Brexit has completely failed for UK, say clear majority of Britons – poll

[RayC]

6 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

So, you don't know. I don't either,

 

I know the majority of the reports which I linked conclude that Brexit has had a net negative effect. You would know that also if you looked at them.

 

6 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

but we're to assume a polling of the general public is a good way to measure it. 

 

What is "it"? The success of Brexit?

 

You indicated previously that you did not think that the public's perception was unimportant. So apart from polling how do we measure that perception?

[Yellowtail]

3 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

I know the majority of the reports which I linked conclude that Brexit has had a net negative effect.

I do not doubt that. 

3 minutes ago, RayC said:

You would know that also if you looked at them.

I knew the reports concluded that Brexit has had a net negative effect just by the fact that you linked to them. 

3 minutes ago, RayC said:

What is "it"? The success of Brexit?

Yes, 

3 minutes ago, RayC said:

You indicated previously that you did not think that the public's perception was unimportant. So apart from polling how do we measure that perception?

Polling is the best way I know of to determine public perception. I never meant to imply it was not. 

[RayC]

5 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

That the public's perception of how successful something as complex as Brexit is largely unrelate to how successful it actually is. 

 

Which begs the question: Why pose the Brexit question to the public in the first place given that it is so complex and they couldn't hope to know whether the outcome would be successful or not?

 

5 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

One of, sure. 

 

But your previous paragraph suggests otherwise? 

 

You seemingly also dismiss research conclusions as no criterion by which to judge the success of Brexit? What criteria would you suggest?

 

5 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Sure, but you said: "...Note: I am suggesting that it is the only criterion...". Did you want to want to walk that back? 

 

I would. That was a rather unfortunate omission of a word.

 

My original sentence should, of course, have read: "I am NOT suggesting that it is the only criterion... " (caps added for emphasis)

[RayC]

11 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I do not doubt that. 

I knew the reports concluded that Brexit has had a net negative effect just by the fact that you linked to them. 

Yes, 

Polling is the best way I know of to determine public perception. I never meant to imply it was not. 

 

(Our previous posts crossed)

 

So we agree that the public's perception of Brexit is negative (and important): The overwhelming body of evidence from academia, industry and government suggests that Brexit has had a net negative impact. 

 

"If it walks like a duck, etc ...."

Edited January 17 by RayC
Clarification

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, RayC said:

 

Which begs the question: Why pose the Brexit question to the public in the first place given that it is so complex and they couldn't hope to know whether the outcome would be successful or not?

Why indeed? It's not like it's the government surveying the public in an honest effort to determine what people think. It's someone with an agenda, funding a survey and publishing it. Likely in an effort to drive public opinion. 

1 minute ago, RayC said:

But your previous paragraph suggests otherwise? 

How does my previous paragraph suggest otherwise? 

1 minute ago, RayC said:

You seemingly also dismiss research conclusions as no criterion by which to judge the success of Brexit? What criteria would you suggest?

No, I did not dismiss them. But neither would I take a quick look at a couple reports and think I know something. Would you?

1 minute ago, RayC said:

I would. That was a rather unfortunate omission of a word.

That's fair. 

1 minute ago, RayC said:

My original sentence should, of course, have read: "I am NOT suggesting that it is the only criterion... " (caps added for emphasis)

We agree.

[RayC]

15 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Why indeed? It's not like it's the government surveying the public in an honest effort to determine what people think. It's someone with an agenda, funding a survey and publishing it. Likely in an effort to drive public opinion. 

 

That may well be the case sometimes  but not always. I would suggest that 'Brexit in a Changing Europe' is relatively unbiased. Some authors may sometimes display bias but the Director, Anand Menon, is very careful not to appear judgemental or bias.

 

15 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

How does my previous paragraph suggest otherwise? 

 

You stated at the outset that this poll was a measure of the public's perception of the success of Brexit, not whether Brexit was actually a success. 

