Reform UK Overtakes Tories in Polls for the First Time

[nauseus]

28 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

I was living in Belgium at the time of the Brexit referendum. I was denied a vote about something that had a profound effect on my life, whereas (some of) those living in Thailand had a voice about something which, at best, had a superficial effect upon them. I am - and will remain (pun intended) - bitter about that fact and will - almost certainly - continue to whine about it: I make no apologies for doing so.

 

The vast majority of Brits - Brexiter or Remainer  - do not believe that Brexit has, to date, delivered the promised benefits. There are four possible reasons for this: 1) These benefits do not exist and people were sold a pup 2) The benefits are slow to emerge but will be seen given time 3) There are benefits but the UK negotiated the wrong deal 4) It's the right deal and the benefits should now be visible, but things have been badly implemented.

 

I am firmly in the first camp for reasons which I have outlined on many occasions.

 

Wrt 2), it is, of course, possible that the benefits will emerge in time. However, imo hanging on to this hope requires 'blind faith'. There is little evidence to support this contention. 

 

Was it the wrong deal? Imo almost certainly. However, the only better deal would have involved remaining in the Single Market and/or Customs Union. A watered-down Brexit deal would not have satisfied the ERG or Farage and would been seen as 'selling out'. These groups would have supported a harder 'no deal', but that would have been inflationary and led to the UK being even more isolated than it is currently. Why such a scenario would be considered beneficial is beyond me.

 

So, we left with the idea that the current deal is, in fact, a good deal which has been badly implemented. This is a position taken by many Brexiters which begs the simple question, 'What should/ can the UK have done differently?' I have posed this question many times but have not, as yet, received an answer.

 

All the same old rubbish......again.

[nauseus]

5 hours ago, GarryP said:

Farage is a self serving dick who'd say anything if it would help line his pockets. Having said that, he'd whup Starmer and Sunak in a debate. I agree with many of the items in the Reform manifesto, just wish the party wasn't associated with this bell-end. 

 

So which bell-end would you prefer? Plenty out there.

[James105]

1 hour ago, RayC said:

 

I was living in Belgium at the time of the Brexit referendum. I was denied a vote about something that had a profound effect on my life, whereas (some of) those living in Thailand had a voice about something which, at best, had a superficial effect upon them. I am - and will remain (pun intended) - bitter about that fact and will - almost certainly - continue to whine about it: I make no apologies for doing so.

 

The vast majority of Brits - Brexiter or Remainer  - do not believe that Brexit has, to date, delivered the promised benefits. There are four possible reasons for this: 1) These benefits do not exist and people were sold a pup 2) The benefits are slow to emerge but will be seen given time 3) There are benefits but the UK negotiated the wrong deal 4) It's the right deal and the benefits should now be visible, but things have been badly implemented.

 

I am firmly in the first camp for reasons which I have outlined on many occasions.

 

Wrt 2), it is, of course, possible that the benefits will emerge in time. However, imo hanging on to this hope requires 'blind faith'. There is little evidence to support this contention. 

 

Was it the wrong deal? Imo almost certainly. However, the only better deal would have involved remaining in the Single Market and/or Customs Union. A watered-down Brexit deal would not have satisfied the ERG or Farage and would been seen as 'selling out'. These groups would have supported a harder 'no deal', but that would have been inflationary and led to the UK being even more isolated than it is currently. Why such a scenario would be considered beneficial is beyond me.

 

So, we left with the idea that the current deal is, in fact, a good deal which has been badly implemented. This is a position taken by many Brexiters which begs the simple question, 'What should/ can the UK have done differently?' I have posed this question many times but have not, as yet, received an answer.

 

Stop voting for the establishment parties with their globalist agendas and vote for someone who believes in Britain and the concept of being an independent nation.   It was never going to amount to much when the EU trough is so vast and the establishment piggies want to keep their snouts deep inside it.  One day the people of the UK will wake up and realise that the current establishment parties do not and have not represented their interests for many, many years now.  Sadly that will not be this election, but I have some hope for the next as there is little doubt the Labour government will be an absolute shambles and the Tory disaster will still be fresh in peoples minds.  Maybe the next one the people will truly vote for change.   

