BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

pblakeney

Hurts when it hits your industry, doesn’t it?
The oil industry lost over 100,000 job losses in the UK during the past 5 years if you include the indirectly affected.

rick_chasey

Not so much that, just more in the interest of scale. There's a lot more tears cried over smaller businesses.

bobmcstuff

Coopster the 1st wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

How can "clean brexit" be accurate when it is a meaningless phrase?

No less meaningful than "hard Brexit" or "soft Brexit, all terms started by the losers. "Clean Brexit" is positive compared to the negative terms spread by remainers.

My biggest criticism of the Leave side since winning is they have allowed the losers to control the narrative with sensationalist negative terms.

What planet are you on where the narrative has been controlled by remainers??

Before the ref. even the Leave campaigns were talking about continued CU/SM membership, but now apparently the only true Brexit is a so-called "Clean Brexit" (no deal) - anything else simply doesn't count.

So I fail to see how you can interpret that as remainers controlling the narrative.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

Not so much that, just more in the interest of scale. There's a lot more tears cried over smaller businesses.

As I hinted, the proportion relative the overall sector is tiny. When British Steel went under that was one of six producers in the UK.

Also one fisherman is apparently worth at least 100 in FS.

john80

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Not so much that, just more in the interest of scale. There's a lot more tears cried over smaller businesses.

As I hinted, the proportion relative the overall sector is tiny. When British Steel went under that was one of six producers in the UK.

Also one fisherman is apparently worth at least 100 in FS.

I can eat fish whereas I can't eat money. The argument that we should let other fish our waters and control quotas so that we can have access to the single market has not been winning over those in fishing ports rather unsurprisingly. Not much different to how no deal has not been winning over bankers. You would think all those highly educated bankers would maybe be able to see an alternative view point. Maybe you can go into the next election with the slogan. Bankers worth a hundred fishermen.

rjsterry

john80 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Not so much that, just more in the interest of scale. There's a lot more tears cried over smaller businesses.

As I hinted, the proportion relative the overall sector is tiny. When British Steel went under that was one of six producers in the UK.

Also one fisherman is apparently worth at least 100 in FS.

I can eat fish whereas I can't eat money. The argument that we should let other fish our waters and control quotas so that we can have access to the single market has not been winning over those in fishing ports rather unsurprisingly. Not much different to how no deal has not been winning over bankers. You would think all those highly educated bankers would maybe be able to see an alternative view point. Maybe you can go into the next election with the slogan. Bankers worth a hundred fishermen.

I think you're over-analysing a sarcastic comment. A job is a job, as far as I'm concerned, but the idea that jobs where things are made/farmed/harvested are somehow more worthy than those based in an office is absurd.

kingstongraham

Coopster the 1st wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

How can "clean brexit" be accurate when it is a meaningless phrase?

No less meaningful than "hard Brexit" or "soft Brexit, all terms started by the losers. "Clean Brexit" is positive compared to the negative terms spread by remainers.

My biggest criticism of the Leave side since winning is they have allowed the losers to control the narrative with sensationalist negative terms.

I didn't say soft or hard were accurate though. Clean Brexit is undoubtedly a positive sounding phrase, but it can not be described as accurate like you said it were.

Unfortunately, I think the acceptance of terms like "Brexit" and "Brexiteer" have contributed to it seeming like a positive thing.

pblakeney

Rick Chasey wrote:

Not so much that, just more in the interest of scale. There's a lot more tears cried over smaller businesses.

As I said, over 100k in the oil industry v up to 8k in FS. That kind of scale.
Can't say that I experienced much tears, nor expected any.

rick_chasey

PBlakeney wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Not so much that, just more in the interest of scale. There's a lot more tears cried over smaller businesses.

As I said, over 100k in the oil industry v up to 8k in FS. That kind of scale.
Can't say that I experienced much tears, nor expected any.

No, fair.

rjsterry

Aside from the alternative universe that C1st inhabits, I see Farage is hinting that the Tories should give him a free run at Brecon and Radnorshire. And bleating about how the Tories cost him victory in Peterborough.

tailwindhome

Rick Chasey wrote:

Not so much that, just more in the interest of scale. There's a lot more tears cried over smaller businesses.

Are the job losses in a industry which provide characters for children's books?

robert88

john80 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Not so much that, just more in the interest of scale. There's a lot more tears cried over smaller businesses.

As I hinted, the proportion relative the overall sector is tiny. When British Steel went under that was one of six producers in the UK.

Also one fisherman is apparently worth at least 100 in FS.

