Im beginning to warm to Sunak, he;s actually doing useful things
joining the CPTPP is a positive step for the UK
Yes, signing up to a trading block the other side of the world rather than one on one's doorstep makes perfect sense.
Horses for courses
The EU isnt just a trading bloc it is a commitment to a political project. If youre in you take on all the other shit.
CPTPP is just about trading. Suits me.
But there's a terrible price for not being in it.
That was the extent of the Remain campaign's argument in 2016, which is why they lost. And if Rejoiners can't find a better argument, they'll never win.
Mmm, much better off in than out - terrible argument.
The Remain campaign argument wasn't "better in than out", it was "worse out than in". Which is why they lost.
Meaningless semantics. There's no absolute case for EU membership unless you're in the tiny band of USE idealists. The argument for the British public only exists relative to not being a member. And this is - not 'the' but 'a' - reason why Remain lost. Because there IS an absolute case for Leave that could be made in addition to the relative one. I'm talking about the purist case around sovereignty. It requires a noddy antiquated view of what sovereignty means but nevertheless it's an argument you can make and it was made to great effect.
No, it's anything but meaningless semantics. Votes aren't only won by logic, they're also won by appealing to emotion. That's why "better in than out", although mathematically equivalent to "worse out than in", is much better at winning votes.
The message was better in than out.
No, it really wasn't.
Or, if it was, then the Remain campaign was even more crap that I gave it credit for, because the message heard was "worse out than in". For example, all the discussion I heard in the real world in the months leading up to the referendum was pitched in terms of "are you for or against Brexit?"
And, yes, the Remain campaign's crapness absolutely should be blamed as a major factor for them losing the referendum. They had everything going for them - status quo bias, fear of the unknown, and the government putting their thumbs on the scale just as much as they thought they could get away with. Their failure was immense.
Well of course we got plenty of "are you for or against Brexit?" - Brexit was the proposition. I bet in 1975 we heard lots of "are you for or against joining the Common Market?" in the pubs and clubs and fish markets and factory canteens all over this land (that we love).
Right. But allowing the campaign to be cast in such terms (and Remainers absolutely talked in those terms) rather than "are you for or against being in the EU" was a failure of the Remain campaign as it turned the neutral ballot paper question into one where they had a disadvantage.
How long will it be before someone proposes a two-tier retirement system, with manual workers being able to retire earlier? The probably is how you define manual work, because some people will do jobs that are a mixture of manual and non-manual.
How about retirement age of 65 but no state pension until you actually retire, so it is not just pin money for professionals who want to go on earning six figures into their 70s.
Im beginning to warm to Sunak, he;s actually doing useful things
joining the CPTPP is a positive step for the UK
Yes, signing up to a trading block the other side of the world rather than one on one's doorstep makes perfect sense.
Horses for courses
The EU isnt just a trading bloc it is a commitment to a political project. If youre in you take on all the other shit.
CPTPP is just about trading. Suits me.
But there's a terrible price for not being in it.
That was the extent of the Remain campaign's argument in 2016, which is why they lost. And if Rejoiners can't find a better argument, they'll never win.
Mmm, much better off in than out - terrible argument.
The Remain campaign argument wasn't "better in than out", it was "worse out than in". Which is why they lost.
Meaningless semantics. There's no absolute case for EU membership unless you're in the tiny band of USE idealists. The argument for the British public only exists relative to not being a member. And this is - not 'the' but 'a' - reason why Remain lost. Because there IS an absolute case for Leave that could be made in addition to the relative one. I'm talking about the purist case around sovereignty. It requires a noddy antiquated view of what sovereignty means but nevertheless it's an argument you can make and it was made to great effect.
No, it's anything but meaningless semantics. Votes aren't only won by logic, they're also won by appealing to emotion. That's why "better in than out", although mathematically equivalent to "worse out than in", is much better at winning votes.
The message was better in than out.
No, it really wasn't.
Or, if it was, then the Remain campaign was even more crap that I gave it credit for, because the message heard was "worse out than in". For example, all the discussion I heard in the real world in the months leading up to the referendum was pitched in terms of "are you for or against Brexit?"
And, yes, the Remain campaign's crapness absolutely should be blamed as a major factor for them losing the referendum. They had everything going for them - status quo bias, fear of the unknown, and the government putting their thumbs on the scale just as much as they thought they could get away with. Their failure was immense.
Well of course we got plenty of "are you for or against Brexit?" - Brexit was the proposition. I bet in 1975 we heard lots of "are you for or against joining the Common Market?" in the pubs and clubs and fish markets and factory canteens all over this land (that we love).
Right. But allowing the campaign to be cast in such terms (and Remainers absolutely talked in those terms) rather than "are you for or against being in the EU" was a failure of the Remain campaign as it turned the neutral ballot paper question into one where they had a disadvantage.
You're trolling now. I will talk to you again on something different at a later date when I sense good faith and thinking cap. Look forward to it.
Im beginning to warm to Sunak, he;s actually doing useful things
joining the CPTPP is a positive step for the UK
Yes, signing up to a trading block the other side of the world rather than one on one's doorstep makes perfect sense.
Are you saying we shouldn’t have signed up to CPTPP because we aren’t in the single market? So cut off our noses to spite our faces?
There is no way on earth we could rejoin the single market for some time however hard people close their eyes and wish desperately so again would you rather we hadn’t signed up to make a point?
Also I think it was yesterday or day before where people were moaning about short termism - the CPTPP is a trading block of countries that are likely to grow much faster than Europe and they have China and South Korea in the queue which will enhance it further.
If we hadn’t joined now then in ten years when people are complaining we missed out on this it would have been a wasted opportunity for very little cost - even Minette Batters was approving of it from the farmers angle this morning.
I'd be surprised if there was unanimity to let China in any time soon.
I don't think what's left of the UK car industry would be too pleased with the consequences of tariff free imports from the Chinese megacorps like SAIC, Geely, etc. You'd be able to buy a Trumpchi GS8 for buttons.
We can already buy Chinese-made MGs for buttons. If the west allows China free reign then it will happily supply us *everything*. So TikTok has been declared spyware. Not that big a deal. But what if the laptop I am working on was also found to be Chinese spyware? My router? My keyboard? My car?
The UK has given up on making cars.
I thought we did that one before - vehicle output is down 30-50% from peak across car manufacturing in Europe, including the UK.
The key difference, and the existential threat to the UK car industry, is no-one much is investing in UK vehicle manufacture.
How long will it be before someone proposes a two-tier retirement system, with manual workers being able to retire earlier? The probably is how you define manual work, because some people will do jobs that are a mixture of manual and non-manual.
How about retirement age of 65 but no state pension until you actually retire, so it is not just pin money for professionals who want to go on earning six figures into their 70s.
Just have a retirement system of X years of work. So if you do 3-5 years of gap years and university, you retire 3-5 years later than people that joined an apprenticeship after school?
Im beginning to warm to Sunak, he;s actually doing useful things
joining the CPTPP is a positive step for the UK
Yes, signing up to a trading block the other side of the world rather than one on one's doorstep makes perfect sense.
Horses for courses
The EU isnt just a trading bloc it is a commitment to a political project. If youre in you take on all the other shit.
CPTPP is just about trading. Suits me.
But there's a terrible price for not being in it.
That was the extent of the Remain campaign's argument in 2016, which is why they lost. And if Rejoiners can't find a better argument, they'll never win.
Mmm, much better off in than out - terrible argument.
The Remain campaign argument wasn't "better in than out", it was "worse out than in". Which is why they lost.
Meaningless semantics. There's no absolute case for EU membership unless you're in the tiny band of USE idealists. The argument for the British public only exists relative to not being a member. And this is - not 'the' but 'a' - reason why Remain lost. Because there IS an absolute case for Leave that could be made in addition to the relative one. I'm talking about the purist case around sovereignty. It requires a noddy antiquated view of what sovereignty means but nevertheless it's an argument you can make and it was made to great effect.
No, it's anything but meaningless semantics. Votes aren't only won by logic, they're also won by appealing to emotion. That's why "better in than out", although mathematically equivalent to "worse out than in", is much better at winning votes.
The message was better in than out.
But anyway, as explained, Leave had the noddy absolutist case about Sovereignty plus they could promise sunlit uplands (the relative case) plus they could appeal to Little Englander emotion. They had the easier sell but they also did it well. Should have won. Did win.
This "Remain blew it with a crap campaign' is just yet more 'blame Brexit on Remainers' drivel. I'm rather weary of it tbh.
But that’s shite
Cameron confidently boasted to Merkel he would win the referendum “no problem”. Remainers on here gloated that they would win “70/30”. All the pundits polls suggested - at first - that Remain would coast home
If Leave “should have won anyway” all the above makes no sense. But it does make sense because Remain should have won, not Leave
That this result did not occur is because the Remain campaign was poor and the Leave campaign was good, sometimes brilliant
I think the mood was there but not picked up. Eg Cameron, he went the Blair route of succumbing to belief in his own hype as a communicator and winner.
I think Leave did run a better campaign than Remain. But they did have inherent advantages. The big problem for the pro-EUers, then and now, is that it is very difficult to create a positive argument and vision for the EU that chimes with reality and most of the electorate. The vision of a USE is a coherent one but doesn't appeal beyond a small minority.
"We should work closely with our neighbours?" "Sure, but don't non-EU states also do that?"
"It makes better laws than the UK does" "That seems rather anti-British, and I am proud of being British"
"It overcomes the divisions of the world wars" "The division of the last world war is because Germany was run by a genocidal regime, it wasn't the fault of Britain's actions"
"It allows us to travel freely round Europe" "Yeah but it also means anyone from Europe can come here, and I manage to travel to non-EU countries just fine"
The same will be the case in any future Rejoin referemdum.
Exactly. There was no serious mileage in making the idealist EU case. Hence the argument had to be the practical and relative one - we are better off in than out. Which was the argument made. The notion the Remain side missed a trick by not getting pumped up and dewy-eyed over Ode to Joy and a common European identity/vision is horseshit. I'm truly surprised by how often it gets said. Ok, some of it is Leaver gaslighting, and that's easy to spot, but plenty seem to actually believe it.
This boils down to: if Remain had made an honest case, they would have lost.
Im beginning to warm to Sunak, he;s actually doing useful things
joining the CPTPP is a positive step for the UK
Yes, signing up to a trading block the other side of the world rather than one on one's doorstep makes perfect sense.
Horses for courses
The EU isnt just a trading bloc it is a commitment to a political project. If youre in you take on all the other shit.
CPTPP is just about trading. Suits me.
But there's a terrible price for not being in it.
That was the extent of the Remain campaign's argument in 2016, which is why they lost. And if Rejoiners can't find a better argument, they'll never win.
Mmm, much better off in than out - terrible argument.
The Remain campaign argument wasn't "better in than out", it was "worse out than in". Which is why they lost.
Meaningless semantics. There's no absolute case for EU membership unless you're in the tiny band of USE idealists. The argument for the British public only exists relative to not being a member. And this is - not 'the' but 'a' - reason why Remain lost. Because there IS an absolute case for Leave that could be made in addition to the relative one. I'm talking about the purist case around sovereignty. It requires a noddy antiquated view of what sovereignty means but nevertheless it's an argument you can make and it was made to great effect.
No, it's anything but meaningless semantics. Votes aren't only won by logic, they're also won by appealing to emotion. That's why "better in than out", although mathematically equivalent to "worse out than in", is much better at winning votes.
The message was better in than out.
No, it really wasn't.
Or, if it was, then the Remain campaign was even more crap that I gave it credit for, because the message heard was "worse out than in". For example, all the discussion I heard in the real world in the months leading up to the referendum was pitched in terms of "are you for or against Brexit?"
And, yes, the Remain campaign's crapness absolutely should be blamed as a major factor for them losing the referendum. They had everything going for them - status quo bias, fear of the unknown, and the government putting their thumbs on the scale just as much as they thought they could get away with. Their failure was immense.
Well of course we got plenty of "are you for or against Brexit?" - Brexit was the proposition. I bet in 1975 we heard lots of "are you for or against joining the Common Market?" in the pubs and clubs and fish markets and factory canteens all over this land (that we love).
Right. But allowing the campaign to be cast in such terms (and Remainers absolutely talked in those terms) rather than "are you for or against being in the EU" was a failure of the Remain campaign as it turned the neutral ballot paper question into one where they had a disadvantage.
You're trolling now. I will talk to you again on something different at a later date when I sense good faith and thinking cap. Look forward to it.
I'm sorry that you don't like losing arguments, but you never have. When you resort to those particular phrases it's a good sign that you've recognised you've lost, even though you can't admit it (perhaps even to yourself).
Amusing piece by Ben Bradley (Mansfield MP, Head of Notts CC) on active travel vs cars, how he wants to support *both*, and how he wants CC to spend the tiny amount of Active Travel money where he wants, which is I think code for "not on Active Travel".
Mansfield was I think the first place in the country where they decided to make it a fineable offence for a mum to cycle with her kid to the market to do some shopping.
It's also the place where the pensioner killed in a collision with an e-scooter was unable - as stated in Court - to see it coming because of the dangerous pavement parking.
It's also the place where wheelchairs can't go onto many public footpaths because of illegal barriers, which are Bradley's personal responsibility via the County Council, and about which, like both the above, he has done nothing.
Im beginning to warm to Sunak, he;s actually doing useful things
joining the CPTPP is a positive step for the UK
Yes, signing up to a trading block the other side of the world rather than one on one's doorstep makes perfect sense.
Horses for courses
The EU isnt just a trading bloc it is a commitment to a political project. If youre in you take on all the other shit.
CPTPP is just about trading. Suits me.
But there's a terrible price for not being in it.
That was the extent of the Remain campaign's argument in 2016, which is why they lost. And if Rejoiners can't find a better argument, they'll never win.
Mmm, much better off in than out - terrible argument.
The Remain campaign argument wasn't "better in than out", it was "worse out than in". Which is why they lost.
Meaningless semantics. There's no absolute case for EU membership unless you're in the tiny band of USE idealists. The argument for the British public only exists relative to not being a member. And this is - not 'the' but 'a' - reason why Remain lost. Because there IS an absolute case for Leave that could be made in addition to the relative one. I'm talking about the purist case around sovereignty. It requires a noddy antiquated view of what sovereignty means but nevertheless it's an argument you can make and it was made to great effect.
No, it's anything but meaningless semantics. Votes aren't only won by logic, they're also won by appealing to emotion. That's why "better in than out", although mathematically equivalent to "worse out than in", is much better at winning votes.
The message was better in than out.
But anyway, as explained, Leave had the noddy absolutist case about Sovereignty plus they could promise sunlit uplands (the relative case) plus they could appeal to Little Englander emotion. They had the easier sell but they also did it well. Should have won. Did win.
This "Remain blew it with a crap campaign' is just yet more 'blame Brexit on Remainers' drivel. I'm rather weary of it tbh.
But that’s shite
Cameron confidently boasted to Merkel he would win the referendum “no problem”. Remainers on here gloated that they would win “70/30”. All the pundits polls suggested - at first - that Remain would coast home
If Leave “should have won anyway” all the above makes no sense. But it does make sense because Remain should have won, not Leave
That this result did not occur is because the Remain campaign was poor and the Leave campaign was good, sometimes brilliant
I think the mood was there but not picked up. Eg Cameron, he went the Blair route of succumbing to belief in his own hype as a communicator and winner.
I think Leave did run a better campaign than Remain. But they did have inherent advantages. The big problem for the pro-EUers, then and now, is that it is very difficult to create a positive argument and vision for the EU that chimes with reality and most of the electorate. The vision of a USE is a coherent one but doesn't appeal beyond a small minority.
"We should work closely with our neighbours?" "Sure, but don't non-EU states also do that?"
"It makes better laws than the UK does" "That seems rather anti-British, and I am proud of being British"
"It overcomes the divisions of the world wars" "The division of the last world war is because Germany was run by a genocidal regime, it wasn't the fault of Britain's actions"
"It allows us to travel freely round Europe" "Yeah but it also means anyone from Europe can come here, and I manage to travel to non-EU countries just fine"
The same will be the case in any future Rejoin referemdum.
Exactly. There was no serious mileage in making the idealist EU case. Hence the argument had to be the practical and relative one - we are better off in than out. Which was the argument made. The notion the Remain side missed a trick by not getting pumped up and dewy-eyed over Ode to Joy and a common European identity/vision is horseshit. I'm truly surprised by how often it gets said. Ok, some of it is Leaver gaslighting, and that's easy to spot, but plenty seem to actually believe it.
And I don't see how this dynamic changes next time. Rejoin will be reduced to argue on a practical, tactical basis while Remain Outside will say keep control of immigration, keep our newly sealed links with Canada and Australia, keep the pound, keep our taxes, etc.
At this moment in our history, I can't really think of anything more pointless than conducting opinion polls on 'rejoin' or 'stay out'. Except, perhaps, endlessly discussing and seeking to interpret such polls.
It's an obsession with an event (Brexit) that, for good or ill, we are stuck with for many, many years to come. Could we return to it in 2030, perhaps, when views may be clearer?
Im beginning to warm to Sunak, he;s actually doing useful things
joining the CPTPP is a positive step for the UK
Yes, signing up to a trading block the other side of the world rather than one on one's doorstep makes perfect sense.
Horses for courses
The EU isnt just a trading bloc it is a commitment to a political project. If youre in you take on all the other shit.
CPTPP is just about trading. Suits me.
But there's a terrible price for not being in it.
That was the extent of the Remain campaign's argument in 2016, which is why they lost. And if Rejoiners can't find a better argument, they'll never win.
Mmm, much better off in than out - terrible argument.
The Remain campaign argument wasn't "better in than out", it was "worse out than in". Which is why they lost.
Meaningless semantics. There's no absolute case for EU membership unless you're in the tiny band of USE idealists. The argument for the British public only exists relative to not being a member. And this is - not 'the' but 'a' - reason why Remain lost. Because there IS an absolute case for Leave that could be made in addition to the relative one. I'm talking about the purist case around sovereignty. It requires a noddy antiquated view of what sovereignty means but nevertheless it's an argument you can make and it was made to great effect.
No, it's anything but meaningless semantics. Votes aren't only won by logic, they're also won by appealing to emotion. That's why "better in than out", although mathematically equivalent to "worse out than in", is much better at winning votes.
The message was better in than out.
But anyway, as explained, Leave had the noddy absolutist case about Sovereignty plus they could promise sunlit uplands (the relative case) plus they could appeal to Little Englander emotion. They had the easier sell but they also did it well. Should have won. Did win.
This "Remain blew it with a crap campaign' is just yet more 'blame Brexit on Remainers' drivel. I'm rather weary of it tbh.
But that’s shite
Cameron confidently boasted to Merkel he would win the referendum “no problem”. Remainers on here gloated that they would win “70/30”. All the pundits polls suggested - at first - that Remain would coast home
If Leave “should have won anyway” all the above makes no sense. But it does make sense because Remain should have won, not Leave
That this result did not occur is because the Remain campaign was poor and the Leave campaign was good, sometimes brilliant
I think the mood was there but not picked up. Eg Cameron, he went the Blair route of succumbing to belief in his own hype as a communicator and winner.
I think Leave did run a better campaign than Remain. But they did have inherent advantages. The big problem for the pro-EUers, then and now, is that it is very difficult to create a positive argument and vision for the EU that chimes with reality and most of the electorate. The vision of a USE is a coherent one but doesn't appeal beyond a small minority.
"We should work closely with our neighbours?" "Sure, but don't non-EU states also do that?"
"It makes better laws than the UK does" "That seems rather anti-British, and I am proud of being British"
"It overcomes the divisions of the world wars" "The division of the last world war is because Germany was run by a genocidal regime, it wasn't the fault of Britain's actions"
"It allows us to travel freely round Europe" "Yeah but it also means anyone from Europe can come here, and I manage to travel to non-EU countries just fine"
The same will be the case in any future Rejoin referemdum.
Exactly. There was no serious mileage in making the idealist EU case. Hence the argument had to be the practical and relative one - we are better off in than out. Which was the argument made. The notion the Remain side missed a trick by not getting pumped up and dewy-eyed over Ode to Joy and a common European identity/vision is horseshit. I'm truly surprised by how often it gets said. Ok, some of it is Leaver gaslighting, and that's easy to spot, but plenty seem to actually believe it.
And I don't see how this dynamic changes next time. Rejoin will be reduced to argue on a practical, tactical basis while Remain Outside will say keep control of immigration, keep our newly sealed links with Canada and Australia, keep the pound, keep our taxes, etc.
Plus everyone will know that USE is the aim, and if the Rejoin campaign can't even argue for it...