[billd766]

1 hour ago, RayC said:

 

I was living in Belgium at the time of the Brexit referendum. I was denied a vote about something that had a profound effect on my life, whereas (some of) those living in Thailand had a voice about something which, at best, had a superficial effect upon them. I am - and will remain (pun intended) - bitter about that fact and will - almost certainly - continue to whine about it: I make no apologies for doing so.

 

The vast majority of Brits - Brexiter or Remainer  - do not believe that Brexit has, to date, delivered the promised benefits. There are four possible reasons for this: 1) These benefits do not exist and people were sold a pup 2) The benefits are slow to emerge but will be seen given time 3) There are benefits but the UK negotiated the wrong deal 4) It's the right deal and the benefits should now be visible, but things have been badly implemented.

 

I am firmly in the first camp for reasons which I have outlined on many occasions.

 

Wrt 2), it is, of course, possible that the benefits will emerge in time. However, imo hanging on to this hope requires 'blind faith'. There is little evidence to support this contention. 

 

Was it the wrong deal? Imo almost certainly. However, the only better deal would have involved remaining in the Single Market and/or Customs Union. A watered-down Brexit deal would not have satisfied the ERG or Farage and would been seen as 'selling out'. These groups would have supported a harder 'no deal', but that would have been inflationary and led to the UK being even more isolated than it is currently. Why such a scenario would be considered beneficial is beyond me.

 

So, we left with the idea that the current deal is, in fact, a good deal which has been badly implemented. This is a position taken by many Brexiters which begs the simple question, 'What should/ can the UK have done differently?' I have posed this question many times but have not, as yet, received an answer.

Out of curiosity how long had you been living out of the UK at the time  I believe that the time limit back then was 15 years living out of the UK. I just managed to squeak in with my proxy vote from Thailand.

 

The Brexit party voters won with a majority of the votes cast and the Brexit negotiations were left with the government at the time to get the best deal for the UK that they could. 

 

That they didn't get the best deal was nothing to do with Farage but down to the skills, (or lack of skills) of the people sent to do the job. The final decision was down to whichever PM it was at the time and to the cabinet. AFAIR the British people were not given a choice, other than like it or lump it.

 

Could Farage have done it better or differently? Perhaps or perhaps not, and that is something that nobody will ever know for sure.

 

quote from your post.

 

'What should/ can the UK have done differently?' I have posed this question many times but have not, as yet, received an answer.

 

If the UK had used a different tactic or different people, maybe we could have had a different result.

 

If the EU had used a different tactic or different people, maybe we could have had a different result.

 

The problem is that if one side changes, the other side will react differently.

 

The UK wanted the best result for the UK and the EU wanted the best result for the EU. But was their goal the same?

[billd766]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

 

All the same old rubbish......again.

I believe that RayC has made some good points, and it is not the same old rubbish as you describe it.

 

I did notice that you didn't really comment on his post. Was it too difficult for you?

[candide]

13 hours ago, billd766 said:

However it is offensive to quite a few snowflakes and woke's who cannot accept any reality other than their own. They are a very vocal minority. There are several that even post on TVF, AN or the Thaiger.

 

They personally remind me of the little buzzing flies that need swatting occasionally.

 

5 hours ago, RayC said:

 

I was living in Belgium at the time of the Brexit referendum. I was denied a vote about something that had a profound effect on my life, whereas (some of) those living in Thailand had a voice about something which, at best, had a superficial effect upon them. I am - and will remain (pun intended) - bitter about that fact and will - almost certainly - continue to whine about it: I make no apologies for doing so.

