May ready for tough talks over Brexit

[bert bloggs]

37 minutes ago, taipeir said:

43 minutes ago, bert bloggs said:

No i believe people still want to leave , but i am sure you think they want to stay . we had a vote ,it was to leave , its cost me dear , in monetry terms ,but that it , you cant just keep on voting .

Why can't you have another vote exactly?

Sorry i am bored with this we had a vote ,it was to leave ,just live with it .

[nontabury]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

Really? There were no Brexiters on this forum advocating for an absolute hard Brexit? Amnesia much? Or were they just kidding?

I’m a Brexiter, who initially was for a negotiated exit. Now I want a quick exit, after telling those unelected E.U commissioners to go xxxx themselves.

 

 

[nontabury]

22 minutes ago, taipeir said:

27 minutes ago, bert bloggs said:

No i believe people still want to leave , but i am sure you think they want to stay . we had a vote ,it was to leave , its cost me dear , in monetry terms ,but that it , you cant just keep on voting .

Why can't you have another vote exactly?

In the 2014 E.U election, the party for Brexit gained the most votes and seats.

in the 2016 referendum, the Brexiteers gained most votes.

in the 2017 General Election, parties supporting Brexit gained 85% of the votes.

 

So how many votes do you dwindling European E.U supporters, consider will be sufficient.

 

[baansgr]

32 minutes ago, taipeir said:

37 minutes ago, bert bloggs said:

No i believe people still want to leave , but i am sure you think they want to stay . we had a vote ,it was to leave , its cost me dear , in monetry terms ,but that it , you cant just keep on voting .

Why can't you have another vote exactly?

 

48 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Yes, if there is a significant swing in public opinion. Are you saying that nothing has changed over the last 28 months?

The whole 2nd referendum discussion is a tad tedious. Lets wait 40 years like the previous wait was. That is the fairest way Im sure as an educated person you would agree. 

[Grouse]

43 minutes ago, bert bloggs said:

No i believe people still want to leave , but i am sure you think they want to stay . we had a vote ,it was to leave , its cost me dear , in monetry terms ,but that it , you cant just keep on voting .

For something as momentous as this, checking two years later would be sensible. 

 

You seem worried?

[Grouse]

41 minutes ago, bert bloggs said:

Sorry i am bored with this we had a vote ,it was to leave ,just live with it .

ADHD?

[simoh1490]

2 hours ago, baansgr said:

1,509 polled. Probably outside a university. Hardly representive. Said befor. Last week, 10 Brits st the Noodle shop all backed Brexit, thats 100% in favour. The only real way is and what was done, a referendum and ee know the outcome already. 

Here we go again on the same subject. Look, if you don't believe in sampling as a reliable method of analysis then you don't believe lots of things you are told, including the unemployment rate, population growth figures, demographics etc etc.

[Grouse]

I have no doubt that a large majority would prefer to call the whole thing off and concentrate the time and money on more important things

[talahtnut]

17 hours ago, oldhippy said:

Ilostmypassword is clearly a prominent member of a conspiracy.

That's my theory.

We can not trust him.

He might actually be a member of several conspiracies simultaneously.

 

 

 

Ah.. another Russian spy influencing the forum..thats why its solved nothing.

[mommysboy]

55 minutes ago, Grouse said:

I have no doubt that a large majority would prefer to call the whole thing off and concentrate the time and money on more important things

Happens all the time: something turns out not what appeared to be, doesn't do what was on the label, or someone simply lied.  So logically, we cancel.

 

Brexiteers simply failed to come up with the goods as advertised.

[baansgr]

57 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

Here we go again on the same subject. Look, if you don't believe in sampling as a reliable method of analysis then you don't believe lots of things you are told, including the unemployment rate, population growth figures, demographics etc etc.

So you must agree on the, 100%  sampling of the 10 guys at the noodle shop. 

[taipeir]

Sorry i am bored with this we had a vote ,it was to leave ,just live with it .

You are bored is an argument? Joke 

Answer the question, why not have a second referendum?

 

The voters are certainly more educated at this stage to make an informed choice.

 

The Lies about the NHS and having your cake and eating it have been exposed

 

 

Where's 'the will of the people ' argument gone ?

 

The people should vote on the actual way forward...Customs union, single market or hard Brexit .

[simoh1490]

23 minutes ago, baansgr said:

So you must agree on the, 100%  sampling of the 10 guys at the noodle shop. 

I believe you would argue with your shadow.

