If it is the economy stupid then Labour should sink further in the polls – politicalbetting.com

We’re all gonna remember these days aren’t we?

Trump in the White House

Elon in the Doge’s Palace

Nigel en route to Number 10

England breaking French hearts at Twickers

This is it, PB. Doesn’t get better than this

Group hug? To give thanks?

I think so. Even for @kinabalu

C’mon kinners, join the hug

*hug*

.

kjh said:

Driver said:

kjh said:

Driver said:

Stuartinromford said:

Driver said:

Foxy said:

Driver said:

Nigelb said:

biggles said:

Scott_xP said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Jeremy Clarkson: Brexit makes me want to sit in a gutter and weep

Since we left the EU it’s been easier to get into Iraq than France. None of this has made our lives better in any way

https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/jeremy-clarkson-brexit-makes-me-want-to-sit-in-a-gutter-and-weep-8tz2fl5vr

He's not wrong

But it’s still whinging about what we used to have. What we used to have is no longer available: we’ve taken it from you and you can never have it back...

You spent four decades whinging and moaning before you managed that.
Rejoining, should it ever happen, won’t take nearly as long.

In the meantime, just get used to it.

Not true. Before Maastricht, anti-Europeanism was negligible.

That's simply not true.

The highest polling against EU membership was in 1980, and it polled in the 40s quite often in the 1980s.

https://theconversation.com/polling-history-40-years-of-british-views-on-in-or-out-of-europe-61250

Not mentioned: salience.

Salient enough for Her Majesty's opposition to put Brexit in their 1983 manifesto.

It was a blooming stupid manifesto, but that's not the point.

Yeah, and what happened as a result of that manifesto?

Not relevant. Not for the first time you have come out with a fact that just isn't.

Afraid you've missed the point. Anti-Europeanism being a fringe thing was one reason Foot crashed so hard, as people thought "you're thinking this is one of the most important things?"

Anyone can poll on anything at any time. Given how inaccurate polls on this topic were when it was a live issue, trying to prove anything with polls from when it wasn't is... heroic, shall we say?

You are going off on a tangent. The original point had nothing to do with Foot. You said anti Europeanism was negligible pre Maastricht. Your words. Yet there were polls in the 40%. Hardly negligible. Now you are arguing those polls are worthless. Now I don't see how you can deduce that as polls are carried out using statistical methods, but even if they are, your evidence is just your opinion based upon nothing, absolutely nothing. I tend to rely on facts.

And if you think Foot lost just because of the EU you are deluded. The longest suicide note in history contained a lot more than EU membership. A lot.

Not what I said, so I'll leave it there, as you clearly haven't and won't try to understand what I've been saying.

Nigelb said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Blowing up £500m investment all over £12m....

It had wanted to wrap up the deal by August to keep it on track with regard to other investments. The company is putting in $3.5bn (£2.8bn) in the US, and building a $1.5bn site to make next-generation cancer treatments in Singapore – where it has received “very substantial support”, Soriot said pointedly last week.

The cell-based technology to be introduced at Speke – which can make vaccines more effective and easier to produce than the current egg-based process – required clinical trials ahead of regulatory approval. The Financial Times reported it was eventually revised to £78m. But AstraZeneca wanted the government to honour Hunt’s £90m proposal and Soriot said on Thursday the firm had been willing to increase its investment to £500m to seal the deal.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/feb/08/astrazeneca-whitehall-and-a-failed-450m-deal-for-the-next-generation-in-vaccines-what-went-wrong

Yes, I posted about that a few times.
Insane to crash such a deal over £12m.

The Science Minister’s background is in social charity work.
Before becoming an MP the Business Minister worked for the local council.

Disgraceful incompetence.

"That was a commercial decision" droned our pathetic excuse for a Prime Minister at PMQs.

Nigelb said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Blowing up £500m investment all over £12m....

It had wanted to wrap up the deal by August to keep it on track with regard to other investments. The company is putting in $3.5bn (£2.8bn) in the US, and building a $1.5bn site to make next-generation cancer treatments in Singapore – where it has received “very substantial support”, Soriot said pointedly last week.

The cell-based technology to be introduced at Speke – which can make vaccines more effective and easier to produce than the current egg-based process – required clinical trials ahead of regulatory approval. The Financial Times reported it was eventually revised to £78m. But AstraZeneca wanted the government to honour Hunt’s £90m proposal and Soriot said on Thursday the firm had been willing to increase its investment to £500m to seal the deal.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/feb/08/astrazeneca-whitehall-and-a-failed-450m-deal-for-the-next-generation-in-vaccines-what-went-wrong

Yes, I posted about that a few times.
Insane to crash such a deal over £12m.

The Science Minister’s background is in social charity work.
Before becoming an MP the Business Minister worked for the local council.

Lord Vallance, like Prison Minister supposedly hired to bring knowledge and experience, but been totally invisible, and clearly been overruled by others. No way he wouldn't spend £12 million to get a £500m vaccine plant over the line.

Driver said:

MoonRabbit said:

Driver said:

Scott_xP said:

biggles said:

But it’s still whinging about what we used to have. What we used to have is no longer available

That's the point.

You took the brilliant thing we had and replaced it with shit.

And you haven't worked out why people aren't thanking you for it...

If what we had before was actually brilliant, there wouldn't even have been demand for a referendum, let alone it winning.

Not at all. The Out campaigns won it by promising better times than the membership times, more money for public services, better everything, and kept pointing to what globalisation not EU had done to UK, to win.

Fake promises means fake win, the current Brexit polling is saying.

The Out campaign won because the In campaign didn't have a positive vision for what In meant.

Because they couldn't.

Well, it’s clearly not as bad as out ☺️

It’s easier to get into Iraq than France, what’s that doing to UK business and GDP? And that’s the boring, unexciting argument for trading deals with near neighbours.

Yes you are right in that, Out won on the far more desirable “extra money” “more control in a globalised world” “better public services and everything” “higher wages”. But you know wins and changes based on lies can’t last for ever don’t you?

Leon said:

We’re all gonna remember these days aren’t we?

Trump in the White House

Elon in the Doge’s Palace

Nigel en route to Number 10

England breaking French hearts at Twickers

This is it, PB. Doesn’t get better than this

Group hug? To give thanks?

I think so. Even for @kinabalu

C’mon kinners, join the hug

*hug*

“Nigel en route to Number 10” 😆 and you call me the loony one?

Reform aren’t getting anywhere near what they need in commons seats for power or influence. Your seat calcs and MRP’s are hopeless at understanding how hated Reform, Farage and Brexit is. Even the big tractorgeddon rally wouldn’t let Farage on the stage, but let Davey speak for them - that’s the context here.

Even if Reform end up ahead of everyone else, the ganging up on Reform under FPTP constituencies at the election will keep them a long way from any power. Reform not seriously in the game - unless there is a flood of donors and bigwigs from Conservative Party to them, and that ain’t going to happen.

What’s driving politics, UK polls at the moment, also pretty much globally, is, still, the shock to incomes of recent years. If economics picks up in UK over next four and a bit years, enough voters will herd with sitting government for a working majority. And likely the second term is the transformative one, big changes to the Boris Brexit etc.

Take a look at TSE current header for example. If the economic and household finances get better in coming years, then Labours uptick is “It’s the economy, stupid.”

(Why can’t we just say, it’s the economy, without calling doubters stupid?)

Driver said:

MoonRabbit said:

Driver said:

MoonRabbit said:

Driver said:

Scott_xP said:

biggles said:

But it’s still whinging about what we used to have. What we used to have is no longer available

That's the point.

You took the brilliant thing we had and replaced it with shit.

And you haven't worked out why people aren't thanking you for it...

If what we had before was actually brilliant, there wouldn't even have been demand for a referendum, let alone it winning.

Not at all. The Out campaigns won it by promising better times than the membership times, more money for public services, better everything, and kept pointing to what globalisation not EU had done to UK, to win.

Fake promises means fake win, the current Brexit polling is saying.

The Out campaign won because the In campaign didn't have a positive vision for what In meant.

Because they couldn't.

Well, it’s clearly not as bad as out ☺️

It’s easier to get into Iraq than France, what’s that doing to UK business and GDP? And that’s the boring, unexciting argument for trading deals with near neighbours.

Yes you are right in that, Out won on the far more desirable “extra money” “more control in a globalised world” “better public services and everything” “higher wages”. But you know wins and changes based on lies can’t last for ever don’t you?

I've travelled quite a few times to the EU and had no problems anywhere. So this, assuming Clarkson's rant isn't hyperbole, it does seem to be a specific issue with the French.

The vote to leave was nothing but an enabling action. One of the things it enables is, of course, rejoining. But even the most committed pro-Europeans amongst us don't believe that's likely any time soon. If they did, they wouldn't have fought so hard to overturn the referendum result.

I have actually found my route was quicker in a number of EU airports, because there weren’t many other non-EU travellers, certainly not with e-passports.

MoonRabbit said:

Leon said:

We’re all gonna remember these days aren’t we?

Trump in the White House

Elon in the Doge’s Palace

Nigel en route to Number 10

England breaking French hearts at Twickers

This is it, PB. Doesn’t get better than this

Group hug? To give thanks?

I think so. Even for @kinabalu

C’mon kinners, join the hug

*hug*

“Nigel en route to Number 10” 😆 and you call me the loony one?

Reform aren’t getting anywhere near what they need in commons seats for power or influence. Your seat calcs and MRP’s are hopeless at understanding how hated Reform, Farage and Brexit is. Even the big tractorgeddon rally wouldn’t let Farage on the stage, but let Davey speak for them - that’s the context here.

Even if Reform end up ahead of everyone else, the ganging up on Reform under FPTP constituencies at the election will keep them a long way from any power. Reform not seriously in the game - unless there is a flood of donors and bigwigs from Conservative Party to them, and that ain’t going to happen.

What’s driving politics, UK polls at the moment, also pretty much globally, is, still, the shock to incomes of recent years. If economics picks up in UK over next four and a bit years, enough voters will herd with sitting government for a working majority. And likely the second term is the transformative one, big changes to the Boris Brexit etc.

Take a look at TSE current header for example. If the economic and household finances get better in coming years, then Labours uptick is “It’s the economy, stupid.”

(Why can’t we just say, it’s the economy, without calling doubters stupid?)

On the latter point, it's a quotation from aeons ago. 1992 to be more precise.

https://abcnews.go.com/538/economy-stupid/story?id=110024758

But perhaps it's outworn its freshness, like an Army ration Mars Bar.

"Allianz Stadium" is a new least favourite sound

rottenborough said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Nigelb said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Blowing up £500m investment all over £12m....

It had wanted to wrap up the deal by August to keep it on track with regard to other investments. The company is putting in $3.5bn (£2.8bn) in the US, and building a $1.5bn site to make next-generation cancer treatments in Singapore – where it has received “very substantial support”, Soriot said pointedly last week.