As I predicted on here yesterday, the Chinese are saying Go Jump when it comes to “pausing AI development”
“Leading Chinese tech companies said on Thursday that they would not like to see a pause or slowdown in the game-changing GPT-4 technology, but instead vowed more efforts to develop responsible artificial intelligence to balance benefits and risks. #ChatGPT”
Why? Because they realise this tech is revolutionary and world changing, and they also realise they are a couple of years behind the USA and desperately need to catch up
"We are not willing to see a stop or slowdown of GPT-4 related technology. To be frank, once tech advances, there is no way to stop or reverse it," said Du Lan, senior vice-president of tech firm iFlytek, at the ongoing Boao Forum for Asia on Thursday….
Zhou Hongyi, founder of 360 Security Group, said via social media on Thursday that not developing (GPT-4 and related technology) in fact poses the greatest insecurity.
"China must catch up with the trend of GPT, as it will bring about a substantial increase in productivity, thereby enhancing a country's competitiveness," he said.
Zhou added that whether people are willing or not, GPT will lead a new round of industrial revolution that goes beyond the invention of the internet or the iPhone.
"Chinese companies are still around two years behind GPT-4's level of development. Therefore, it is too early to worry about the risks. China should develop its own large AI model," he said.
So today we have the leader of the local council, the regional mayor, the local MP and the PM (next door constituency, note reason why treasury is in Darlo) looking at pot holes
Note they are looking at things they have been responsible for at least the last 4 years so surely the photo should be of filled pot holes not pot holes due to lack of money, lack of road maintenance and neglect - given that the local election is a month away.
How long will it be before someone proposes a two-tier retirement system, with manual workers being able to retire earlier? The probably is how you define manual work, because some people will do jobs that are a mixture of manual and non-manual.
How about retirement age of 65 but no state pension until you actually retire, so it is not just pin money for professionals who want to go on earning six figures into their 70s.
What would probably be fairest in some ways is to say that you can retire anytime from 60. At the point after that that you choose (be that 65, 68, 72) you can trigger your "state annuity" - so everyone has a set capital amount at retirement (increasing by inflation each year), which is then converted into an annuity given the specific circumstances of that individual. That way the state annuity payment for a Glasgow docker who smokes 20 a day and retires at 60 will be higher than the non-smoking white collar professional from Surrey who retires at 70. This way if people haven't put aside any separate workplace pension then every year from 60 they get to see what they could retire on if they cashed in then, and decide to go another year and increase the amount. Clearly unlike personal pensions there would be an absolute compulsion to convert to an annuity (no capital redemption from the state pot), it has to be inflation-linked, have no spousal element post death. It's such a drastic change that it would never happen clearly, and would be a nightmare to accommodate changing to, but it would cover that element of increased life-expectancy automatically, as well as personal circumstances.
On checking carefully, the alleged sequence of events is this:
1) Trump had sex with inter alia Stormy Daniels. 2) She was preparing a book/TV deal on the subject. 3) He paid her off instead to stop the details, er, coming out. 4) However, he embezzled that money from his company and paid it through a false nominee. 5) Which means he possibly has been blackmailed BUT A) therefore that money is the proceeds of a crime and has been laundered B )He has taken money improperly from a company C) He is guilty of false accounting.
So in a stroke of sheer genius not given to all men he has turned what could have been a story of him as the victim into a story of he's committed a crime.
Very Donald Trump...
This is all true; but as he's grasped from the start, the hardcore MAGAs don't care about truth, criminality or anything; they'd support him if he literally tortured and killed their own children in front of them.
I still don't think he'll be next president - the normal people outnumber the crackers ones - but there's also a non-zero possibility of genuine armed uprisings and so on; worse than the 6th Jan one.
I’m not 1-0% sure the money came from company funds - some stories have it coming from (restricted) campaign funds.
Im beginning to warm to Sunak, he;s actually doing useful things
joining the CPTPP is a positive step for the UK
Yes, signing up to a trading block the other side of the world rather than one on one's doorstep makes perfect sense.
Horses for courses
The EU isnt just a trading bloc it is a commitment to a political project. If youre in you take on all the other shit.
CPTPP is just about trading. Suits me.
But there's a terrible price for not being in it.
That was the extent of the Remain campaign's argument in 2016, which is why they lost. And if Rejoiners can't find a better argument, they'll never win.
Mmm, much better off in than out - terrible argument.
The Remain campaign argument wasn't "better in than out", it was "worse out than in". Which is why they lost.
Meaningless semantics. There's no absolute case for EU membership unless you're in the tiny band of USE idealists. The argument for the British public only exists relative to not being a member. And this is - not 'the' but 'a' - reason why Remain lost. Because there IS an absolute case for Leave that could be made in addition to the relative one. I'm talking about the purist case around sovereignty. It requires a noddy antiquated view of what sovereignty means but nevertheless it's an argument you can make and it was made to great effect.
No, it's anything but meaningless semantics. Votes aren't only won by logic, they're also won by appealing to emotion. That's why "better in than out", although mathematically equivalent to "worse out than in", is much better at winning votes.
The message was better in than out.
No, it really wasn't.
Or, if it was, then the Remain campaign was even more crap that I gave it credit for, because the message heard was "worse out than in". For example, all the discussion I heard in the real world in the months leading up to the referendum was pitched in terms of "are you for or against Brexit?"
And, yes, the Remain campaign's crapness absolutely should be blamed as a major factor for them losing the referendum. They had everything going for them - status quo bias, fear of the unknown, and the government putting their thumbs on the scale just as much as they thought they could get away with. Their failure was immense.
Well of course we got plenty of "are you for or against Brexit?" - Brexit was the proposition. I bet in 1975 we heard lots of "are you for or against joining the Common Market?" in the pubs and clubs and fish markets and factory canteens all over this land (that we love).
Right. But allowing the campaign to be cast in such terms (and Remainers absolutely talked in those terms) rather than "are you for or against being in the EU" was a failure of the Remain campaign as it turned the neutral ballot paper question into one where they had a disadvantage.
You're trolling now. I will talk to you again on something different at a later date when I sense good faith and thinking cap. Look forward to it.
I'm sorry that you don't like losing arguments, but you never have. When you resort to those particular phrases it's a good sign that you've recognised you've lost, even though you can't admit it (perhaps even to yourself).
Nope, sorry, you've 'driven' me away. Least for now and on this. No hard feelings though - and to prove it I have a song for you. To the Bowie tune.
There's a Starmer, waiting in the wings "I'm going to be the PM", in the bath is what he sings There's a Starmer, waiting in the wings There's no way he will blow it, cos his strategy is king, and is Let the Tories lose it, let the Tories lose it, let all the Tories lose it
At this moment in our history, I can't really think of anything more pointless than conducting opinion polls on 'rejoin' or 'stay out'. Except, perhaps, endlessly discussing and seeking to interpret such polls.
It's an obsession with an event (Brexit) that, for good or ill, we are stuck with for many, many years to come. Could we return to it in 2030, perhaps, when views may be clearer?
It's good to do the polls to get a sense of how public opinion is developing, but little point discussing it apart from to acknowledge what the numbers say. As a topic it is boring AF - I literally can't bear to listen to Leavers bleating on about it anymore and I'm sure they feel the same.
Im beginning to warm to Sunak, he;s actually doing useful things
joining the CPTPP is a positive step for the UK
Yes, signing up to a trading block the other side of the world rather than one on one's doorstep makes perfect sense.
Horses for courses
The EU isnt just a trading bloc it is a commitment to a political project. If youre in you take on all the other shit.
CPTPP is just about trading. Suits me.
But there's a terrible price for not being in it.
That was the extent of the Remain campaign's argument in 2016, which is why they lost. And if Rejoiners can't find a better argument, they'll never win.
Mmm, much better off in than out - terrible argument.
The Remain campaign argument wasn't "better in than out", it was "worse out than in". Which is why they lost.
Meaningless semantics. There's no absolute case for EU membership unless you're in the tiny band of USE idealists. The argument for the British public only exists relative to not being a member. And this is - not 'the' but 'a' - reason why Remain lost. Because there IS an absolute case for Leave that could be made in addition to the relative one. I'm talking about the purist case around sovereignty. It requires a noddy antiquated view of what sovereignty means but nevertheless it's an argument you can make and it was made to great effect.
No, it's anything but meaningless semantics. Votes aren't only won by logic, they're also won by appealing to emotion. That's why "better in than out", although mathematically equivalent to "worse out than in", is much better at winning votes.
The message was better in than out.
No, it really wasn't.
Or, if it was, then the Remain campaign was even more crap that I gave it credit for, because the message heard was "worse out than in". For example, all the discussion I heard in the real world in the months leading up to the referendum was pitched in terms of "are you for or against Brexit?"
And, yes, the Remain campaign's crapness absolutely should be blamed as a major factor for them losing the referendum. They had everything going for them - status quo bias, fear of the unknown, and the government putting their thumbs on the scale just as much as they thought they could get away with. Their failure was immense.
Well of course we got plenty of "are you for or against Brexit?" - Brexit was the proposition. I bet in 1975 we heard lots of "are you for or against joining the Common Market?" in the pubs and clubs and fish markets and factory canteens all over this land (that we love).
Right. But allowing the campaign to be cast in such terms (and Remainers absolutely talked in those terms) rather than "are you for or against being in the EU" was a failure of the Remain campaign as it turned the neutral ballot paper question into one where they had a disadvantage.
You're trolling now. I will talk to you again on something different at a later date when I sense good faith and thinking cap. Look forward to it.
I'm sorry that you don't like losing arguments, but you never have. When you resort to those particular phrases it's a good sign that you've recognised you've lost, even though you can't admit it (perhaps even to yourself).
Nope, sorry, you've 'driven' me away. Least for now and on this. No hard feelings though - and to prove it I have a song for you. To the Bowie tune.
There's a Starmer, waiting in the wings "I'm going to be the PM", in the bath is what he sings There's a Starmer, waiting in the wings There's no way he will blow it, cos his strategy is king, and is Let the Tories lose it, let the Tories lose it, let all the Tories lose it
No, you just made a ridiculous argument, everyone pointed out that you’re wrong, and now you’re whistling a tune as you hasten away
So today we have the leader of the local council, the regional mayor, the local MP and the PM (next door constituency, note reason why treasury is in Darlo) looking at pot holes
Note they are looking at things they have been responsible for at least the last 4 years so surely the photo should be of filled pot holes not pot holes due to lack of money, lack of road maintenance and neglect - given that the local election is a month away.
Now they know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall...
The UK joining CPTPP is truly game changing for Brexit. A future Labour government that wanted to join the EU would now have to tear up trade agreements with some of the largest economies in the world. It would be so obviously retreating from global Britain to continental parochialism.
At this moment in our history, I can't really think of anything more pointless than conducting opinion polls on 'rejoin' or 'stay out'. Except, perhaps, endlessly discussing and seeking to interpret such polls.
It's an obsession with an event (Brexit) that, for good or ill, we are stuck with for many, many years to come. Could we return to it in 2030, perhaps, when views may be clearer?
"Are you not entertained? Are you not entertained? Is this not why you are here??"
Im beginning to warm to Sunak, he;s actually doing useful things
joining the CPTPP is a positive step for the UK
Yes, signing up to a trading block the other side of the world rather than one on one's doorstep makes perfect sense.
Horses for courses
The EU isnt just a trading bloc it is a commitment to a political project. If youre in you take on all the other shit.
CPTPP is just about trading. Suits me.
But there's a terrible price for not being in it.
That was the extent of the Remain campaign's argument in 2016, which is why they lost. And if Rejoiners can't find a better argument, they'll never win.
Mmm, much better off in than out - terrible argument.
The Remain campaign argument wasn't "better in than out", it was "worse out than in". Which is why they lost.
Meaningless semantics. There's no absolute case for EU membership unless you're in the tiny band of USE idealists. The argument for the British public only exists relative to not being a member. And this is - not 'the' but 'a' - reason why Remain lost. Because there IS an absolute case for Leave that could be made in addition to the relative one. I'm talking about the purist case around sovereignty. It requires a noddy antiquated view of what sovereignty means but nevertheless it's an argument you can make and it was made to great effect.
No, it's anything but meaningless semantics. Votes aren't only won by logic, they're also won by appealing to emotion. That's why "better in than out", although mathematically equivalent to "worse out than in", is much better at winning votes.
The message was better in than out.
But anyway, as explained, Leave had the noddy absolutist case about Sovereignty plus they could promise sunlit uplands (the relative case) plus they could appeal to Little Englander emotion. They had the easier sell but they also did it well. Should have won. Did win.
This "Remain blew it with a crap campaign' is just yet more 'blame Brexit on Remainers' drivel. I'm rather weary of it tbh.
But that’s shite
Cameron confidently boasted to Merkel he would win the referendum “no problem”. Remainers on here gloated that they would win “70/30”. All the pundits polls suggested - at first - that Remain would coast home
If Leave “should have won anyway” all the above makes no sense. But it does make sense because Remain should have won, not Leave
That this result did not occur is because the Remain campaign was poor and the Leave campaign was good, sometimes brilliant
I think the mood was there but not picked up. Eg Cameron, he went the Blair route of succumbing to belief in his own hype as a communicator and winner.
I think Leave did run a better campaign than Remain. But they did have inherent advantages. The big problem for the pro-EUers, then and now, is that it is very difficult to create a positive argument and vision for the EU that chimes with reality and most of the electorate. The vision of a USE is a coherent one but doesn't appeal beyond a small minority.
"We should work closely with our neighbours?" "Sure, but don't non-EU states also do that?"
"It makes better laws than the UK does" "That seems rather anti-British, and I am proud of being British"
"It overcomes the divisions of the world wars" "The division of the last world war is because Germany was run by a genocidal regime, it wasn't the fault of Britain's actions"
"It allows us to travel freely round Europe" "Yeah but it also means anyone from Europe can come here, and I manage to travel to non-EU countries just fine"
The same will be the case in any future Rejoin referemdum.
Exactly. There was no serious mileage in making the idealist EU case. Hence the argument had to be the practical and relative one - we are better off in than out. Which was the argument made. The notion the Remain side missed a trick by not getting pumped up and dewy-eyed over Ode to Joy and a common European identity/vision is horseshit. I'm truly surprised by how often it gets said. Ok, some of it is Leaver gaslighting, and that's easy to spot, but plenty seem to actually believe it.
And I don't see how this dynamic changes next time. Rejoin will be reduced to argue on a practical, tactical basis while Remain Outside will say keep control of immigration, keep our newly sealed links with Canada and Australia, keep the pound, keep our taxes, etc.
Ok, but if we've been out for a while and none of the promised benefits have materialized (except in the negative) this in itself will be a material difference in the shape of the debate,
The UK joining CPTPP is truly game changing for Brexit. A future Labour government that wanted to join the EU would now have to tear up trade agreements with some of the largest economies in the world. It would be so obviously retreating from global Britain to continental parochialism.
Not really a problem - you point out how l’ittle we export/import to xyz and compare that to what we used to sell to say France..
So today we have the leader of the local council, the regional mayor, the local MP and the PM (next door constituency, note reason why treasury is in Darlo) looking at pot holes
Note they are looking at things they have been responsible for at least the last 4 years so surely the photo should be of filled pot holes not pot holes due to lack of money, lack of road maintenance and neglect - given that the local election is a month away.
The photo lends itself to a caption competition, I think. Send to Private Eye for a front cover.
I note that the qualifying years to be eligible for a full state pension are not increasing. Currently you need at least 10 years to qualify for a state pension and 35 years to obtain a full state pension. This is not changing with the proposed pensionable age increases.
So someone working from age 20 will qualify for a full state pension at age 55, but will continue to pay NICs on earnings until pensionable age (66/67/68 etc) without any additional benefit from the state pension.
So today we have the leader of the local council, the regional mayor, the local MP and the PM (next door constituency, note reason why treasury is in Darlo) looking at pot holes
Note they are looking at things they have been responsible for at least the last 4 years so surely the photo should be of filled pot holes not pot holes due to lack of money, lack of road maintenance and neglect - given that the local election is a month away.
The photo lends itself to a caption competition, I think. Send to Private Eye for a front cover.
Im beginning to warm to Sunak, he;s actually doing useful things
joining the CPTPP is a positive step for the UK
Yes, signing up to a trading block the other side of the world rather than one on one's doorstep makes perfect sense.
Horses for courses
The EU isnt just a trading bloc it is a commitment to a political project. If youre in you take on all the other shit.
CPTPP is just about trading. Suits me.
But there's a terrible price for not being in it.
That was the extent of the Remain campaign's argument in 2016, which is why they lost. And if Rejoiners can't find a better argument, they'll never win.
Mmm, much better off in than out - terrible argument.
The Remain campaign argument wasn't "better in than out", it was "worse out than in". Which is why they lost.
Meaningless semantics. There's no absolute case for EU membership unless you're in the tiny band of USE idealists. The argument for the British public only exists relative to not being a member. And this is - not 'the' but 'a' - reason why Remain lost. Because there IS an absolute case for Leave that could be made in addition to the relative one. I'm talking about the purist case around sovereignty. It requires a noddy antiquated view of what sovereignty means but nevertheless it's an argument you can make and it was made to great effect.
No, it's anything but meaningless semantics. Votes aren't only won by logic, they're also won by appealing to emotion. That's why "better in than out", although mathematically equivalent to "worse out than in", is much better at winning votes.
The message was better in than out.
No, it really wasn't.
Or, if it was, then the Remain campaign was even more crap that I gave it credit for, because the message heard was "worse out than in". For example, all the discussion I heard in the real world in the months leading up to the referendum was pitched in terms of "are you for or against Brexit?"
And, yes, the Remain campaign's crapness absolutely should be blamed as a major factor for them losing the referendum. They had everything going for them - status quo bias, fear of the unknown, and the government putting their thumbs on the scale just as much as they thought they could get away with. Their failure was immense.
Well of course we got plenty of "are you for or against Brexit?" - Brexit was the proposition. I bet in 1975 we heard lots of "are you for or against joining the Common Market?" in the pubs and clubs and fish markets and factory canteens all over this land (that we love).
Right. But allowing the campaign to be cast in such terms (and Remainers absolutely talked in those terms) rather than "are you for or against being in the EU" was a failure of the Remain campaign as it turned the neutral ballot paper question into one where they had a disadvantage.
You're trolling now. I will talk to you again on something different at a later date when I sense good faith and thinking cap. Look forward to it.
I'm sorry that you don't like losing arguments, but you never have. When you resort to those particular phrases it's a good sign that you've recognised you've lost, even though you can't admit it (perhaps even to yourself).
Nope, sorry, you've 'driven' me away. Least for now and on this. No hard feelings though - and to prove it I have a song for you. To the Bowie tune.
There's a Starmer, waiting in the wings "I'm going to be the PM", in the bath is what he sings There's a Starmer, waiting in the wings There's no way he will blow it, cos his strategy is king, and is Let the Tories lose it, let the Tories lose it, let all the Tories lose it
No, you just made a ridiculous argument, everyone pointed out that you’re wrong, and now you’re whistling a tune as you hasten away
'Everyone' being you and Driver. I like my argument and plenty agree with it. There's no 100% right/wrong on this but what I say has merit.
So today we have the leader of the local council, the regional mayor, the local MP and the PM (next door constituency, note reason why treasury is in Darlo) looking at pot holes
Note they are looking at things they have been responsible for at least the last 4 years so surely the photo should be of filled pot holes not pot holes due to lack of money, lack of road maintenance and neglect - given that the local election is a month away.
We have just had a bad winter which exacerbates the problem and Hunt has announced millions more to repair potholes
So today we have the leader of the local council, the regional mayor, the local MP and the PM (next door constituency, note reason why treasury is in Darlo) looking at pot holes
Note they are looking at things they have been responsible for at least the last 4 years so surely the photo should be of filled pot holes not pot holes due to lack of money, lack of road maintenance and neglect - given that the local election is a month away.
If I drew some hairs around it then it would look like Therese Coffey's.
Im beginning to warm to Sunak, he;s actually doing useful things
joining the CPTPP is a positive step for the UK
Yes, signing up to a trading block the other side of the world rather than one on one's doorstep makes perfect sense.
Horses for courses
The EU isnt just a trading bloc it is a commitment to a political project. If youre in you take on all the other shit.
CPTPP is just about trading. Suits me.
But there's a terrible price for not being in it.
That was the extent of the Remain campaign's argument in 2016, which is why they lost. And if Rejoiners can't find a better argument, they'll never win.
Mmm, much better off in than out - terrible argument.
The Remain campaign argument wasn't "better in than out", it was "worse out than in". Which is why they lost.