 

The vast majority of Brits - Brexiter or Remainer  - do not believe that Brexit has, to date, delivered the promised benefits. There are four possible reasons for this: 1) These benefits do not exist and people were sold a pup 2) The benefits are slow to emerge but will be seen given time 3) There are benefits but the UK negotiated the wrong deal 4) It's the right deal and the benefits should now be visible, but things have been badly implemented.

 

I am firmly in the first camp for reasons which I have outlined on many occasions.

 

Wrt 2), it is, of course, possible that the benefits will emerge in time. However, imo hanging on to this hope requires 'blind faith'. There is little evidence to support this contention. 

 

Was it the wrong deal? Imo almost certainly. However, the only better deal would have involved remaining in the Single Market and/or Customs Union. A watered-down Brexit deal would not have satisfied the ERG or Farage and would been seen as 'selling out'. These groups would have supported a harder 'no deal', but that would have been inflationary and led to the UK being even more isolated than it is currently. Why such a scenario would be considered beneficial is beyond me.

 

So, we left with the idea that the current deal is, in fact, a good deal which has been badly implemented. This is a position taken by many Brexiters which begs the simple question, 'What should/ can the UK have done differently?' I have posed this question many times but have not, as yet, received an answer.

My comment as external observer.

 

To some extent, anything can work as long as there is a coherent project, which is shared and supported by enough people.

 

The problem with Brexit is that there never was, and there's still no such project.

 

I am not even talking about remainers. They were against Brexit and it seems there's nothing really motivating for them to change their mind.

 

The problem lies with Brexiters. There is no commonality of interest between the people who voted Brexit because they felt they were left behind (I.e. in the NE), and the proponents of an ultra-liberal and global Britain (i.e. the ERG), who are exactly the people who left the others behind.

[stevenl]

8 hours ago, billd766 said:

Out of curiosity how long had you been living out of the UK at the time  I believe that the time limit back then was 15 years living out of the UK. I just managed to squeak in with my proxy vote from Thailand.

 

The Brexit party voters won with a majority of the votes cast and the Brexit negotiations were left with the government at the time to get the best deal for the UK that they could. 

 

That they didn't get the best deal was nothing to do with Farage but down to the skills, (or lack of skills) of the people sent to do the job. The final decision was down to whichever PM it was at the time and to the cabinet. AFAIR the British people were not given a choice, other than like it or lump it.

 

Could Farage have done it better or differently? Perhaps or perhaps not, and that is something that nobody will ever know for sure.

 

quote from your post.

 

'What should/ can the UK have done differently?' I have posed this question many times but have not, as yet, received an answer.

 

If the UK had used a different tactic or different people, maybe we could have had a different result.

 

If the EU had used a different tactic or different people, maybe we could have had a different result.

 

The problem is that if one side changes, the other side will react differently.

 

The UK wanted the best result for the UK and the EU wanted the best result for the EU. But was their goal the same?

"That they didn't get the best deal was nothing to do with Farage but down to the skills, (or lack of skills) of the people sent to do the ,job".

Disagree with that. They got the best deal possible, but the whole idea was bad. Nothing better could be made of it 

[simple1]

13 hours ago, jayboy said:

 

Rishi Sunak was already in the House of Commons in 2016 so the link provided is irrelevant.

So what, Brexit failed in it goals. Naturally Farage also holds responsibility as he just walked way when it got voted in. How anyone can justify voting for Farage in  the upcoming election is beyond me; same mould as trump.

[herfiehandbag]

13 hours ago, RayC said:

was living in Belgium at the time of the Brexit referendum.

?

[superal]

20 hours ago, placeholder said:

That's better. You should try and make a habit of that.

When you went to school , did you do your own homework ? Not all posts need a link as they are so easy to find on Google but if you need spoon feeding , I will try to help you .

[billd766]

3 hours ago, simple1 said:

So what, Brexit failed in it goals. Naturally Farage also holds responsibility as he just walked way when it got voted in. How anyone can justify voting for Farage in  the upcoming election is beyond me; same mould as trump.