The cell-based technology to be introduced at Speke – which can make vaccines more effective and easier to produce than the current egg-based process – required clinical trials ahead of regulatory approval. The Financial Times reported it was eventually revised to £78m. But AstraZeneca wanted the government to honour Hunt’s £90m proposal and Soriot said on Thursday the firm had been willing to increase its investment to £500m to seal the deal.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/feb/08/astrazeneca-whitehall-and-a-failed-450m-deal-for-the-next-generation-in-vaccines-what-went-wrong

Yes, I posted about that a few times.
Insane to crash such a deal over £12m.

The Science Minister’s background is in social charity work.
Before becoming an MP the Business Minister worked for the local council.

Lord Vallance, like Prison Minister supposedly hired to bring knowledge and experience, but been totally invisible, and clearly been overruled by others. No way he wouldn't spend £12 million to get a £500m vaccine plant over the line.

It is madness.

Where is the strategy? The joined up thinking?

We are told it is growth, growth, growth and also security.

Then they blow this deal up for a few pence effectively.

I despair.

Giving it to Mauritius instead.

Leon said:

Ahahaha

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1888325741156118744?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

You'll be the first to squeal when the rule of law ends.

If Musk has found spending that is inappropriate then he should use legal means to change that.

Driver said:

.

kjh said:

Driver said:

kjh said:

Driver said:

Stuartinromford said:

Driver said:

Foxy said:

Driver said:

Nigelb said:

biggles said:

Scott_xP said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Jeremy ClarksonGood: Brexit makes me want to sit in a gutter and weep

Since we left the EU it’s been easier to get into Iraq than France. None of this has made our lives better in any way

https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/jeremy-clarkson-brexit-makes-me-want-to-sit-in-a-gutter-and-weep-8tz2fl5vr

He's not wrong

But it’s still whinging about what we used to have. What we used to have is no longer available: we’ve taken it from you and you can never have it back...

You spent four decades whinging and moaning before you managed that.
Rejoining, should it ever happen, won’t take nearly as long.

In the meantime, just get used to it.

Not true. Before Maastricht, anti-Europeanism was negligible.

That's simply not true.

The highest polling against EU membership was in 1980, and it polled in the 40s quite often in the 1980s.

https://theconversation.com/polling-history-40-years-of-british-views-on-in-or-out-of-europe-61250

Not mentioned: salience.

Salient enough for Her Majesty's opposition to put Brexit in their 1983 manifesto.

It was a blooming stupid manifesto, but that's not the point.

Yeah, and what happened as a result of that manifesto?

Not relevant. Not for the first time you have come out with a fact that just isn't.

Afraid you've missed the point. Anti-Europeanism being a fringe thing was one reason Foot crashed so hard, as people thought "you're thinking this is one of the most important things?"

Anyone can poll on anything at any time. Given how inaccurate polls on this topic were when it was a live issue, trying to prove anything with polls from when it wasn't is... heroic, shall we say?

You are going off on a tangent. The original point had nothing to do with Foot. You said anti Europeanism was negligible pre Maastricht. Your words. Yet there were polls in the 40%. Hardly negligible. Now you are arguing those polls are worthless. Now I don't see how you can deduce that as polls are carried out using statistical methods, but even if they are, your evidence is just your opinion based upon nothing, absolutely nothing. I tend to rely on facts.

And if you think Foot lost just because of the EU you are deluded. The longest suicide note in history contained a lot more than EU membership. A lot.

Not what I said, so I'll leave it there, as you clearly haven't and won't try to understand what I've been saying.

Good grief. Do you not know what you just wrote?

In reply to 'Her Majesty's opposition put Brexit in their 1983 manifesto.' You replied 'Yeah, and what happened as a result of that manifesto?'

Now the normal implication from your reply to that statement is one of cause and effect. If not why say it? So it is what you said.

And anyway you are again arguing a tangent. You said the EU wasn't an issue pre Maastricht and you were proved wrong, by you know, actual facts. Your response seems to be that those facts can be ignored. Handy. And come up with nothing else.

Honestly.

Stuartinromford said:

MoonRabbit said:

Leon said:

We’re all gonna remember these days aren’t we?

Trump in the White House

Elon in the Doge’s Palace

Nigel en route to Number 10

England breaking French hearts at Twickers

This is it, PB. Doesn’t get better than this

Group hug? To give thanks?

I think so. Even for @kinabalu

C’mon kinners, join the hug

*hug*

“Nigel en route to Number 10” 😆 and you call me the loony one?

Reform aren’t getting anywhere near what they need in commons seats for power or influence. Your seat calcs and MRP’s are hopeless at understanding how hated Reform, Farage and Brexit is. Even the big tractorgeddon rally wouldn’t let Farage on the stage, but let Davey speak for them - that’s the context here.

Even if Reform end up ahead of everyone else, the ganging up on Reform under FPTP constituencies at the election will keep them a long way from any power. Reform not seriously in the game - unless there is a flood of donors and bigwigs from Conservative Party to them, and that ain’t going to happen.

What’s driving politics, UK polls at the moment, also pretty much globally, is, still, the shock to incomes of recent years. If economics picks up in UK over next four and a bit years, enough voters will herd with sitting government for a working majority. And likely the second term is the transformative one, big changes to the Boris Brexit etc.

Take a look at TSE current header for example. If the economic and household finances get better in coming years, then Labours uptick is “It’s the economy, stupid.”

(Why can’t we just say, it’s the economy, without calling doubters stupid?)

Wasn't "stupid" orginally directed at campaigners tempted to overthink their messaging? But yes- provided Mr and Mrs (and Mx) Voter feel meaningfully better off by 2029, the government gets a second term. Alternatively, as long as Con and Ref continue to tear chunks out of each other, the government gets a second term, almost independently of how well they do.

(My take is that trying to align blue votes, whether explicitly or implicitly, is a non-starter. But let's suspend disbelief for a bit. If there were a RefCon pact, I wonder how many current Conservative supporters would consider that the final straw?)

Reform and conservative policys hardly swim in the same voter pool,,,,con has more in common with starmers labour and daveys lib dems than they do with reform

MoonRabbit said:

Leon said:

We’re all gonna remember these days aren’t we?

Trump in the White House

Elon in the Doge’s Palace

Nigel en route to Number 10

England breaking French hearts at Twickers

This is it, PB. Doesn’t get better than this

Group hug? To give thanks?

I think so. Even for @kinabalu

C’mon kinners, join the hug

*hug*

“Nigel en route to Number 10” 😆 and you call me the loony one?

Reform aren’t getting anywhere near what they need in commons seats for power or influence. Your seat calcs and MRP’s are hopeless at understanding how hated Reform, Farage and Brexit is. Even the big tractorgeddon rally wouldn’t let Farage on the stage, but let Davey speak for them - that’s the context here.

Even if Reform end up ahead of everyone else, the ganging up on Reform under FPTP constituencies at the election will keep them a long way from any power. Reform not seriously in the game - unless there is a flood of donors and bigwigs from Conservative Party to them, and that ain’t going to happen.

What’s driving politics, UK polls at the moment, also pretty much globally, is, still, the shock to incomes of recent years. If economics picks up in UK over next four and a bit years, enough voters will herd with sitting government for a working majority. And likely the second term is the transformative one, big changes to the Boris Brexit etc.

Take a look at TSE current header for example. If the economic and household finances get better in coming years, then Labours uptick is “It’s the economy, stupid.”

(Why can’t we just say, it’s the economy, without calling doubters stupid?)

The second term, ahahaha. It's very bunker stage Third Reich, this 'second term' chat.

Starmer’s approval ratings are way lower than Farage's, and dropping like a stone. People will vote for whoever is most likely to unseat the sitting Labour candidate, not who is most likely to stop the Reform candidate.

MaxPB said:

rottenborough said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Nigelb said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Blowing up £500m investment all over £12m....

It had wanted to wrap up the deal by August to keep it on track with regard to other investments. The company is putting in $3.5bn (£2.8bn) in the US, and building a $1.5bn site to make next-generation cancer treatments in Singapore – where it has received “very substantial support”, Soriot said pointedly last week.

The cell-based technology to be introduced at Speke – which can make vaccines more effective and easier to produce than the current egg-based process – required clinical trials ahead of regulatory approval. The Financial Times reported it was eventually revised to £78m. But AstraZeneca wanted the government to honour Hunt’s £90m proposal and Soriot said on Thursday the firm had been willing to increase its investment to £500m to seal the deal.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/feb/08/astrazeneca-whitehall-and-a-failed-450m-deal-for-the-next-generation-in-vaccines-what-went-wrong

Yes, I posted about that a few times.
Insane to crash such a deal over £12m.

The Science Minister’s background is in social charity work.
Before becoming an MP the Business Minister worked for the local council.

Lord Vallance, like Prison Minister supposedly hired to bring knowledge and experience, but been totally invisible, and clearly been overruled by others. No way he wouldn't spend £12 million to get a £500m vaccine plant over the line.

It is madness.

Where is the strategy? The joined up thinking?

We are told it is growth, growth, growth and also security.

Then they blow this deal up for a few pence effectively.

I despair.

Giving it to Mauritius instead.

There are times when I really think they're wrecking the country deliberately.

biggles said:

I note that not one poster on here who says they are in favour of joining the EU has an answer to getting the public to vote for the Euro, Schengen, and a whole list of directives and regulations that newspapers will weaponise.

It's better than the current shitshow.

tlg86 said:

This is well worth a read:

https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/02/08/the-devils-advocates/

Finding a ‘scapegoat’ for the failings of a hospital that was not particularly bad by NHS standards would have been an insanely dangerous gamble for no reward. If fatal medical blunders had occurred, the safest course of action for the doctors would have been to shut up and get on with their job, which is what the NHS managers – who had no suspicions of anyone – wanted to do.

Well yes it is, but not in the sense you think. It is written in a partisan and sarcastic manner, which makes it difficult for me to separate the factual wheat from the rhetorical chaff. I have been staying away from the Letby case because my style of analysis is lengthy and usually wrong in the first instance (it's the interviews and responses from others that improve the paper), so I can't really do much. But I think it's best to say that now it's entered the twittersphere it will be very difficult to analyse as partisans from both directions constantly muddy the water.

Are GOP senators and representatives gonna wake up in time?


Joseph Allen
@j_g_allen
These great research institutions in red states are slated to lose about $1B in NIH research dollars

https://x.com/j_g_allen/status/1888253394025881827

Driver said:

MoonRabbit said:

Driver said:

MoonRabbit said:

Driver said:

Scott_xP said:

biggles said:

But it’s still whinging about what we used to have. What we used to have is no longer available

That's the point.

You took the brilliant thing we had and replaced it with shit.

And you haven't worked out why people aren't thanking you for it...

