MaxPB said:

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.

I see the logic of your argument and I think it very sound, although I am very squeamish about ruthless deportation stuff (being a liver lived liberal), but the logic seems very sound.

My issue with selling it is the public's reaction to an open border with the rest of Europe and people stop listening to the additional sentences which explains why it works. I assume that was @DavidL point as well. If you can do that I think you have a winner.

I'm still worried about how the European wide illegal immigrant / asylum seeker stuff will work though. Will it be too harsh? Will it be ignored? The devil is in the detail.

.

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.

And we prefer to generate our own bullshit.

rottenborough said:

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?

https://www.972mag.com/tunnels-hamas-lethal-gas-bombs-gaza/

Driver said:

kjh said:

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.

So by your own quote, you're saying that Euroscepticism was neither legitimate nor mainstream before September 1988. Negotiations for the Maastricht Treaty started in December 1990. Given that there was no general election between the two, this is a distinction with minimal difference.

Edited to add: It's true that politicians throughout the 1980s, and indeed subsequently, often blamed "Europe" for them implementing an unpopular policy. Makes you wonder why they were surprised that people took it to heart.

Oh for gods sake, can you never admit you were wrong:

a) What do you think throughout the 1980s means?

b) 1988 was 4 years before Masstricht which was your baseline. 4 years before you said it wasn't an issue

c) What the hell has a GE got to do with it? You said anti Europeanism was negligible before Maastericht. Nothing about a GE. I have shown you that isn't true.

d) Not my quote. From Contemporary British History. Would you like more proving you wrong? I can list out umpteen polls and articles. I can provide many more if you wish.

You were wrong. Spectacularly so. Own it.

Just out of interest, seeing as you asked me. How old were you then? And I believe you are in manufacturing. Do you actually sell to the EU and if you do, did you before and after we left the EU and do you deal with the paperwork? Have you ever had to deal with a carnet and if so did you export before you needed to?

If you are bored or have some popcorn left hanging around that needs hovering up before Lent, then Hodges vs Owen Jones on Twitter/X this evening is a recommendation.

rottenborough said:

If you are bored or have some popcorn left hanging around that needs hovering up before Lent, then Hodges vs Owen Jones on Twitter/X this evening is a recommendation.

Can't we just send both of them abroad?

Northern_Al said:

Driver said:

kjh said:

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.

So by your own quote, you're saying that Euroscepticism was neither legitimate nor mainstream before September 1988. Negotiations for the Maastricht Treaty started in December 1990. Given that there was no general election between the two, this is a distinction with minimal difference.

Edited to add: It's true that politicians throughout the 1980s, and indeed subsequently, often blamed "Europe" for them implementing an unpopular policy. Makes you wonder why they were surprised that people took it to heart.

A reluctant intervention. I sort of agree with you that EU membership wasn't a big issue in the country in the 1980s and 1990s - most people didn't care. But it was, increasingly so, in the Conservative Party; through the 1990s and into the 2000s - it was a running sore. Cameron saw a referendum as the only way, eventually, to lance the boil.

I had a somewhat interesting chat recently with an LLM about the UK relations with EU. Back to the 70s votes, the initial #indyref, the Countryside Alliance, Referendum Party, Maastricht, etc.

All kicked off from trying to remember the actor who played "Mike Yates" (UNIT - 70s Dr.Who), who it turns out went on a bit of a political voyage through time and space...

"Franklin stood as a candidate for the UK Parliament for several parties and founded the Silent Majority Party. "

Yes.

kjh said:

MaxPB said:

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.

I see the logic of your argument and I think it very sound, although I am very squeamish about ruthless deportation stuff (being a liver lived liberal), but the logic seems very sound.

My issue with selling it is the public's reaction to an open border with the rest of Europe and people stop listening to the additional sentences which explains why it works. I assume that was @DavidL point as well. If you can do that I think you have a winner.

I'm still worried about how the European wide illegal immigrant / asylum seeker stuff will work though. Will it be too harsh? Will it be ignored? The devil is in the detail.