 

However, you agreed that public perception is important and should be one of the criteria by which the success of Brexit should be judged. 

 

But if the public's perception is wrong then surely it shouldn't be included in a set of criteria aimed at establishing the success of Brexit? It might be argued that a perception cannot be 'right' or 'wrong' but, in that case I would suggest that it does not help answer the question about Brexit's success, so again why include it in the set of criteria?

 

15 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

No, I did not dismiss them. But neither would I take a quick look at a couple reports and think I know something. Would you?

 

Apologies. I should be more careful with my choice of words. By 'quick look', I meant reading the 'Abstract' and/or 'Executive Summary' and/or 'Introduction' and/or  'Conclusions' and/or 'Recommendations'. Usually 10-15 pages. 'Quick' given that the full reports are often 100+ pages.

 

Imo a great deal can be gauged from reading these (relatively) few pages contained in the sections described above. Would you agree?

 

15 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

That's fair. 

We agree.

👍

[Yellowtail]

5 hours ago, RayC said:

That may well be the case sometimes  but not always. I would suggest that 'Brexit in a Changing Europe' is relatively unbiased. Some authors may sometimes display bias but the Director, Anand Menon, is very careful not to appear judgemental or bias.

With "appear" being the key word no doubt. Unfortunately, I am no longer able to trust anything that comes out of academia unless it's pure science.

5 hours ago, RayC said:

You stated at the outset that this poll was a measure of the public's perception of the success of Brexit, not whether Brexit was actually a success. 

Yes, but it is worth noting that they did not ask the public if overall they were happy about Brexit. 

5 hours ago, RayC said:

However, you agreed that public perception is important and should be one of the criteria by which the success of Brexit should be judged. 

No, I said it should be one of the criterial used to judge the success of Brexit, you said it was important. I also stated the public's perception was largely driven by press and media, which are controlled by the left, and clearly the left hated/hates Brexit. 

5 hours ago, RayC said:

But if the public's perception is wrong then surely it shouldn't be included in a set of criteria aimed at establishing the success of Brexit? It might be argued that a perception cannot be 'right' or 'wrong' but, in that case I would suggest that it does not help answer the question about Brexit's success, so again why include it in the set of criteria?

Because if the public's perception is "wrong", steps might/should be taken to explain the impact of the program better. 

5 hours ago, RayC said:

Apologies. I should be more careful with my choice of words. By 'quick look', I meant reading the 'Abstract' and/or 'Executive Summary' and/or 'Introduction' and/or  'Conclusions' and/or 'Recommendations'. Usually 10-15 pages. 'Quick' given that the full reports are often 100+ pages.

That's a quick look. Unless I really trusted the source, it would take me a lot longer to determine the honesty of a study. 

5 hours ago, RayC said:

Imo a great deal can be gauged from reading these (relatively) few pages contained in the sections described above. Would you agree?

 

👍

I did not read them, but it has been a good long time since I read anything political out of academia that I felt was intellectually honest, much less unbiased.

[RayC]

43 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

With "appear" being the key word no doubt. Unfortunately, I am no longer able to trust anything that comes out of academia unless it's pure science.

Yes, but it is worth noting that they did not ask the public if overall they were happy about Brexit. 

No, I said it should be one of the criterial used to judge the success of Brexit, you said it was important. I also stated the public's perception was largely driven by press and media, which are controlled by the left, and clearly the left hated/hates Brexit. 

Because if the public's perception is "wrong", steps might/should be taken to explain the impact of the program better. 

That's a quick look. Unless I really trusted the source, it would take me a lot longer to determine the honesty of a study. 

I did not read them, but it has been a good long time since I read anything political out of academia that I felt was intellectually honest, much less unbiased.

 

Fair enough.

 

Our starting points are based upon such a completely different set of assumptions that I doubt that either of us will be able to convince the other of their case.

[RayC]

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

 

[Yellowtail]

7 minutes ago, RayC said:

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

 

No access for me.