If what we had before was actually brilliant, there wouldn't even have been demand for a referendum, let alone it winning.

Not at all. The Out campaigns won it by promising better times than the membership times, more money for public services, better everything, and kept pointing to what globalisation not EU had done to UK, to win.

Fake promises means fake win, the current Brexit polling is saying.

The Out campaign won because the In campaign didn't have a positive vision for what In meant.

Because they couldn't.

Well, it’s clearly not as bad as out ☺️

It’s easier to get into Iraq than France, what’s that doing to UK business and GDP? And that’s the boring, unexciting argument for trading deals with near neighbours.

Yes you are right in that, Out won on the far more desirable “extra money” “more control in a globalised world” “better public services and everything” “higher wages”. But you know wins and changes based on lies can’t last for ever don’t you?

I've travelled quite a few times to the EU and had no problems anywhere. So this, assuming Clarkson's rant isn't hyperbole, it does seem to be a specific issue with the French.

The vote to leave was nothing but an enabling action. One of the things it enables is, of course, rejoining. But even the most committed pro-Europeans amongst us don't believe that's likely any time soon. If they did, they wouldn't have fought so hard to overturn the referendum result.

Is there a way we can get Clarkson to move to Iraq?

biggles said:

Driver said:

MoonRabbit said:

Driver said:

MoonRabbit said:

Driver said:

Scott_xP said:

biggles said:

But it’s still whinging about what we used to have. What we used to have is no longer available

That's the point.

You took the brilliant thing we had and replaced it with shit.

And you haven't worked out why people aren't thanking you for it...

If what we had before was actually brilliant, there wouldn't even have been demand for a referendum, let alone it winning.

Not at all. The Out campaigns won it by promising better times than the membership times, more money for public services, better everything, and kept pointing to what globalisation not EU had done to UK, to win.

Fake promises means fake win, the current Brexit polling is saying.

The Out campaign won because the In campaign didn't have a positive vision for what In meant.

Because they couldn't.

Well, it’s clearly not as bad as out ☺️

It’s easier to get into Iraq than France, what’s that doing to UK business and GDP? And that’s the boring, unexciting argument for trading deals with near neighbours.

Yes you are right in that, Out won on the far more desirable “extra money” “more control in a globalised world” “better public services and everything” “higher wages”. But you know wins and changes based on lies can’t last for ever don’t you?

I've travelled quite a few times to the EU and had no problems anywhere. So this, assuming Clarkson's rant isn't hyperbole, it does seem to be a specific issue with the French.

The vote to leave was nothing but an enabling action. One of the things it enables is, of course, rejoining. But even the most committed pro-Europeans amongst us don't believe that's likely any time soon. If they did, they wouldn't have fought so hard to overturn the referendum result.

I have actually found my route was quicker in a number of EU airports, because there weren’t many other non-EU travellers, certainly not with e-passports.

I have also once, I think on my last trip, which felt odd and on most occasions it is pretty quick anyway regardless. I have had to queue a few times for 15 - 30 min while people with EU passports could go straight through, however that wasn't any hassle as you usually have a few things to sort out in that short wait. However I did have a nightmare at Lisbon where we queued for several hours because we landed at the same time as 2 US flights. I tried to estimate the queue from the snake and it was well over 1000. I posted here from the queue. All the gates were open and they also funnelled us through the priority gate and EU gate as well. That was frustrating as we would have been straight through with an EU passport (same gate they used for us, but didn't have to queue).

I suspect if you are going to a holiday airport it will be fine, but if you are going to an international airport and land at the same time as a non EU flight you get stuffed.

pigeon said:

Our traditional Saturday visit from the Kremlin was both later and shorter than usual tonight.

Either that or the former Lib Dem leader has really been on the electric soup.

Something that's been building over the past year or so seems to now be coming fast, British big company valuations are breaking through the 10x P/E barrier they've been languishing below for about 10 years. We might finally see the FTSE100 break through the 10k mark this year if risk appetite has finally returned for domestic investors. People are looking for the next Rolls Royce story. So far Barclays and IAG seem to both be on the cusp of much higher valuations than they currently hold. I think if we do see it happen then very slowly London will claw back a lot of market share for IPOs from the US but it rather depends on how much risk investors are willing to take on British companies.

kjh said:

biggles said:

Driver said:

MoonRabbit said:

Driver said:

MoonRabbit said:

Driver said:

Scott_xP said:

biggles said:

But it’s still whinging about what we used to have. What we used to have is no longer available

That's the point.

You took the brilliant thing we had and replaced it with shit.

And you haven't worked out why people aren't thanking you for it...

If what we had before was actually brilliant, there wouldn't even have been demand for a referendum, let alone it winning.

Not at all. The Out campaigns won it by promising better times than the membership times, more money for public services, better everything, and kept pointing to what globalisation not EU had done to UK, to win.

Fake promises means fake win, the current Brexit polling is saying.

The Out campaign won because the In campaign didn't have a positive vision for what In meant.

Because they couldn't.

Well, it’s clearly not as bad as out ☺️

It’s easier to get into Iraq than France, what’s that doing to UK business and GDP? And that’s the boring, unexciting argument for trading deals with near neighbours.

Yes you are right in that, Out won on the far more desirable “extra money” “more control in a globalised world” “better public services and everything” “higher wages”. But you know wins and changes based on lies can’t last for ever don’t you?

I've travelled quite a few times to the EU and had no problems anywhere. So this, assuming Clarkson's rant isn't hyperbole, it does seem to be a specific issue with the French.

The vote to leave was nothing but an enabling action. One of the things it enables is, of course, rejoining. But even the most committed pro-Europeans amongst us don't believe that's likely any time soon. If they did, they wouldn't have fought so hard to overturn the referendum result.

I have actually found my route was quicker in a number of EU airports, because there weren’t many other non-EU travellers, certainly not with e-passports.

I have also once, I think on my last trip, which felt odd and on most occasions it is pretty quick anyway regardless. I have had to queue a few times for 15 - 30 min while people with EU passports could go straight through, however that wasn't any hassle as you usually have a few things to sort out in that short wait. However I did have a nightmare at Lisbon where we queued for several hours because we landed at the same time as 2 US flights. I tried to estimate the queue from the snake and it was well over 1000. I posted here from the queue. All the gates were open and they also funnelled us through the priority gate and EU gate as well. That was frustrating as we would have been straight through with an EU passport (same gate they used for us, but didn't have to queue).

I suspect if you are going to a holiday airport it will be fine, but if you are going to an international airport and land at the same time as a non EU flight you get stuffed.

It's also supposed to be temporary, on the assumption that the EU can ever get EES working. EU passport holders (and others) have been able to use our e-gates since 2020.

pigeon said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

pigeon said:

Our traditional Saturday visit from the Kremlin was both later and shorter than usual tonight.

I always find it really bizarre that they do. Of all the places on the internet to come on and try to spread BS, PB seems like one of the worst, as its full of politically engaged people who seem to love checking everything for the smallest of mistakes.

You mean, these fourth rate amateurs are no match for the might of the Pedantry Bureau?

Well also what are they trying to achieve?

Interesting analysis of the extent of Youtube audiences for politics, media and indy channels.

(A progressive who is a bit cross with progressives.)

https://youtu.be/FAJNx1KwPak?t=103

rottenborough said:

It is madness.

Where is the strategy? The joined up thinking?

We are told it is growth, growth, growth and also security.

Then they blow this deal up for a few pence effectively.

I despair.

Even better is the Silicon Valley of Europe guff, but we demand backdoors into your cloud services that have a global scope. Absolutely bonkers. It makes the UK perhaps second to only North Korea in terms of the worst place to store or process data.

Pagan2 said:

Stuartinromford said:

MoonRabbit said:

Leon said:

We’re all gonna remember these days aren’t we?

Trump in the White House

Elon in the Doge’s Palace

Nigel en route to Number 10

England breaking French hearts at Twickers

This is it, PB. Doesn’t get better than this

Group hug? To give thanks?

I think so. Even for @kinabalu

C’mon kinners, join the hug

*hug*

“Nigel en route to Number 10” 😆 and you call me the loony one?

Reform aren’t getting anywhere near what they need in commons seats for power or influence. Your seat calcs and MRP’s are hopeless at understanding how hated Reform, Farage and Brexit is. Even the big tractorgeddon rally wouldn’t let Farage on the stage, but let Davey speak for them - that’s the context here.

Even if Reform end up ahead of everyone else, the ganging up on Reform under FPTP constituencies at the election will keep them a long way from any power. Reform not seriously in the game - unless there is a flood of donors and bigwigs from Conservative Party to them, and that ain’t going to happen.

What’s driving politics, UK polls at the moment, also pretty much globally, is, still, the shock to incomes of recent years. If economics picks up in UK over next four and a bit years, enough voters will herd with sitting government for a working majority. And likely the second term is the transformative one, big changes to the Boris Brexit etc.

Take a look at TSE current header for example. If the economic and household finances get better in coming years, then Labours uptick is “It’s the economy, stupid.”

(Why can’t we just say, it’s the economy, without calling doubters stupid?)

Wasn't "stupid" orginally directed at campaigners tempted to overthink their messaging? But yes- provided Mr and Mrs (and Mx) Voter feel meaningfully better off by 2029, the government gets a second term. Alternatively, as long as Con and Ref continue to tear chunks out of each other, the government gets a second term, almost independently of how well they do.

(My take is that trying to align blue votes, whether explicitly or implicitly, is a non-starter. But let's suspend disbelief for a bit. If there were a RefCon pact, I wonder how many current Conservative supporters would consider that the final straw?)

Reform and conservative policys hardly swim in the same voter pool,,,,con has more in common with starmers labour and daveys lib dems than they do with reform

The vast majority of Tory voters would on a forced choice vote for Farage over Starmer, though if the party did not exist nearly half would go LD not Reform otherwise

I think for Farage to become PM he needs Trump to be seen as a success.
UK media covers US stories an awful lot.

I suspect we are not yet at peak reform, but that it will come during this Parliament and then decline by the time of the next election.

glw said:

rottenborough said:

It is madness.

Where is the strategy? The joined up thinking?

We are told it is growth, growth, growth and also security.

Then they blow this deal up for a few pence effectively.

I despair.

Even better is the Silicon Valley of Europe guff, but we demand backdoors into your cloud services that have a global scope. Absolutely bonkers. It makes the UK perhaps second to only North Korea in terms of the worst place to store or process data.