[simoh1490]

On reflection m'lud,  given the late coming clarification of key issues in the case, the jury wishes to reconsider its verdict and no longer believes the defendant is guilty. Perhaps m'lud will be so kind as to ask the hangman to cease and desist and perhaps take that black bag and noose of the defendants head! Of course, if m'lud believes that justice has been already done by means of our initial verdict, go ahead and hang him, but that would clearly, in light of his now obvious innocence,  be the wrong thing to do.

[taipeir]

Indeed, some British media can be biased on some subjects. Although if a person reads several different versions of the same story, all from reliable mainstream sources, there's generally little difficulty in getting a true picture. The problem comes when people start to read fashionable, cult almost underground journals and believe them to contain the real truth, simply because they contain stories not contained in the broadsheets. It's a bit like reading The Express and learning that aliens have taken over the local Sainsbury's and then wondering why the broadsheets haven't covered that same important news. That fact alone doesn't make the news story a unique and startling revelation, it just means the Express is trying, as always, to appeal to it's natural audience and give them something interesting to tell their mates down the pub.

'Some British media can be biased...' 

Understatement of the year.

The media in the UK, especially tabloids, are horrifically biased (almost all owned by billionaires with their assets held off shore ) and have generated a stream of xenophobic invective for decades (and some news papers like the Times going back hundreds of years).

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/daily-mail-brexit-front-page-democracy-parliament-a8110616.html

 

Comment from the article

 

#The issue isn't Brexit. The issue is is Britain a Parliamentary Democracy? Or are we Germany 1933 or a similar dictatorship where any sort of questioning is considered treason, with threats of violence or death? From their intimidating, shrieking front pages, certain tabloids would definitely consider us to be the latter. Bravo to those brave Parliamentarians who are fighting to take back control.#

 

[Grouse]

44 minutes ago, baansgr said:

So you must agree on the, 100%  sampling of the 10 guys at the noodle shop. 

Do you really want me to explain how to calculate the sample size required to get a meaningful result? Clearly a sample of 10, not normalised, randomly selected is meaningless. Are you just being facitious or you really don't understand?

 

This might help

 

https://m.wikihow.com/Calculate-Sample-Size

 

(back to standard deviations and sick sigmas I'm afraid)

 

Be assured that real mathematics underlies sampling.

Edited December 17, 2017 by Grouse

[nauseus]

4 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Really? There were no Brexiters on this forum advocating for an absolute hard Brexit? Amnesia much? Or were they just kidding?

Absolute now....

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, Grouse said:

I have no doubt that a large majority would prefer to call the whole thing off and concentrate the time and money on more important things

A large majority of the minority, you mean?

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, mommysboy said:

Happens all the time: something turns out not what appeared to be, doesn't do what was on the label, or someone simply lied.  So logically, we cancel.

 

Brexiteers simply failed to come up with the goods as advertised.

It wasn't a sales show. It was a referendum.

[nauseus]

59 minutes ago, taipeir said:

'Some British media can be biased...' 

Understatement of the year.

The media in the UK, especially tabloids, are horrifically biased (almost all owned by billionaires with their assets held off shore ) and have generated a stream of xenophobic invective for decades (and some news papers like the Times going back hundreds of years).

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/daily-mail-brexit-front-page-democracy-parliament-a8110616.html

 

Comment from the article

 

#The issue isn't Brexit. The issue is is Britain a Parliamentary Democracy? Or are we Germany 1933 or a similar dictatorship where any sort of questioning is considered treason, with threats of violence or death? From their intimidating, shrieking front pages, certain tabloids would definitely consider us to be the latter. Bravo to those brave Parliamentarians who are fighting to take back control.#

 

Rabid,  ribbid rimmick.

[ilostmypassword]

6 minutes ago, nauseus said:

It wasn't a sales show. It was a referendum.

And one of the best things about the British version of democracy is voters never get a chance to change their mind. Once they elect someone to be their MP, he or she is their MP for life or until resignation. That way events subsequent to the election become completely irrelevant. No need to take account of new facts and situations.

[Khun Han]

5 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Yes it did continue to rise in the 90's but by how much?  At the worst the rise after Thatcher's reign accounted for 25 percent of the rise in inequality. That means that when inequality was highest,  75 percent of it still had occurred during her tenure. And this was BEFORE the single market and the free movement of people. Currently only about 10 percent of that rise happened after the advent of the single market.

 

As for my PDF being irrelevant. It showed that immigrant workers to Germany are paid on average 20% less across the board for the same labor that Germans do. Just possible, just maybe that has something to do with the fact that the German government hasn't managed to gut labor unions the way the Tories have in the UK.