 

What is the "damning indictment" the "journalist" is claiming? 

[vinny41]

1 hour ago, RayC said:

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

 

Article from the same  journalist

Britain won’t rejoin the EU for decades — if ever

https://www.ft.com/content/9c2df35f-555a-4c34-84e6-93e125d6c410

[RayC]

6 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

No access for me.

 

What is the "damning indictment" the "journalist" is claiming? 

 

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.

[RayC]

6 hours ago, vinny41 said:

Article from the same  journalist

Britain won’t rejoin the EU for decades — if ever

https://www.ft.com/content/9c2df35f-555a-4c34-84e6-93e125d6c410

 

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.

[vinny41]

9 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

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.

That is easy to see based on the number of articles Wolf has written about Brexit and it appears other members of his family are getting in on the act 

" Even more telling is a report by UK in a Changing Europe and Public First (of which my daughter is founding partner),"

https://www.ft.com/content/9c2df35f-555a-4c34-84e6-93e125d6c410

[RayC]

10 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

That is easy to see based on the number of articles Wolf has written about Brexit and it appears other members of his family are getting in on the act 

" Even more telling is a report by UK in a Changing Europe and Public First (of which my daughter is founding partner),"

https://www.ft.com/content/9c2df35f-555a-4c34-84e6-93e125d6c410

 

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

 

[vinny41]

14 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

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

 

Her is a quote from her in October 2023

“This is making it difficult for any of the main parties to use Brexit to their own electoral advantages. While the party leaders’ natural inclination will be to shut up about the whole thing, there’s a lot in it for the leader who can show that there’s a route to a bright future outside the EU, no matter how we got here.”https://www.research-live.com/article/news/economic-issues-partly-blamed-on-brexit-by-uk-voters/id/5118193

[RayC]

33 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

" ...there’s a lot in it for the leader who can show that there’s a route to a bright future outside the EU ...”

 

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?

[vinny41]

14 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

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?

Nigel Farage: I’ll be leader of the UK Conservative Party by 2026

https://www.politico.eu/article/nigel-farage-leader-uk-conservative-party-2026/

[nauseus]

On 1/1/2024 at 5:42 PM, Stocky said:

I gave the link in the previous post

 

https://www.opinium.com/political-polling/

 

Open "Opinium" and it just asks another question immediately! Keep your cookies in a jar then!

 

So many big questions in a single little poll, pretty much all of which seem to try to imply that sentiment on these issues in the UK today is only driven by Brexit, despite most all of the EU being badly affected by the pandemic, high immigration, too few homes, new wars, inflation and flagging economies! How can anyone make a fair judgement given all that?

 

On top of that, the question of the process of actually leaving the EU was completely ignored. Tory UK governments, first misled by a dithering and weak May, then second conned by Boris, with the regurgitated Chequers (also May) withdrawal agreement, which was rushed in/out of the oven just to "get Brexit done", so that Boris could say that he did it. It was all such a waste, especially with such an enormous majority. It'll be a long time before the Conservatives see that again. 

 

What a waste!

[RayC]

12 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

Open "Opinium" and it just asks another question immediately! Keep your cookies in a jar then!

 

It's unfortunate that the methodology used by Opinium is not available without buying the report.

 

12 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

So many big questions in a single little poll, pretty much all of which seem to try to imply that sentiment on these issues in the UK today is only driven by Brexit, despite most all of the EU being badly affected by the pandemic, high immigration, too few homes, new wars, inflation and flagging economies! How can anyone make a fair judgement given all that?

 

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).

 

12 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

On top of that, the question of the process of actually leaving the EU was completely ignored. Tory UK governments, first misled by a dithering and weak May, then second conned by Boris, with the regurgitated Chequers (also May) withdrawal agreement, which was rushed in/out of the oven just to "get Brexit done", so that Boris could say that he did it. 

 

... 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'?