This government doesn't understand tech, data or finance. Whatever the final Tory government did, they really seemed to get it for these industries that are so important to our economy as well as not penny pinching on £12m on pharmaceutical manufacturing.

williamglenn said:

https://x.com/europeelects/status/1888324898067501475

UK, Opinium poll:

LAB-S&D: 27% (-1)
REFORM~NI: 26% (-1)
CON~ECR: 22% (+1)
LDEM-RE: 11%
GREENS-G/EFA: 8%
SNP-G/EFA: 3%
PC-G/EFA: 1%

+/- vs. 22-24 January 2025

Gives a hung parliament with Labour 305 seats, the Conservatives 115, Reform 111 and LDs 71

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=N&CON=22&LAB=27&LIB=11&Reform=26&Green=8&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=&SCOTLAB=&SCOTLIB=&SCOTReform=&SCOTGreen=&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2024

MaxPB said:

glw said:

rottenborough said:

It is madness.

Where is the strategy? The joined up thinking?

We are told it is growth, growth, growth and also security.

Then they blow this deal up for a few pence effectively.

I despair.

Even better is the Silicon Valley of Europe guff, but we demand backdoors into your cloud services that have a global scope. Absolutely bonkers. It makes the UK perhaps second to only North Korea in terms of the worst place to store or process data.

This government doesn't understand tech, data or finance. Whatever the final Tory government did, they really seemed to get it for these industries that are so important to our economy as well as not penny pinching on £12m on pharmaceutical manufacturing.

The tories pushed into the law the online safety bill,,,,cant comment on the other two but tech they neither understood and fucked hard in the arse

MaxPB said:

kjh said:

biggles said:

Driver said:

MoonRabbit said:

Driver said:

MoonRabbit said:

Driver said:

Scott_xP said:

biggles said:

But it’s still whinging about what we used to have. What we used to have is no longer available

That's the point.

You took the brilliant thing we had and replaced it with shit.

And you haven't worked out why people aren't thanking you for it...

If what we had before was actually brilliant, there wouldn't even have been demand for a referendum, let alone it winning.

Not at all. The Out campaigns won it by promising better times than the membership times, more money for public services, better everything, and kept pointing to what globalisation not EU had done to UK, to win.

Fake promises means fake win, the current Brexit polling is saying.

The Out campaign won because the In campaign didn't have a positive vision for what In meant.

Because they couldn't.

Well, it’s clearly not as bad as out ☺️

It’s easier to get into Iraq than France, what’s that doing to UK business and GDP? And that’s the boring, unexciting argument for trading deals with near neighbours.

Yes you are right in that, Out won on the far more desirable “extra money” “more control in a globalised world” “better public services and everything” “higher wages”. But you know wins and changes based on lies can’t last for ever don’t you?

I've travelled quite a few times to the EU and had no problems anywhere. So this, assuming Clarkson's rant isn't hyperbole, it does seem to be a specific issue with the French.

The vote to leave was nothing but an enabling action. One of the things it enables is, of course, rejoining. But even the most committed pro-Europeans amongst us don't believe that's likely any time soon. If they did, they wouldn't have fought so hard to overturn the referendum result.

I have actually found my route was quicker in a number of EU airports, because there weren’t many other non-EU travellers, certainly not with e-passports.

I have also once, I think on my last trip, which felt odd and on most occasions it is pretty quick anyway regardless. I have had to queue a few times for 15 - 30 min while people with EU passports could go straight through, however that wasn't any hassle as you usually have a few things to sort out in that short wait. However I did have a nightmare at Lisbon where we queued for several hours because we landed at the same time as 2 US flights. I tried to estimate the queue from the snake and it was well over 1000. I posted here from the queue. All the gates were open and they also funnelled us through the priority gate and EU gate as well. That was frustrating as we would have been straight through with an EU passport (same gate they used for us, but didn't have to queue).

I suspect if you are going to a holiday airport it will be fine, but if you are going to an international airport and land at the same time as a non EU flight you get stuffed.

Rather than trade, the UK and EU should talk about border controls and joining Schengen. I think that's the single biggest issue facing all of Europe (including us) and doing a deal on Schengen membership (something the EU would dearly love) in return for a very tough external border deal and offshore migrant processing and rapid deportation to third party countries etc... makes much more sense to me than joining the single market. There would probably be very wide support across all of Europe to codify a very tough external border and deportation rules, using potential UK membership of it as cover to impose new rules on it is something I think everyone would go for.

So…no border controls between us and France, for example ? Good luck selling that.

glw said:

MaxPB said:

glw said:

rottenborough said:

It is madness.

Where is the strategy? The joined up thinking?

We are told it is growth, growth, growth and also security.

Then they blow this deal up for a few pence effectively.

I despair.

Even better is the Silicon Valley of Europe guff, but we demand backdoors into your cloud services that have a global scope. Absolutely bonkers. It makes the UK perhaps second to only North Korea in terms of the worst place to store or process data.

This government doesn't understand tech, data or finance. Whatever the final Tory government did, they really seemed to get it for these industries that are so important to our economy as well as not penny pinching on £12m on pharmaceutical manufacturing.

What do they understand? What area do they seem to have some good ideas for?

We kind of assumed Labour were tight lipped because they'd want to avoid any pre-election slip-ups, and would rather simply allow the Tories to lose in style. It's now seeming like the cupboard was bare all along, and there really aren't any great new ideas coming from the government.

How to give away loads of free money.

Stuartinromford said:

MoonRabbit said:

Leon said:

We’re all gonna remember these days aren’t we?

Trump in the White House

Elon in the Doge’s Palace

Nigel en route to Number 10

England breaking French hearts at Twickers

This is it, PB. Doesn’t get better than this

Group hug? To give thanks?

I think so. Even for @kinabalu

C’mon kinners, join the hug

*hug*

“Nigel en route to Number 10” 😆 and you call me the loony one?

Reform aren’t getting anywhere near what they need in commons seats for power or influence. Your seat calcs and MRP’s are hopeless at understanding how hated Reform, Farage and Brexit is. Even the big tractorgeddon rally wouldn’t let Farage on the stage, but let Davey speak for them - that’s the context here.

Even if Reform end up ahead of everyone else, the ganging up on Reform under FPTP constituencies at the election will keep them a long way from any power. Reform not seriously in the game - unless there is a flood of donors and bigwigs from Conservative Party to them, and that ain’t going to happen.

What’s driving politics, UK polls at the moment, also pretty much globally, is, still, the shock to incomes of recent years. If economics picks up in UK over next four and a bit years, enough voters will herd with sitting government for a working majority. And likely the second term is the transformative one, big changes to the Boris Brexit etc.

Take a look at TSE current header for example. If the economic and household finances get better in coming years, then Labours uptick is “It’s the economy, stupid.”

(Why can’t we just say, it’s the economy, without calling doubters stupid?)

Wasn't "stupid" orginally directed at campaigners tempted to overthink their messaging? But yes- provided Mr and Mrs (and Mx) Voter feel meaningfully better off by 2029, the government gets a second term. Alternatively, as long as Con and Ref continue to tear chunks out of each other, the government gets a second term, almost independently of how well they do.

(My take is that trying to align blue votes, whether explicitly or implicitly, is a non-starter. But let's suspend disbelief for a bit. If there were a RefCon pact, I wonder how many current Conservative supporters would consider that the final straw?)

Looking at the most recent polling on this, and correct me where I misremember, much more conservatives voters wanted the merger, a large amount of Reform voters did not.

Voters are one thing, actual members and activists could produce a different result.

But there are voters out there who have voted Brexit, Corbyn, and Farage in recent elections, and maybe very little else in their lives. To put it like this, how much Reform vote is based on liking Reform on immigration, but would actually prefer economics a little bit more left wing?

Here’s the gist. Look very very carefully for it, and Farage and Reform are repositioning themselves more to the left than they were on economics and public services.

MaxPB said:

Something that's been building over the past year or so seems to now be coming fast, British big company valuations are breaking through the 10x P/E barrier they've been languishing below for about 10 years. We might finally see the FTSE100 break through the 10k mark this year if risk appetite has finally returned for domestic investors. People are looking for the next Rolls Royce story. So far Barclays and IAG seem to both be on the cusp of much higher valuations than they currently hold. I think if we do see it happen then very slowly London will claw back a lot of market share for IPOs from the US but it rather depends on how much risk investors are willing to take on British companies.

Of course there’s another interpretation which doesn’t end as well, but I hope you are correct.

DavidL said:

MaxPB said:

kjh said:

biggles said:

Driver said:

MoonRabbit said:

Driver said:

MoonRabbit said:

Driver said:

Scott_xP said:

biggles said:

But it’s still whinging about what we used to have. What we used to have is no longer available

That's the point.

You took the brilliant thing we had and replaced it with shit.

And you haven't worked out why people aren't thanking you for it...

If what we had before was actually brilliant, there wouldn't even have been demand for a referendum, let alone it winning.

Not at all. The Out campaigns won it by promising better times than the membership times, more money for public services, better everything, and kept pointing to what globalisation not EU had done to UK, to win.

Fake promises means fake win, the current Brexit polling is saying.

The Out campaign won because the In campaign didn't have a positive vision for what In meant.

Because they couldn't.

Well, it’s clearly not as bad as out ☺️

It’s easier to get into Iraq than France, what’s that doing to UK business and GDP? And that’s the boring, unexciting argument for trading deals with near neighbours.

Yes you are right in that, Out won on the far more desirable “extra money” “more control in a globalised world” “better public services and everything” “higher wages”. But you know wins and changes based on lies can’t last for ever don’t you?

I've travelled quite a few times to the EU and had no problems anywhere. So this, assuming Clarkson's rant isn't hyperbole, it does seem to be a specific issue with the French.

The vote to leave was nothing but an enabling action. One of the things it enables is, of course, rejoining. But even the most committed pro-Europeans amongst us don't believe that's likely any time soon. If they did, they wouldn't have fought so hard to overturn the referendum result.

I have actually found my route was quicker in a number of EU airports, because there weren’t many other non-EU travellers, certainly not with e-passports.

I have also once, I think on my last trip, which felt odd and on most occasions it is pretty quick anyway regardless. I have had to queue a few times for 15 - 30 min while people with EU passports could go straight through, however that wasn't any hassle as you usually have a few things to sort out in that short wait. However I did have a nightmare at Lisbon where we queued for several hours because we landed at the same time as 2 US flights. I tried to estimate the queue from the snake and it was well over 1000. I posted here from the queue. All the gates were open and they also funnelled us through the priority gate and EU gate as well. That was frustrating as we would have been straight through with an EU passport (same gate they used for us, but didn't have to queue).

I suspect if you are going to a holiday airport it will be fine, but if you are going to an international airport and land at the same time as a non EU flight you get stuffed.

Rather than trade, the UK and EU should talk about border controls and joining Schengen. I think that's the single biggest issue facing all of Europe (including us) and doing a deal on Schengen membership (something the EU would dearly love) in return for a very tough external border deal and offshore migrant processing and rapid deportation to third party countries etc... makes much more sense to me than joining the single market. There would probably be very wide support across all of Europe to codify a very tough external border and deportation rules, using potential UK membership of it as cover to impose new rules on it is something I think everyone would go for.