Meaningless semantics. There's no absolute case for EU membership unless you're in the tiny band of USE idealists. The argument for the British public only exists relative to not being a member. And this is - not 'the' but 'a' - reason why Remain lost. Because there IS an absolute case for Leave that could be made in addition to the relative one. I'm talking about the purist case around sovereignty. It requires a noddy antiquated view of what sovereignty means but nevertheless it's an argument you can make and it was made to great effect.
No, it's anything but meaningless semantics. Votes aren't only won by logic, they're also won by appealing to emotion. That's why "better in than out", although mathematically equivalent to "worse out than in", is much better at winning votes.
The message was better in than out.
But anyway, as explained, Leave had the noddy absolutist case about Sovereignty plus they could promise sunlit uplands (the relative case) plus they could appeal to Little Englander emotion. They had the easier sell but they also did it well. Should have won. Did win.
This "Remain blew it with a crap campaign' is just yet more 'blame Brexit on Remainers' drivel. I'm rather weary of it tbh.
But that’s shite
Cameron confidently boasted to Merkel he would win the referendum “no problem”. Remainers on here gloated that they would win “70/30”. All the pundits polls suggested - at first - that Remain would coast home
If Leave “should have won anyway” all the above makes no sense. But it does make sense because Remain should have won, not Leave
That this result did not occur is because the Remain campaign was poor and the Leave campaign was good, sometimes brilliant
I think the mood was there but not picked up. Eg Cameron, he went the Blair route of succumbing to belief in his own hype as a communicator and winner.
I think Leave did run a better campaign than Remain. But they did have inherent advantages. The big problem for the pro-EUers, then and now, is that it is very difficult to create a positive argument and vision for the EU that chimes with reality and most of the electorate. The vision of a USE is a coherent one but doesn't appeal beyond a small minority.
"We should work closely with our neighbours?" "Sure, but don't non-EU states also do that?"
"It makes better laws than the UK does" "That seems rather anti-British, and I am proud of being British"
"It overcomes the divisions of the world wars" "The division of the last world war is because Germany was run by a genocidal regime, it wasn't the fault of Britain's actions"
"It allows us to travel freely round Europe" "Yeah but it also means anyone from Europe can come here, and I manage to travel to non-EU countries just fine"
The same will be the case in any future Rejoin referemdum.
Exactly. There was no serious mileage in making the idealist EU case. Hence the argument had to be the practical and relative one - we are better off in than out. Which was the argument made. The notion the Remain side missed a trick by not getting pumped up and dewy-eyed over Ode to Joy and a common European identity/vision is horseshit. I'm truly surprised by how often it gets said. Ok, some of it is Leaver gaslighting, and that's easy to spot, but plenty seem to actually believe it.
It's not that Remain missed a trick by failing to make a positive case for EU membership. It's the fact that no positive case was even remotely possible to make, that speaks volumes.
So today we have the leader of the local council, the regional mayor, the local MP and the PM (next door constituency, note reason why treasury is in Darlo) looking at pot holes
Note they are looking at things they have been responsible for at least the last 4 years so surely the photo should be of filled pot holes not pot holes due to lack of money, lack of road maintenance and neglect - given that the local election is a month away.
The photo lends itself to a caption competition, I think. Send to Private Eye for a front cover.
'And if you look really hard, you can see that ant. It's almost as small as Braverman's credibility.'
The latest poll from PeoplePolling has the conservatives on 24%, which is their highest equal rating for this polling company since the special fiscal event in September last year.
That said, the Brexit Party managed 2.1% in 2019 even when standing in less than half the seats (276 out of 650 including NI) because they chose not to contest Conservative held seats in order to get Brexit through. So the starting position, assuming that next time they contest all seats including Conservative ones, is effectively at least double that of 2019, at 4%. Then you need to add in the fact that the vote they got even in the (mainly Labour) seats that they did contest was squeezed tactically by pressure to elect a Brexit-supporting Conservative in often marginal seats, a tactical imperative that has disappeared now Brexit is not in play. And take account too of the massive unpopularity of the Conservatives now compared to then, plus what they may specifically see as "betrayal" of their beloved Johnson, and also the general dissatisfaction at the Conservatives' cock-eyed implementation of Brexit amongst Leave as well as Remain voters.
In those circumstances, I can envisage Reform reaching 6% if not 8%. Roughly 50% up on 2019 levels in the seats they contested in 2019, and polling at a roughly similar level in the then Conservative-held seats that they didn't contest.
The UK joining CPTPP is truly game changing for Brexit. A future Labour government that wanted to join the EU would now have to tear up trade agreements with some of the largest economies in the world. It would be so obviously retreating from global Britain to continental parochialism.
Not really a problem - you point out how little we export/import to xyz and compare that to what we used to sell to say France..
Happily, UK exports are generally in rude health after a dodgy couple of brexit/pandemic years. You can deduct 10 or 20 billion for the unusual amount of Gas & Electricity we sold this year, and it's still true:
Im beginning to warm to Sunak, he;s actually doing useful things
joining the CPTPP is a positive step for the UK
Yes, signing up to a trading block the other side of the world rather than one on one's doorstep makes perfect sense.
Horses for courses
The EU isnt just a trading bloc it is a commitment to a political project. If youre in you take on all the other shit.
CPTPP is just about trading. Suits me.
But there's a terrible price for not being in it.
That was the extent of the Remain campaign's argument in 2016, which is why they lost. And if Rejoiners can't find a better argument, they'll never win.
Mmm, much better off in than out - terrible argument.
The Remain campaign argument wasn't "better in than out", it was "worse out than in". Which is why they lost.
Meaningless semantics. There's no absolute case for EU membership unless you're in the tiny band of USE idealists. The argument for the British public only exists relative to not being a member. And this is - not 'the' but 'a' - reason why Remain lost. Because there IS an absolute case for Leave that could be made in addition to the relative one. I'm talking about the purist case around sovereignty. It requires a noddy antiquated view of what sovereignty means but nevertheless it's an argument you can make and it was made to great effect.
No, it's anything but meaningless semantics. Votes aren't only won by logic, they're also won by appealing to emotion. That's why "better in than out", although mathematically equivalent to "worse out than in", is much better at winning votes.
The message was better in than out.
But anyway, as explained, Leave had the noddy absolutist case about Sovereignty plus they could promise sunlit uplands (the relative case) plus they could appeal to Little Englander emotion. They had the easier sell but they also did it well. Should have won. Did win.
This "Remain blew it with a crap campaign' is just yet more 'blame Brexit on Remainers' drivel. I'm rather weary of it tbh.
But that’s shite
Cameron confidently boasted to Merkel he would win the referendum “no problem”. Remainers on here gloated that they would win “70/30”. All the pundits polls suggested - at first - that Remain would coast home
If Leave “should have won anyway” all the above makes no sense. But it does make sense because Remain should have won, not Leave
That this result did not occur is because the Remain campaign was poor and the Leave campaign was good, sometimes brilliant
I think the mood was there but not picked up. Eg Cameron, he went the Blair route of succumbing to belief in his own hype as a communicator and winner.
I think Leave did run a better campaign than Remain. But they did have inherent advantages. The big problem for the pro-EUers, then and now, is that it is very difficult to create a positive argument and vision for the EU that chimes with reality and most of the electorate. The vision of a USE is a coherent one but doesn't appeal beyond a small minority.
"We should work closely with our neighbours?" "Sure, but don't non-EU states also do that?"
"It makes better laws than the UK does" "That seems rather anti-British, and I am proud of being British"
"It overcomes the divisions of the world wars" "The division of the last world war is because Germany was run by a genocidal regime, it wasn't the fault of Britain's actions"
"It allows us to travel freely round Europe" "Yeah but it also means anyone from Europe can come here, and I manage to travel to non-EU countries just fine"
The same will be the case in any future Rejoin referemdum.
Exactly. There was no serious mileage in making the idealist EU case. Hence the argument had to be the practical and relative one - we are better off in than out. Which was the argument made. The notion the Remain side missed a trick by not getting pumped up and dewy-eyed over Ode to Joy and a common European identity/vision is horseshit. I'm truly surprised by how often it gets said. Ok, some of it is Leaver gaslighting, and that's easy to spot, but plenty seem to actually believe it.
It's not that Remain missed a trick by failing to make a positive case for EU membership. It's the fact that no positive case was even remotely possible to make, that speaks volumes.
That's not entirely fair. There is a positive case to be made for ever-closer union/USE.
So today we have the leader of the local council, the regional mayor, the local MP and the PM (next door constituency, note reason why treasury is in Darlo) looking at pot holes
Note they are looking at things they have been responsible for at least the last 4 years so surely the photo should be of filled pot holes not pot holes due to lack of money, lack of road maintenance and neglect - given that the local election is a month away.
Im beginning to warm to Sunak, he;s actually doing useful things
joining the CPTPP is a positive step for the UK
Yes, signing up to a trading block the other side of the world rather than one on one's doorstep makes perfect sense.
Are you saying we shouldn’t have signed up to CPTPP because we aren’t in the single market? So cut off our noses to spite our faces?
There is no way on earth we could rejoin the single market for some time however hard people close their eyes and wish desperately so again would you rather we hadn’t signed up to make a point?
Also I think it was yesterday or day before where people were moaning about short termism - the CPTPP is a trading block of countries that are likely to grow much faster than Europe and they have China and South Korea in the queue which will enhance it further.
If we hadn’t joined now then in ten years when people are complaining we missed out on this it would have been a wasted opportunity for very little cost - even Minette Batters was approving of it from the farmers angle this morning.
I'd be surprised if there was unanimity to let China in any time soon.
I don't think what's left of the UK car industry would be too pleased with the consequences of tariff free imports from the Chinese megacorps like SAIC, Geely, etc. You'd be able to buy a Trumpchi GS8 for buttons.
We can already buy Chinese-made MGs for buttons. If the west allows China free reign then it will happily supply us *everything*. So TikTok has been declared spyware. Not that big a deal. But what if the laptop I am working on was also found to be Chinese spyware? My router? My keyboard? My car?
The UK has given up on making cars.
I thought we did that one before - vehicle output is down 30-50% from peak across car manufacturing in Europe, including the UK.
The key difference, and the existential threat to the UK car industry, is no-one much is investing in UK vehicle manufacture.
So today we have the leader of the local council, the regional mayor, the local MP and the PM (next door constituency, note reason why treasury is in Darlo) looking at pot holes
Note they are looking at things they have been responsible for at least the last 4 years so surely the photo should be of filled pot holes not pot holes due to lack of money, lack of road maintenance and neglect - given that the local election is a month away.
Local road developed several new large potholes after a particularly heavy period of prolonged rainfall. Have now been filled in, within a fortnight of appearing. We'll see how long the repair lasts - my wife is doubtful - but seems like that's the best you can hope for. It's when you have potholes which have nothing done to them for months on end that it becomes problematic.
So, yes, ideally they should be having a tour of recent potholes that have been filled in.
Im beginning to warm to Sunak, he;s actually doing useful things
joining the CPTPP is a positive step for the UK
Yes, signing up to a trading block the other side of the world rather than one on one's doorstep makes perfect sense.
Horses for courses
The EU isnt just a trading bloc it is a commitment to a political project. If youre in you take on all the other shit.
CPTPP is just about trading. Suits me.
But there's a terrible price for not being in it.
That was the extent of the Remain campaign's argument in 2016, which is why they lost. And if Rejoiners can't find a better argument, they'll never win.
Mmm, much better off in than out - terrible argument.
The Remain campaign argument wasn't "better in than out", it was "worse out than in". Which is why they lost.
Meaningless semantics. There's no absolute case for EU membership unless you're in the tiny band of USE idealists. The argument for the British public only exists relative to not being a member. And this is - not 'the' but 'a' - reason why Remain lost. Because there IS an absolute case for Leave that could be made in addition to the relative one. I'm talking about the purist case around sovereignty. It requires a noddy antiquated view of what sovereignty means but nevertheless it's an argument you can make and it was made to great effect.
No, it's anything but meaningless semantics. Votes aren't only won by logic, they're also won by appealing to emotion. That's why "better in than out", although mathematically equivalent to "worse out than in", is much better at winning votes.
The message was better in than out.
But anyway, as explained, Leave had the noddy absolutist case about Sovereignty plus they could promise sunlit uplands (the relative case) plus they could appeal to Little Englander emotion. They had the easier sell but they also did it well. Should have won. Did win.
This "Remain blew it with a crap campaign' is just yet more 'blame Brexit on Remainers' drivel. I'm rather weary of it tbh.
But that’s shite
Cameron confidently boasted to Merkel he would win the referendum “no problem”. Remainers on here gloated that they would win “70/30”. All the pundits polls suggested - at first - that Remain would coast home
If Leave “should have won anyway” all the above makes no sense. But it does make sense because Remain should have won, not Leave
That this result did not occur is because the Remain campaign was poor and the Leave campaign was good, sometimes brilliant
I think the mood was there but not picked up. Eg Cameron, he went the Blair route of succumbing to belief in his own hype as a communicator and winner.
I think Leave did run a better campaign than Remain. But they did have inherent advantages. The big problem for the pro-EUers, then and now, is that it is very difficult to create a positive argument and vision for the EU that chimes with reality and most of the electorate. The vision of a USE is a coherent one but doesn't appeal beyond a small minority.
"We should work closely with our neighbours?" "Sure, but don't non-EU states also do that?"
"It makes better laws than the UK does" "That seems rather anti-British, and I am proud of being British"
"It overcomes the divisions of the world wars" "The division of the last world war is because Germany was run by a genocidal regime, it wasn't the fault of Britain's actions"
"It allows us to travel freely round Europe" "Yeah but it also means anyone from Europe can come here, and I manage to travel to non-EU countries just fine"
The same will be the case in any future Rejoin referemdum.
Exactly. There was no serious mileage in making the idealist EU case. Hence the argument had to be the practical and relative one - we are better off in than out. Which was the argument made. The notion the Remain side missed a trick by not getting pumped up and dewy-eyed over Ode to Joy and a common European identity/vision is horseshit. I'm truly surprised by how often it gets said. Ok, some of it is Leaver gaslighting, and that's easy to spot, but plenty seem to actually believe it.
This boils down to: if Remain had made an honest case, they would have lost.
Ok I'll bite on this. Saying we should stay in the EU because it's a project for peace in Europe is the mirror image of @MarqueeMark just now saying Brexit was a project for democracy in the UK. Those statements may be true, at least to the extent some people believe them. But they are way too abstract. If you can't point to concrete effects you rightly get derided.
On the tyre-hits -the-road what's-in-it-for-me, Remain have the things they can point to. Membership of the EU made the UK wealthier (and leaving made us poorer) with greater investment, easier and more trade, more influential for the stuff we want, more personal rights. That's why people are disillusioned with what's happening.
So today we have the leader of the local council, the regional mayor, the local MP and the PM (next door constituency, note reason why treasury is in Darlo) looking at pot holes
Note they are looking at things they have been responsible for at least the last 4 years so surely the photo should be of filled pot holes not pot holes due to lack of money, lack of road maintenance and neglect - given that the local election is a month away.
Did that guy on the left cause the potholes?
'That hole on the left, Prime Minister, it's nearly as big as the hole you're in.'
Im beginning to warm to Sunak, he;s actually doing useful things
joining the CPTPP is a positive step for the UK
Yes, signing up to a trading block the other side of the world rather than one on one's doorstep makes perfect sense.
Horses for courses
The EU isnt just a trading bloc it is a commitment to a political project. If youre in you take on all the other shit.
CPTPP is just about trading. Suits me.
But there's a terrible price for not being in it.
That was the extent of the Remain campaign's argument in 2016, which is why they lost. And if Rejoiners can't find a better argument, they'll never win.
Mmm, much better off in than out - terrible argument.
The Remain campaign argument wasn't "better in than out", it was "worse out than in". Which is why they lost.
Meaningless semantics. There's no absolute case for EU membership unless you're in the tiny band of USE idealists. The argument for the British public only exists relative to not being a member. And this is - not 'the' but 'a' - reason why Remain lost. Because there IS an absolute case for Leave that could be made in addition to the relative one. I'm talking about the purist case around sovereignty. It requires a noddy antiquated view of what sovereignty means but nevertheless it's an argument you can make and it was made to great effect.
No, it's anything but meaningless semantics. Votes aren't only won by logic, they're also won by appealing to emotion. That's why "better in than out", although mathematically equivalent to "worse out than in", is much better at winning votes.
The message was better in than out.
But anyway, as explained, Leave had the noddy absolutist case about Sovereignty plus they could promise sunlit uplands (the relative case) plus they could appeal to Little Englander emotion. They had the easier sell but they also did it well. Should have won. Did win.
This "Remain blew it with a crap campaign' is just yet more 'blame Brexit on Remainers' drivel. I'm rather weary of it tbh.
But that’s shite
Cameron confidently boasted to Merkel he would win the referendum “no problem”. Remainers on here gloated that they would win “70/30”. All the pundits polls suggested - at first - that Remain would coast home
If Leave “should have won anyway” all the above makes no sense. But it does make sense because Remain should have won, not Leave
That this result did not occur is because the Remain campaign was poor and the Leave campaign was good, sometimes brilliant
I think the mood was there but not picked up. Eg Cameron, he went the Blair route of succumbing to belief in his own hype as a communicator and winner.
I think Leave did run a better campaign than Remain. But they did have inherent advantages. The big problem for the pro-EUers, then and now, is that it is very difficult to create a positive argument and vision for the EU that chimes with reality and most of the electorate. The vision of a USE is a coherent one but doesn't appeal beyond a small minority.
"We should work closely with our neighbours?" "Sure, but don't non-EU states also do that?"
"It makes better laws than the UK does" "That seems rather anti-British, and I am proud of being British"
"It overcomes the divisions of the world wars" "The division of the last world war is because Germany was run by a genocidal regime, it wasn't the fault of Britain's actions"
"It allows us to travel freely round Europe" "Yeah but it also means anyone from Europe can come here, and I manage to travel to non-EU countries just fine"
The same will be the case in any future Rejoin referemdum.
Exactly. There was no serious mileage in making the idealist EU case. Hence the argument had to be the practical and relative one - we are better off in than out. Which was the argument made. The notion the Remain side missed a trick by not getting pumped up and dewy-eyed over Ode to Joy and a common European identity/vision is horseshit. I'm truly surprised by how often it gets said. Ok, some of it is Leaver gaslighting, and that's easy to spot, but plenty seem to actually believe it.
This boils down to: if Remain had made an honest case, they would have lost.
Ok I'll bite on this. Saying we should stay in the EU because it's a project for peace in Europe is the mirror image of @MarqueeMark just now saying Brexit was a project for democracy in the UK. Those statements may be true, at least to the extent some people believe them. But they are way too abstract. If you can't point to concrete effects you rightly get derided. .
That's true enough - but if the EU has ever closer union leading to USE as an aim, you have to at least acknowledge it. If you're clever you can find a way to sell us being part of a Project that's happening anyway as a positive thing as we can bend it to our needs.
So today we have the leader of the local council, the regional mayor, the local MP and the PM (next door constituency, note reason why treasury is in Darlo) looking at pot holes
Note they are looking at things they have been responsible for at least the last 4 years so surely the photo should be of filled pot holes not pot holes due to lack of money, lack of road maintenance and neglect - given that the local election is a month away.
"My chances of winning in 2024 aren't THAT small, are they???"
I distinctly recall a pb-er telling me, just yesterday, that authoritarian China “won’t be interested in AI like GPT4”
You recall incorrectly. The point is rather that it's possible for them to get cold feet and halt development, if the AI shows signs of not being controllable by the state.
That's just not going to, probably even couldn't, happen in the west.
Of course they are interested, but the incentives are different.
Im beginning to warm to Sunak, he;s actually doing useful things
joining the CPTPP is a positive step for the UK
Yes, signing up to a trading block the other side of the world rather than one on one's doorstep makes perfect sense.
Horses for courses
The EU isnt just a trading bloc it is a commitment to a political project. If youre in you take on all the other shit.
CPTPP is just about trading. Suits me.
But there's a terrible price for not being in it.
That was the extent of the Remain campaign's argument in 2016, which is why they lost. And if Rejoiners can't find a better argument, they'll never win.
Mmm, much better off in than out - terrible argument.
The Remain campaign argument wasn't "better in than out", it was "worse out than in". Which is why they lost.
Meaningless semantics. There's no absolute case for EU membership unless you're in the tiny band of USE idealists. The argument for the British public only exists relative to not being a member. And this is - not 'the' but 'a' - reason why Remain lost. Because there IS an absolute case for Leave that could be made in addition to the relative one. I'm talking about the purist case around sovereignty. It requires a noddy antiquated view of what sovereignty means but nevertheless it's an argument you can make and it was made to great effect.
No, it's anything but meaningless semantics. Votes aren't only won by logic, they're also won by appealing to emotion. That's why "better in than out", although mathematically equivalent to "worse out than in", is much better at winning votes.