How can anyone justify voting for the Tory or Labour party in view of the beggars muddle that both parties have made of running the UK over the last 30 or 40 years?

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, superal said:

When you went to school , did you do your own homework ? Not all posts need a link as they are so easy to find on Google but if you need spoon feeding , I will try to help you .

And the links are even easier to post. And it's not always the case that there are links or that the links lead to a credible source. 

[RayC]

15 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

All the same old rubbish......again.

 

And the same old non-answer again.

 

I'm delighted that you haven't managed to suffocate yourself yet, but surely it's time to remove your head from the sand. No point in pushing your luck😉

[RayC]

15 hours ago, James105 said:

 

Stop voting for the establishment parties with their globalist agendas and vote for someone who believes in Britain and the concept of being an independent nation.   It was never going to amount to much when the EU trough is so vast and the establishment piggies want to keep their snouts deep inside it.  One day the people of the UK will wake up and realise that the current establishment parties do not and have not represented their interests for many, many years now.  Sadly that will not be this election, but I have some hope for the next as there is little doubt the Labour government will be an absolute shambles and the Tory disaster will still be fresh in peoples minds.  Maybe the next one the people will truly vote for change.   

 

Anything is possible but under the 'first past the post' system, I doubt that the majority party will be anything other than Labour or the Conservatives for the foreseeable future.

 

Imo there is a real possibility that Farage/ Reform is brought into the Tory fold after the election. If so, I don't doubt that they will make radical noises in opposition. Whether they would be a radical government if elected is another matter.

[jayboy]

4 hours ago, simple1 said:

So what, Brexit failed in it goals. Naturally Farage also holds responsibility as he just walked way when it got voted in. How anyone can justify voting for Farage in  the upcoming election is beyond me; same mould as trump.

 

You are commenting on a different issue.The matter under discussion was the accusation that Rishi Sunak made his money betting against Britain as a hedge fund manager.The Bloomberg link provided referred to events when Sunak was already in the House of Commons.

 

Actually talk about hedge funds betting against currencies or countries reflects misunderstanding of how these funds work.They definitely take long or short positions,but they do not create the weakness that leads to speculation.I could spend a lot of time explaining this but I doubt there's an audience and it's off topic.in the Asian crisis some people blamed Soros for "betting against the Thai Baht." But Soros wasn't the problem; the problem was the US$ peg and the unsound practices in the Thai financial sector.

[vinny41]

17 hours ago, RayC said:

 

I was living in Belgium at the time of the Brexit referendum. I was denied a vote about something that had a profound effect on my life, whereas (some of) those living in Thailand had a voice about something which, at best, had a superficial effect upon them. I am - and will remain (pun intended) - bitter about that fact and will - almost certainly - continue to whine about it: I make no apologies for doing so.

 

The vast majority of Brits - Brexiter or Remainer  - do not believe that Brexit has, to date, delivered the promised benefits. There are four possible reasons for this: 1) These benefits do not exist and people were sold a pup 2) The benefits are slow to emerge but will be seen given time 3) There are benefits but the UK negotiated the wrong deal 4) It's the right deal and the benefits should now be visible, but things have been badly implemented.

 

I am firmly in the first camp for reasons which I have outlined on many occasions.

 

Wrt 2), it is, of course, possible that the benefits will emerge in time. However, imo hanging on to this hope requires 'blind faith'. There is little evidence to support this contention. 

 

Was it the wrong deal? Imo almost certainly. However, the only better deal would have involved remaining in the Single Market and/or Customs Union. A watered-down Brexit deal would not have satisfied the ERG or Farage and would been seen as 'selling out'. These groups would have supported a harder 'no deal', but that would have been inflationary and led to the UK being even more isolated than it is currently. Why such a scenario would be considered beneficial is beyond me.

 

So, we left with the idea that the current deal is, in fact, a good deal which has been badly implemented. This is a position taken by many Brexiters which begs the simple question, 'What should/ can the UK have done differently?' I have posed this question many times but have not, as yet, received an answer.