So…no border controls between us and France, for example ? Good luck selling that.

Trade is the more important issue to me, but I appreciate I am in a minority and migration is the bigger issue for many so I think @MaxPB comes up with an interesting idea there.

As you say though selling it would be a challenge.

kjh said:

Driver said:

.

kjh said:

Driver said:

.

kjh said:

Driver said:

kjh said:

Driver said:

Stuartinromford said:

Driver said:

Foxy said:

Driver said:

Nigelb said:

biggles said:

Scott_xP said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Jeremy ClarksonGood: Brexit makes me want to sit in a gutter and weep

Since we left the EU it’s been easier to get into Iraq than France. None of this has made our lives better in any way

https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/jeremy-clarkson-brexit-makes-me-want-to-sit-in-a-gutter-and-weep-8tz2fl5vr

He's not wrong

But it’s still whinging about what we used to have. What we used to have is no longer available: we’ve taken it from you and you can never have it back...

You spent four decades whinging and moaning before you managed that.
Rejoining, should it ever happen, won’t take nearly as long.

In the meantime, just get used to it.

Not true. Before Maastricht, anti-Europeanism was negligible.

That's simply not true.

The highest polling against EU membership was in 1980, and it polled in the 40s quite often in the 1980s.

https://theconversation.com/polling-history-40-years-of-british-views-on-in-or-out-of-europe-61250

Not mentioned: salience.

Salient enough for Her Majesty's opposition to put Brexit in their 1983 manifesto.

It was a blooming stupid manifesto, but that's not the point.

Yeah, and what happened as a result of that manifesto?

Not relevant. Not for the first time you have come out with a fact that just isn't.

Afraid you've missed the point. Anti-Europeanism being a fringe thing was one reason Foot crashed so hard, as people thought "you're thinking this is one of the most important things?"

Anyone can poll on anything at any time. Given how inaccurate polls on this topic were when it was a live issue, trying to prove anything with polls from when it wasn't is... heroic, shall we say?

You are going off on a tangent. The original point had nothing to do with Foot. You said anti Europeanism was negligible pre Maastricht. Your words. Yet there were polls in the 40%. Hardly negligible. Now you are arguing those polls are worthless. Now I don't see how you can deduce that as polls are carried out using statistical methods, but even if they are, your evidence is just your opinion based upon nothing, absolutely nothing. I tend to rely on facts.

And if you think Foot lost just because of the EU you are deluded. The longest suicide note in history contained a lot more than EU membership. A lot.

Not what I said, so I'll leave it there, as you clearly haven't and won't try to understand what I've been saying.

Good grief. Do you not know what you just wrote?

In reply to 'Her Majesty's opposition put Brexit in their 1983 manifesto.' You replied 'Yeah, and what happened as a result of that manifesto?'

Now the normal implication from your reply to that statement is one of cause and effect. If not why say it? So it is what you said.

And anyway you are again arguing a tangent. You said the EU wasn't an issue pre Maastricht and you were proved wrong, by you know, actual facts. Your response seems to be that those facts can be ignored. Handy. And come up with nothing else.

Honestly.

Oh, FFS, I'm going to have to try at least for the benefit of others who might be seduced by your wilful disingenuousness.



Before Maastricht, anti-Europeanism was unimportant in mainstream politics. The one time a major party mentioned it, it was as part of a very non-mainstream manifesto that got an utter thrashing at the ballot box. It absolutely was not a serious political issue, and saying "but 40% of people answered this way in a poll when it wasn't a live issue" is a laughable rebuttal.

I'm assuming you must be too young to remember the politics of the 80s and 90s. Or old enough to have forgotten them.

I don't think I have ever come across anyone so stupid. This is the umpteenth time you have stated a fact on PB in the last few weeks that someone has come back and pointed out was factually wrong. Would you like me to go and list them all for you? They are easy to look up.

You never mentioned Foot or the manifesto in the first place. Someone else did who pointed out you were wrong in your claim. That person also pointed out themselves how daft that manifesto was as have I.

So can we stop talking about that f***** manifesto.

You said 'Before Maastricht, anti-Europeanism was negligible.'

As pointed out to you this was not true as polls regularly put it over 40%. Now regular over 40% polls is NOT negligible. In fact IPSO/Mori polls between 1979 and 1983 were all over 50% for leave. One in 1979 was 60 - 32 and one in 18980 was 65 - 26.

So yep you were mind mindbogglingly spectacularly wrong in your initial statement.

Maastricht wasn’t the problem. It was the closest we ever got to a solution. It allowed the UK to opt out of the bits of Europe we didn’t like whilst opting in to the bits we did. It was a masterpiece of a negotiation.

And then Blair and Brown came along saying that we had to be at the heart of Europe and waived most of our opt outs. The path was fairly inevitably fixed from that point forward.

HYUFD said:

williamglenn said:

https://x.com/europeelects/status/1888324898067501475

UK, Opinium poll:

LAB-S&D: 27% (-1)
REFORM~NI: 26% (-1)
CON~ECR: 22% (+1)
LDEM-RE: 11%
GREENS-G/EFA: 8%
SNP-G/EFA: 3%
PC-G/EFA: 1%

+/- vs. 22-24 January 2025

Gives a hung parliament with Labour 305 seats, the Conservatives 115, Reform 111 and LDs 71

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=N&CON=22&LAB=27&LIB=11&Reform=26&Green=8&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=&SCOTLAB=&SCOTLIB=&SCOTReform=&SCOTGreen=&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2024

That would almost be Maximum Banter.

Labour well down.
Conservatives doing even worse than in 2024.
And Reform still behind both of them.

(It does highlight how easy the Socialists are likely to find things, as long as ex-tory wets drift off to the Yellow Peril and hard right wingers stomp off to Reform. Flip knows how you reunite them in an electorally useful way. Starmer being annoying and mediocre isn't going to do it, and neither are Badenoch's charms.)

DavidL said:

kjh said:

Driver said:

.

kjh said:

Driver said:

.

kjh said:

Driver said:

kjh said:

Driver said:

Stuartinromford said:

Driver said:

Foxy said:

Driver said:

Nigelb said:

biggles said:

Scott_xP said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Jeremy ClarksonGood: Brexit makes me want to sit in a gutter and weep

Since we left the EU it’s been easier to get into Iraq than France. None of this has made our lives better in any way

https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/jeremy-clarkson-brexit-makes-me-want-to-sit-in-a-gutter-and-weep-8tz2fl5vr

He's not wrong

But it’s still whinging about what we used to have. What we used to have is no longer available: we’ve taken it from you and you can never have it back...

You spent four decades whinging and moaning before you managed that.
Rejoining, should it ever happen, won’t take nearly as long.

In the meantime, just get used to it.

Not true. Before Maastricht, anti-Europeanism was negligible.

That's simply not true.

The highest polling against EU membership was in 1980, and it polled in the 40s quite often in the 1980s.

https://theconversation.com/polling-history-40-years-of-british-views-on-in-or-out-of-europe-61250

Not mentioned: salience.

Salient enough for Her Majesty's opposition to put Brexit in their 1983 manifesto.

It was a blooming stupid manifesto, but that's not the point.

Yeah, and what happened as a result of that manifesto?

Not relevant. Not for the first time you have come out with a fact that just isn't.

Afraid you've missed the point. Anti-Europeanism being a fringe thing was one reason Foot crashed so hard, as people thought "you're thinking this is one of the most important things?"

Anyone can poll on anything at any time. Given how inaccurate polls on this topic were when it was a live issue, trying to prove anything with polls from when it wasn't is... heroic, shall we say?

You are going off on a tangent. The original point had nothing to do with Foot. You said anti Europeanism was negligible pre Maastricht. Your words. Yet there were polls in the 40%. Hardly negligible. Now you are arguing those polls are worthless. Now I don't see how you can deduce that as polls are carried out using statistical methods, but even if they are, your evidence is just your opinion based upon nothing, absolutely nothing. I tend to rely on facts.

And if you think Foot lost just because of the EU you are deluded. The longest suicide note in history contained a lot more than EU membership. A lot.

Not what I said, so I'll leave it there, as you clearly haven't and won't try to understand what I've been saying.

Good grief. Do you not know what you just wrote?

In reply to 'Her Majesty's opposition put Brexit in their 1983 manifesto.' You replied 'Yeah, and what happened as a result of that manifesto?'

Now the normal implication from your reply to that statement is one of cause and effect. If not why say it? So it is what you said.

And anyway you are again arguing a tangent. You said the EU wasn't an issue pre Maastricht and you were proved wrong, by you know, actual facts. Your response seems to be that those facts can be ignored. Handy. And come up with nothing else.

Honestly.

Oh, FFS, I'm going to have to try at least for the benefit of others who might be seduced by your wilful disingenuousness.



Before Maastricht, anti-Europeanism was unimportant in mainstream politics. The one time a major party mentioned it, it was as part of a very non-mainstream manifesto that got an utter thrashing at the ballot box. It absolutely was not a serious political issue, and saying "but 40% of people answered this way in a poll when it wasn't a live issue" is a laughable rebuttal.

I'm assuming you must be too young to remember the politics of the 80s and 90s. Or old enough to have forgotten them.

I don't think I have ever come across anyone so stupid. This is the umpteenth time you have stated a fact on PB in the last few weeks that someone has come back and pointed out was factually wrong. Would you like me to go and list them all for you? They are easy to look up.

You never mentioned Foot or the manifesto in the first place. Someone else did who pointed out you were wrong in your claim. That person also pointed out themselves how daft that manifesto was as have I.

So can we stop talking about that f***** manifesto.

You said 'Before Maastricht, anti-Europeanism was negligible.'

As pointed out to you this was not true as polls regularly put it over 40%. Now regular over 40% polls is NOT negligible. In fact IPSO/Mori polls between 1979 and 1983 were all over 50% for leave. One in 1979 was 60 - 32 and one in 18980 was 65 - 26.

So yep you were mind mindbogglingly spectacularly wrong in your initial statement.

Maastricht wasn’t the problem. It was the closest we ever got to a solution. It allowed the UK to opt out of the bits of Europe we didn’t like whilst opting in to the bits we did. It was a masterpiece of a negotiation.

And then Blair and Brown came. along saying that we had to be at the heart of Europe and waived most of our opt outs. The path was fairly inevitably fixed from that point forward.

Agreed, but what was significant about it was that the politicians didn't trust us to have our say on it. Perhaps if it had been endorsed by a referendum, Blair and Brown wouldn't have been so keen to waive those opt outs.

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

kjh said:

Driver said:

.

kjh said:

Driver said:

.

kjh said:

Driver said:

kjh said:

Driver said:

Stuartinromford said:

Driver said:

Foxy said:

Driver said:

Nigelb said:

biggles said:

Scott_xP said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Jeremy ClarksonGood: Brexit makes me want to sit in a gutter and weep

Since we left the EU it’s been easier to get into Iraq than France. None of this has made our lives better in any way

https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/jeremy-clarkson-brexit-makes-me-want-to-sit-in-a-gutter-and-weep-8tz2fl5vr

He's not wrong

But it’s still whinging about what we used to have. What we used to have is no longer available: we’ve taken it from you and you can never have it back...

