Brexit benefits part 3453

But that critical thought didn't extend to Tory voters putting other practicalities ahead of the guaranteed hard Brexit a Tory vote would ensure?

The only chance to mitigate against the very worst of Brexits was to vote Labour. You chose not to, so logically your position on Brexit was less of an issue compared to your position on other factors.
That is completely unknown and unknowable. Remember, I'd yiu will, they Corbyn was a brexiteer and Johnson wasn't. Is it really guaranteed thay the person he was pro breixt would push for a soft brexit? So no, voting for Labour would not have meant a soft brexit.
 
These threads appear with such regularity, are so condescending and devoid of any proper debate - I am starting to suspect they are just posted to illicit a response and increase clicks. For whatever reason that might be.
I think, as I often repeat, you can lay that blame squarely at the brexiteers.

Whenever a story come up discussing a failure of brexit, the brexoteers will always go into either a denial mode or, as happens more frequently, "shoot the messenger".

Happy to have a debate with anyone who can debate the issue and avoid personal attacks. Its jsut rare thay that happens with a brexiter
 
Happy to have a debate with anyone who can debate the issue and avoid personal attacks. Its jsut rare thay that happens with a brexiter

selfish, the bigots, the unthinking greedy all insults towards leave voters from one of your first posts.

Village idiots, morons from another members you like that post.

Its not all one way traffic
 
Last edited:
I think, as I often repeat, you can lay that blame squarely at the brexiteers.

Whenever a story come up discussing a failure of brexit, the brexoteers will always go into either a denial mode or, as happens more frequently, "shoot the messenger".

Happy to have a debate with anyone who can debate the issue and avoid personal attacks. Its jsut rare thay that happens with a brexiter
This is the same bull**** we've already covered once again. Nobody shoots the messenger when it is anyone else. If you are the only messenger being shot then maybe it's not because of the message but the messenger. Sometime the messenger deserves shooting.

You literally started this topic, like you do every single time, by calling brexit voters selfish, racist bigots. You then have the temerity to complain about personal insults. You have already explained in the past that you didn't vote for the Tories because of Brexit, you voted for other reasons that were personal to you. Anyone with the critical thinking you implore others to use would say that you have voted selfishly for something that benefits you despite the very clear and obvious direction that the Tories would take under Johnson. You were willing to inflict damage on the rest of the country by the way of getting brexit done, public spending cuts, austerity and all the other crap that comes along with a Tory majority because they had favourable IR35 tax rules that suited your personal situation. How anyone would publicly state that is what they have done and then dare to call anyone else selfish is beyond belief.

I don't believe you are stupid so the only conclusion is that you are a troll. People are attacking you because it is exactly what you want. I'm willing to admit you are a good troll and it is extremely effective but I will never understand why someone would bother and yet this is the 100th time we've had the same old Brexit thread from you with no critical thinking applied, no self-reflection, mass-generalisations and insults and then cries of personal attacks. You read the board. You must be able to see nobody gets the same reaction despite posting similar things so it doesn't take a genius to work out that the topic isn't the problem. This isn't the only topic either. Every topic you engage in ends up the same and that is because it's either deliberate trolling or accidental. Either way some self-reflection wouldn't go amiss.
 
This is the same bull**** we've already covered once again. Nobody shoots the messenger when it is anyone else. If you are the only messenger being shot then maybe it's not because of the message but the messenger. Sometime the messenger deserves shooting.
Ignore the rest of your personal and nasty rant this bit is simply a lie. Anyone who posts abkut a brexit failure gets the same treatment. They certainly don't get a debate or a straight answer
 
selfish, the bigots, the unthinking greedy all insults towards leave voters from one of your first posts.

Village idiots, morons from another members you like that post.