Well of course the devil is always in the detail and such a negotiation would take years to co-ordinate given there's a lot of moving parts, probably EU treaty reform, a UK-EU bilateral treaty on migration, reform of the ECHR to amend those parts that make it difficult to deport foreign criminals, failed asylum seekers and illegal immigrants, reform of our own laws to make it easier to deport people, a bilateral deal with France because those always seem to come as part of these negotiations.

The UK joining Schengen would be a huge change for all of Europe, I think it is probably the single most important thing for the EU to achieve. It makes the UK feel "European" rather than some offshore entity where everyone needs a passport to go. It's a huge part of their cultural push behind ever closer union so getting the UK in, I think in their opinion, would remove the single largest barrier to the UK rejoining the EU completely.

dixiedean said:

MoonRabbit 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’m GenZ, just, but I know that although lots of voters later confirmed our membership, a great many senior parliamentarians voted against in the 1973 vote that took us in. Labour in the commons had a three line whip not to join Europe, not enough Conservative MPs voted to get their governments flag ship policy over the line, even though their lack of support would have destroyed their own Prime Minister. it needed a sizeable Labour rebellion to take us in.

Later on in the 1970s, it split the Labour Party into 2 parties. So in the 1970s and 1980s it was a very contentious and defining political issue. Into the 1990s, it was a very contentious issue in the Conservative government, destabilising it to the point the leader resigned, and during the 1997 campaign MPs openly disagreed with PM John Major - complete lack of discipline making the party look split.

Europe policy did not split Labour into two Parties.

The first SDP leader, Lord Jenkins, was previously punched and spat on by Labour front benchers, on his way into the lobby, as he was leader of the Labour rebels who took the UK into Europe in 1973. It comes across clearly in all the history books, overriding policy difference SDP founders had with Labour Party was Europe membership.

What have you got to make you argue differently?

TheScreamingEagles 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.

Have you travelled with a film crew and equipment? This is the issue Clarkson is highlighting.

It's happening with other EU countries due to all the new Brexit dividends that British companies are experiencing.

Yep, that is the big one. I have highlighted it a number of times. if you are taking stuff to Europe and you are bringing it back (in some form or other) it is a nightmare. Been there done that and the change is awful. Typical problem areas are musicians, motor racing, filming, building exhibition stands or stages, etc.

I dread to think what a carnet for several artics are for a Rock band or McLaren looks like nor the conversations at the border. I had enough trouble with a car load. A friend who built exhibition stands and stages just wound up his business immediately upon Brexit because he could no longer compete in Europe, which just left him the UK.

kjh said:

Driver said:

kjh said:

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.

So by your own quote, you're saying that Euroscepticism was neither legitimate nor mainstream before September 1988. Negotiations for the Maastricht Treaty started in December 1990. Given that there was no general election between the two, this is a distinction with minimal difference.

Edited to add: It's true that politicians throughout the 1980s, and indeed subsequently, often blamed "Europe" for them implementing an unpopular policy. Makes you wonder why they were surprised that people took it to heart.

Oh for gods sake, can you never admit you were wrong:

a) What do you think throughout the 1980s means?

b) 1988 was 4 years before Masstricht which was your baseline. 4 years before you said it wasn't an issue

c) What the hell has a GE got to do with it? You said anti Europeanism was negligible before Maastericht. Nothing about a GE. I have shown you that isn't true.

d) Not my quote. From Contemporary British History. Would you like more proving you wrong? I can list out umpteen polls and articles. I can provide many more if you wish.

You were wrong. Spectacularly so. Own it.

Just out of interest, seeing as you asked me. How old were you then? And I believe you are in manufacturing. Do you actually sell to the EU and if you do, did you before and after we left the EU and do you deal with the paperwork? Have you ever had to deal with a carnet and if so did you export before you needed to?

(d) oh, my word, you're really tying yourself in knots now. "your quote" to mean "the quote you quoted" is surely not controversial.

But (c) explains, I think, why you're tying yourself in knots. My original claim was that anti-Europeanism in the sense of actually wanting to leave (see the original comment I was replying to for the context) was negligible before Maastricht.