You spent four decades whinging and moaning before you managed that.
Rejoining, should it ever happen, won’t take nearly as long.

In the meantime, just get used to it.

Not true. Before Maastricht, anti-Europeanism was negligible.

That's simply not true.

The highest polling against EU membership was in 1980, and it polled in the 40s quite often in the 1980s.

https://theconversation.com/polling-history-40-years-of-british-views-on-in-or-out-of-europe-61250

Not mentioned: salience.

Salient enough for Her Majesty's opposition to put Brexit in their 1983 manifesto.

It was a blooming stupid manifesto, but that's not the point.

Yeah, and what happened as a result of that manifesto?

Not relevant. Not for the first time you have come out with a fact that just isn't.

Afraid you've missed the point. Anti-Europeanism being a fringe thing was one reason Foot crashed so hard, as people thought "you're thinking this is one of the most important things?"

Anyone can poll on anything at any time. Given how inaccurate polls on this topic were when it was a live issue, trying to prove anything with polls from when it wasn't is... heroic, shall we say?

You are going off on a tangent. The original point had nothing to do with Foot. You said anti Europeanism was negligible pre Maastricht. Your words. Yet there were polls in the 40%. Hardly negligible. Now you are arguing those polls are worthless. Now I don't see how you can deduce that as polls are carried out using statistical methods, but even if they are, your evidence is just your opinion based upon nothing, absolutely nothing. I tend to rely on facts.

And if you think Foot lost just because of the EU you are deluded. The longest suicide note in history contained a lot more than EU membership. A lot.

Not what I said, so I'll leave it there, as you clearly haven't and won't try to understand what I've been saying.

Good grief. Do you not know what you just wrote?

In reply to 'Her Majesty's opposition put Brexit in their 1983 manifesto.' You replied 'Yeah, and what happened as a result of that manifesto?'

Now the normal implication from your reply to that statement is one of cause and effect. If not why say it? So it is what you said.

And anyway you are again arguing a tangent. You said the EU wasn't an issue pre Maastricht and you were proved wrong, by you know, actual facts. Your response seems to be that those facts can be ignored. Handy. And come up with nothing else.

Honestly.

Oh, FFS, I'm going to have to try at least for the benefit of others who might be seduced by your wilful disingenuousness.



Before Maastricht, anti-Europeanism was unimportant in mainstream politics. The one time a major party mentioned it, it was as part of a very non-mainstream manifesto that got an utter thrashing at the ballot box. It absolutely was not a serious political issue, and saying "but 40% of people answered this way in a poll when it wasn't a live issue" is a laughable rebuttal.

I'm assuming you must be too young to remember the politics of the 80s and 90s. Or old enough to have forgotten them.

I don't think I have ever come across anyone so stupid. This is the umpteenth time you have stated a fact on PB in the last few weeks that someone has come back and pointed out was factually wrong. Would you like me to go and list them all for you? They are easy to look up.

You never mentioned Foot or the manifesto in the first place. Someone else did who pointed out you were wrong in your claim. That person also pointed out themselves how daft that manifesto was as have I.

So can we stop talking about that f***** manifesto.

You said 'Before Maastricht, anti-Europeanism was negligible.'

As pointed out to you this was not true as polls regularly put it over 40%. Now regular over 40% polls is NOT negligible. In fact IPSO/Mori polls between 1979 and 1983 were all over 50% for leave. One in 1979 was 60 - 32 and one in 18980 was 65 - 26.

So yep you were mind mindbogglingly spectacularly wrong in your initial statement.

Maastricht wasn’t the problem. It was the closest we ever got to a solution. It allowed the UK to opt out of the bits of Europe we didn’t like whilst opting in to the bits we did. It was a masterpiece of a negotiation.

And then Blair and Brown came. along saying that we had to be at the heart of Europe and waived most of our opt outs. The path was fairly inevitably fixed from that point forward.

The problem was Lisbon, if the government had given us a referendum as promised then it would have secured our veto power in key policy areas that Lisbon moved to QMV as a "No" vote from one of the big three would have been impossible to ignore as they did with Ireland. After Labour welched on it I think leaving became inevitable. The amount of control Lisbon gave the EU over our nation was very high and we had no way to reject their ideas or force them to rethink with a veto. It got people like myself and others into the Leave camp where before Lisbon it didn't bother me much as an issue.

Me too. But Blair was so convinced that doing the right thing, such as giving up some of our rebate, would impress everyone. It must have given the French a hernia from laughing so much.

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

kjh said:

Driver said:

.

kjh said:

Driver said:

.

kjh said:

Driver said:

kjh said:

Driver said:

Stuartinromford said:

Driver said:

Foxy said:

Driver said:

Nigelb said:

biggles said:

Scott_xP said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Jeremy ClarksonGood: Brexit makes me want to sit in a gutter and weep

Since we left the EU it’s been easier to get into Iraq than France. None of this has made our lives better in any way

https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/jeremy-clarkson-brexit-makes-me-want-to-sit-in-a-gutter-and-weep-8tz2fl5vr

He's not wrong

But it’s still whinging about what we used to have. What we used to have is no longer available: we’ve taken it from you and you can never have it back...

You spent four decades whinging and moaning before you managed that.
Rejoining, should it ever happen, won’t take nearly as long.

In the meantime, just get used to it.

Not true. Before Maastricht, anti-Europeanism was negligible.

That's simply not true.

The highest polling against EU membership was in 1980, and it polled in the 40s quite often in the 1980s.

https://theconversation.com/polling-history-40-years-of-british-views-on-in-or-out-of-europe-61250

Not mentioned: salience.

Salient enough for Her Majesty's opposition to put Brexit in their 1983 manifesto.

It was a blooming stupid manifesto, but that's not the point.

Yeah, and what happened as a result of that manifesto?

Not relevant. Not for the first time you have come out with a fact that just isn't.

Afraid you've missed the point. Anti-Europeanism being a fringe thing was one reason Foot crashed so hard, as people thought "you're thinking this is one of the most important things?"

Anyone can poll on anything at any time. Given how inaccurate polls on this topic were when it was a live issue, trying to prove anything with polls from when it wasn't is... heroic, shall we say?

You are going off on a tangent. The original point had nothing to do with Foot. You said anti Europeanism was negligible pre Maastricht. Your words. Yet there were polls in the 40%. Hardly negligible. Now you are arguing those polls are worthless. Now I don't see how you can deduce that as polls are carried out using statistical methods, but even if they are, your evidence is just your opinion based upon nothing, absolutely nothing. I tend to rely on facts.

And if you think Foot lost just because of the EU you are deluded. The longest suicide note in history contained a lot more than EU membership. A lot.

Not what I said, so I'll leave it there, as you clearly haven't and won't try to understand what I've been saying.

Good grief. Do you not know what you just wrote?

In reply to 'Her Majesty's opposition put Brexit in their 1983 manifesto.' You replied 'Yeah, and what happened as a result of that manifesto?'

Now the normal implication from your reply to that statement is one of cause and effect. If not why say it? So it is what you said.

And anyway you are again arguing a tangent. You said the EU wasn't an issue pre Maastricht and you were proved wrong, by you know, actual facts. Your response seems to be that those facts can be ignored. Handy. And come up with nothing else.

Honestly.

Oh, FFS, I'm going to have to try at least for the benefit of others who might be seduced by your wilful disingenuousness.



Before Maastricht, anti-Europeanism was unimportant in mainstream politics. The one time a major party mentioned it, it was as part of a very non-mainstream manifesto that got an utter thrashing at the ballot box. It absolutely was not a serious political issue, and saying "but 40% of people answered this way in a poll when it wasn't a live issue" is a laughable rebuttal.

I'm assuming you must be too young to remember the politics of the 80s and 90s. Or old enough to have forgotten them.

I don't think I have ever come across anyone so stupid. This is the umpteenth time you have stated a fact on PB in the last few weeks that someone has come back and pointed out was factually wrong. Would you like me to go and list them all for you? They are easy to look up.

You never mentioned Foot or the manifesto in the first place. Someone else did who pointed out you were wrong in your claim. That person also pointed out themselves how daft that manifesto was as have I.

So can we stop talking about that f***** manifesto.

You said 'Before Maastricht, anti-Europeanism was negligible.'

As pointed out to you this was not true as polls regularly put it over 40%. Now regular over 40% polls is NOT negligible. In fact IPSO/Mori polls between 1979 and 1983 were all over 50% for leave. One in 1979 was 60 - 32 and one in 18980 was 65 - 26.

So yep you were mind mindbogglingly spectacularly wrong in your initial statement.

Maastricht wasn’t the problem. It was the closest we ever got to a solution. It allowed the UK to opt out of the bits of Europe we didn’t like whilst opting in to the bits we did. It was a masterpiece of a negotiation.

And then Blair and Brown came. along saying that we had to be at the heart of Europe and waived most of our opt outs. The path was fairly inevitably fixed from that point forward.

The problem was Lisbon, if the government had given us a referendum as promised then it would have secured our veto power in key policy areas that Lisbon moved to QMV as a "No" vote from one of the big three would have been impossible to ignore as they did with Ireland. After Labour welched on it I think leaving became inevitable. The amount of control Lisbon gave the EU over our nation was very high and we had no way to reject their ideas or force them to rethink with a veto. It got people like myself and others into the Leave camp where before Lisbon it didn't bother me much as an issue.

I was in exactly the same place. I wasn’t even fully Leave until after the botched negotiation. And even then I was on the fence a bit during the campaign. On one level I wanted to vote leave, but have it narrowly lose and some reforms flow from that. But then Leave won, Remainers started being unpleasant, and I firmed up my position.

kjh said:

DavidL said:

MaxPB said:

kjh said:

biggles said:

Driver said:

MoonRabbit said:

Driver said:

MoonRabbit said:

Driver said:

Scott_xP said:

biggles said:

But it’s still whinging about what we used to have. What we used to have is no longer available

That's the point.

You took the brilliant thing we had and replaced it with shit.

And you haven't worked out why people aren't thanking you for it...

If what we had before was actually brilliant, there wouldn't even have been demand for a referendum, let alone it winning.

Not at all. The Out campaigns won it by promising better times than the membership times, more money for public services, better everything, and kept pointing to what globalisation not EU had done to UK, to win.

Fake promises means fake win, the current Brexit polling is saying.

The Out campaign won because the In campaign didn't have a positive vision for what In meant.

Because they couldn't.

Well, it’s clearly not as bad as out ☺️

It’s easier to get into Iraq than France, what’s that doing to UK business and GDP? And that’s the boring, unexciting argument for trading deals with near neighbours.