Its not all one way traffic
I can justify mine though. I only call people selfish when they literally say something selfish to defend brexit
 
If there were issues with Bio Security (and I'm not saying there weren't, as I don't know the detail) we were in a position to affect change across the EU. If we didn't it's because we either (a) chose not to, or (b) were hamstrung by people like Farage using their MEP status to block measures that would improve standards
if you read the article apart from calling it " the post-Brexit implementation " there is no suggestion the new checks are because of Brexit. I would assume you could call anything a " the post-Brexit implementation" if it came after the withdrawal agreement regardless of it having anything to do with Brexit.

So its quite possible as you state that these " new checks " could have been implemented regardless of membership of the EU.

As I keep repeating this is all just speculation and Defra have yet to make an official statement according the the article.

It comes across as just another balls up from this incompetent government.
And click bait from Small Town

Post Brexit
 
Last edited:
I just can't....

It's insane isn't it? People make a decision they know for a fact to be wrong and they defend it to the death. I honestly don't get it man. When did we get so dumb?
I think that was the problem.. making a decision they know for a fact to be wrong.

How so? The socialists and trade unionists were all traditionally anti EU.. Jeremy Corbyn was anti EU his whole career. The EU was traditionally backed by Conservative governments. Recently we had voted against devolution in the EU.. this ‘Brexit’ vote was seen as a way to remove another tier of governance. People didn’t want it.. did you see the absolute state of the MEPs we sent to the European Parliament?

Dumb, dumb, idiots, morons, racists.. anyone who spoke or thought about Brexit.. let’s not forget that Brexit was not a black and white issue.. it never should have been. The no deal brexit was always a worse case scenario.. the worse possible outcome that no one in their right mind would push or move towards.

Step forward the staw haired bullingdon boy.. with friends in all the wrong places and more than used to burning money and setting fire to establishments in order to assert dominance. A clown if choas able to line his pockets as he played soggy biscuit with the economy.

We’ve all seen it.. we should all know it.. yet the whole country seems to be locked in a never ending loop of Brexit nonsense.. it’s not your mate down the pub, it wasn’t your bother in law or men in rubber dinghies.

It was all the chaps in nice suits at westminister who were all building their generational wealth off the back of the dreadful but very deliberate decisions made by Boris, Truss & Sunak.

Benefit of Brexit? Seeing how corrupt our media is and our government.. how much if a closed shop it is and the illusion of democracy.
 
I can justify mine though. I only call people selfish when they literally say something selfish to defend brexit
Problem is, you made post number 11 before anyone had said anything at all in defence of brexit.
In that post you called people who voted for brexit - selfish, bigots, unthinking and greedy. And wanted to deport them.
What sort of response did you expect? It was hardly the opening for a reasoned and sensible debate was it?
I think you got exactly the response that you wanted.
Anyway. I'll leave you to it. I hope you enjoy your experience.
 
Problem is, you made post number 11 before anyone had said anything at all in defence of brexit.
In that post you called people who voted for brexit - selfish, bigots, unthinking and greedy. And wanted to deport them.
What sort of response did you expect? It was hardly the opening for a reasoned and sensible debate was it?
I think you got exactly the response that you wanted.
Anyway. I'll leave you to it. I hope you enjoy your experience.
Did I want to deport them? It sounds like something i'd say mind but I don't recall typing it!

The point is I never get a reasoned and sensible debate eon the subject. The only summation must be that those who still defend it don't HAVE a reasonable and sensible debate
 
So its quite possible as you state that these " new checks " could have been implemented regardless of membership of the EU.

Post Brexit
No, it 100% is due to us being outside the EU.

The rules haven't changed as such; us and the EU don't recognise each other's general standards; which is why phytosanitary documentation and checks are now required for individual shipments.

The competent authority that allows and governs exports into and within the EU is effectively the European Commission. For the UK, we now have government agencies that set and enforce (or not) the rules in place, depending on the issues. For this recent set of checks, it's DEFRA who are in charge and it is their rules that the vets and health inspectors are signing off.

It's currently a bit of a waste of time as the standards are basically the same but it's what people voted for I guess.
 
That is completely unknown and unknowable. Remember, I'd yiu will, they Corbyn was a brexiteer and Johnson wasn't. Is it really guaranteed thay the person he was pro breixt would push for a soft brexit? So no, voting for Labour would not have meant a soft brexit.