What should have happen is that  dissolution of Parliament before the referendum vote and have a cross party remain campaign and a cross party leave campaign and the result of the vote would determine who formed the next government to implement the result of the referendum vote

[RayC]

15 hours ago, billd766 said:

Out of curiosity how long had you been living out of the UK at the time  I believe that the time limit back then was 15 years living out of the UK. I just managed to squeak in with my proxy vote from Thailand.

 

The Brexit party voters won with a majority of the votes cast and the Brexit negotiations were left with the government at the time to get the best deal for the UK that they could. 

 

That they didn't get the best deal was nothing to do with Farage but down to the skills, (or lack of skills) of the people sent to do the job. The final decision was down to whichever PM it was at the time and to the cabinet. AFAIR the British people were not given a choice, other than like it or lump it.

 

Could Farage have done it better or differently? Perhaps or perhaps not, and that is something that nobody will ever know for sure.

 

quote from your post.

 

'What should/ can the UK have done differently?' I have posed this question many times but have not, as yet, received an answer.

 

If the UK had used a different tactic or different people, maybe we could have had a different result.

 

If the EU had used a different tactic or different people, maybe we could have had a different result.

 

The problem is that if one side changes, the other side will react differently.

 

The UK wanted the best result for the UK and the EU wanted the best result for the EU. But was their goal the same?

 

I left the UK (for Thailand) in '91 and went to Belgium in '98, so I was well over the 15-year eligibility threshold.

 

It's conceivable that the deal which emerged from the Brexit negotiations might have been better if the personalities had been different but I doubt it. Contrary to what some Brexiters claimed i.e. "they need us, more than we need them", imo the exact opposite was - and remains - the case. Imo ultimately the agreement was going to be either 1) 'No deal' or 2) a deal dictated by the EU which was the eventual outcome.

 

Were the two sides goals aligned? Imo almost certainly not.

[vinny41]

4 hours ago, simple1 said:

So what, Brexit failed in it goals. Naturally Farage also holds responsibility as he just walked way when it got voted in. How anyone can justify voting for Farage in  the upcoming election is beyond me; same mould as trump.

I don't recall the Conservative's ever offering  Nigel Farage a role in the implementation of Brexit

[Nick Carter icp]

5 hours ago, simple1 said:

So what, Brexit failed in it goals. Naturally Farage also holds responsibility as he just walked way when it got voted in. How anyone can justify voting for Farage in  the upcoming election is beyond me; same mould as trump.

 

   Nigel was in the European Parliament and he left that position when the U.K left the E.U .

  Should Nigel have kept campaigning for Brexit with UKIP after the leave vote was cast ?

[RayC]

27 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

What should have happen is that  dissolution of Parliament before the referendum vote and have a cross party remain campaign and a cross party leave campaign

 

Isn't that what effectively happened? And the result was that the 'Leave' campaign was efficiently run whilst the 'Remain' campaign was largely inept.

 

27 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

and the result of the vote would determine who formed the next government to implement the result of the referendum vote

 

That was never going to happen. Neither the Tories nor Labour wants an end to the 2-party system.

[nauseus]

16 hours ago, billd766 said:

I believe that RayC has made some good points, and it is not the same old rubbish as you describe it.

 

I did notice that you didn't really comment on his post. Was it too difficult for you?

 

All been through a hundred times before, as my post implied. Not doing that again.

[nauseus]

7 hours ago, stevenl said:

"That they didn't get the best deal was nothing to do with Farage but down to the skills, (or lack of skills) of the people sent to do the ,job".

Disagree with that. They got the best deal possible, but the whole idea was bad. Nothing better could be made of it 

 

We will never know now what the best deal might have been and that is down to Mrs May.

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, RayC said:

 

And the same old non-answer again.