The message was better in than out.
No, it really wasn't.
Or, if it was, then the Remain campaign was even more crap that I gave it credit for, because the message heard was "worse out than in". For example, all the discussion I heard in the real world in the months leading up to the referendum was pitched in terms of "are you for or against Brexit?"
And, yes, the Remain campaign's crapness absolutely should be blamed as a major factor for them losing the referendum. They had everything going for them - status quo bias, fear of the unknown, and the government putting their thumbs on the scale just as much as they thought they could get away with. Their failure was immense.
Well of course we got plenty of "are you for or against Brexit?" - Brexit was the proposition. I bet in 1975 we heard lots of "are you for or against joining the Common Market?" in the pubs and clubs and fish markets and factory canteens all over this land (that we love).
Right. But allowing the campaign to be cast in such terms (and Remainers absolutely talked in those terms) rather than "are you for or against being in the EU" was a failure of the Remain campaign as it turned the neutral ballot paper question into one where they had a disadvantage.
You're trolling now. I will talk to you again on something different at a later date when I sense good faith and thinking cap. Look forward to it.
I'm sorry that you don't like losing arguments, but you never have. When you resort to those particular phrases it's a good sign that you've recognised you've lost, even though you can't admit it (perhaps even to yourself).
Nope, sorry, you've 'driven' me away. Least for now and on this. No hard feelings though - and to prove it I have a song for you. To the Bowie tune.
There's a Starmer, waiting in the wings "I'm going to be the PM", in the bath is what he sings There's a Starmer, waiting in the wings There's no way he will blow it, cos his strategy is king, and is Let the Tories lose it, let the Tories lose it, let all the Tories lose it
No, you just made a ridiculous argument, everyone pointed out that you’re wrong, and now you’re whistling a tune as you hasten away
'Everyone' being you and Driver. I like my argument and plenty agree with it. There's no 100% right/wrong on this but what I say has merit.
Good on you. There are plenty on here who just respond and respond endlessly, presumably because they assume that when you eventually tire of replying to what might well in your view be superficial and misleading responses you somehow have conceded their point.
I had one of those on my back yesterday. I just walked away rather than waste time indulging him further. No doubt he thought that silence meant that he had somehow "won" the argument. In reality I just thought that he was being a prize wan**r.
One major difference between 1975 and 2016 was that ‘then’ the Mail in particular was very much pro EEC; 40 years later it was vituperatively against. And it wasn’t the only paper which had changed sides.
Im beginning to warm to Sunak, he;s actually doing useful things
joining the CPTPP is a positive step for the UK
Yes, signing up to a trading block the other side of the world rather than one on one's doorstep makes perfect sense.
Horses for courses
The EU isnt just a trading bloc it is a commitment to a political project. If youre in you take on all the other shit.
CPTPP is just about trading. Suits me.
But there's a terrible price for not being in it.
That was the extent of the Remain campaign's argument in 2016, which is why they lost. And if Rejoiners can't find a better argument, they'll never win.
Mmm, much better off in than out - terrible argument.
The Remain campaign argument wasn't "better in than out", it was "worse out than in". Which is why they lost.
Meaningless semantics. There's no absolute case for EU membership unless you're in the tiny band of USE idealists. The argument for the British public only exists relative to not being a member. And this is - not 'the' but 'a' - reason why Remain lost. Because there IS an absolute case for Leave that could be made in addition to the relative one. I'm talking about the purist case around sovereignty. It requires a noddy antiquated view of what sovereignty means but nevertheless it's an argument you can make and it was made to great effect.
No, it's anything but meaningless semantics. Votes aren't only won by logic, they're also won by appealing to emotion. That's why "better in than out", although mathematically equivalent to "worse out than in", is much better at winning votes.
The message was better in than out.
But anyway, as explained, Leave had the noddy absolutist case about Sovereignty plus they could promise sunlit uplands (the relative case) plus they could appeal to Little Englander emotion. They had the easier sell but they also did it well. Should have won. Did win.
This "Remain blew it with a crap campaign' is just yet more 'blame Brexit on Remainers' drivel. I'm rather weary of it tbh.
But that’s shite
Cameron confidently boasted to Merkel he would win the referendum “no problem”. Remainers on here gloated that they would win “70/30”. All the pundits polls suggested - at first - that Remain would coast home
If Leave “should have won anyway” all the above makes no sense. But it does make sense because Remain should have won, not Leave
That this result did not occur is because the Remain campaign was poor and the Leave campaign was good, sometimes brilliant
I think the mood was there but not picked up. Eg Cameron, he went the Blair route of succumbing to belief in his own hype as a communicator and winner.
I think Leave did run a better campaign than Remain. But they did have inherent advantages. The big problem for the pro-EUers, then and now, is that it is very difficult to create a positive argument and vision for the EU that chimes with reality and most of the electorate. The vision of a USE is a coherent one but doesn't appeal beyond a small minority.
"We should work closely with our neighbours?" "Sure, but don't non-EU states also do that?"
"It makes better laws than the UK does" "That seems rather anti-British, and I am proud of being British"
"It overcomes the divisions of the world wars" "The division of the last world war is because Germany was run by a genocidal regime, it wasn't the fault of Britain's actions"
"It allows us to travel freely round Europe" "Yeah but it also means anyone from Europe can come here, and I manage to travel to non-EU countries just fine"
The same will be the case in any future Rejoin referemdum.
Exactly. There was no serious mileage in making the idealist EU case. Hence the argument had to be the practical and relative one - we are better off in than out. Which was the argument made. The notion the Remain side missed a trick by not getting pumped up and dewy-eyed over Ode to Joy and a common European identity/vision is horseshit. I'm truly surprised by how often it gets said. Ok, some of it is Leaver gaslighting, and that's easy to spot, but plenty seem to actually believe it.
This boils down to: if Remain had made an honest case, they would have lost.
They made a dishonest case, using all the levers of Government - and lost.
Perhaps Remain was just doomed the moment it came up against democracy?
“Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4's capabilities, we believe that it could reasonably be viewed as an early (yet still incomplete) version of an artificial general intelligence (AGI) system.”
So today we have the leader of the local council, the regional mayor, the local MP and the PM (next door constituency, note reason why treasury is in Darlo) looking at pot holes
Note they are looking at things they have been responsible for at least the last 4 years so surely the photo should be of filled pot holes not pot holes due to lack of money, lack of road maintenance and neglect - given that the local election is a month away.
The photo lends itself to a caption competition, I think. Send to Private Eye for a front cover.
If you drill down 8k miles you’ll be able to see one of the countries in the Trans Pacific Partnership.
Im beginning to warm to Sunak, he;s actually doing useful things
joining the CPTPP is a positive step for the UK
Yes, signing up to a trading block the other side of the world rather than one on one's doorstep makes perfect sense.
Horses for courses
The EU isnt just a trading bloc it is a commitment to a political project. If youre in you take on all the other shit.
CPTPP is just about trading. Suits me.
But there's a terrible price for not being in it.
That was the extent of the Remain campaign's argument in 2016, which is why they lost. And if Rejoiners can't find a better argument, they'll never win.
Mmm, much better off in than out - terrible argument.
The Remain campaign argument wasn't "better in than out", it was "worse out than in". Which is why they lost.
Meaningless semantics. There's no absolute case for EU membership unless you're in the tiny band of USE idealists. The argument for the British public only exists relative to not being a member. And this is - not 'the' but 'a' - reason why Remain lost. Because there IS an absolute case for Leave that could be made in addition to the relative one. I'm talking about the purist case around sovereignty. It requires a noddy antiquated view of what sovereignty means but nevertheless it's an argument you can make and it was made to great effect.
No, it's anything but meaningless semantics. Votes aren't only won by logic, they're also won by appealing to emotion. That's why "better in than out", although mathematically equivalent to "worse out than in", is much better at winning votes.
The message was better in than out.
But anyway, as explained, Leave had the noddy absolutist case about Sovereignty plus they could promise sunlit uplands (the relative case) plus they could appeal to Little Englander emotion. They had the easier sell but they also did it well. Should have won. Did win.
This "Remain blew it with a crap campaign' is just yet more 'blame Brexit on Remainers' drivel. I'm rather weary of it tbh.
I'm weary of the 'Remain blew it with a crap campaign' line because it implies Leave knows they only won because they managed a better campaign on the day, but are unable to point to any demonstrable good to have come out of Brexit. Or to put it another way, 'Leave blew it with a really bad idea.'
The "idea" behind Brexit was democracy.
Remainers feel really, really sore because they thought they had right on their side. Right up until the point where democracy said "Nope...." But that is what you get, Remainers, when you spend 40 years shrinking from democracy. And in the process, shrinking democracy.
The great idea behind Brexit was that for the UK, democracy was top trumps to the EU and the technocrats' distaste of asking people what they want. And on that, it has delivered.
I don’t feel that I live in a more ‘democratic’ state, with less technocratic control, now than before. In fact, given the current changes to the system, I think it’s less democratic!
One major difference between 1975 and 2016 was that ‘then’ the Mail in particular was very much pro EEC; 40 years later it was vituperatively against. And it wasn’t the only paper which had changed sides.
Oh, indeed.
But the EEC of 1975 was a very different beast to the EU of 2016.
The UK joining CPTPP is truly game changing for Brexit. A future Labour government that wanted to join the EU would now have to tear up trade agreements with some of the largest economies in the world. It would be so obviously retreating from global Britain to continental parochialism.
So today we have the leader of the local council, the regional mayor, the local MP and the PM (next door constituency, note reason why treasury is in Darlo) looking at pot holes
Note they are looking at things they have been responsible for at least the last 4 years so surely the photo should be of filled pot holes not pot holes due to lack of money, lack of road maintenance and neglect - given that the local election is a month away.
The photo lends itself to a caption competition, I think. Send to Private Eye for a front cover.
If you drill down 8k miles you’ll be able to see one of the countries in the Trans Pacific Partnership.
If you drill down 4,000 km you've got a hole just big enough to bury Donald Trump's ego in.
Im beginning to warm to Sunak, he;s actually doing useful things
joining the CPTPP is a positive step for the UK
Yes, signing up to a trading block the other side of the world rather than one on one's doorstep makes perfect sense.
Horses for courses
The EU isnt just a trading bloc it is a commitment to a political project. If youre in you take on all the other shit.
CPTPP is just about trading. Suits me.
But there's a terrible price for not being in it.
That was the extent of the Remain campaign's argument in 2016, which is why they lost. And if Rejoiners can't find a better argument, they'll never win.
Mmm, much better off in than out - terrible argument.
The Remain campaign argument wasn't "better in than out", it was "worse out than in". Which is why they lost.
Meaningless semantics. There's no absolute case for EU membership unless you're in the tiny band of USE idealists. The argument for the British public only exists relative to not being a member. And this is - not 'the' but 'a' - reason why Remain lost. Because there IS an absolute case for Leave that could be made in addition to the relative one. I'm talking about the purist case around sovereignty. It requires a noddy antiquated view of what sovereignty means but nevertheless it's an argument you can make and it was made to great effect.
No, it's anything but meaningless semantics. Votes aren't only won by logic, they're also won by appealing to emotion. That's why "better in than out", although mathematically equivalent to "worse out than in", is much better at winning votes.
The message was better in than out.
No, it really wasn't.
Or, if it was, then the Remain campaign was even more crap that I gave it credit for, because the message heard was "worse out than in". For example, all the discussion I heard in the real world in the months leading up to the referendum was pitched in terms of "are you for or against Brexit?"
And, yes, the Remain campaign's crapness absolutely should be blamed as a major factor for them losing the referendum. They had everything going for them - status quo bias, fear of the unknown, and the government putting their thumbs on the scale just as much as they thought they could get away with. Their failure was immense.
Well of course we got plenty of "are you for or against Brexit?" - Brexit was the proposition. I bet in 1975 we heard lots of "are you for or against joining the Common Market?" in the pubs and clubs and fish markets and factory canteens all over this land (that we love).
Right. But allowing the campaign to be cast in such terms (and Remainers absolutely talked in those terms) rather than "are you for or against being in the EU" was a failure of the Remain campaign as it turned the neutral ballot paper question into one where they had a disadvantage.
You're trolling now. I will talk to you again on something different at a later date when I sense good faith and thinking cap. Look forward to it.
I'm sorry that you don't like losing arguments, but you never have. When you resort to those particular phrases it's a good sign that you've recognised you've lost, even though you can't admit it (perhaps even to yourself).
Nope, sorry, you've 'driven' me away. Least for now and on this. No hard feelings though - and to prove it I have a song for you. To the Bowie tune.
There's a Starmer, waiting in the wings "I'm going to be the PM", in the bath is what he sings There's a Starmer, waiting in the wings There's no way he will blow it, cos his strategy is king, and is Let the Tories lose it, let the Tories lose it, let all the Tories lose it
No, you just made a ridiculous argument, everyone pointed out that you’re wrong, and now you’re whistling a tune as you hasten away
'Everyone' being you and Driver. I like my argument and plenty agree with it. There's no 100% right/wrong on this but what I say has merit.
Good on you. There are plenty on here who just respond and respond endlessly, presumably because they assume that when you eventually tire of replying to what might well in your view be superficial and misleading responses you somehow have conceded their point.
I had one of those on my back yesterday. I just walked away rather than waste time indulging him further. No doubt he thought that silence meant that he had somehow "won" the argument. In reality I just thought that he was being a prize wan**r.
Did you resort to tired insults when you "walked away"?
Im beginning to warm to Sunak, he;s actually doing useful things
joining the CPTPP is a positive step for the UK
Yes, signing up to a trading block the other side of the world rather than one on one's doorstep makes perfect sense.
Horses for courses
The EU isnt just a trading bloc it is a commitment to a political project. If youre in you take on all the other shit.
CPTPP is just about trading. Suits me.
But there's a terrible price for not being in it.
That was the extent of the Remain campaign's argument in 2016, which is why they lost. And if Rejoiners can't find a better argument, they'll never win.
Mmm, much better off in than out - terrible argument.
The Remain campaign argument wasn't "better in than out", it was "worse out than in". Which is why they lost.
Meaningless semantics. There's no absolute case for EU membership unless you're in the tiny band of USE idealists. The argument for the British public only exists relative to not being a member. And this is - not 'the' but 'a' - reason why Remain lost. Because there IS an absolute case for Leave that could be made in addition to the relative one. I'm talking about the purist case around sovereignty. It requires a noddy antiquated view of what sovereignty means but nevertheless it's an argument you can make and it was made to great effect.
No, it's anything but meaningless semantics. Votes aren't only won by logic, they're also won by appealing to emotion. That's why "better in than out", although mathematically equivalent to "worse out than in", is much better at winning votes.
The message was better in than out.
But anyway, as explained, Leave had the noddy absolutist case about Sovereignty plus they could promise sunlit uplands (the relative case) plus they could appeal to Little Englander emotion. They had the easier sell but they also did it well. Should have won. Did win.
This "Remain blew it with a crap campaign' is just yet more 'blame Brexit on Remainers' drivel. I'm rather weary of it tbh.
But that’s shite
Cameron confidently boasted to Merkel he would win the referendum “no problem”. Remainers on here gloated that they would win “70/30”. All the pundits polls suggested - at first - that Remain would coast home
If Leave “should have won anyway” all the above makes no sense. But it does make sense because Remain should have won, not Leave
That this result did not occur is because the Remain campaign was poor and the Leave campaign was good, sometimes brilliant
I think the mood was there but not picked up. Eg Cameron, he went the Blair route of succumbing to belief in his own hype as a communicator and winner.
I think Leave did run a better campaign than Remain. But they did have inherent advantages. The big problem for the pro-EUers, then and now, is that it is very difficult to create a positive argument and vision for the EU that chimes with reality and most of the electorate. The vision of a USE is a coherent one but doesn't appeal beyond a small minority.
"We should work closely with our neighbours?" "Sure, but don't non-EU states also do that?"
"It makes better laws than the UK does" "That seems rather anti-British, and I am proud of being British"
"It overcomes the divisions of the world wars" "The division of the last world war is because Germany was run by a genocidal regime, it wasn't the fault of Britain's actions"
"It allows us to travel freely round Europe" "Yeah but it also means anyone from Europe can come here, and I manage to travel to non-EU countries just fine"
The same will be the case in any future Rejoin referemdum.
Exactly. There was no serious mileage in making the idealist EU case. Hence the argument had to be the practical and relative one - we are better off in than out. Which was the argument made. The notion the Remain side missed a trick by not getting pumped up and dewy-eyed over Ode to Joy and a common European identity/vision is horseshit. I'm truly surprised by how often it gets said. Ok, some of it is Leaver gaslighting, and that's easy to spot, but plenty seem to actually believe it.
It's not that Remain missed a trick by failing to make a positive case for EU membership. It's the fact that no positive case was even remotely possible to make, that speaks volumes.
The case - sorry to repeat but seems I have to - was that we'd be better off in than out. If people want to talk about where the Remain campaign was hamstrung the following were 2 influential things imo: The Labour leader was to put it mildly lukewarm on EU membership. David Cameron had his eye on Con party management after the Referendum hence punches were pulled when it came to attacking the leading lights of Leave.
Im beginning to warm to Sunak, he;s actually doing useful things
joining the CPTPP is a positive step for the UK
Yes, signing up to a trading block the other side of the world rather than one on one's doorstep makes perfect sense.
Horses for courses
The EU isnt just a trading bloc it is a commitment to a political project. If youre in you take on all the other shit.
CPTPP is just about trading. Suits me.
But there's a terrible price for not being in it.
That was the extent of the Remain campaign's argument in 2016, which is why they lost. And if Rejoiners can't find a better argument, they'll never win.
Mmm, much better off in than out - terrible argument.
The Remain campaign argument wasn't "better in than out", it was "worse out than in". Which is why they lost.
Meaningless semantics. There's no absolute case for EU membership unless you're in the tiny band of USE idealists. The argument for the British public only exists relative to not being a member. And this is - not 'the' but 'a' - reason why Remain lost. Because there IS an absolute case for Leave that could be made in addition to the relative one. I'm talking about the purist case around sovereignty. It requires a noddy antiquated view of what sovereignty means but nevertheless it's an argument you can make and it was made to great effect.
No, it's anything but meaningless semantics. Votes aren't only won by logic, they're also won by appealing to emotion. That's why "better in than out", although mathematically equivalent to "worse out than in", is much better at winning votes.
The message was better in than out.
But anyway, as explained, Leave had the noddy absolutist case about Sovereignty plus they could promise sunlit uplands (the relative case) plus they could appeal to Little Englander emotion. They had the easier sell but they also did it well. Should have won. Did win.
This "Remain blew it with a crap campaign' is just yet more 'blame Brexit on Remainers' drivel. I'm rather weary of it tbh.
But that’s shite
Cameron confidently boasted to Merkel he would win the referendum “no problem”. Remainers on here gloated that they would win “70/30”. All the pundits polls suggested - at first - that Remain would coast home
If Leave “should have won anyway” all the above makes no sense. But it does make sense because Remain should have won, not Leave
That this result did not occur is because the Remain campaign was poor and the Leave campaign was good, sometimes brilliant
I think the mood was there but not picked up. Eg Cameron, he went the Blair route of succumbing to belief in his own hype as a communicator and winner.
I think Leave did run a better campaign than Remain. But they did have inherent advantages. The big problem for the pro-EUers, then and now, is that it is very difficult to create a positive argument and vision for the EU that chimes with reality and most of the electorate. The vision of a USE is a coherent one but doesn't appeal beyond a small minority.
"We should work closely with our neighbours?" "Sure, but don't non-EU states also do that?"
"It makes better laws than the UK does" "That seems rather anti-British, and I am proud of being British"
"It overcomes the divisions of the world wars" "The division of the last world war is because Germany was run by a genocidal regime, it wasn't the fault of Britain's actions"
"It allows us to travel freely round Europe" "Yeah but it also means anyone from Europe can come here, and I manage to travel to non-EU countries just fine"
The same will be the case in any future Rejoin referemdum.
Exactly. There was no serious mileage in making the idealist EU case. Hence the argument had to be the practical and relative one - we are better off in than out. Which was the argument made. The notion the Remain side missed a trick by not getting pumped up and dewy-eyed over Ode to Joy and a common European identity/vision is horseshit. I'm truly surprised by how often it gets said. Ok, some of it is Leaver gaslighting, and that's easy to spot, but plenty seem to actually believe it.
It's not that Remain missed a trick by failing to make a positive case for EU membership. It's the fact that no positive case was even remotely possible to make, that speaks volumes.
That's not entirely fair. There is a positive case to be made for ever-closer union/USE.
Indeed. I could be persuaded, emotionally, by a USE argument. This was one of my favourite card games when I was small.