I can eat fish whereas I can't eat money. The argument that we should let other fish our waters and control quotas so that we can have access to the single market has not been winning over those in fishing ports rather unsurprisingly. Not much different to how no deal has not been winning over bankers. You would think all those highly educated bankers would maybe be able to see an alternative view point. Maybe you can go into the next election with the slogan. Bankers worth a hundred fishermen.

Or this:

"Give a man a fish and feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime. Teach a man to cycle and he will realize fishing is stupid and boring.”

Jez mon

rjsterry wrote:

john80 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Not so much that, just more in the interest of scale. There's a lot more tears cried over smaller businesses.

As I hinted, the proportion relative the overall sector is tiny. When British Steel went under that was one of six producers in the UK.

Also one fisherman is apparently worth at least 100 in FS.

I can eat fish whereas I can't eat money. The argument that we should let other fish our waters and control quotas so that we can have access to the single market has not been winning over those in fishing ports rather unsurprisingly. Not much different to how no deal has not been winning over bankers. You would think all those highly educated bankers would maybe be able to see an alternative view point. Maybe you can go into the next election with the slogan. Bankers worth a hundred fishermen.

I think you're over-analysing a sarcastic comment. A job is a job, as far as I'm concerned, but the idea that jobs where things are made/farmed/harvested are somehow more worthy than those based in an office is absurd.

A post brexit return to a subsistence economy is apparently a vote winner though.

coopster_the_1st

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

DB's website says they have "over 8000" staff in the UK so the majority of those 18000 losses must be overseas.

Yeah so the remaining 10 are split across the states, HK and Aus, hence London being heaviest hit.

:roll:

I know this is closer to your field than mine, but unless they are shutting down their London operation altogether it will be significantly less than 8000 losses in the UK. Out of a London FS workforce of ~700,000, even three or four thousand is half a percent.

As predicted way back when Project Fear was spouting all their ridiculous FS job loss nonsense, that 'because of Brexit' more job losses would happen than for normal business reasons.

I suspect the number of job losses from DB alone will be more than are going to occur by the UK leaving the EU.

bobmcstuff

Labour's new Brexit position is looking even more stupid:

Labour would back Remain if the next Tory prime minister opts for a second referendum but, if there is a snap election, the party would seek to negotiate its own Brexit deal.

This deal would then be put back to a referendum and Labour could even campaign against its own deal...

rjsterry

bobmcstuff wrote:

Labour's new Brexit position is looking even more stupid:

Labour would back Remain if the next Tory prime minister opts for a second referendum but, if there is a snap election, the party would seek to negotiate its own Brexit deal.

This deal would then be put back to a referendum and Labour could even campaign against its own deal...

I think we may as well write them off until the leader is replaced. I think it was Rafael Behr who commented that the goal is a mile wide, the keeper is on the floor and the ball is inches away from the line but Corbyn wants to consult (yet again) on whether the party really wants to score a goal.

john80

rjsterry wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Labour's new Brexit position is looking even more stupid:

Labour would back Remain if the next Tory prime minister opts for a second referendum but, if there is a snap election, the party would seek to negotiate its own Brexit deal.

This deal would then be put back to a referendum and Labour could even campaign against its own deal...

I think we may as well write them off until the leader is replaced. I think it was Rafael Behr who commented that the goal is a mile wide, the keeper is on the floor and the ball is inches away from the line but Corbyn wants to consult (yet again) on whether the party really wants to score a goal.

The pro remainers are missing the voter spread for Labour. Labour will likely lose more or as many seats as they gain from becoming a remain party based on their current voter profile. Corbyn knows this hence his current position and future position which is plainly ludicrous. It served Labours purpose to not assist in the delivery of Brexit as it has given the Tories death by a thousand cuts over the last few years. A general election winning plan I would doubt though as I don't see them forming a government without some form of coalition where the likely partners will be very problematic for them.

rick_chasey

john80 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Labour's new Brexit position is looking even more stupid:

Labour would back Remain if the next Tory prime minister opts for a second referendum but, if there is a snap election, the party would seek to negotiate its own Brexit deal.

This deal would then be put back to a referendum and Labour could even campaign against its own deal...

I think we may as well write them off until the leader is replaced. I think it was Rafael Behr who commented that the goal is a mile wide, the keeper is on the floor and the ball is inches away from the line but Corbyn wants to consult (yet again) on whether the party really wants to score a goal.

The pro remainers are missing the voter spread for Labour. Labour will likely lose more or as many seats as they gain from becoming a remain party based on their current voter profile.