Are you really trying to imply your vote for Johnson was for the softer brexit?

Jesus wept. 😂
 
Are you really trying to imply your vote for Johnson was for the softer brexit?

Jesus wept. 😂
It was impossible for Johnson to want a certain type of Brexit as he didn't and still probably doesn't understand what the different types of departure were.

Even when his own oven ready deal was being put in place, he didn't understand it.
 
* The UK spider’s web is responsible for over a third of global tax losses
The jurisdiction that causes countries the most global tax losses is British Overseas Territory Cayman, which is responsible for other countries losing over $70 billion in tax every year. However, Cayman is just one jurisdiction that falls under UK’s network of Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies, where the UK has full powers to impose or veto lawmaking and where power to appoint key government officials rests with the British Crown. Infamously referred to as the UK spider’s web, extensive research has documented the ways in which this network of jurisdictions operates as a web of tax havens facilitating corporate and private tax abuse, at the centre of which sits the City of London.
The State of Tax Justice 2020 finds that the UK spider’s web is responsible for 37.4 per cent of all tax losses suffered by countries around the world, costing countries over $160 billion in lost tax every year.*
Was and still is probably the most corrupt square mile on the planet.

The EU were going to clamp down on some of the activities of places like this. Then Cameron, who didn’t have to, went ahead with none binding advisory referendum.
On a result with a minute differential of 3%…which in most countries would be seen as too small a percentage to be considered a firm result. Usually 60-40 is required.
But ahead he went. The High Court in a later case ruled the referendum tainted with illegal practices. But it was ‘advisory’ so could not be ruled to be re-run. If it had been binding, the result would not have stood and another vote taken, or the whole thing abandoned.
There was something inherently dodgy about the whole lead up and process.

IMG_0290.jpeg
 
It was impossible for Johnson to want a certain type of Brexit as he didn't and still probably doesn't understand what the different types of departure were.

Even when his own oven ready deal was being put in place, he didn't understand it.
Well exactly. Didn't have a clue and didn't care, he was just going to push it through whatever so he could claim he'd "got brexit done".

Not having a deal or having the flimsiest of deals that even the tories had no real intention of taking seriously was pretty clearly always going to end up being a hard brexit.
 
Well exactly. Didn't have a clue and didn't care, he was just going to push it through whatever so he could claim he'd "got brexit done".

Not having a deal or having the flimsiest of deals that even the tories had no real intention of taking seriously was pretty clearly always going to end up being a hard brexit.
Why? Just out of curiosity why did you think the tory brexit would be harder than the Labour one?
 
Why? Just out of curiosity why did you think the tory brexit would be harder than the Labour one?
Because everything that was being said at the time pointed directly towards that eventuality.

It wasn't even a case of reading between the lines. It was just listen to what people are saying.

Labour were committed to a soft Brexit to the point that they would have happily pivoted to no Brexit at all if they'd been able to show it was unworkable.

The Tories were still filling the airwaves with promises of sunlit uplands.

It wasn't difficult to work out.
 
Why? Just out of curiosity why did you think the tory brexit would be harder than the Labour one?
Because there were more Tories both within the parliamentary party and their voting base that were distinctly anti-EU in attitude, so were less likely to look at mitigation of the effects of leaving.

I don't think its that controversial. You only had to look at the way in which 'moderate' voices had been forced out. I can't think of many high profile names in Labour that were sidelined due to the EU and Brexit debate.
 
Because there were more Tories both within the parliamentary party and their voting base that were distinctly anti-EU in attitude, so were less likely to look at mitigation of the effects of leaving.

I don't think its that controversial. You only had to look at the way in which 'moderate' voices had been forced out. I can't think of many high profile names in Labour that were sidelined due to the EU and Brexit debate.
I'm not saying it's controversial. Just not as obvious as people are suggesting. I guess hindsight is 20-20.
 
Back
Top