 

12 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

It was all such a waste, especially with such an enormous majority. It'll be a long time before the Conservatives see that again. 

 

Funny how two individuals starting from two different premises can sometimes arrive at the same conclusion 🤷😁

 

12 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

What a waste!

 

Again, we are in agreement: Definitely worth repeating.

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, RayC said:

uc

 

1 hour ago, RayC said:

 

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.

 

OK then. What a waste!

[RayC]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

 

 

OK then. What a waste!

😂 Very good. 

 

Btw: Nice bit of evasion😉

 

[nauseus]

7 minutes ago, RayC said:

😂 Very good. 

 

Btw: Nice bit of evasion😉

 

To try to avoid comments like this, I did add the below, obviously unsuccessfully, a while ago. Here it is again.

 

= = =

 

Don't agree with your first para and  I wasn't pressed on anything.

 

I'd say that the negative answers to the broad scope of questions about the state of UK now (3 years post Brexit) are driven and reasoned by far more than just Brexit. Any objections that I may have are unchanged, rather than generic.  

 

I agree that any government would have had trouble dealing with Brexit; I always said that and knew that leaving would be a problem because the EU of 2016 had gathered far more than power than the EEC had in 1972 - even though the concept of political union was already written into the Treaty of Rome - a pity more MP's couldn't be bothered to read it properly then. So, yes, the EU held most of the "cards' by 2016 and I think that was finally realised by the leave voters. The very difficulty of leaving highlighted the overriding political nature of the EU and the need to break free of it.

 

There was a lot of nonsense spouted by both sides in the run-up to the referendum - personally, I ignored it - leaving "deals" were hardly discussed until the vote was over. No deal was the only way to leave completely but if the EU had truly been a trading bloc, it could have been relatively easy and amicable. 

 

 

 

[GroveHillWanderer]

On 1/3/2024 at 11:17 PM, Yellowtail said:

Again, guys like you crack me up. 

 

If you know, don't you say? You can't say, because you don't know, so you post a link, and you call me ignorant. 

 

Again, please tell me how you're going to get a random sample of UK citizens to poll. It's not possible. 

 

No links. 

What on earth are you on about, "No links"?

 

Links (to a reliable source) are the standard and accepted method to prove the accuracy of what a person is saying in an online discussion.

 

In fact, since this is a news/current affairs topic, and @RayCis trying to point out to you the fact that standard methodologies do exist to establish a random sample for an opinion poll, Forum Rules actually state that a link should be posted.

 

See extract from the rules below:

 

Quote

In factual areas such as news forums and current affairs topics member content that is claimed or portrayed as a fact should be supported by a link to a relevant reputable source.

 

Edited January 24 by GroveHillWanderer

[RayC]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

To try to avoid comments like this, I did add the below, obviously unsuccessfully, a while ago. Here it is again.

 

= = =

 

Don't agree with your first para and  I wasn't pressed on anything.

 

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.

 

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

 

I'd say that the negative answers to the broad scope of questions about the state of UK now (3 years post Brexit) are driven and reasoned by far more than just Brexit. Any objections that I may have are unchanged, rather than generic.  

 

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?

 

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

 

 So, yes, the EU held most of the "cards' by 2016 and I think that was finally realised by the leave voters.

 

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.

 

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

The very difficulty of leaving highlighted the overriding political nature of the EU and the need to break free of it.

 

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?

 

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

There was a lot of nonsense spouted by both sides in the run-up to the referendum - personally, I ignored it - leaving "deals" were hardly discussed until the vote was over.

 

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.

 

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

No deal was the only way to leave completely but if the EU had truly been a trading bloc, it could have been relatively easy and amicable. 

 

 

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?

[Yellowtail]

58 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

What on earth are you on about, "No links"?

 

Links (to a reliable source) are the standard and accepted method to prove the accuracy of what a person is saying in an online discussion.