 

I'm delighted that you haven't managed to suffocate yourself yet, but surely it's time to remove your head from the sand. No point in pushing your luck😉

 

Answer what? Your repetetive presumptions and grumblings?

 

 

[hotandsticky]

58 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   Nigel was in the European Parliament and he left that position when the U.K left the E.U .

  Should Nigel have kept campaigning for Brexit with UKIP after the leave vote was cast ?

 

 

When Cameron (the only statesman the Tories had) stepped aside, Farage should have been given an 'honorary role, to implement BREXIT. 

 

The Tories would at least have someone to blame - and it would have provided a much better bas s for BREXIT to be implemented.

[RayC]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

 

Answer what? Your repetetive presumptions and grumblings?

 

 

 

No. My presumptions and grumblings are just that. Questions are something completely different.

 

Whether they agree with my opinions or not, no one else here appears to be having any problem understanding my original post. However, for your benefit, I'll try again.

 

Do you believe that the implementation of the Brexit deal has been badly handled by the UK government?

 

If yes, what in your opinion do you think that the UK government could, and should, have done differently?

 

 

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

 

 

 

[simple1]

3 hours ago, vinny41 said:

I don't recall the Conservative's ever offering  Nigel Farage a role in the implementation of Brexit

 

Did he ask for a role - No, he just walked away and Brexit failed, specifically with his BS promises.

[simple1]

3 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   Nigel was in the European Parliament and he left that position when the U.K left the E.U .

  Should Nigel have kept campaigning for Brexit with UKIP after the leave vote was cast ?

 

Farage failed to take ownership of any of the outcomes he promised. Unworthy to be a future leader of HMG, plus a known conman....

 

https://thefinanser.com/2018/07/much-nigel-farage-make-brexit

[Nick Carter icp]

8 minutes ago, simple1 said:

 

Farage failed to take ownership of any of the outcomes he promised. Unworthy to be a future leader of HMG, plus a known conman....

 

https://thefinanser.com/2018/07/much-nigel-farage-make-brexit

 

   It was the Government that had to deal with the Brexit result , Farage wasn't  part of the Government .

   The Government didn't want him to be part of the leaving process 

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, RayC said:

 

No. My presumptions and grumblings are just that. Questions are something completely different.

 

Whether they agree with my opinions or not, no one else here appears to be having any problem understanding my original post. However, for your benefit, I'll try again.

 

Do you believe that the implementation of the Brexit deal has been badly handled by the UK government?

 

If yes, what in your opinion do you think that the UK government could, and should, have done differently?

 

 

 

 

 

Do you believe that the implementation of the Brexit deal has been badly handled by the UK government?

YES AND ALSO YES TO THAT ABOMINABLE WITHDRAWAL AGREEMENT.

 

If yes, what in your opinion do you think that the UK government could, and should, have done differently?

IT SHOULD HAVE SELECTED A STRONGER LEADER, WHO WAS COMMITTED TO BREXIT AND WHO WOULD HAVE NEGOTIATED HARDER, WITHOUT THE DECEPTION AND UNDERHANDEDNESS OF MAY AND WATKINS.

 

[JayClay]

15 hours ago, billd766 said:

How can anyone justify voting for the Tory or Labour party in view of the beggars muddle that both parties have made of running the UK over the last 30 or 40 years?

 

Under the last Labour government living standards shot up, NHS waiting lists decreased dramatically, wages increased, and the size of the economy doubled. Those are just a few of the achievements they managed last time they were in office.

 

That is how anyone can justify voting Labour.

 

The idea that "they're all the same" is one that is pushed by people who have an incentive for you to believe it. And it is only believed by people who pay no real attention to politics.

 

Anyway the fight now is not for who will win, the big prize is if the Tories are knocked down to third place. That would mean the Lib Dems becoming the official opposition, and perhaps finally we might hear some competent politicians holding sensible debates in parliament for a change.

 

Labour are going to be in government. That's nailed on. But who do you want holding them to account?