And, yes, I export to the EU and deal with all the paperwork. It's easier than exporting to the Channel Islands was before Brexit.

rottenborough said:

If you are bored or have some popcorn left hanging around that needs hovering up before Lent, then Hodges vs Owen Jones on Twitter/X this evening is a recommendation.

https://nitter.poast.org/owenjonesjourno

Anyway, enough of this nonsense. It's past my bedtime.

dixiedean said:

MoonRabbit 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’m GenZ, just, but I know that although lots of voters later confirmed our membership, a great many senior parliamentarians voted against in the 1973 vote that took us in. Labour in the commons had a three line whip not to join Europe, not enough Conservative MPs voted to get their governments flag ship policy over the line, even though their lack of support would have destroyed their own Prime Minister. it needed a sizeable Labour rebellion to take us in.

Later on in the 1970s, it split the Labour Party into 2 parties. So in the 1970s and 1980s it was a very contentious and defining political issue. Into the 1990s, it was a very contentious issue in the Conservative government, destabilising it to the point the leader resigned, and during the 1997 campaign MPs openly disagreed with PM John Major - complete lack of discipline making the party look split.

Europe policy did not split Labour into two Parties.

It wasn't the only reason for the split but it was certainly part of the reason (and a big part at that) ?

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.

It did become a "do or die" moment. I think most people realized that we either took this one and only opportunity to set a new course, or we had to submit completely to the EU, including the Euro.

We couldn't go on as we were. Half in, half out, griping from the sidelines but always (ALWAYS) getting deeper and deeper involved with every new treaty.

So people took their chance... And then added to that you have the people who hadn't voted for 30 years and had nothing. If you have nothing you have nothing to lose...

Put it all together and you have Brexit.

Hah, ha, ha...


Neil Henderson
@hendopolis
·
2h
SUNDAY EXPRESS: Tories call for Reform pact to save UK #TomorrowsPapersToday

Gardenwalker said:

Trump has fired the National Archivist.

Due to her involvement in his classified documents case apparently.

He has said he will appoint a new National Archivist to replace her, I hope they are qualified!

rottenborough said:

Hah, ha, ha...


Neil Henderson
@hendopolis
·
2h
SUNDAY EXPRESS: Tories call for Reform pact to save UK #TomorrowsPapersToday

Evening, PB.

This reminds me of when Bozza Johnson often took the Tory Party to be the U.K, too.

rottenborough said:

Nigelb said:

Gardenwalker said:

Trump has fired the National Archivist.

There’s a general assault on all state institutions.

As I posted earlier -

first they came for the librarians.

And as we all answered - SHHHHHHHHHHH

At least by being so open in their anti institutions, cross checks on power, and fast and loose with democracy and accountability, they are proving without doubt they are not conservatives. It makes it very awkward for those UK Conservatives who now appear part of MAGA gang.

FrancisUrquhart 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 anything to do with private enterprise.

Fixed for you.

Fixed your fix

Not sure Starmer's magic genie is still working.

MoonRabbit said:

rottenborough said:

Nigelb said:

Gardenwalker said:

Trump has fired the National Archivist.

There’s a general assault on all state institutions.

As I posted earlier -

first they came for the librarians.

And as we all answered - SHHHHHHHHHHH

At least by being so open in their anti institutions, cross checks on power, and fast and loose with democracy and accountability, they are proving without doubt they are not conservatives. It makes it very awkward for those UK Conservatives who now appear part of MAGA gang.

And for the likely gang on here who have moved seamlessly from fervent Brexitism to outright Trumpery.

MoonRabbit said:

rottenborough said:

Nigelb said:

Gardenwalker said:

Trump has fired the National Archivist.

There’s a general assault on all state institutions.

As I posted earlier -

first they came for the librarians.

And as we all answered - SHHHHHHHHHHH

At least by being so open in their anti institutions, cross checks on power, and fast and loose with democracy and accountability, they are proving without doubt they are not conservatives. It makes it very awkward for those UK Conservatives who now appear part of MAGA gang.