 

And finally, your point about Social Security is bizarre. Income redistribution is one way to  make inequality less. There should be a lot more income redistribution in the UK. Repealing the latest rounds of tax cuts for the wealthy would be a good place to start and using that cash to support further income redistribution and helping working people get ahead. In most EU nations, higher education is just a fraction of the cost of what it takes to get a diploma in the UK. So working class people there have a lot easier time getting ahead and not either foregoing higher education or mortaging their future. In other words, they get to keep more of their money and have a much better chance at a higher paying future. The UK has a dismal record as far as getting its lower income citizens into University compared to other developed EU nations. And the costs have risen sharply. Or don't you think that the lack of affordable access to higher education is a huge reason for income inequality in the UK. And do you seriously believe that the huge rise in its cost has little to do with lower incomes for workers?

 

Good that you are now (rather grudgingly) admitting that income inequality went up after we joined the single market (a big chunk of this period under a Labour government).

 

Again, you miss the point about freedom of movement. The PDF deals mainly with registered immigrants.

 

The point about social security isn't mine. It's in the link you provided. Like I said, you should take the time to read the stuff you link as 'proof' that you are right.

[Grouse]

16 minutes ago, nauseus said:

A large majority of the minority, you mean?

There is no longer a majority in favour of Brexit. Time to face reality 

[Grouse]

6 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

Good that you are now (rather grudgingly) admitting that income inequality went up after we joined the single market (a big chunk of this period under a Labour government).

 

Again, you miss the point about freedom of movement. The PDF deals mainly with registered immigrants.

 

The point about social security isn't mine. It's in the link you provided. Like I said, you should take the time to read the stuff you link as 'proof' that you are right.

You are seeing causation where this is not the case. Why has the same effect not been mirrored elsewhere? The cause is closer to home.

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, Khun Han said:

 

Good that you are now (rather grudgingly) admitting that income inequality went up after we joined the single market (a big chunk of this period under a Labour government).

 

Again, you miss the point about freedom of movement. The PDF deals mainly with registered immigrants.

 

The point about social security isn't mine. It's in the link you provided. Like I said, you should take the time to read the stuff you link as 'proof' that you are right.

You haven't once acknowledged that most of the rise in inequality happened before the advent of the single market. Not once. Why not? And if in fact, as is currently the case 90 percent of the rise occurred before the single market. why is it that you contend the other 10 percent is due to the single market?. Haven't the Tories continued with policies that would promote inequality? Why are those policies irrelevant? 

 

[Khun Han]

10 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

You haven't once acknowledged that most of the rise in inequality happened before the advent of the single market. Not once. Why not? And if in fact, as is currently the case 90 percent of the rise occurred before the single market. why is it that you contend the other 10 percent is due to the single market?. Haven't the Tories continued with policies that would promote inequality? Why are those policies irrelevant? 

 

 

It was covered (and discussed by my very self and Grouse, before I got bored with his insults) near the start of this thread: Thatcher sold off the nation's silverware to her husband's mates, and gave them huge tax breaks into the deal.

 

Now, getting back ontopic, why did income inequality continue to rise under a Labour government? Freedom of movement bringing wages down and profits up, of course.

Edited December 17, 2017 by Khun Han

[talahtnut]

15 hours ago, nauseus said:

Rabid,  ribbid rimmick.

Best comment so far..

[dick dasterdly]

3 hours ago, simoh1490 said:

Here we go again on the same subject. Look, if you don't believe in sampling as a reliable method of analysis then you don't believe lots of things you are told, including the unemployment rate, population growth figures, demographics etc etc.

Couldn't agree more re. unemployment statistics.

 

The various govts. have changed the definition time and time again to 'massage' the results - to the point where they're nothing but a joke.

 

Similar to the way dislike of the EU open borders policy (allowing people from FAR poorer countries to take the lowest paid jobs) has been turned into a 'racist' issue .

[dick dasterdly]

4 hours ago, nontabury said:

I’m a Brexiter, who initially was for a negotiated exit. Now I want a quick exit, after telling those unelected E.U commissioners to go xxxx themselves.

 

 

Know what you mean .

 

The game being played by both the EU and UK politicians are having the opposite effect to that anticipated - and driving me into the 'just leave' corner .

[oldhippy]

Just a quick reminder.

 

The referendum's outcome was:

48% remain

30% soft brexit (my guess)

22% hard brexit (my guess)

 

Yes, the 30% and 22% are only my guesses, but the 48% majority was clear.

Even if there was only a 5% pro soft vote, there was no more than a 47% pro hard vote.

 

Referenda are an undemocratic technique used by those in power - that goes for all countries.

The results always depend on the question asked.