Imagine this as your home country. And there is something emotionally satisfying about your home country being a big one: about Granada being home, and Stockholm being home, and Bruges being home, and Venice being home. Ladies and gentlemen, THIS IS MY COUNTRY.
(Of course, the reality is much more prosaic: Emotional remainers often fall into the trap of comparing the lovely bits of the continent where they go on holiday to the workaday towns of Britain: Venice vs Grimsby; Nice vs Workington, etc. But Britain has its gems, and Europe its unlovely spots. But still.)
Leave for me was head ruling heart - however much I want the EU to be any good, it isn't.
I distinctly recall a pb-er telling me, just yesterday, that authoritarian China “won’t be interested in AI like GPT4”
You recall incorrectly. The point is rather that it's possible for them to get cold feet and halt development, if the AI shows signs of not being controllable by the state.
That's just not going to, probably even couldn't, happen in the west.
Of course they are interested, but the incentives are different.
Hmm. That’s not quite how I recall our debate. And didn’t you change your mind and say I was right anyway?
Besides, the larger point is good. This tech will not be stopped for myriad reasons. Just one of them is China’s desperate need to catch up with the USA. Because they realise this tech is so important. “Bigger than the internet”
Im beginning to warm to Sunak, he;s actually doing useful things
joining the CPTPP is a positive step for the UK
Yes, signing up to a trading block the other side of the world rather than one on one's doorstep makes perfect sense.
Horses for courses
The EU isnt just a trading bloc it is a commitment to a political project. If youre in you take on all the other shit.
CPTPP is just about trading. Suits me.
But there's a terrible price for not being in it.
That was the extent of the Remain campaign's argument in 2016, which is why they lost. And if Rejoiners can't find a better argument, they'll never win.
Mmm, much better off in than out - terrible argument.
The Remain campaign argument wasn't "better in than out", it was "worse out than in". Which is why they lost.
Meaningless semantics. There's no absolute case for EU membership unless you're in the tiny band of USE idealists. The argument for the British public only exists relative to not being a member. And this is - not 'the' but 'a' - reason why Remain lost. Because there IS an absolute case for Leave that could be made in addition to the relative one. I'm talking about the purist case around sovereignty. It requires a noddy antiquated view of what sovereignty means but nevertheless it's an argument you can make and it was made to great effect.
No, it's anything but meaningless semantics. Votes aren't only won by logic, they're also won by appealing to emotion. That's why "better in than out", although mathematically equivalent to "worse out than in", is much better at winning votes.
The message was better in than out.
But anyway, as explained, Leave had the noddy absolutist case about Sovereignty plus they could promise sunlit uplands (the relative case) plus they could appeal to Little Englander emotion. They had the easier sell but they also did it well. Should have won. Did win.
This "Remain blew it with a crap campaign' is just yet more 'blame Brexit on Remainers' drivel. I'm rather weary of it tbh.
But that’s shite
Cameron confidently boasted to Merkel he would win the referendum “no problem”. Remainers on here gloated that they would win “70/30”. All the pundits polls suggested - at first - that Remain would coast home
If Leave “should have won anyway” all the above makes no sense. But it does make sense because Remain should have won, not Leave
That this result did not occur is because the Remain campaign was poor and the Leave campaign was good, sometimes brilliant
I think the mood was there but not picked up. Eg Cameron, he went the Blair route of succumbing to belief in his own hype as a communicator and winner.
I think Leave did run a better campaign than Remain. But they did have inherent advantages. The big problem for the pro-EUers, then and now, is that it is very difficult to create a positive argument and vision for the EU that chimes with reality and most of the electorate. The vision of a USE is a coherent one but doesn't appeal beyond a small minority.
"We should work closely with our neighbours?" "Sure, but don't non-EU states also do that?"
"It makes better laws than the UK does" "That seems rather anti-British, and I am proud of being British"
"It overcomes the divisions of the world wars" "The division of the last world war is because Germany was run by a genocidal regime, it wasn't the fault of Britain's actions"
"It allows us to travel freely round Europe" "Yeah but it also means anyone from Europe can come here, and I manage to travel to non-EU countries just fine"
The same will be the case in any future Rejoin referemdum.
Exactly. There was no serious mileage in making the idealist EU case. Hence the argument had to be the practical and relative one - we are better off in than out. Which was the argument made. The notion the Remain side missed a trick by not getting pumped up and dewy-eyed over Ode to Joy and a common European identity/vision is horseshit. I'm truly surprised by how often it gets said. Ok, some of it is Leaver gaslighting, and that's easy to spot, but plenty seem to actually believe it.
It's not that Remain missed a trick by failing to make a positive case for EU membership. It's the fact that no positive case was even remotely possible to make, that speaks volumes.
The case - sorry to repeat but seems I have to - was that we'd be better off in than out. If people want to talk about where the Remain campaign was hamstrung the following were 2 influential things imo: The Labour leader was to put it mildly lukewarm on EU membership. David Cameron had his eye on Con party management after the Referendum hence punches were pulled when it came to attacking the leading lights of Leave.
I don't recall *many* punches being pulled by Cameron. I recall him acting like a right twat, to be honest. I lost a lot of respect for him that campaign.
You're right about Corbyn, though. His presence was a wildcard in all sorts of ways.
Remain also had the images of mass immigration to the continent which was on a bit of a roll in 2016 to contend with, and the behaviour of the immigrants from the Middle East in cities like Cologne. That played into leave's hands rather.
Im beginning to warm to Sunak, he;s actually doing useful things
joining the CPTPP is a positive step for the UK
Yes, signing up to a trading block the other side of the world rather than one on one's doorstep makes perfect sense.
Horses for courses
The EU isnt just a trading bloc it is a commitment to a political project. If youre in you take on all the other shit.
CPTPP is just about trading. Suits me.
But there's a terrible price for not being in it.
That was the extent of the Remain campaign's argument in 2016, which is why they lost. And if Rejoiners can't find a better argument, they'll never win.
Mmm, much better off in than out - terrible argument.
The Remain campaign argument wasn't "better in than out", it was "worse out than in". Which is why they lost.
Meaningless semantics. There's no absolute case for EU membership unless you're in the tiny band of USE idealists. The argument for the British public only exists relative to not being a member. And this is - not 'the' but 'a' - reason why Remain lost. Because there IS an absolute case for Leave that could be made in addition to the relative one. I'm talking about the purist case around sovereignty. It requires a noddy antiquated view of what sovereignty means but nevertheless it's an argument you can make and it was made to great effect.
No, it's anything but meaningless semantics. Votes aren't only won by logic, they're also won by appealing to emotion. That's why "better in than out", although mathematically equivalent to "worse out than in", is much better at winning votes.
The message was better in than out.
No, it really wasn't.
Or, if it was, then the Remain campaign was even more crap that I gave it credit for, because the message heard was "worse out than in". For example, all the discussion I heard in the real world in the months leading up to the referendum was pitched in terms of "are you for or against Brexit?"
And, yes, the Remain campaign's crapness absolutely should be blamed as a major factor for them losing the referendum. They had everything going for them - status quo bias, fear of the unknown, and the government putting their thumbs on the scale just as much as they thought they could get away with. Their failure was immense.
Well of course we got plenty of "are you for or against Brexit?" - Brexit was the proposition. I bet in 1975 we heard lots of "are you for or against joining the Common Market?" in the pubs and clubs and fish markets and factory canteens all over this land (that we love).
Right. But allowing the campaign to be cast in such terms (and Remainers absolutely talked in those terms) rather than "are you for or against being in the EU" was a failure of the Remain campaign as it turned the neutral ballot paper question into one where they had a disadvantage.
You're trolling now. I will talk to you again on something different at a later date when I sense good faith and thinking cap. Look forward to it.
I'm sorry that you don't like losing arguments, but you never have. When you resort to those particular phrases it's a good sign that you've recognised you've lost, even though you can't admit it (perhaps even to yourself).
Nope, sorry, you've 'driven' me away. Least for now and on this. No hard feelings though - and to prove it I have a song for you. To the Bowie tune.
There's a Starmer, waiting in the wings "I'm going to be the PM", in the bath is what he sings There's a Starmer, waiting in the wings There's no way he will blow it, cos his strategy is king, and is Let the Tories lose it, let the Tories lose it, let all the Tories lose it
No, you just made a ridiculous argument, everyone pointed out that you’re wrong, and now you’re whistling a tune as you hasten away
'Everyone' being you and Driver. I like my argument and plenty agree with it. There's no 100% right/wrong on this but what I say has merit.
Good on you. There are plenty on here who just respond and respond endlessly, presumably because they assume that when you eventually tire of replying to what might well in your view be superficial and misleading responses you somehow have conceded their point.
I had one of those on my back yesterday. I just walked away rather than waste time indulging him further. No doubt he thought that silence meant that he had somehow "won" the argument. In reality I just thought that he was being a prize wan**r.
Ah missed that. Been up in the Red Wall. Sensed no great love for this Tory government up there either btw.
Im beginning to warm to Sunak, he;s actually doing useful things
joining the CPTPP is a positive step for the UK
Yes, signing up to a trading block the other side of the world rather than one on one's doorstep makes perfect sense.
Horses for courses
The EU isnt just a trading bloc it is a commitment to a political project. If youre in you take on all the other shit.
CPTPP is just about trading. Suits me.
But there's a terrible price for not being in it.
That was the extent of the Remain campaign's argument in 2016, which is why they lost. And if Rejoiners can't find a better argument, they'll never win.
Mmm, much better off in than out - terrible argument.
The Remain campaign argument wasn't "better in than out", it was "worse out than in". Which is why they lost.
Meaningless semantics. There's no absolute case for EU membership unless you're in the tiny band of USE idealists. The argument for the British public only exists relative to not being a member. And this is - not 'the' but 'a' - reason why Remain lost. Because there IS an absolute case for Leave that could be made in addition to the relative one. I'm talking about the purist case around sovereignty. It requires a noddy antiquated view of what sovereignty means but nevertheless it's an argument you can make and it was made to great effect.
No, it's anything but meaningless semantics. Votes aren't only won by logic, they're also won by appealing to emotion. That's why "better in than out", although mathematically equivalent to "worse out than in", is much better at winning votes.
The message was better in than out.
But anyway, as explained, Leave had the noddy absolutist case about Sovereignty plus they could promise sunlit uplands (the relative case) plus they could appeal to Little Englander emotion. They had the easier sell but they also did it well. Should have won. Did win.
This "Remain blew it with a crap campaign' is just yet more 'blame Brexit on Remainers' drivel. I'm rather weary of it tbh.
But that’s shite
Cameron confidently boasted to Merkel he would win the referendum “no problem”. Remainers on here gloated that they would win “70/30”. All the pundits polls suggested - at first - that Remain would coast home
If Leave “should have won anyway” all the above makes no sense. But it does make sense because Remain should have won, not Leave
That this result did not occur is because the Remain campaign was poor and the Leave campaign was good, sometimes brilliant
I think the mood was there but not picked up. Eg Cameron, he went the Blair route of succumbing to belief in his own hype as a communicator and winner.
I think Leave did run a better campaign than Remain. But they did have inherent advantages. The big problem for the pro-EUers, then and now, is that it is very difficult to create a positive argument and vision for the EU that chimes with reality and most of the electorate. The vision of a USE is a coherent one but doesn't appeal beyond a small minority.
"We should work closely with our neighbours?" "Sure, but don't non-EU states also do that?"
"It makes better laws than the UK does" "That seems rather anti-British, and I am proud of being British"
"It overcomes the divisions of the world wars" "The division of the last world war is because Germany was run by a genocidal regime, it wasn't the fault of Britain's actions"
"It allows us to travel freely round Europe" "Yeah but it also means anyone from Europe can come here, and I manage to travel to non-EU countries just fine"
The same will be the case in any future Rejoin referemdum.
Exactly. There was no serious mileage in making the idealist EU case. Hence the argument had to be the practical and relative one - we are better off in than out. Which was the argument made. The notion the Remain side missed a trick by not getting pumped up and dewy-eyed over Ode to Joy and a common European identity/vision is horseshit. I'm truly surprised by how often it gets said. Ok, some of it is Leaver gaslighting, and that's easy to spot, but plenty seem to actually believe it.
It's not that Remain missed a trick by failing to make a positive case for EU membership. It's the fact that no positive case was even remotely possible to make, that speaks volumes.
That's not entirely fair. There is a positive case to be made for ever-closer union/USE.
Indeed. I could be persuaded, emotionally, by a USE argument. This was one of my favourite card games when I was small.
Imagine this as your home country. And there is something emotionally satisfying about your home country being a big one: about Granada being home, and Stockholm being home, and Bruges being home, and Venice being home. Ladies and gentlemen, THIS IS MY COUNTRY.
(Of course, the reality is much more prosaic: Emotional remainers often fall into the trap of comparing the lovely bits of the continent where they go on holiday to the workaday towns of Britain: Venice vs Grimsby; Nice vs Workington, etc. But Britain has its gems, and Europe its unlovely spots. But still.)
Leave for me was head ruling heart - however much I want the EU to be any good, it isn't.
I have worked in some total shitholes in France. Peter Mayle should be prosecuted for false representation,
Im beginning to warm to Sunak, he;s actually doing useful things
joining the CPTPP is a positive step for the UK
Yes, signing up to a trading block the other side of the world rather than one on one's doorstep makes perfect sense.
Horses for courses
The EU isnt just a trading bloc it is a commitment to a political project. If youre in you take on all the other shit.
CPTPP is just about trading. Suits me.
But there's a terrible price for not being in it.
That was the extent of the Remain campaign's argument in 2016, which is why they lost. And if Rejoiners can't find a better argument, they'll never win.
Mmm, much better off in than out - terrible argument.
The Remain campaign argument wasn't "better in than out", it was "worse out than in". Which is why they lost.
Meaningless semantics. There's no absolute case for EU membership unless you're in the tiny band of USE idealists. The argument for the British public only exists relative to not being a member. And this is - not 'the' but 'a' - reason why Remain lost. Because there IS an absolute case for Leave that could be made in addition to the relative one. I'm talking about the purist case around sovereignty. It requires a noddy antiquated view of what sovereignty means but nevertheless it's an argument you can make and it was made to great effect.
No, it's anything but meaningless semantics. Votes aren't only won by logic, they're also won by appealing to emotion. That's why "better in than out", although mathematically equivalent to "worse out than in", is much better at winning votes.
The message was better in than out.
No, it really wasn't.
Or, if it was, then the Remain campaign was even more crap that I gave it credit for, because the message heard was "worse out than in". For example, all the discussion I heard in the real world in the months leading up to the referendum was pitched in terms of "are you for or against Brexit?"
And, yes, the Remain campaign's crapness absolutely should be blamed as a major factor for them losing the referendum. They had everything going for them - status quo bias, fear of the unknown, and the government putting their thumbs on the scale just as much as they thought they could get away with. Their failure was immense.
Well of course we got plenty of "are you for or against Brexit?" - Brexit was the proposition. I bet in 1975 we heard lots of "are you for or against joining the Common Market?" in the pubs and clubs and fish markets and factory canteens all over this land (that we love).
Right. But allowing the campaign to be cast in such terms (and Remainers absolutely talked in those terms) rather than "are you for or against being in the EU" was a failure of the Remain campaign as it turned the neutral ballot paper question into one where they had a disadvantage.
You're trolling now. I will talk to you again on something different at a later date when I sense good faith and thinking cap. Look forward to it.
I'm sorry that you don't like losing arguments, but you never have. When you resort to those particular phrases it's a good sign that you've recognised you've lost, even though you can't admit it (perhaps even to yourself).
Nope, sorry, you've 'driven' me away. Least for now and on this. No hard feelings though - and to prove it I have a song for you. To the Bowie tune.
There's a Starmer, waiting in the wings "I'm going to be the PM", in the bath is what he sings There's a Starmer, waiting in the wings There's no way he will blow it, cos his strategy is king, and is Let the Tories lose it, let the Tories lose it, let all the Tories lose it
No, you just made a ridiculous argument, everyone pointed out that you’re wrong, and now you’re whistling a tune as you hasten away
'Everyone' being you and Driver. I like my argument and plenty agree with it. There's no 100% right/wrong on this but what I say has merit.
Good on you. There are plenty on here who just respond and respond endlessly, presumably because they assume that when you eventually tire of replying to what might well in your view be superficial and misleading responses you somehow have conceded their point.
I had one of those on my back yesterday. I just walked away rather than waste time indulging him further. No doubt he thought that silence meant that he had somehow "won" the argument. In reality I just thought that he was being a prize wan**r.
Ah missed that. Been up in the Red Wall. Sensed no great love for this Tory government up there either btw.
Ive just finished 3 years working in Stoke, nobody wanted Labour either.
Im beginning to warm to Sunak, he;s actually doing useful things
joining the CPTPP is a positive step for the UK
Yes, signing up to a trading block the other side of the world rather than one on one's doorstep makes perfect sense.
Horses for courses
The EU isnt just a trading bloc it is a commitment to a political project. If youre in you take on all the other shit.
CPTPP is just about trading. Suits me.
But there's a terrible price for not being in it.
That was the extent of the Remain campaign's argument in 2016, which is why they lost. And if Rejoiners can't find a better argument, they'll never win.
Mmm, much better off in than out - terrible argument.
The Remain campaign argument wasn't "better in than out", it was "worse out than in". Which is why they lost.
Meaningless semantics. There's no absolute case for EU membership unless you're in the tiny band of USE idealists. The argument for the British public only exists relative to not being a member. And this is - not 'the' but 'a' - reason why Remain lost. Because there IS an absolute case for Leave that could be made in addition to the relative one. I'm talking about the purist case around sovereignty. It requires a noddy antiquated view of what sovereignty means but nevertheless it's an argument you can make and it was made to great effect.
No, it's anything but meaningless semantics. Votes aren't only won by logic, they're also won by appealing to emotion. That's why "better in than out", although mathematically equivalent to "worse out than in", is much better at winning votes.
The message was better in than out.
But anyway, as explained, Leave had the noddy absolutist case about Sovereignty plus they could promise sunlit uplands (the relative case) plus they could appeal to Little Englander emotion. They had the easier sell but they also did it well. Should have won. Did win.
This "Remain blew it with a crap campaign' is just yet more 'blame Brexit on Remainers' drivel. I'm rather weary of it tbh.
But that’s shite
Cameron confidently boasted to Merkel he would win the referendum “no problem”. Remainers on here gloated that they would win “70/30”. All the pundits polls suggested - at first - that Remain would coast home
If Leave “should have won anyway” all the above makes no sense. But it does make sense because Remain should have won, not Leave
That this result did not occur is because the Remain campaign was poor and the Leave campaign was good, sometimes brilliant
I think the mood was there but not picked up. Eg Cameron, he went the Blair route of succumbing to belief in his own hype as a communicator and winner.
I think Leave did run a better campaign than Remain. But they did have inherent advantages. The big problem for the pro-EUers, then and now, is that it is very difficult to create a positive argument and vision for the EU that chimes with reality and most of the electorate. The vision of a USE is a coherent one but doesn't appeal beyond a small minority.
"We should work closely with our neighbours?" "Sure, but don't non-EU states also do that?"
"It makes better laws than the UK does" "That seems rather anti-British, and I am proud of being British"
"It overcomes the divisions of the world wars" "The division of the last world war is because Germany was run by a genocidal regime, it wasn't the fault of Britain's actions"
"It allows us to travel freely round Europe" "Yeah but it also means anyone from Europe can come here, and I manage to travel to non-EU countries just fine"
The same will be the case in any future Rejoin referemdum.
Exactly. There was no serious mileage in making the idealist EU case. Hence the argument had to be the practical and relative one - we are better off in than out. Which was the argument made. The notion the Remain side missed a trick by not getting pumped up and dewy-eyed over Ode to Joy and a common European identity/vision is horseshit. I'm truly surprised by how often it gets said. Ok, some of it is Leaver gaslighting, and that's easy to spot, but plenty seem to actually believe it.
It's not that Remain missed a trick by failing to make a positive case for EU membership. It's the fact that no positive case was even remotely possible to make, that speaks volumes.
That's not entirely fair. There is a positive case to be made for ever-closer union/USE.
Indeed. I could be persuaded, emotionally, by a USE argument. This was one of my favourite card games when I was small.
Imagine this as your home country. And there is something emotionally satisfying about your home country being a big one: about Granada being home, and Stockholm being home, and Bruges being home, and Venice being home. Ladies and gentlemen, THIS IS MY COUNTRY.
(Of course, the reality is much more prosaic: Emotional remainers often fall into the trap of comparing the lovely bits of the continent where they go on holiday to the workaday towns of Britain: Venice vs Grimsby; Nice vs Workington, etc. But Britain has its gems, and Europe its unlovely spots. But still.)
