[RayC]

1 hour ago, youreavinalaff said:

Many of my thesis, while studying for my degree, were returned with good grades and remarks such as " a good, balanced view".

 

Make of that what you will.

It's just as well your comments in this thread aren't being marked. Your grade average would take a massive hit.