Yes you are right in that, Out won on the far more desirable “extra money” “more control in a globalised world” “better public services and everything” “higher wages”. But you know wins and changes based on lies can’t last for ever don’t you?

I've travelled quite a few times to the EU and had no problems anywhere. So this, assuming Clarkson's rant isn't hyperbole, it does seem to be a specific issue with the French.

The vote to leave was nothing but an enabling action. One of the things it enables is, of course, rejoining. But even the most committed pro-Europeans amongst us don't believe that's likely any time soon. If they did, they wouldn't have fought so hard to overturn the referendum result.

I have actually found my route was quicker in a number of EU airports, because there weren’t many other non-EU travellers, certainly not with e-passports.

I have also once, I think on my last trip, which felt odd and on most occasions it is pretty quick anyway regardless. I have had to queue a few times for 15 - 30 min while people with EU passports could go straight through, however that wasn't any hassle as you usually have a few things to sort out in that short wait. However I did have a nightmare at Lisbon where we queued for several hours because we landed at the same time as 2 US flights. I tried to estimate the queue from the snake and it was well over 1000. I posted here from the queue. All the gates were open and they also funnelled us through the priority gate and EU gate as well. That was frustrating as we would have been straight through with an EU passport (same gate they used for us, but didn't have to queue).

I suspect if you are going to a holiday airport it will be fine, but if you are going to an international airport and land at the same time as a non EU flight you get stuffed.

Rather than trade, the UK and EU should talk about border controls and joining Schengen. I think that's the single biggest issue facing all of Europe (including us) and doing a deal on Schengen membership (something the EU would dearly love) in return for a very tough external border deal and offshore migrant processing and rapid deportation to third party countries etc... makes much more sense to me than joining the single market. There would probably be very wide support across all of Europe to codify a very tough external border and deportation rules, using potential UK membership of it as cover to impose new rules on it is something I think everyone would go for.

So…no border controls between us and France, for example ? Good luck selling that.

Trade is the more important issue to me, but I appreciate I am in a minority and migration is the bigger issue for many so I think @MaxPB comes up with an interesting idea there.

As you say though selling it would be a challenge.

I really don't think it will, who cares if there's an open border with France when France has the power to deport their illegal immigrants without endless court battles and deals with third countries where they can be deported? It would need reform of the ECHR which again could be done under the cover of the UK joining Schengen and needing tougher external border controls and deportation ability. I think most European countries now want to do it, most are facing far right insurrections so any action to make it easier to deport illegal immigrants, criminals and failed asylum seekers will be widely welcomed. Using our joining Schengen as cover for all of this would be extremely convenient for the EU, it makes us the "bad guy" but everyone gets what they want.

biggles said:

DavidL said:

kjh said:

Driver said:

.

kjh said:

Driver said:

.

kjh said:

Driver said:

kjh said:

Driver said:

Stuartinromford said:

Driver said:

Foxy said:

Driver said:

Nigelb said:

biggles said:

Scott_xP said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Jeremy ClarksonGood: Brexit makes me want to sit in a gutter and weep

Since we left the EU it’s been easier to get into Iraq than France. None of this has made our lives better in any way

https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/jeremy-clarkson-brexit-makes-me-want-to-sit-in-a-gutter-and-weep-8tz2fl5vr

He's not wrong

But it’s still whinging about what we used to have. What we used to have is no longer available: we’ve taken it from you and you can never have it back...

You spent four decades whinging and moaning before you managed that.
Rejoining, should it ever happen, won’t take nearly as long.

In the meantime, just get used to it.

Not true. Before Maastricht, anti-Europeanism was negligible.

That's simply not true.

The highest polling against EU membership was in 1980, and it polled in the 40s quite often in the 1980s.

https://theconversation.com/polling-history-40-years-of-british-views-on-in-or-out-of-europe-61250

Not mentioned: salience.

Salient enough for Her Majesty's opposition to put Brexit in their 1983 manifesto.

It was a blooming stupid manifesto, but that's not the point.

Yeah, and what happened as a result of that manifesto?

Not relevant. Not for the first time you have come out with a fact that just isn't.

Afraid you've missed the point. Anti-Europeanism being a fringe thing was one reason Foot crashed so hard, as people thought "you're thinking this is one of the most important things?"

Anyone can poll on anything at any time. Given how inaccurate polls on this topic were when it was a live issue, trying to prove anything with polls from when it wasn't is... heroic, shall we say?

You are going off on a tangent. The original point had nothing to do with Foot. You said anti Europeanism was negligible pre Maastricht. Your words. Yet there were polls in the 40%. Hardly negligible. Now you are arguing those polls are worthless. Now I don't see how you can deduce that as polls are carried out using statistical methods, but even if they are, your evidence is just your opinion based upon nothing, absolutely nothing. I tend to rely on facts.

And if you think Foot lost just because of the EU you are deluded. The longest suicide note in history contained a lot more than EU membership. A lot.

Not what I said, so I'll leave it there, as you clearly haven't and won't try to understand what I've been saying.

Good grief. Do you not know what you just wrote?

In reply to 'Her Majesty's opposition put Brexit in their 1983 manifesto.' You replied 'Yeah, and what happened as a result of that manifesto?'

Now the normal implication from your reply to that statement is one of cause and effect. If not why say it? So it is what you said.

And anyway you are again arguing a tangent. You said the EU wasn't an issue pre Maastricht and you were proved wrong, by you know, actual facts. Your response seems to be that those facts can be ignored. Handy. And come up with nothing else.

Honestly.

Oh, FFS, I'm going to have to try at least for the benefit of others who might be seduced by your wilful disingenuousness.



Before Maastricht, anti-Europeanism was unimportant in mainstream politics. The one time a major party mentioned it, it was as part of a very non-mainstream manifesto that got an utter thrashing at the ballot box. It absolutely was not a serious political issue, and saying "but 40% of people answered this way in a poll when it wasn't a live issue" is a laughable rebuttal.

I'm assuming you must be too young to remember the politics of the 80s and 90s. Or old enough to have forgotten them.

I don't think I have ever come across anyone so stupid. This is the umpteenth time you have stated a fact on PB in the last few weeks that someone has come back and pointed out was factually wrong. Would you like me to go and list them all for you? They are easy to look up.

You never mentioned Foot or the manifesto in the first place. Someone else did who pointed out you were wrong in your claim. That person also pointed out themselves how daft that manifesto was as have I.

So can we stop talking about that f***** manifesto.

You said 'Before Maastricht, anti-Europeanism was negligible.'

As pointed out to you this was not true as polls regularly put it over 40%. Now regular over 40% polls is NOT negligible. In fact IPSO/Mori polls between 1979 and 1983 were all over 50% for leave. One in 1979 was 60 - 32 and one in 18980 was 65 - 26.

So yep you were mind mindbogglingly spectacularly wrong in your initial statement.

Maastricht wasn’t the problem. It was the closest we ever got to a solution. It allowed the UK to opt out of the bits of Europe we didn’t like whilst opting in to the bits we did. It was a masterpiece of a negotiation.

And then Blair and Brown came along saying that we had to be at the heart of Europe and waived most of our opt outs. The path was fairly inevitably fixed from that point forward.

The EU never codified the different options, didn’t offer them to new members, and used harmful phrases like “two speed” to imply the same final destination. They didn’t have to, but they chose to.

They are still saying that everyone has to join the Euro but it doesn’t happen if nation states don’t want it.

Carnyx said:

MoonRabbit said:

Carnyx said:

MoonRabbit said:

Leon said:

We’re all gonna remember these days aren’t we?

Trump in the White House

Elon in the Doge’s Palace

Nigel en route to Number 10

England breaking French hearts at Twickers

This is it, PB. Doesn’t get better than this

Group hug? To give thanks?

I think so. Even for @kinabalu

C’mon kinners, join the hug

*hug*

“Nigel en route to Number 10” 😆 and you call me the loony one?

Reform aren’t getting anywhere near what they need in commons seats for power or influence. Your seat calcs and MRP’s are hopeless at understanding how hated Reform, Farage and Brexit is. Even the big tractorgeddon rally wouldn’t let Farage on the stage, but let Davey speak for them - that’s the context here.

Even if Reform end up ahead of everyone else, the ganging up on Reform under FPTP constituencies at the election will keep them a long way from any power. Reform not seriously in the game - unless there is a flood of donors and bigwigs from Conservative Party to them, and that ain’t going to happen.

What’s driving politics, UK polls at the moment, also pretty much globally, is, still, the shock to incomes of recent years. If economics picks up in UK over next four and a bit years, enough voters will herd with sitting government for a working majority. And likely the second term is the transformative one, big changes to the Boris Brexit etc.

Take a look at TSE current header for example. If the economic and household finances get better in coming years, then Labours uptick is “It’s the economy, stupid.”

(Why can’t we just say, it’s the economy, without calling doubters stupid?)

On the latter point, it's a quotation from aeons ago. 1992 to be more precise.

https://abcnews.go.com/538/economy-stupid/story?id=110024758

But perhaps it's outworn its freshness, like an Army ration Mars Bar.

I’m not going to use it again. It not my style. It sounds dumb.

I found a snickers in glove compartment of a car I hadn’t driven for at least 3 years. And it tasted fine 😋

THat's very fresh by Army standards. They were feeding their squaddies 20 year old Mars Bars in the 1990s, bought cheap by MoD from a failed contract for Iran thanks to the revolution there.

Mars Bars as well as Challenger tanks?! Deal of the century.

williamglenn said:

Is Starmer a useful idiot?

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/keir-starmer-sees-chagos-islands-deal-as-block-to-china-spy-hubs-rkmz7c7v0

Keir Starmer sees Chagos Islands deal as block to China spy hubs

The prime minister thinks ceding the islands to Mauritius will create a ‘buffer zone’ around the US naval base on Diego Garcia"

Maybe he's playing 4D chess in the most amazing way.

Driver said:

kjh said:

Driver said:

.

kjh said:

Driver said:

.

kjh said:

Driver said:

kjh said:

Driver said:

Stuartinromford said:

Driver said:

Foxy said:

Driver said:

Nigelb said:

biggles said:

Scott_xP said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Jeremy ClarksonGood: Brexit makes me want to sit in a gutter and weep

Since we left the EU it’s been easier to get into Iraq than France. None of this has made our lives better in any way

https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/jeremy-clarkson-brexit-makes-me-want-to-sit-in-a-gutter-and-weep-8tz2fl5vr

He's not wrong

But it’s still whinging about what we used to have. What we used to have is no longer available: we’ve taken it from you and you can never have it back...

You spent four decades whinging and moaning before you managed that.
Rejoining, should it ever happen, won’t take nearly as long.

In the meantime, just get used to it.

Not true. Before Maastricht, anti-Europeanism was negligible.