Leave for me was head ruling heart - however much I want the EU to be any good, it isn't.
Exactly my feelings. The remain argument that might have won me over is the full fat United States of Europe. A magnificent beautiful superpower - with proper democracy and shared military. An elected President. A glorious federation stretching from the Finnish forests to the Hebridean islands, from the streets of Seville to the temples of Greece. And with its natural world city in London
But that EU doesn’t and probably can’t exist. No demos
Im beginning to warm to Sunak, he;s actually doing useful things
joining the CPTPP is a positive step for the UK
Yes, signing up to a trading block the other side of the world rather than one on one's doorstep makes perfect sense.
Horses for courses
The EU isnt just a trading bloc it is a commitment to a political project. If youre in you take on all the other shit.
CPTPP is just about trading. Suits me.
But there's a terrible price for not being in it.
That was the extent of the Remain campaign's argument in 2016, which is why they lost. And if Rejoiners can't find a better argument, they'll never win.
Mmm, much better off in than out - terrible argument.
The Remain campaign argument wasn't "better in than out", it was "worse out than in". Which is why they lost.
Meaningless semantics. There's no absolute case for EU membership unless you're in the tiny band of USE idealists. The argument for the British public only exists relative to not being a member. And this is - not 'the' but 'a' - reason why Remain lost. Because there IS an absolute case for Leave that could be made in addition to the relative one. I'm talking about the purist case around sovereignty. It requires a noddy antiquated view of what sovereignty means but nevertheless it's an argument you can make and it was made to great effect.
No, it's anything but meaningless semantics. Votes aren't only won by logic, they're also won by appealing to emotion. That's why "better in than out", although mathematically equivalent to "worse out than in", is much better at winning votes.
The message was better in than out.
But anyway, as explained, Leave had the noddy absolutist case about Sovereignty plus they could promise sunlit uplands (the relative case) plus they could appeal to Little Englander emotion. They had the easier sell but they also did it well. Should have won. Did win.
This "Remain blew it with a crap campaign' is just yet more 'blame Brexit on Remainers' drivel. I'm rather weary of it tbh.
I'm weary of the 'Remain blew it with a crap campaign' line because it implies Leave knows they only won because they managed a better campaign on the day, but are unable to point to any demonstrable good to have come out of Brexit. Or to put it another way, 'Leave blew it with a really bad idea.'
The "idea" behind Brexit was democracy.
Remainers feel really, really sore because they thought they had right on their side. Right up until the point where democracy said "Nope...." But that is what you get, Remainers, when you spend 40 years shrinking from democracy. And in the process, shrinking democracy.
The great idea behind Brexit was that for the UK, democracy was top trumps to the EU and the technocrats' distaste of asking people what they want. And on that, it has delivered.
I don’t feel that I live in a more ‘democratic’ state, with less technocratic control, now than before. In fact, given the current changes to the system, I think it’s less democratic!
Then vote them out.
Try doing that with the technocrats....
The whole point of the changes is to make it difficult to do that!
Im beginning to warm to Sunak, he;s actually doing useful things
joining the CPTPP is a positive step for the UK
Yes, signing up to a trading block the other side of the world rather than one on one's doorstep makes perfect sense.
Horses for courses
The EU isnt just a trading bloc it is a commitment to a political project. If youre in you take on all the other shit.
CPTPP is just about trading. Suits me.
But there's a terrible price for not being in it.
That was the extent of the Remain campaign's argument in 2016, which is why they lost. And if Rejoiners can't find a better argument, they'll never win.
Mmm, much better off in than out - terrible argument.
The Remain campaign argument wasn't "better in than out", it was "worse out than in". Which is why they lost.
Meaningless semantics. There's no absolute case for EU membership unless you're in the tiny band of USE idealists. The argument for the British public only exists relative to not being a member. And this is - not 'the' but 'a' - reason why Remain lost. Because there IS an absolute case for Leave that could be made in addition to the relative one. I'm talking about the purist case around sovereignty. It requires a noddy antiquated view of what sovereignty means but nevertheless it's an argument you can make and it was made to great effect.
No, it's anything but meaningless semantics. Votes aren't only won by logic, they're also won by appealing to emotion. That's why "better in than out", although mathematically equivalent to "worse out than in", is much better at winning votes.
The message was better in than out.
No, it really wasn't.
Or, if it was, then the Remain campaign was even more crap that I gave it credit for, because the message heard was "worse out than in". For example, all the discussion I heard in the real world in the months leading up to the referendum was pitched in terms of "are you for or against Brexit?"
And, yes, the Remain campaign's crapness absolutely should be blamed as a major factor for them losing the referendum. They had everything going for them - status quo bias, fear of the unknown, and the government putting their thumbs on the scale just as much as they thought they could get away with. Their failure was immense.
Well of course we got plenty of "are you for or against Brexit?" - Brexit was the proposition. I bet in 1975 we heard lots of "are you for or against joining the Common Market?" in the pubs and clubs and fish markets and factory canteens all over this land (that we love).
Right. But allowing the campaign to be cast in such terms (and Remainers absolutely talked in those terms) rather than "are you for or against being in the EU" was a failure of the Remain campaign as it turned the neutral ballot paper question into one where they had a disadvantage.
You're trolling now. I will talk to you again on something different at a later date when I sense good faith and thinking cap. Look forward to it.
I'm sorry that you don't like losing arguments, but you never have. When you resort to those particular phrases it's a good sign that you've recognised you've lost, even though you can't admit it (perhaps even to yourself).
Nope, sorry, you've 'driven' me away. Least for now and on this. No hard feelings though - and to prove it I have a song for you. To the Bowie tune.
There's a Starmer, waiting in the wings "I'm going to be the PM", in the bath is what he sings There's a Starmer, waiting in the wings There's no way he will blow it, cos his strategy is king, and is Let the Tories lose it, let the Tories lose it, let all the Tories lose it
No, you just made a ridiculous argument, everyone pointed out that you’re wrong, and now you’re whistling a tune as you hasten away
'Everyone' being you and Driver. I like my argument and plenty agree with it. There's no 100% right/wrong on this but what I say has merit.
Good on you. There are plenty on here who just respond and respond endlessly, presumably because they assume that when you eventually tire of replying to what might well in your view be superficial and misleading responses you somehow have conceded their point.
I had one of those on my back yesterday. I just walked away rather than waste time indulging him further. No doubt he thought that silence meant that he had somehow "won" the argument. In reality I just thought that he was being a prize wan**r.
Ah missed that. Been up in the Red Wall. Sensed no great love for this Tory government up there either btw.
Ive just finished 3 years working in Stoke, nobody wanted Labour either.
Well Stoke is Stoke. Totally unique place that can't be pigeon-holed as part of anybody's 'wall'. I can see it being GE24's Putney.
So today we have the leader of the local council, the regional mayor, the local MP and the PM (next door constituency, note reason why treasury is in Darlo) looking at pot holes
Note they are looking at things they have been responsible for at least the last 4 years so surely the photo should be of filled pot holes not pot holes due to lack of money, lack of road maintenance and neglect - given that the local election is a month away.
That's not a pot hole. You should come around my way to see real pot holes. They have started putting cones in them on our roads and they are starting to disappear down the holes. I've already had the council pay for one tyre replacement.
Im beginning to warm to Sunak, he;s actually doing useful things
joining the CPTPP is a positive step for the UK
Yes, signing up to a trading block the other side of the world rather than one on one's doorstep makes perfect sense.
Horses for courses
The EU isnt just a trading bloc it is a commitment to a political project. If youre in you take on all the other shit.
CPTPP is just about trading. Suits me.
But there's a terrible price for not being in it.
That was the extent of the Remain campaign's argument in 2016, which is why they lost. And if Rejoiners can't find a better argument, they'll never win.
Mmm, much better off in than out - terrible argument.
The Remain campaign argument wasn't "better in than out", it was "worse out than in". Which is why they lost.
Meaningless semantics. There's no absolute case for EU membership unless you're in the tiny band of USE idealists. The argument for the British public only exists relative to not being a member. And this is - not 'the' but 'a' - reason why Remain lost. Because there IS an absolute case for Leave that could be made in addition to the relative one. I'm talking about the purist case around sovereignty. It requires a noddy antiquated view of what sovereignty means but nevertheless it's an argument you can make and it was made to great effect.
No, it's anything but meaningless semantics. Votes aren't only won by logic, they're also won by appealing to emotion. That's why "better in than out", although mathematically equivalent to "worse out than in", is much better at winning votes.
The message was better in than out.
But anyway, as explained, Leave had the noddy absolutist case about Sovereignty plus they could promise sunlit uplands (the relative case) plus they could appeal to Little Englander emotion. They had the easier sell but they also did it well. Should have won. Did win.
This "Remain blew it with a crap campaign' is just yet more 'blame Brexit on Remainers' drivel. I'm rather weary of it tbh.
But that’s shite
Cameron confidently boasted to Merkel he would win the referendum “no problem”. Remainers on here gloated that they would win “70/30”. All the pundits polls suggested - at first - that Remain would coast home
If Leave “should have won anyway” all the above makes no sense. But it does make sense because Remain should have won, not Leave
That this result did not occur is because the Remain campaign was poor and the Leave campaign was good, sometimes brilliant
I think the mood was there but not picked up. Eg Cameron, he went the Blair route of succumbing to belief in his own hype as a communicator and winner.
I think Leave did run a better campaign than Remain. But they did have inherent advantages. The big problem for the pro-EUers, then and now, is that it is very difficult to create a positive argument and vision for the EU that chimes with reality and most of the electorate. The vision of a USE is a coherent one but doesn't appeal beyond a small minority.
"We should work closely with our neighbours?" "Sure, but don't non-EU states also do that?"
"It makes better laws than the UK does" "That seems rather anti-British, and I am proud of being British"
"It overcomes the divisions of the world wars" "The division of the last world war is because Germany was run by a genocidal regime, it wasn't the fault of Britain's actions"
"It allows us to travel freely round Europe" "Yeah but it also means anyone from Europe can come here, and I manage to travel to non-EU countries just fine"
The same will be the case in any future Rejoin referemdum.
Exactly. There was no serious mileage in making the idealist EU case. Hence the argument had to be the practical and relative one - we are better off in than out. Which was the argument made. The notion the Remain side missed a trick by not getting pumped up and dewy-eyed over Ode to Joy and a common European identity/vision is horseshit. I'm truly surprised by how often it gets said. Ok, some of it is Leaver gaslighting, and that's easy to spot, but plenty seem to actually believe it.
It's not that Remain missed a trick by failing to make a positive case for EU membership. It's the fact that no positive case was even remotely possible to make, that speaks volumes.
The case - sorry to repeat but seems I have to - was that we'd be better off in than out. If people want to talk about where the Remain campaign was hamstrung the following were 2 influential things imo: The Labour leader was to put it mildly lukewarm on EU membership. David Cameron had his eye on Con party management after the Referendum hence punches were pulled when it came to attacking the leading lights of Leave.
I don't recall *many* punches being pulled by Cameron. I recall him acting like a right twat, to be honest. I lost a lot of respect for him that campaign.
You're right about Corbyn, though. His presence was a wildcard in all sorts of ways.
Remain also had the images of mass immigration to the continent which was on a bit of a roll in 2016 to contend with, and the behaviour of the immigrants from the Middle East in cities like Cologne. That played into leave's hands rather.
Corbyn was a Bennite. Tony Benn was probably the principal opponent of ‘European-ism’. So hardly surprising that he would stay opposed to the EU.
Im beginning to warm to Sunak, he;s actually doing useful things
joining the CPTPP is a positive step for the UK
Yes, signing up to a trading block the other side of the world rather than one on one's doorstep makes perfect sense.
Horses for courses
The EU isnt just a trading bloc it is a commitment to a political project. If youre in you take on all the other shit.
CPTPP is just about trading. Suits me.
But there's a terrible price for not being in it.
That was the extent of the Remain campaign's argument in 2016, which is why they lost. And if Rejoiners can't find a better argument, they'll never win.
Mmm, much better off in than out - terrible argument.
The Remain campaign argument wasn't "better in than out", it was "worse out than in". Which is why they lost.
Meaningless semantics. There's no absolute case for EU membership unless you're in the tiny band of USE idealists. The argument for the British public only exists relative to not being a member. And this is - not 'the' but 'a' - reason why Remain lost. Because there IS an absolute case for Leave that could be made in addition to the relative one. I'm talking about the purist case around sovereignty. It requires a noddy antiquated view of what sovereignty means but nevertheless it's an argument you can make and it was made to great effect.
No, it's anything but meaningless semantics. Votes aren't only won by logic, they're also won by appealing to emotion. That's why "better in than out", although mathematically equivalent to "worse out than in", is much better at winning votes.
The message was better in than out.
No, it really wasn't.
Or, if it was, then the Remain campaign was even more crap that I gave it credit for, because the message heard was "worse out than in". For example, all the discussion I heard in the real world in the months leading up to the referendum was pitched in terms of "are you for or against Brexit?"
And, yes, the Remain campaign's crapness absolutely should be blamed as a major factor for them losing the referendum. They had everything going for them - status quo bias, fear of the unknown, and the government putting their thumbs on the scale just as much as they thought they could get away with. Their failure was immense.
Well of course we got plenty of "are you for or against Brexit?" - Brexit was the proposition. I bet in 1975 we heard lots of "are you for or against joining the Common Market?" in the pubs and clubs and fish markets and factory canteens all over this land (that we love).
Right. But allowing the campaign to be cast in such terms (and Remainers absolutely talked in those terms) rather than "are you for or against being in the EU" was a failure of the Remain campaign as it turned the neutral ballot paper question into one where they had a disadvantage.
You're trolling now. I will talk to you again on something different at a later date when I sense good faith and thinking cap. Look forward to it.
I'm sorry that you don't like losing arguments, but you never have. When you resort to those particular phrases it's a good sign that you've recognised you've lost, even though you can't admit it (perhaps even to yourself).
Nope, sorry, you've 'driven' me away. Least for now and on this. No hard feelings though - and to prove it I have a song for you. To the Bowie tune.
There's a Starmer, waiting in the wings "I'm going to be the PM", in the bath is what he sings There's a Starmer, waiting in the wings There's no way he will blow it, cos his strategy is king, and is Let the Tories lose it, let the Tories lose it, let all the Tories lose it
No, you just made a ridiculous argument, everyone pointed out that you’re wrong, and now you’re whistling a tune as you hasten away
'Everyone' being you and Driver. I like my argument and plenty agree with it. There's no 100% right/wrong on this but what I say has merit.
Good on you. There are plenty on here who just respond and respond endlessly, presumably because they assume that when you eventually tire of replying to what might well in your view be superficial and misleading responses you somehow have conceded their point.
I had one of those on my back yesterday. I just walked away rather than waste time indulging him further. No doubt he thought that silence meant that he had somehow "won" the argument. In reality I just thought that he was being a prize wan**r.
Did you resort to tired insults when you "walked away"?
In defence of everyone involved, it's very rare to 'win' an argument on the internet - people rarely change their views on the basis of one conversation - and at some point we all have to walk away to do other things with our lives. I tend to assume whenever someone I am arguing with goes silent he has just gone for a lengthy poo or to catch a bus or something. It seems unlikely that it is because he has changed his mind but is too bashful to say so.
(I don't agree with @kinabalu on this particular issue, but thought his song rather clever.)
I distinctly recall a pb-er telling me, just yesterday, that authoritarian China “won’t be interested in AI like GPT4”
You recall incorrectly. The point is rather that it's possible for them to get cold feet and halt development, if the AI shows signs of not being controllable by the state.
That's just not going to, probably even couldn't, happen in the west.
Of course they are interested, but the incentives are different.
Hmm. That’s not quite how I recall our debate. And didn’t you change your mind and say I was right anyway?
Besides, the larger point is good. This tech will not be stopped for myriad reasons. Just one of them is China’s desperate need to catch up with the USA. Because they realise this tech is so important. “Bigger than the internet”
Im beginning to warm to Sunak, he;s actually doing useful things
joining the CPTPP is a positive step for the UK
Yes, signing up to a trading block the other side of the world rather than one on one's doorstep makes perfect sense.
Horses for courses
The EU isnt just a trading bloc it is a commitment to a political project. If youre in you take on all the other shit.
CPTPP is just about trading. Suits me.
But there's a terrible price for not being in it.
That was the extent of the Remain campaign's argument in 2016, which is why they lost. And if Rejoiners can't find a better argument, they'll never win.
Mmm, much better off in than out - terrible argument.
The Remain campaign argument wasn't "better in than out", it was "worse out than in". Which is why they lost.
Meaningless semantics. There's no absolute case for EU membership unless you're in the tiny band of USE idealists. The argument for the British public only exists relative to not being a member. And this is - not 'the' but 'a' - reason why Remain lost. Because there IS an absolute case for Leave that could be made in addition to the relative one. I'm talking about the purist case around sovereignty. It requires a noddy antiquated view of what sovereignty means but nevertheless it's an argument you can make and it was made to great effect.
No, it's anything but meaningless semantics. Votes aren't only won by logic, they're also won by appealing to emotion. That's why "better in than out", although mathematically equivalent to "worse out than in", is much better at winning votes.
The message was better in than out.
But anyway, as explained, Leave had the noddy absolutist case about Sovereignty plus they could promise sunlit uplands (the relative case) plus they could appeal to Little Englander emotion. They had the easier sell but they also did it well. Should have won. Did win.
This "Remain blew it with a crap campaign' is just yet more 'blame Brexit on Remainers' drivel. I'm rather weary of it tbh.
But that’s shite
Cameron confidently boasted to Merkel he would win the referendum “no problem”. Remainers on here gloated that they would win “70/30”. All the pundits polls suggested - at first - that Remain would coast home
If Leave “should have won anyway” all the above makes no sense. But it does make sense because Remain should have won, not Leave
That this result did not occur is because the Remain campaign was poor and the Leave campaign was good, sometimes brilliant
I think the mood was there but not picked up. Eg Cameron, he went the Blair route of succumbing to belief in his own hype as a communicator and winner.
I think Leave did run a better campaign than Remain. But they did have inherent advantages. The big problem for the pro-EUers, then and now, is that it is very difficult to create a positive argument and vision for the EU that chimes with reality and most of the electorate. The vision of a USE is a coherent one but doesn't appeal beyond a small minority.
"We should work closely with our neighbours?" "Sure, but don't non-EU states also do that?"
"It makes better laws than the UK does" "That seems rather anti-British, and I am proud of being British"
"It overcomes the divisions of the world wars" "The division of the last world war is because Germany was run by a genocidal regime, it wasn't the fault of Britain's actions"
"It allows us to travel freely round Europe" "Yeah but it also means anyone from Europe can come here, and I manage to travel to non-EU countries just fine"
The same will be the case in any future Rejoin referemdum.
Exactly. There was no serious mileage in making the idealist EU case. Hence the argument had to be the practical and relative one - we are better off in than out. Which was the argument made. The notion the Remain side missed a trick by not getting pumped up and dewy-eyed over Ode to Joy and a common European identity/vision is horseshit. I'm truly surprised by how often it gets said. Ok, some of it is Leaver gaslighting, and that's easy to spot, but plenty seem to actually believe it.
It's not that Remain missed a trick by failing to make a positive case for EU membership. It's the fact that no positive case was even remotely possible to make, that speaks volumes.
The case - sorry to repeat but seems I have to - was that we'd be better off in than out. If people want to talk about where the Remain campaign was hamstrung the following were 2 influential things imo: The Labour leader was to put it mildly lukewarm on EU membership. David Cameron had his eye on Con party management after the Referendum hence punches were pulled when it came to attacking the leading lights of Leave.
I don't recall *many* punches being pulled by Cameron. I recall him acting like a right twat, to be honest. I lost a lot of respect for him that campaign.
You're right about Corbyn, though. His presence was a wildcard in all sorts of ways.
Remain also had the images of mass immigration to the continent which was on a bit of a roll in 2016 to contend with, and the behaviour of the immigrants from the Middle East in cities like Cologne. That played into leave's hands rather.
He issued a diktat against serious blue-on-blue action. Eg no pointing out that Boris Johnson was a pathological liar acting purely for personal advancement.
Coming back to the local level it will be interesting to see how the CPTPP will impact Scotland and NI.
The SNP can no longer talk about splendid isolation especially if one of the larger economies subsequently joins. The EU will just look like yesterdays idea. Who will want to kill turnip exports to Mexico and Japan ?
NI now potentially sits within two of the worlds largest trading blocs. To balance out this cornucopia of riches the Good Lord has deemed to give it the stupidest politicians on the planet. Anywhere else the business people would be rubbing their hands and thinking theyd won the lottery.