And we know it is genuine too, since Trump was not even popular among Consevative voters, so any current or former Tory MPs trying to ape MAGA are doing it because they believe in it, not to be popular among their voters (possibly Reform voters).

Gardenwalker said:

Trump has fired the National Archivist.

What was his beef with them?

Nigelb said:

Gardenwalker said:

Trump has fired the National Archivist.

There’s a general assault on all state institutions.

The President is the only state people need.

Believes Clarence Thomas, probably.

(Just kidding, he would believe in the need for a Supreme Court which is unaccountable to and superior to all other branches of government).

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

TimS said:

Casino_Royale said:

biggles said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Cleitophon said:

I am confounded how reform can do so well while brexit support is in such radical decline (rejoin and dropping red lines have huge support). I guess even farage has been critical of brexit lately 🤷‍♂️

45/37 in favour of rejoin in the latest poll

It is widely accepted across politics including by the Lib Dems rejoining is years away if at all

Because it isn’t “rejoining”. It’s joining. And those who know what that means know a ten point starting lead isn’t enough to win a referendum on it.

It'd be lost by over 60:40. This is like Queen Mary trying to overturn the Reformation.

Next.

Or King Charles II trying to overturn Cromwell’s republic?

It was with an acceptance of constitutional not absolute monarchy and that Parliament was now supreme not the Crown.

We may rejoin the single market in time but unlikely the full EU

That was later, after James VII and II tried it on again and got the chop, albeit allowed by mistake accidentally for some strange reason to escape rather than having the hassle of literally chopping him.

James II was mainly removed as he was trying to remove the primacy of the Protestant faith in England and Scotland and his attempt to remove restrictions on Roman Catholics by decree without Parliament. He was not trying to restore Divine Right on a broader basis in terms of his power to raise taxes and an army without Parliament's approval as his father had.

Indeed the strongest support for James II and VII came from Jacobite parts of Scotland and Ireland

The acceptance of constitutional monarchy was, nevertheless, *what you specified*, and that is what happened when James VII and II got turfed out.

Dinner now ready - have a nice time everyone.

Charles II had already accepted constitutional monarchy, 1688 just entrenched it in law via the Bill of Rights (while also after James II banning Roman Catholics from the throne too as entrenched by the 1701 Act of Settlement)

But Charles II didn't sign anything, and went back to RCism as far as he dared. Basically, as I said, kicked the can down the road.

Charles II never raised an army or tried to raise taxes without Parliament's approval unlike his father.

He also unlike his brother backed down on a Declaration of Indulgence and agreed to implement the Test Acts passed by Parliament which required those holding office to deny the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation and take Anglican communion

No one really wanted to start the fighting up again and Charles II wasn't stupid or stubborn enough to push things to the point confrontation became inevitable again.

On topic, not for the thread but for the site.

"Revealed: gambling firms secretly sharing users’ data with Facebook without permission
Meta accounts of those affected flooded with ads for casinos and betting sites"

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/feb/08/gambling-firms-secretly-shared-users-data-with-facebook-without-permission

rottenborough said:

MoonRabbit said:

rottenborough said:

Nigelb said:

Gardenwalker said:

Trump has fired the National Archivist.

There’s a general assault on all state institutions.

As I posted earlier -

first they came for the librarians.

And as we all answered - SHHHHHHHHHHH

At least by being so open in their anti institutions, cross checks on power, and fast and loose with democracy and accountability, they are proving without doubt they are not conservatives. It makes it very awkward for those UK Conservatives who now appear part of MAGA gang.

Are there any conservatives, in the traditional, widely understood meaning, left in Badenoch's party?

There’s me. Fighting the good fight. I know my stuff, know Conservatism is right. Though I’m not in the party. But my Dad is. He says in politics it all just goes round in a cycle, and a One Nation Conservative Party will get back in power again, somewhere on the cycle.

There’s plenty of people with very right wing views who still believe in democracy, still believe all politicians should be held accountable, for whom the juvenile cosplay fascism across the pond becomes something of an embarrassment.
 
For Conservatives everywhere, including Boris, Farage, who associated themselves with Trump, this is far more than embarrassing, being tarred by their association with the Project 25 Gang can start to hurt their own political ambitions, arm interviewers with a whole load of very good questions.