That's simply not true.

The highest polling against EU membership was in 1980, and it polled in the 40s quite often in the 1980s.

https://theconversation.com/polling-history-40-years-of-british-views-on-in-or-out-of-europe-61250

Not mentioned: salience.

Salient enough for Her Majesty's opposition to put Brexit in their 1983 manifesto.

It was a blooming stupid manifesto, but that's not the point.

Yeah, and what happened as a result of that manifesto?

Not relevant. Not for the first time you have come out with a fact that just isn't.

Afraid you've missed the point. Anti-Europeanism being a fringe thing was one reason Foot crashed so hard, as people thought "you're thinking this is one of the most important things?"

Anyone can poll on anything at any time. Given how inaccurate polls on this topic were when it was a live issue, trying to prove anything with polls from when it wasn't is... heroic, shall we say?

You are going off on a tangent. The original point had nothing to do with Foot. You said anti Europeanism was negligible pre Maastricht. Your words. Yet there were polls in the 40%. Hardly negligible. Now you are arguing those polls are worthless. Now I don't see how you can deduce that as polls are carried out using statistical methods, but even if they are, your evidence is just your opinion based upon nothing, absolutely nothing. I tend to rely on facts.

And if you think Foot lost just because of the EU you are deluded. The longest suicide note in history contained a lot more than EU membership. A lot.

Not what I said, so I'll leave it there, as you clearly haven't and won't try to understand what I've been saying.

Good grief. Do you not know what you just wrote?

In reply to 'Her Majesty's opposition put Brexit in their 1983 manifesto.' You replied 'Yeah, and what happened as a result of that manifesto?'

Now the normal implication from your reply to that statement is one of cause and effect. If not why say it? So it is what you said.

And anyway you are again arguing a tangent. You said the EU wasn't an issue pre Maastricht and you were proved wrong, by you know, actual facts. Your response seems to be that those facts can be ignored. Handy. And come up with nothing else.

Honestly.

Oh, FFS, I'm going to have to try at least for the benefit of others who might be seduced by your wilful disingenuousness.



Before Maastricht, anti-Europeanism was unimportant in mainstream politics. The one time a major party mentioned it, it was as part of a very non-mainstream manifesto that got an utter thrashing at the ballot box. It absolutely was not a serious political issue, and saying "but 40% of people answered this way in a poll when it wasn't a live issue" is a laughable rebuttal.

I'm assuming you must be too young to remember the politics of the 80s and 90s. Or old enough to have forgotten them.

I don't think I have ever come across anyone so stupid. This is the umpteenth time you have stated a fact on PB in the last few weeks that someone has come back and pointed out was factually wrong. Would you like me to go and list them all for you? They are easy to look up.

You never mentioned Foot or the manifesto in the first place. Someone else did who pointed out you were wrong in your claim. That person also pointed out themselves how daft that manifesto was as have I.

So can we stop talking about that f***** manifesto.

You said 'Before Maastricht, anti-Europeanism was negligible.'

As pointed out to you this was not true as polls regularly put it over 40%. Now regular over 40% polls is NOT negligible. In fact IPSO/Mori polls between 1979 and 1983 were all over 50% for leave. One in 1979 was 60 - 32 and one in 18980 was 65 - 26.

So yep you were mind mindbogglingly spectacularly wrong in your initial statement.

Oh, FFS again. I literally just explained to you that this is not what I'm talking about, so why reiterate the same point as if it proves anything?

But let's try another one to see if it helps you grasp the point. Is support for the death penalty currently a negligible factor in British politics or is it a significant one?

I agree with you on the death penalty argument and I know what you are trying to say and you are simply wrong. Try the following extract:

'Conservative Euroscepticism evolved throughout the 1980s as EEC measures, such as budget contributions, qualified majority voting, and the Single European Act were increasingly scrutinised by ministers committed to developing their technical expertise.Footnote22 During the same period, Rupert Murdoch’s ideological and commercial interests in influencing European policy at the national level led to increasingly hostile, partisan, and sometimes xenophobic reporting of European affairs within the British press.Footnote23 Thatcher’s Bruges speech in 1988 is frequently cited as the turning point when elite, media, and public opinion began to turn against Europe. It has been described as ‘a lightning rod for Euroscepticism within the Conservative Party’ and is commonly associated with legitimising or mainstreaming Euroscepticism within British politics.'

You were mistaken. This was all before Maastricht. You got it wrong.

And you asked where was I in the 1980s and 90s? Well I was living this. I was regularly working across Europe, dealing with all of this stuff so I remember it very, very well.

MaxPB said:

Driver said:

biggles said:

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

kjh said:

Driver said:

.

kjh said:

Driver said:

.

kjh said:

Driver said:

kjh said:

Driver said:

Stuartinromford said:

Driver said:

Foxy said:

Driver said:

Nigelb said:

biggles said:

Scott_xP said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Jeremy ClarksonGood: Brexit makes me want to sit in a gutter and weep

Since we left the EU it’s been easier to get into Iraq than France. None of this has made our lives better in any way

https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/jeremy-clarkson-brexit-makes-me-want-to-sit-in-a-gutter-and-weep-8tz2fl5vr

He's not wrong

But it’s still whinging about what we used to have. What we used to have is no longer available: we’ve taken it from you and you can never have it back...

You spent four decades whinging and moaning before you managed that.
Rejoining, should it ever happen, won’t take nearly as long.

In the meantime, just get used to it.

Not true. Before Maastricht, anti-Europeanism was negligible.

That's simply not true.

The highest polling against EU membership was in 1980, and it polled in the 40s quite often in the 1980s.

https://theconversation.com/polling-history-40-years-of-british-views-on-in-or-out-of-europe-61250

Not mentioned: salience.

Salient enough for Her Majesty's opposition to put Brexit in their 1983 manifesto.

It was a blooming stupid manifesto, but that's not the point.

Yeah, and what happened as a result of that manifesto?

Not relevant. Not for the first time you have come out with a fact that just isn't.

Afraid you've missed the point. Anti-Europeanism being a fringe thing was one reason Foot crashed so hard, as people thought "you're thinking this is one of the most important things?"

Anyone can poll on anything at any time. Given how inaccurate polls on this topic were when it was a live issue, trying to prove anything with polls from when it wasn't is... heroic, shall we say?

You are going off on a tangent. The original point had nothing to do with Foot. You said anti Europeanism was negligible pre Maastricht. Your words. Yet there were polls in the 40%. Hardly negligible. Now you are arguing those polls are worthless. Now I don't see how you can deduce that as polls are carried out using statistical methods, but even if they are, your evidence is just your opinion based upon nothing, absolutely nothing. I tend to rely on facts.

And if you think Foot lost just because of the EU you are deluded. The longest suicide note in history contained a lot more than EU membership. A lot.

Not what I said, so I'll leave it there, as you clearly haven't and won't try to understand what I've been saying.

Good grief. Do you not know what you just wrote?

In reply to 'Her Majesty's opposition put Brexit in their 1983 manifesto.' You replied 'Yeah, and what happened as a result of that manifesto?'

Now the normal implication from your reply to that statement is one of cause and effect. If not why say it? So it is what you said.

And anyway you are again arguing a tangent. You said the EU wasn't an issue pre Maastricht and you were proved wrong, by you know, actual facts. Your response seems to be that those facts can be ignored. Handy. And come up with nothing else.

Honestly.

Oh, FFS, I'm going to have to try at least for the benefit of others who might be seduced by your wilful disingenuousness.



Before Maastricht, anti-Europeanism was unimportant in mainstream politics. The one time a major party mentioned it, it was as part of a very non-mainstream manifesto that got an utter thrashing at the ballot box. It absolutely was not a serious political issue, and saying "but 40% of people answered this way in a poll when it wasn't a live issue" is a laughable rebuttal.

I'm assuming you must be too young to remember the politics of the 80s and 90s. Or old enough to have forgotten them.

I don't think I have ever come across anyone so stupid. This is the umpteenth time you have stated a fact on PB in the last few weeks that someone has come back and pointed out was factually wrong. Would you like me to go and list them all for you? They are easy to look up.

You never mentioned Foot or the manifesto in the first place. Someone else did who pointed out you were wrong in your claim. That person also pointed out themselves how daft that manifesto was as have I.

So can we stop talking about that f***** manifesto.

You said 'Before Maastricht, anti-Europeanism was negligible.'

As pointed out to you this was not true as polls regularly put it over 40%. Now regular over 40% polls is NOT negligible. In fact IPSO/Mori polls between 1979 and 1983 were all over 50% for leave. One in 1979 was 60 - 32 and one in 18980 was 65 - 26.

So yep you were mind mindbogglingly spectacularly wrong in your initial statement.

Maastricht wasn’t the problem. It was the closest we ever got to a solution. It allowed the UK to opt out of the bits of Europe we didn’t like whilst opting in to the bits we did. It was a masterpiece of a negotiation.

And then Blair and Brown came. along saying that we had to be at the heart of Europe and waived most of our opt outs. The path was fairly inevitably fixed from that point forward.

The problem was Lisbon, if the government had given us a referendum as promised then it would have secured our veto power in key policy areas that Lisbon moved to QMV as a "No" vote from one of the big three would have been impossible to ignore as they did with Ireland. After Labour welched on it I think leaving became inevitable. The amount of control Lisbon gave the EU over our nation was very high and we had no way to reject their ideas or force them to rethink with a veto. It got people like myself and others into the Leave camp where before Lisbon it didn't bother me much as an issue.

I was in exactly the same place. I wasn’t even fully Leave until after the botched negotiation. And even then I was on the fence a bit during the campaign. On one level I wanted to vote leave, but have it narrowly lose and some reforms flow from that. But then Leave won, Remainers started being unpleasant, and I firmed up my position.

I wasn't sure how I was going to vote until I was walking to the polling station. What was always clear to me was that, whichever of leaving and voting to remain was better, the worst of all worlds by far would be to vote to leave but be forced by the politicians to remain anyway.

I think what scared me the most was a Remain vote being used by EU politicians to tell dissenting UK representatives to stfu because the public had voted by a narrow margin to stay. Suddenly we become the whipping boys and our interests are overridden even though no one consented to that new arrangement.

Oh, that was definitely a factor. It was obvious that a remain vote would have been taken by the EU as an endorsement of the Project and be used as an argument against us asking for literally anything else ever in future.

I was fully prepared to sign up to the European Movement in the event of a Remain win because in those circumstances, actually going along with the Project would likely have been the best outcome. Being reluctantly half in wasn't working for us and it wasn't working for the 27 either.

Hamas seem to keep their hostages in conditions that nearly, or indeed probably have, killed them.

Yet based on today's numbers under this ceasefire each Israeli is worth ≈30 Hamas prisoners released.

Might be a good idea just looking at the maths to keep Israeli hostages alive and properly fed?