Im beginning to warm to Sunak, he;s actually doing useful things
joining the CPTPP is a positive step for the UK
Yes, signing up to a trading block the other side of the world rather than one on one's doorstep makes perfect sense.
Horses for courses
The EU isnt just a trading bloc it is a commitment to a political project. If youre in you take on all the other shit.
CPTPP is just about trading. Suits me.
But there's a terrible price for not being in it.
That was the extent of the Remain campaign's argument in 2016, which is why they lost. And if Rejoiners can't find a better argument, they'll never win.
Mmm, much better off in than out - terrible argument.
The Remain campaign argument wasn't "better in than out", it was "worse out than in". Which is why they lost.
Meaningless semantics. There's no absolute case for EU membership unless you're in the tiny band of USE idealists. The argument for the British public only exists relative to not being a member. And this is - not 'the' but 'a' - reason why Remain lost. Because there IS an absolute case for Leave that could be made in addition to the relative one. I'm talking about the purist case around sovereignty. It requires a noddy antiquated view of what sovereignty means but nevertheless it's an argument you can make and it was made to great effect.
No, it's anything but meaningless semantics. Votes aren't only won by logic, they're also won by appealing to emotion. That's why "better in than out", although mathematically equivalent to "worse out than in", is much better at winning votes.
The message was better in than out.
No, it really wasn't.
Or, if it was, then the Remain campaign was even more crap that I gave it credit for, because the message heard was "worse out than in". For example, all the discussion I heard in the real world in the months leading up to the referendum was pitched in terms of "are you for or against Brexit?"
And, yes, the Remain campaign's crapness absolutely should be blamed as a major factor for them losing the referendum. They had everything going for them - status quo bias, fear of the unknown, and the government putting their thumbs on the scale just as much as they thought they could get away with. Their failure was immense.
Well of course we got plenty of "are you for or against Brexit?" - Brexit was the proposition. I bet in 1975 we heard lots of "are you for or against joining the Common Market?" in the pubs and clubs and fish markets and factory canteens all over this land (that we love).
Right. But allowing the campaign to be cast in such terms (and Remainers absolutely talked in those terms) rather than "are you for or against being in the EU" was a failure of the Remain campaign as it turned the neutral ballot paper question into one where they had a disadvantage.
You're trolling now. I will talk to you again on something different at a later date when I sense good faith and thinking cap. Look forward to it.
I'm sorry that you don't like losing arguments, but you never have. When you resort to those particular phrases it's a good sign that you've recognised you've lost, even though you can't admit it (perhaps even to yourself).
Nope, sorry, you've 'driven' me away. Least for now and on this. No hard feelings though - and to prove it I have a song for you. To the Bowie tune.
There's a Starmer, waiting in the wings "I'm going to be the PM", in the bath is what he sings There's a Starmer, waiting in the wings There's no way he will blow it, cos his strategy is king, and is Let the Tories lose it, let the Tories lose it, let all the Tories lose it
No, you just made a ridiculous argument, everyone pointed out that you’re wrong, and now you’re whistling a tune as you hasten away
'Everyone' being you and Driver. I like my argument and plenty agree with it. There's no 100% right/wrong on this but what I say has merit.
Good on you. There are plenty on here who just respond and respond endlessly, presumably because they assume that when you eventually tire of replying to what might well in your view be superficial and misleading responses you somehow have conceded their point.
I had one of those on my back yesterday. I just walked away rather than waste time indulging him further. No doubt he thought that silence meant that he had somehow "won" the argument. In reality I just thought that he was being a prize wan**r.
Did you resort to tired insults when you "walked away"?
In defence of everyone involved, it's very rare to 'win' an argument on the internet - people rarely change their views on the basis of one conversation - and at some point we all have to walk away to do other things with our lives. I tend to assume whenever someone I am arguing with goes silent he has just gone for a lengthy poo or to catch a bus or something. It seems unlikely that it is because he has changed his mind but is too bashful to say so.
(I don't agree with @kinabalu on this particular issue, but thought his song rather clever.)
Oh, that's true. Essentially the only way to win is have your opponent lose by throwing insults as they go off in a huff...
So today we have the leader of the local council, the regional mayor, the local MP and the PM (next door constituency, note reason why treasury is in Darlo) looking at pot holes
Note they are looking at things they have been responsible for at least the last 4 years so surely the photo should be of filled pot holes not pot holes due to lack of money, lack of road maintenance and neglect - given that the local election is a month away.
That's not a pot hole. You should come around my way to see real pot holes. They have started putting cones in them on our roads and they are starting to disappear down the holes. I've already had the council pay for one tyre replacement.
Cones? You were lucky. Round here we put bluddy Telegraph poles in and you can't see top!
Im beginning to warm to Sunak, he;s actually doing useful things
joining the CPTPP is a positive step for the UK
What do you see as the big win with CPTPP, bearing in mind the UK has free trade agreements with most of the members already, which are in any case marginal in terms of trade facilitation?
If I could answer for him. He's doing what so many Leavers have been doing on here in recent weeks. Trying to find any justification they can to excuse what was an insane decision.
They had a piece on the CPTPP on one of the financial programs last night and as you suggest it's almost a complete waste of time. We have those deals anyway and it's value to the UK is negligible compared to the free trade agreement we had with the EU and that's before any sane person starts looking at the geography....
It's not a complete waste of time, Roger.
It will have the effect of making any rapprchement with the EU, never mind rejoining, rather more difficult. It helps to cut off the route back.
The 52% will therefore welcome it.
I thought it was the 40% these days ?
Yes 60% want to rejoin with not a single (serviceable) party to represent them
Don't talk bollocks no where near 60% has been polled for rejoin
..
Really so there were no don't knows at all? As I said bollocks a poll of rejoin 36 stay out 24 dont know gives those figures if you exclude don't knows which doesn't sound so resounding as 60 40 now does it.
This is the statistics part of the quote " there are lies, damned lies and statistics", hell this is in lib dem bar chart territory
A couple of years in all the polling indicates that a clear majority of voters think Brexit was a mistake. Two years in more voters now trust the EU than Westminster. It is debatable how many want to rejoin right now but the direction of travel could not one clearer.
So today we have the leader of the local council, the regional mayor, the local MP and the PM (next door constituency, note reason why treasury is in Darlo) looking at pot holes
Note they are looking at things they have been responsible for at least the last 4 years so surely the photo should be of filled pot holes not pot holes due to lack of money, lack of road maintenance and neglect - given that the local election is a month away.
"If you look very very carefully, you can just about see a benefit of Brexit"
Im beginning to warm to Sunak, he;s actually doing useful things
joining the CPTPP is a positive step for the UK
Yes, signing up to a trading block the other side of the world rather than one on one's doorstep makes perfect sense.
Horses for courses
The EU isnt just a trading bloc it is a commitment to a political project. If youre in you take on all the other shit.
CPTPP is just about trading. Suits me.
But there's a terrible price for not being in it.
That was the extent of the Remain campaign's argument in 2016, which is why they lost. And if Rejoiners can't find a better argument, they'll never win.
Mmm, much better off in than out - terrible argument.
The Remain campaign argument wasn't "better in than out", it was "worse out than in". Which is why they lost.
Meaningless semantics. There's no absolute case for EU membership unless you're in the tiny band of USE idealists. The argument for the British public only exists relative to not being a member. And this is - not 'the' but 'a' - reason why Remain lost. Because there IS an absolute case for Leave that could be made in addition to the relative one. I'm talking about the purist case around sovereignty. It requires a noddy antiquated view of what sovereignty means but nevertheless it's an argument you can make and it was made to great effect.
No, it's anything but meaningless semantics. Votes aren't only won by logic, they're also won by appealing to emotion. That's why "better in than out", although mathematically equivalent to "worse out than in", is much better at winning votes.
The message was better in than out.
But anyway, as explained, Leave had the noddy absolutist case about Sovereignty plus they could promise sunlit uplands (the relative case) plus they could appeal to Little Englander emotion. They had the easier sell but they also did it well. Should have won. Did win.
This "Remain blew it with a crap campaign' is just yet more 'blame Brexit on Remainers' drivel. I'm rather weary of it tbh.
But that’s shite
Cameron confidently boasted to Merkel he would win the referendum “no problem”. Remainers on here gloated that they would win “70/30”. All the pundits polls suggested - at first - that Remain would coast home
If Leave “should have won anyway” all the above makes no sense. But it does make sense because Remain should have won, not Leave
That this result did not occur is because the Remain campaign was poor and the Leave campaign was good, sometimes brilliant
I think the mood was there but not picked up. Eg Cameron, he went the Blair route of succumbing to belief in his own hype as a communicator and winner.
I think Leave did run a better campaign than Remain. But they did have inherent advantages. The big problem for the pro-EUers, then and now, is that it is very difficult to create a positive argument and vision for the EU that chimes with reality and most of the electorate. The vision of a USE is a coherent one but doesn't appeal beyond a small minority.
"We should work closely with our neighbours?" "Sure, but don't non-EU states also do that?"
"It makes better laws than the UK does" "That seems rather anti-British, and I am proud of being British"
"It overcomes the divisions of the world wars" "The division of the last world war is because Germany was run by a genocidal regime, it wasn't the fault of Britain's actions"
"It allows us to travel freely round Europe" "Yeah but it also means anyone from Europe can come here, and I manage to travel to non-EU countries just fine"
The same will be the case in any future Rejoin referemdum.
Exactly. There was no serious mileage in making the idealist EU case. Hence the argument had to be the practical and relative one - we are better off in than out. Which was the argument made. The notion the Remain side missed a trick by not getting pumped up and dewy-eyed over Ode to Joy and a common European identity/vision is horseshit. I'm truly surprised by how often it gets said. Ok, some of it is Leaver gaslighting, and that's easy to spot, but plenty seem to actually believe it.
It's not that Remain missed a trick by failing to make a positive case for EU membership. It's the fact that no positive case was even remotely possible to make, that speaks volumes.
The case - sorry to repeat but seems I have to - was that we'd be better off in than out. If people want to talk about where the Remain campaign was hamstrung the following were 2 influential things imo: The Labour leader was to put it mildly lukewarm on EU membership. David Cameron had his eye on Con party management after the Referendum hence punches were pulled when it came to attacking the leading lights of Leave.
I don't recall *many* punches being pulled by Cameron. I recall him acting like a right twat, to be honest. I lost a lot of respect for him that campaign.
You're right about Corbyn, though. His presence was a wildcard in all sorts of ways.
Remain also had the images of mass immigration to the continent which was on a bit of a roll in 2016 to contend with, and the behaviour of the immigrants from the Middle East in cities like Cologne. That played into leave's hands rather.
Corbyn was a Bennite. Tony Benn was probably the principal opponent of ‘European-ism’. So hardly surprising that he would stay opposed to the EU.
He also, I think, elicited a particular hostility - not only did he (due to his lukewarmness) fail to enthuse his supporters to vote for his side, he pushed people who otherwise might give the Labour Party a hearing away.
Im beginning to warm to Sunak, he;s actually doing useful things
joining the CPTPP is a positive step for the UK
Yes, signing up to a trading block the other side of the world rather than one on one's doorstep makes perfect sense.
Horses for courses
The EU isnt just a trading bloc it is a commitment to a political project. If youre in you take on all the other shit.
CPTPP is just about trading. Suits me.
But there's a terrible price for not being in it.
That was the extent of the Remain campaign's argument in 2016, which is why they lost. And if Rejoiners can't find a better argument, they'll never win.
Mmm, much better off in than out - terrible argument.
The Remain campaign argument wasn't "better in than out", it was "worse out than in". Which is why they lost.
Meaningless semantics. There's no absolute case for EU membership unless you're in the tiny band of USE idealists. The argument for the British public only exists relative to not being a member. And this is - not 'the' but 'a' - reason why Remain lost. Because there IS an absolute case for Leave that could be made in addition to the relative one. I'm talking about the purist case around sovereignty. It requires a noddy antiquated view of what sovereignty means but nevertheless it's an argument you can make and it was made to great effect.
No, it's anything but meaningless semantics. Votes aren't only won by logic, they're also won by appealing to emotion. That's why "better in than out", although mathematically equivalent to "worse out than in", is much better at winning votes.
The message was better in than out.
No, it really wasn't.
Or, if it was, then the Remain campaign was even more crap that I gave it credit for, because the message heard was "worse out than in". For example, all the discussion I heard in the real world in the months leading up to the referendum was pitched in terms of "are you for or against Brexit?"
And, yes, the Remain campaign's crapness absolutely should be blamed as a major factor for them losing the referendum. They had everything going for them - status quo bias, fear of the unknown, and the government putting their thumbs on the scale just as much as they thought they could get away with. Their failure was immense.
Well of course we got plenty of "are you for or against Brexit?" - Brexit was the proposition. I bet in 1975 we heard lots of "are you for or against joining the Common Market?" in the pubs and clubs and fish markets and factory canteens all over this land (that we love).
Right. But allowing the campaign to be cast in such terms (and Remainers absolutely talked in those terms) rather than "are you for or against being in the EU" was a failure of the Remain campaign as it turned the neutral ballot paper question into one where they had a disadvantage.
You're trolling now. I will talk to you again on something different at a later date when I sense good faith and thinking cap. Look forward to it.
I'm sorry that you don't like losing arguments, but you never have. When you resort to those particular phrases it's a good sign that you've recognised you've lost, even though you can't admit it (perhaps even to yourself).
Nope, sorry, you've 'driven' me away. Least for now and on this. No hard feelings though - and to prove it I have a song for you. To the Bowie tune.
There's a Starmer, waiting in the wings "I'm going to be the PM", in the bath is what he sings There's a Starmer, waiting in the wings There's no way he will blow it, cos his strategy is king, and is Let the Tories lose it, let the Tories lose it, let all the Tories lose it
No, you just made a ridiculous argument, everyone pointed out that you’re wrong, and now you’re whistling a tune as you hasten away
'Everyone' being you and Driver. I like my argument and plenty agree with it. There's no 100% right/wrong on this but what I say has merit.
Good on you. There are plenty on here who just respond and respond endlessly, presumably because they assume that when you eventually tire of replying to what might well in your view be superficial and misleading responses you somehow have conceded their point.
I had one of those on my back yesterday. I just walked away rather than waste time indulging him further. No doubt he thought that silence meant that he had somehow "won" the argument. In reality I just thought that he was being a prize wan**r.
Did you resort to tired insults when you "walked away"?
In defence of everyone involved, it's very rare to 'win' an argument on the internet - people rarely change their views on the basis of one conversation - and at some point we all have to walk away to do other things with our lives. I tend to assume whenever someone I am arguing with goes silent he has just gone for a lengthy poo or to catch a bus or something. It seems unlikely that it is because he has changed his mind but is too bashful to say so.
(I don't agree with @kinabalu on this particular issue, but thought his song rather clever.)
Well thank you. Yes, all I was seeking there was an amiable closer as an alternative to spending the afternoon with Driver rather than at the pool.
Im beginning to warm to Sunak, he;s actually doing useful things
joining the CPTPP is a positive step for the UK
Yes, signing up to a trading block the other side of the world rather than one on one's doorstep makes perfect sense.
Horses for courses
The EU isnt just a trading bloc it is a commitment to a political project. If youre in you take on all the other shit.
CPTPP is just about trading. Suits me.
But there's a terrible price for not being in it.
That was the extent of the Remain campaign's argument in 2016, which is why they lost. And if Rejoiners can't find a better argument, they'll never win.
Mmm, much better off in than out - terrible argument.
The Remain campaign argument wasn't "better in than out", it was "worse out than in". Which is why they lost.
Meaningless semantics. There's no absolute case for EU membership unless you're in the tiny band of USE idealists. The argument for the British public only exists relative to not being a member. And this is - not 'the' but 'a' - reason why Remain lost. Because there IS an absolute case for Leave that could be made in addition to the relative one. I'm talking about the purist case around sovereignty. It requires a noddy antiquated view of what sovereignty means but nevertheless it's an argument you can make and it was made to great effect.
No, it's anything but meaningless semantics. Votes aren't only won by logic, they're also won by appealing to emotion. That's why "better in than out", although mathematically equivalent to "worse out than in", is much better at winning votes.
The message was better in than out.
No, it really wasn't.
Or, if it was, then the Remain campaign was even more crap that I gave it credit for, because the message heard was "worse out than in". For example, all the discussion I heard in the real world in the months leading up to the referendum was pitched in terms of "are you for or against Brexit?"
And, yes, the Remain campaign's crapness absolutely should be blamed as a major factor for them losing the referendum. They had everything going for them - status quo bias, fear of the unknown, and the government putting their thumbs on the scale just as much as they thought they could get away with. Their failure was immense.
Well of course we got plenty of "are you for or against Brexit?" - Brexit was the proposition. I bet in 1975 we heard lots of "are you for or against joining the Common Market?" in the pubs and clubs and fish markets and factory canteens all over this land (that we love).
Right. But allowing the campaign to be cast in such terms (and Remainers absolutely talked in those terms) rather than "are you for or against being in the EU" was a failure of the Remain campaign as it turned the neutral ballot paper question into one where they had a disadvantage.
You're trolling now. I will talk to you again on something different at a later date when I sense good faith and thinking cap. Look forward to it.
I'm sorry that you don't like losing arguments, but you never have. When you resort to those particular phrases it's a good sign that you've recognised you've lost, even though you can't admit it (perhaps even to yourself).
Nope, sorry, you've 'driven' me away. Least for now and on this. No hard feelings though - and to prove it I have a song for you. To the Bowie tune.
There's a Starmer, waiting in the wings "I'm going to be the PM", in the bath is what he sings There's a Starmer, waiting in the wings There's no way he will blow it, cos his strategy is king, and is Let the Tories lose it, let the Tories lose it, let all the Tories lose it
No, you just made a ridiculous argument, everyone pointed out that you’re wrong, and now you’re whistling a tune as you hasten away
'Everyone' being you and Driver. I like my argument and plenty agree with it. There's no 100% right/wrong on this but what I say has merit.
Good on you. There are plenty on here who just respond and respond endlessly, presumably because they assume that when you eventually tire of replying to what might well in your view be superficial and misleading responses you somehow have conceded their point.
I had one of those on my back yesterday. I just walked away rather than waste time indulging him further. No doubt he thought that silence meant that he had somehow "won" the argument. In reality I just thought that he was being a prize wan**r.
Ah missed that. Been up in the Red Wall. Sensed no great love for this Tory government up there either btw.
Ive just finished 3 years working in Stoke, nobody wanted Labour either.
Well Stoke is Stoke. Totally unique place that can't be pigeon-holed as part of anybody's 'wall'. I can see it being GE24's Putney.
Stoke is one of those places which has taken more than its fair share of knocks. If a political party can get the place back on its feet it will have earned its votes. But I cant see that being either of the two main parties tbh.
Im beginning to warm to Sunak, he;s actually doing useful things
joining the CPTPP is a positive step for the UK
Yes, signing up to a trading block the other side of the world rather than one on one's doorstep makes perfect sense.
Horses for courses
The EU isnt just a trading bloc it is a commitment to a political project. If youre in you take on all the other shit.
CPTPP is just about trading. Suits me.
But there's a terrible price for not being in it.
That was the extent of the Remain campaign's argument in 2016, which is why they lost. And if Rejoiners can't find a better argument, they'll never win.
Mmm, much better off in than out - terrible argument.
The Remain campaign argument wasn't "better in than out", it was "worse out than in". Which is why they lost.
Meaningless semantics. There's no absolute case for EU membership unless you're in the tiny band of USE idealists. The argument for the British public only exists relative to not being a member. And this is - not 'the' but 'a' - reason why Remain lost. Because there IS an absolute case for Leave that could be made in addition to the relative one. I'm talking about the purist case around sovereignty. It requires a noddy antiquated view of what sovereignty means but nevertheless it's an argument you can make and it was made to great effect.
No, it's anything but meaningless semantics. Votes aren't only won by logic, they're also won by appealing to emotion. That's why "better in than out", although mathematically equivalent to "worse out than in", is much better at winning votes.
The message was better in than out.
No, it really wasn't.
Or, if it was, then the Remain campaign was even more crap that I gave it credit for, because the message heard was "worse out than in". For example, all the discussion I heard in the real world in the months leading up to the referendum was pitched in terms of "are you for or against Brexit?"
And, yes, the Remain campaign's crapness absolutely should be blamed as a major factor for them losing the referendum. They had everything going for them - status quo bias, fear of the unknown, and the government putting their thumbs on the scale just as much as they thought they could get away with. Their failure was immense.
Well of course we got plenty of "are you for or against Brexit?" - Brexit was the proposition. I bet in 1975 we heard lots of "are you for or against joining the Common Market?" in the pubs and clubs and fish markets and factory canteens all over this land (that we love).