Conservatives cannot be populist. Populism pushes the idea of popular sovereignty above the independence of democratic institutions and the professionalism of the representatives and leaders of those institutions - populism as opportunism, masquerading as values and agenda for government like a crusading ideology pretending it is voice of all the people, whilst acting undemocratically deaf to anyone with a different view. Likewise the undermining and attack on all the counterbalances of power. This is very opposite ideology to UK Conservatism, which has thrived in UK opposing such people and their populist ideology - be the populist threat from the left or the right.

Sleepy Joe’s Administration was indeed sleepy on what voters felt about uncontrolled immigration, yet as governments around the world who had presided over historic income falls, themselves fell, Trump was so rubbish he still nearly blew it. Joe Biden said he would be a transitional president and then refused to announce his retirement in January 2023. Then Biden pulled out so late in 2024, there was no time for a normal primary. Imo very few Americans actually voted for Project 25, they don’t want this. There’s an argument - despite price of eggs and immigration - Trump would be packed off into retirement now, and Biden has some responsibility for all this happening. And as it plays out in America, giving populism a bad reputation, it is going to hurt UK populists, so far cosy with Trump.

It’s possible Leon might have declared peak Leon this evening with his “happiest day ever” post. From here, his happiness might only deteriorate. 😈

Andy_JS said:

This is pretty scary.

"As our new eight-episode podcast, “Scam Inc”, describes, online fraudsters have become rich and powerful enough to corrupt entire governments, turning whole countries into the cyber-scam equivalent of narco-states. Scam operations can be found all over the world, from Myanmar to Mexico. The global proceeds of online fraud are probably more than $500bn a year, estimates Martin Purbrick, an expert in Chinese organised crime who was a police officer in Hong Kong for 11 years. That puts scamming on a par with the illegal drugs trade as one of the world’s biggest illicit industries. And unlike illegal drugs, scams cannot be seized by police or customs. With nothing more than a phone line and internet connection, scammers can turn anyone into a potential victim."

https://www.economist.com/briefing/2025/02/06/online-scams-may-already-be-as-big-a-scourge-as-illegal-drugs

This is -sadly- very plausible.

One of the main articles on Tory Home.

"Will the last Tory to leave please turn out the lights?"

https://conservativehome.com/2025/02/06/will-the-last-tory-to-leave-please-turn-out-the-lights/

rottenborough said:

Get the popcorn in kids!!!

Michael Crick
@MichaelLCrick
·
1h
I hear that scores of screenshots of Andrew Gwynne's Trigger Me Timbers WhatsApp group are likely to emerge in the next few days, which will make life very uncomfortable for several local councillors and at least one MP.

End to end encryption doesn't work with Shift+Prt Sc

Andy_JS said:

This is pretty scary.

"As our new eight-episode podcast, “Scam Inc”, describes, online fraudsters have become rich and powerful enough to corrupt entire governments, turning whole countries into the cyber-scam equivalent of narco-states. Scam operations can be found all over the world, from Myanmar to Mexico. The global proceeds of online fraud are probably more than $500bn a year, estimates Martin Purbrick, an expert in Chinese organised crime who was a police officer in Hong Kong for 11 years. That puts scamming on a par with the illegal drugs trade as one of the world’s biggest illicit industries. And unlike illegal drugs, scams cannot be seized by police or customs. With nothing more than a phone line and internet connection, scammers can turn anyone into a potential victim."

https://www.economist.com/briefing/2025/02/06/online-scams-may-already-be-as-big-a-scourge-as-illegal-drugs

Is this a coded reference to Elon Musk?

squareroot2 said:

Apologies of already posted but it's such hypocrisy

https://www.thetimes.com/article/4fd983a7-de62-4117-98e7-ee0f40ecba79?shareToken=5c95d274d02c100ae1e9f1555c4221e2

An average middle manager in the South East can earn that. What's the issue? Pay peanuts, get monkeys?

Andy_JS said:

This is pretty scary.