 

In fact, since this is a news/current affairs topic, and @RayCis trying to point out to you the fact that standard methodologies do exist to establish a random sample for an opinion poll, Forum Rules actually state that a link should be posted.

 

See extract from the rules below:

 

 

 

I find a lot of people will claim X is bad, and when asked why X is bad, all they do is post a link to a magazine article by someone (likely an "expert") that agrees with them. It is intellectually lazy and does not answer the question, but it leaves the person thinking they have somehow proven their point, when they have not. 

 

Ray C does not do that. He (unlike many here) is actually able to formulate an argument and have a discussion. 

 

If someone is claiming X is bad, when asked why it is bad, they should be able to make an argument that is bad because of Y and Z. If they can't do that, they should just say they don't know, not just post a link to someone that also says X is bad. 

 

If I wanted to read a magazine, I would read a magazine.  I am on a discussion board because I want to have a discussion. 

 

I think government policies should be designed to mostly benefit the poor and middle class. I am not concerned about college professors and other elitists are inconvenienced when they want to vacation in France for the summer or have to pay a little more for wine. I do care when a garbage collectors wages are driven down, the cost of his housing is driven up, the quality of his children's education suffers and has to get in line for healthcare. 

 

I also think people should be proud of their country and culture and should be able to preserve it if they want to, without being called names.

 

Now have I made any claims that you think need additional support?  

 

 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

13 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

I also think people should be proud of their country and culture and should be able to preserve it if they want to, without being called names.

The stage is yours.

 

Give your best shot.

[nauseus]

3 hours ago, RayC said:

 

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.

 

'No deal' would have been even more of a disaster with the present EU but only in the short term. Had Brexit not happened, then the EU would have just continued with its path of centralization. 

 

Of course the EU could have offered the UK a better deal. Which it did not.

 

expect any favours? The EU acted in what it saw as it's members own best interests. How else was it meant to act?

 

I think it is difficult to isolate what might have been separate (Brexit) effects from the effects of the recent serious events in Europe and the world. especially given, the general nature of the questions.

 

I don't recall being "repeatedly" challenged, particularly w.r.t. OBR's but maybe that's from years ago? 

 

It's a shame that more 'Leave' voters did not realize this pre, rather than post, referendum. If they had, perhaps the result would have been different. Perhaps different in that the leave vote would have even been greater?

 

Any influence that the UK may have had over the EEC/EU from within was always weak. With successive losses of vetoes, then more and more QMV, it weakened more. The idea of Brexit was not to try to influence the EU from the outside after we left.

 

The quality of EU decisions that it considers to be in the best interests of its members has always been questionable IMO. A matter of opinion, but these decisions seem to be getting worse. Today, almost every EU member government seems to have some major issue with either the EU itself, or with their own people due to EU politics and policies.

 

Edited January 24 by nauseus

[RayC]

10 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

I think it is difficult to isolate what might have been separate (Brexit) effects from the effects of the recent serious events in Europe and the world. especially given, the general nature of the questions.

 

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.

 

10 hours ago, nauseus said:

I don't recall being "repeatedly" challenged, particularly w.r.t. OBR's but maybe that's from years ago? 

 

The original report was indeed a few years ago but it is regularly updated.

 

10 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

Any influence that the UK may have had over the EEC/EU from within was always weak.

 

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.

 

10 hours ago, nauseus said:

With successive losses of vetoes, then more and more QMV, it weakened more.

 

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'.

 

10 hours ago, nauseus said:

The idea of Brexit was not to try to influence the EU from the outside after we left.

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.

 

10 hours ago, nauseus said:

The quality of EU decisions that it considers to be in the best interests of its members has always been questionable IMO. A matter of opinion, but these decisions seem to be getting worse. Today, almost every EU member government seems to have some major issue with either the EU itself, or with their own people due to EU politics and policies.

 

 

I'm about to board a flight. You'll be pleased to know that I'll return to this point😂😉

[zhounan]

They mean majority of wealthy Britons