Right. But allowing the campaign to be cast in such terms (and Remainers absolutely talked in those terms) rather than "are you for or against being in the EU" was a failure of the Remain campaign as it turned the neutral ballot paper question into one where they had a disadvantage.
You're trolling now. I will talk to you again on something different at a later date when I sense good faith and thinking cap. Look forward to it.
I'm sorry that you don't like losing arguments, but you never have. When you resort to those particular phrases it's a good sign that you've recognised you've lost, even though you can't admit it (perhaps even to yourself).
Nope, sorry, you've 'driven' me away. Least for now and on this. No hard feelings though - and to prove it I have a song for you. To the Bowie tune.
There's a Starmer, waiting in the wings "I'm going to be the PM", in the bath is what he sings There's a Starmer, waiting in the wings There's no way he will blow it, cos his strategy is king, and is Let the Tories lose it, let the Tories lose it, let all the Tories lose it
No, you just made a ridiculous argument, everyone pointed out that you’re wrong, and now you’re whistling a tune as you hasten away
'Everyone' being you and Driver. I like my argument and plenty agree with it. There's no 100% right/wrong on this but what I say has merit.
Good on you. There are plenty on here who just respond and respond endlessly, presumably because they assume that when you eventually tire of replying to what might well in your view be superficial and misleading responses you somehow have conceded their point.
I had one of those on my back yesterday. I just walked away rather than waste time indulging him further. No doubt he thought that silence meant that he had somehow "won" the argument. In reality I just thought that he was being a prize wan**r.
Did you resort to tired insults when you "walked away"?
In defence of everyone involved, it's very rare to 'win' an argument on the internet - people rarely change their views on the basis of one conversation - and at some point we all have to walk away to do other things with our lives. I tend to assume whenever someone I am arguing with goes silent he has just gone for a lengthy poo or to catch a bus or something. It seems unlikely that it is because he has changed his mind but is too bashful to say so.
(I don't agree with @kinabalu on this particular issue, but thought his song rather clever.)
Well thank you. Yes, all I was seeking there was an amiable closer as an alternative to spending the afternoon with Driver rather than at the pool.
Speaking of which ... where's my trunks?
I hope this question is being asked *before* you arrived at the pool.
Amusing piece by Ben Bradley (Mansfield MP, Head of Notts CC) on active travel vs cars, how he wants to support *both*, and how he wants CC to spend the tiny amount of Active Travel money where he wants, which is I think code for "not on Active Travel".
Mansfield was I think the first place in the country where they decided to make it a fineable offence for a mum to cycle with her kid to the market to do some shopping.
It's also the place where the pensioner killed in a collision with an e-scooter was unable - as stated in Court - to see it coming because of the dangerous pavement parking.
It's also the place where wheelchairs can't go onto many public footpaths because of illegal barriers, which are Bradley's personal responsibility via the County Council, and about which, like both the above, he has done nothing.
Im beginning to warm to Sunak, he;s actually doing useful things
joining the CPTPP is a positive step for the UK
What do you see as the big win with CPTPP, bearing in mind the UK has free trade agreements with most of the members already, which are in any case marginal in terms of trade facilitation?
If I could answer for him. He's doing what so many Leavers have been doing on here in recent weeks. Trying to find any justification they can to excuse what was an insane decision.
They had a piece on the CPTPP on one of the financial programs last night and as you suggest it's almost a complete waste of time. We have those deals anyway and it's value to the UK is negligible compared to the free trade agreement we had with the EU and that's before any sane person starts looking at the geography....
It's not a complete waste of time, Roger.
It will have the effect of making any rapprchement with the EU, never mind rejoining, rather more difficult. It helps to cut off the route back.
The 52% will therefore welcome it.
I thought it was the 40% these days ?
Yes 60% want to rejoin with not a single (serviceable) party to represent them
Don't talk bollocks no where near 60% has been polled for rejoin
..
Really so there were no don't knows at all? As I said bollocks a poll of rejoin 36 stay out 24 dont know gives those figures if you exclude don't knows which doesn't sound so resounding as 60 40 now does it.
This is the statistics part of the quote " there are lies, damned lies and statistics", hell this is in lib dem bar chart territory
A couple of years in all the polling indicates that a clear majority of voters think Brexit was a mistake. Two years in more voters now trust the EU than Westminster. It is debatable how many want to rejoin right now but the direction of travel could not one clearer.
Well that's a bit obtuse. Before Brexit we had: - a class of Eurocrats we couldn't vote out and who imposed rules and regulations on us - a class of Eurocrats whom we could vote out but who did, essentially, nothing - a class of UK politicians whom we could vote out - a class of UK politicians whom we couldn't vote out
Brexit has abolished the second - which means nothing - and moved the power from group 1 to groups 3 and 4.
The fact that a given individual has moved from class 2 to class 4 is largely irrelevant.
There is, of course scope to change the concept of class 4, but that's a separate battle.
So today we have the leader of the local council, the regional mayor, the local MP and the PM (next door constituency, note reason why treasury is in Darlo) looking at pot holes
Note they are looking at things they have been responsible for at least the last 4 years so surely the photo should be of filled pot holes not pot holes due to lack of money, lack of road maintenance and neglect - given that the local election is a month away.
Im beginning to warm to Sunak, he;s actually doing useful things
joining the CPTPP is a positive step for the UK
What do you see as the big win with CPTPP, bearing in mind the UK has free trade agreements with most of the members already, which are in any case marginal in terms of trade facilitation?
If I could answer for him. He's doing what so many Leavers have been doing on here in recent weeks. Trying to find any justification they can to excuse what was an insane decision.
They had a piece on the CPTPP on one of the financial programs last night and as you suggest it's almost a complete waste of time. We have those deals anyway and it's value to the UK is negligible compared to the free trade agreement we had with the EU and that's before any sane person starts looking at the geography....
It's not a complete waste of time, Roger.
It will have the effect of making any rapprchement with the EU, never mind rejoining, rather more difficult. It helps to cut off the route back.
The 52% will therefore welcome it.
I thought it was the 40% these days ?
Yes 60% want to rejoin with not a single (serviceable) party to represent them
Don't talk bollocks no where near 60% has been polled for rejoin
..
Really so there were no don't knows at all? As I said bollocks a poll of rejoin 36 stay out 24 dont know gives those figures if you exclude don't knows which doesn't sound so resounding as 60 40 now does it.
This is the statistics part of the quote " there are lies, damned lies and statistics", hell this is in lib dem bar chart territory
A couple of years in all the polling indicates that a clear majority of voters think Brexit was a mistake. Two years in more voters now trust the EU than Westminster. It is debatable how many want to rejoin right now but the direction of travel could not one clearer.
Yes, were out and heading further out.
As far as I can see the Tories are now desperate to repair the damage with the EU as fast as they can and get closer to them. The majority aren't fooled by the leavers bullshit any more.
I also must have missed the poll showing the growing enthusiasm for the reality of Brexit. Could you link to it please?
Im beginning to warm to Sunak, he;s actually doing useful things
joining the CPTPP is a positive step for the UK
What do you see as the big win with CPTPP, bearing in mind the UK has free trade agreements with most of the members already, which are in any case marginal in terms of trade facilitation?
If I could answer for him. He's doing what so many Leavers have been doing on here in recent weeks. Trying to find any justification they can to excuse what was an insane decision.
They had a piece on the CPTPP on one of the financial programs last night and as you suggest it's almost a complete waste of time. We have those deals anyway and it's value to the UK is negligible compared to the free trade agreement we had with the EU and that's before any sane person starts looking at the geography....
It's not a complete waste of time, Roger.
It will have the effect of making any rapprchement with the EU, never mind rejoining, rather more difficult. It helps to cut off the route back.
The 52% will therefore welcome it.
I thought it was the 40% these days ?
Yes 60% want to rejoin with not a single (serviceable) party to represent them
Don't talk bollocks no where near 60% has been polled for rejoin
..
Really so there were no don't knows at all? As I said bollocks a poll of rejoin 36 stay out 24 dont know gives those figures if you exclude don't knows which doesn't sound so resounding as 60 40 now does it.
This is the statistics part of the quote " there are lies, damned lies and statistics", hell this is in lib dem bar chart territory
A couple of years in all the polling indicates that a clear majority of voters think Brexit was a mistake. Two years in more voters now trust the EU than Westminster. It is debatable how many want to rejoin right now but the direction of travel could not one clearer.
Yes, were out and heading further out.
As far as I can see the Tories are now desperate to repair the damage with the EU as fast as they can and get closer to them. The majority aren't fooled by the leavers bullshit any more.
Well it's a view. The EU is just as desperate to repair relations with the UK as its starting to see the cold shoulder isnt bringing it that much.
Im beginning to warm to Sunak, he;s actually doing useful things
joining the CPTPP is a positive step for the UK
What do you see as the big win with CPTPP, bearing in mind the UK has free trade agreements with most of the members already, which are in any case marginal in terms of trade facilitation?
If I could answer for him. He's doing what so many Leavers have been doing on here in recent weeks. Trying to find any justification they can to excuse what was an insane decision.
They had a piece on the CPTPP on one of the financial programs last night and as you suggest it's almost a complete waste of time. We have those deals anyway and it's value to the UK is negligible compared to the free trade agreement we had with the EU and that's before any sane person starts looking at the geography....
It's not a complete waste of time, Roger.
It will have the effect of making any rapprchement with the EU, never mind rejoining, rather more difficult. It helps to cut off the route back.
The 52% will therefore welcome it.
I thought it was the 40% these days ?
Yes 60% want to rejoin with not a single (serviceable) party to represent them
Don't talk bollocks no where near 60% has been polled for rejoin
..
Really so there were no don't knows at all? As I said bollocks a poll of rejoin 36 stay out 24 dont know gives those figures if you exclude don't knows which doesn't sound so resounding as 60 40 now does it.
This is the statistics part of the quote " there are lies, damned lies and statistics", hell this is in lib dem bar chart territory
A couple of years in all the polling indicates that a clear majority of voters think Brexit was a mistake. Two years in more voters now trust the EU than Westminster. It is debatable how many want to rejoin right now but the direction of travel could not one clearer.
Yes, were out and heading further out.
As far as I can see the Tories are now desperate to repair the damage with the EU as fast as they can and get closer to them. The majority aren't fooled by the leavers bullshit any more.
Well it's a view. The EU is just as desperate to repair relations with the UK as its starting to see the cold shoulder isnt bringing it that much.
TBH I think the departure of Boris Johnson, whose lies about the EU were legendary, may well have made a difference.
Im beginning to warm to Sunak, he;s actually doing useful things
joining the CPTPP is a positive step for the UK
What do you see as the big win with CPTPP, bearing in mind the UK has free trade agreements with most of the members already, which are in any case marginal in terms of trade facilitation?
If I could answer for him. He's doing what so many Leavers have been doing on here in recent weeks. Trying to find any justification they can to excuse what was an insane decision.
They had a piece on the CPTPP on one of the financial programs last night and as you suggest it's almost a complete waste of time. We have those deals anyway and it's value to the UK is negligible compared to the free trade agreement we had with the EU and that's before any sane person starts looking at the geography....
It's not a complete waste of time, Roger.
It will have the effect of making any rapprchement with the EU, never mind rejoining, rather more difficult. It helps to cut off the route back.
The 52% will therefore welcome it.
I thought it was the 40% these days ?
Yes 60% want to rejoin with not a single (serviceable) party to represent them
Don't talk bollocks no where near 60% has been polled for rejoin
..
Really so there were no don't knows at all? As I said bollocks a poll of rejoin 36 stay out 24 dont know gives those figures if you exclude don't knows which doesn't sound so resounding as 60 40 now does it.
This is the statistics part of the quote " there are lies, damned lies and statistics", hell this is in lib dem bar chart territory
A couple of years in all the polling indicates that a clear majority of voters think Brexit was a mistake. Two years in more voters now trust the EU than Westminster. It is debatable how many want to rejoin right now but the direction of travel could not one clearer.
Yes, were out and heading further out.
As far as I can see the Tories are now desperate to repair the damage with the EU as fast as they can and get closer to them. The majority aren't fooled by the leavers bullshit any more.
Well it's a view. The EU is just as desperate to repair relations with the UK as its starting to see the cold shoulder isnt bringing it that much.
Im beginning to warm to Sunak, he;s actually doing useful things
joining the CPTPP is a positive step for the UK
What do you see as the big win with CPTPP, bearing in mind the UK has free trade agreements with most of the members already, which are in any case marginal in terms of trade facilitation?
If I could answer for him. He's doing what so many Leavers have been doing on here in recent weeks. Trying to find any justification they can to excuse what was an insane decision.
They had a piece on the CPTPP on one of the financial programs last night and as you suggest it's almost a complete waste of time. We have those deals anyway and it's value to the UK is negligible compared to the free trade agreement we had with the EU and that's before any sane person starts looking at the geography....
It's not a complete waste of time, Roger.
It will have the effect of making any rapprchement with the EU, never mind rejoining, rather more difficult. It helps to cut off the route back.
The 52% will therefore welcome it.
I thought it was the 40% these days ?
Yes 60% want to rejoin with not a single (serviceable) party to represent them
Don't talk bollocks no where near 60% has been polled for rejoin
..
Really so there were no don't knows at all? As I said bollocks a poll of rejoin 36 stay out 24 dont know gives those figures if you exclude don't knows which doesn't sound so resounding as 60 40 now does it.
This is the statistics part of the quote " there are lies, damned lies and statistics", hell this is in lib dem bar chart territory
A couple of years in all the polling indicates that a clear majority of voters think Brexit was a mistake. Two years in more voters now trust the EU than Westminster. It is debatable how many want to rejoin right now but the direction of travel could not one clearer.
Yes, were out and heading further out.
As far as I can see the Tories are now desperate to repair the damage with the EU as fast as they can and get closer to them. The majority aren't fooled by the leavers bullshit any more.
Well it's a view. The EU is just as desperate to repair relations with the UK as its starting to see the cold shoulder isnt bringing it that much.
TBH I think the departure of Boris Johnson, whose lies about the EU were legendary, may well have made a difference.
Isn't von der Leyen due to leave fairly soon too? That would help given the disaster she's been.
Her one great achievement is to somehow make Juncker look capable.
Comments
https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2023/03/australia-pre-qualifying-2023.html
https://conservativehome.com/2023/03/29/ben-bradley-to-level-up-through-transport-we-must-acknowledge-we-need-both-the-car-and-active-travel/
Mansfield was I think the first place in the country where they decided to make it a fineable offence for a mum to cycle with her kid to the market to do some shopping.
It's also the place where the pensioner killed in a collision with an e-scooter was unable - as stated in Court - to see it coming because of the dangerous pavement parking.
It's also the place where wheelchairs can't go onto many public footpaths because of illegal barriers, which are Bradley's personal responsibility via the County Council, and about which, like both the above, he has done nothing.
It's an obsession with an event (Brexit) that, for good or ill, we are stuck with for many, many years to come. Could we return to it in 2030, perhaps, when views may be clearer?
“Leading Chinese tech companies said on Thursday that they would not like to see a pause or slowdown in the game-changing GPT-4 technology, but instead vowed more efforts to develop responsible artificial intelligence to balance benefits and risks. #ChatGPT”
https://twitter.com/chinadaily/status/1641643991182766081?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
Why? Because they realise this tech is revolutionary and world changing, and they also
realise they are a couple of years behind the USA and desperately need to catch up
"We are not willing to see a stop or slowdown of GPT-4 related technology. To be frank, once tech advances, there is no way to stop or reverse it," said Du Lan, senior vice-president of tech firm iFlytek, at the ongoing Boao Forum for Asia on Thursday….
Zhou Hongyi, founder of 360 Security Group, said via social media on Thursday that not developing (GPT-4 and related technology) in fact poses the greatest insecurity.
"China must catch up with the trend of GPT, as it will bring about a substantial increase in productivity, thereby enhancing a country's competitiveness," he said.
Zhou added that whether people are willing or not, GPT will lead a new round of industrial revolution that goes beyond the invention of the internet or the iPhone.
"Chinese companies are still around two years behind GPT-4's level of development. Therefore, it is too early to worry about the risks. China should develop its own large AI model," he said.
Note they are looking at things they have been responsible for at least the last 4 years so surely the photo should be of filled pot holes not pot holes due to lack of money, lack of road maintenance and neglect - given that the local election is a month away.
There's a Starmer, waiting in the wings
"I'm going to be the PM", in the bath is what he sings
There's a Starmer, waiting in the wings
There's no way he will blow it, cos his strategy is king, and is
Let the Tories lose it, let the Tories lose it, let all the Tories lose it
So someone working from age 20 will qualify for a full state pension at age 55, but will continue to pay NICs on earnings until pensionable age (66/67/68 etc) without any additional benefit from the state pension.
So, yes, ideally they should be having a tour of recent potholes that have been filled in.
On the tyre-hits -the-road what's-in-it-for-me, Remain have the things they can point to. Membership of the EU made the UK wealthier (and leaving made us poorer) with greater investment, easier and more trade, more influential for the stuff we want, more personal rights. That's why people are disillusioned with what's happening.
The point is rather that it's possible for them to get cold feet and halt development, if the AI shows signs of not being controllable by the state.
That's just not going to, probably even couldn't, happen in the west.
Of course they are interested, but the incentives are different.
I had one of those on my back yesterday. I just walked away rather than waste time indulging him further. No doubt he thought that silence meant that he had somehow "won" the argument. In reality I just thought that he was being a prize wan**r.
Perhaps Remain was just doomed the moment it came up against democracy?
I haven’t got the patience right now to faff about with it. There is so much else going on in AI. So I’m just seeing what others are doing
And they are doing some fairly remarkable stuff. Boffins are claiming this really is AGI. This is it. A paper here
https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.12712
“Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4's capabilities, we believe that it could reasonably be viewed as an early (yet still incomplete) version of an artificial general intelligence (AGI) system.”
Try doing that with the technocrats....
But the EEC of 1975 was a very different beast to the EU of 2016.
I could be persuaded, emotionally, by a USE argument.
This was one of my favourite card games when I was small.
Imagine this as your home country. And there is something emotionally satisfying about your home country being a big one: about Granada being home, and Stockholm being home, and Bruges being home, and Venice being home. Ladies and gentlemen, THIS IS MY COUNTRY.
(Of course, the reality is much more prosaic: Emotional remainers often fall into the trap of comparing the lovely bits of the continent where they go on holiday to the workaday towns of Britain: Venice vs Grimsby; Nice vs Workington, etc. But Britain has its gems, and Europe its unlovely spots. But still.)
Leave for me was head ruling heart - however much I want the EU to be any good, it isn't.
Besides, the larger point is good. This tech will not be stopped for myriad reasons. Just one of them is China’s desperate need to catch up with the USA. Because they realise this tech is so important. “Bigger than the internet”
Take a moment to absorb what that means
I recall him acting like a right twat, to be honest. I lost a lot of respect for him that campaign.
You're right about Corbyn, though. His presence was a wildcard in all sorts of ways.
Remain also had the images of mass immigration to the continent which was on a bit of a roll in 2016 to contend with, and the behaviour of the immigrants from the Middle East in cities like Cologne. That played into leave's hands rather.
But that EU doesn’t and probably can’t exist. No demos
Assertive presenter, and a slightly slopey-shouldered head of Bundeswehr Reserves.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQXUfbUOOPY
(I don't agree with @kinabalu on this particular issue, but thought his song rather clever.)
The SNP can no longer talk about splendid isolation especially if one of the larger economies subsequently joins. The EU will just look like yesterdays idea. Who will want to kill turnip exports to Mexico and Japan ?
NI now potentially sits within two of the worlds largest trading blocs. To balance out this cornucopia of riches the Good Lord has deemed to give it the stupidest politicians on the planet. Anywhere else the business people would be rubbing their hands and thinking theyd won the lottery.
And now we can't.
Speaking of which ... where's my trunks?
In historic craft-based names, he would be a drainage engineer.
New Head of Rolls-Royce.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/03/31/rolls-royce-mini-nukes-head-ousted-in-new-boss-overhaul/
Before Brexit we had:
- a class of Eurocrats we couldn't vote out and who imposed rules and regulations on us
- a class of Eurocrats whom we could vote out but who did, essentially, nothing
- a class of UK politicians whom we could vote out
- a class of UK politicians whom we couldn't vote out
Brexit has abolished the second - which means nothing - and moved the power from group 1 to groups 3 and 4.
The fact that a given individual has moved from class 2 to class 4 is largely irrelevant.
There is, of course scope to change the concept of class 4, but that's a separate battle.
I also must have missed the poll showing the growing enthusiasm for the reality of Brexit. Could you link to it please?
Her one great achievement is to somehow make Juncker look capable.