"As our new eight-episode podcast, “Scam Inc”, describes, online fraudsters have become rich and powerful enough to corrupt entire governments, turning whole countries into the cyber-scam equivalent of narco-states. Scam operations can be found all over the world, from Myanmar to Mexico. The global proceeds of online fraud are probably more than $500bn a year, estimates Martin Purbrick, an expert in Chinese organised crime who was a police officer in Hong Kong for 11 years. That puts scamming on a par with the illegal drugs trade as one of the world’s biggest illicit industries. And unlike illegal drugs, scams cannot be seized by police or customs. With nothing more than a phone line and internet connection, scammers can turn anyone into a potential victim."

https://www.economist.com/briefing/2025/02/06/online-scams-may-already-be-as-big-a-scourge-as-illegal-drugs

In theory the Online Safety Act should deal with fraud but in practice, the only thing its creators seem to care about is porn. Fraud gets about three words.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

squareroot2 said:

Apologies of already posted but it's such hypocrisy

https://www.thetimes.com/article/4fd983a7-de62-4117-98e7-ee0f40ecba79?shareToken=5c95d274d02c100ae1e9f1555c4221e2

What is hypocritical about leaning on the BBC to stop it reporting Sue Gray is paid £3,000 more than Starmer?

Bloody stupid, perhaps. If you care that much, why not have given her a smaller pay increase, say £3,001 less?

And besides newspaper editors, who does Starmer imagine gives a damn about yet another "X gets more than the Prime Minister" story?

This is a story about the Prime Minister's lack of political judgement but not hypocrisy.

Because Starmer slagged off the Tories about leaning on the BBC about Lineker.

It absolutely is hypocritical behaviour, the poor judgement is a given.. in appointing her ...and subsequently trying to hush up the salary.

squareroot2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

squareroot2 said:

Apologies of already posted but it's such hypocrisy

https://www.thetimes.com/article/4fd983a7-de62-4117-98e7-ee0f40ecba79?shareToken=5c95d274d02c100ae1e9f1555c4221e2

What is hypocritical about leaning on the BBC to stop it reporting Sue Gray is paid £3,000 more than Starmer?

Bloody stupid, perhaps. If you care that much, why not have given her a smaller pay increase, say £3,001 less?

And besides newspaper editors, who does Starmer imagine gives a damn about yet another "X gets more than the Prime Minister" story?

This is a story about the Prime Minister's lack of political judgement but not hypocrisy.

Because Starmer slagged off the Tories about leaning on the BBC about Lineker.

It absolutely is hypocritical behaviour, the poor judgement is a given.. in appointing her ...and subsequently trying to hush up the salary.

This whole Gray mess gives off an absolute stink of corruption. It may not have been corrupt, or even dodgy, but it sure as heck stinks like it is.

And that's a sign of people who have zero political instinct.

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.

Otoh I feel my country voting to stay but forced by the politicians to leave has turned out just fine.

Gardenwalker said:

Trump has fired the National Archivist.

Everyone knows historical records are Woke.
Plus who wants evidence of their shithousery preserved.

Theuniondivvie said:

Gardenwalker said:

Trump has fired the National Archivist.

Everyone knows historical records are Woke.
Plus who wants evidence of their shithousery preserved.

I remember seeing her confirmation hearings and there were doubts raised about her impartiality given her social media activities which were pretty clearly partial.

Everyone is entitled to have their opinions but posting them openly may not be the best choice if you want a job like this in the public sector.

So it doesn't surprise me that this action was taken.

NEW THREAD

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:

Hah, ha, ha...


Neil Henderson
@hendopolis
·
2h
SUNDAY EXPRESS: Tories call for Reform pact to save UK #TomorrowsPapersToday

The only surprise would be that it took this long for more people to start saying it.

You can see from the front page of Reform's website that they really do want to be friends.

Yet not one poll, even FindOutNow, is forecasting a Reform majority even as most polls forecast a hung parliament. So the political reality for Farage is without a deal with the Tories he has near zero chance of becoming PM or getting into government

So what would be the betting if there were a by-election in Morecambe and Lunesdale ?