This is wrong on multiple levels.
1) voters have already left them but that aside
2) any decent polling on this shows that they will lose materially fewer seats in a remain stance than a leave stance. This makes sense when you think about it - no one is going to believe labour are a leave party and have more leave-y parties to vote for and remain voters have already shown they trust Lib Dem’s greens and SNP but they are not credible winners of a GE.
3) the average labour voter is not a profile of a leave voter - au contraire they tend to be more middle class “liberal” left, rather than working class (though it is a broad church, still)

rjsterry

john80 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Labour's new Brexit position is looking even more stupid:

Labour would back Remain if the next Tory prime minister opts for a second referendum but, if there is a snap election, the party would seek to negotiate its own Brexit deal.

This deal would then be put back to a referendum and Labour could even campaign against its own deal...

I think we may as well write them off until the leader is replaced. I think it was Rafael Behr who commented that the goal is a mile wide, the keeper is on the floor and the ball is inches away from the line but Corbyn wants to consult (yet again) on whether the party really wants to score a goal.

The pro remainers are missing the voter spread for Labour. Labour will likely lose more or as many seats as they gain from becoming a remain party based on their current voter profile. Corbyn knows this hence his current position and future position which is plainly ludicrous. It served Labours purpose to not assist in the delivery of Brexit as it has given the Tories death by a thousand cuts over the last few years. A general election winning plan I would doubt though as I don't see them forming a government without some form of coalition where the likely partners will be very problematic for them.

That's not what polling data suggests. 'Lexiters' are in the minority within the party as a whole and very likely within Labour voters within their 'heartland' seats. For some reason people assume that because a majority of voters in, say, Don Valley voted Leave (actually this is only estimated as the results weren't counted by Parliamentary constituency), and a majority voted Labour at the following GE, that those Labour voters must also be predominantly Leavers. The statistics do not support this assumption.

A comparison of the 2015 and 2017 GEs for Don Valley shows what looks like the UKIP vote moving to the Conservatives, and Labour hoovering up half the LD vote, but mostly benefitting from increased turnout. This with Caroline Flint having campaigned for Remain. I'm sure there are some Lexiters there, but it seems much more likely that Leavers would be counted among the 42% of Conservative (including ex-UKIP) voters, especially considering what we now know about Conservative party members' views.

coopster_the_1st

bobmcstuff wrote:

This deal would then be put back to a referendum and Labour could even campaign against its own deal...

While this is the new messaging being put out by Labour it is even more perverse than their current view

I'm more than happy to see Labour officially renege on democracy and become a remain party, rather than their current 'unofficial' undemocratic remain stance, as it will split the remain vote meaning less MP's in parliament who refuse to respect electoral votes.

This is what is great about the Brexit Party, their influence is already realigning MP's egos regarding respecting electoral votes. Even when we do leave the EU I think the current crop of MP's have opened a Pandora's box and TBP will be targeting those MP's who view democracy as optional. It's going to be a rough couple of parliaments for those MP's who don't respect democracy unless it aligns to their view 8)

kingstongraham

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

The main Brexit group is trying to argue on a wider range of topics. Yet most pro Brexit posters on here seem to mostly post on immigration. Widen the arguments guys immigration isn't the only narrative.

Good post TM.

What swung the vote decision for me was the lack of reform achieved by David Cameron in February. This was with a referendum vote looming. The fact David Cameron also came back and declared this as victory for the UK was insulting to the British Electorate.

Everyone in the remain camp knows that the EU needs reforming, in fact their campaign is that we have to be in to reform it. However with a referendum vote looming the EU demonstrated how open it was to reform. If we vote REMAIN the EU will see this as justification of the current set-up and any suggested reforms will just be ignored/voted down!

We will only achieve any sort of EU reform by voting LEAVE. Then reform will happen as the EU cannot let the second strongest nation leave the project as it will trigger a tidal wave of other countries doing exactly the same. Not to mention the huge loss of benefits that the UK provides the EU.

I fully expect a second referendum within 12 month after some proper reform has occurred in the EU in which the concerns of the British public will have been taken into account. The will not happen if we vote to stay IN.

This was one view of the likely result of a "Leave" vote before the referendum. May really screwed this up if this is something that would almost have been acceptable to those who have become hardline in the last 3 years.

rjsterry

Interesting stuff from Peter Kellner of YouGov on the dilemma Farage's fanclub finds itself in with regard to a pro-Brexit pact.

So here is the paradox. A pact could advance the Brexit party’s main cause, but destroy the party itself: with no MPs, and watching Brexit happen from the sidelines, it would lose its purpose and its future. On the other hand, the refusal to enter into a pact may well kill Brexit, but it could also wound the Tories, possibly fatally, and lead to a political realignment in which Farage may well have a big impact and a shining future. Which future would he really prefer? We may not have long to find out.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... servatives

kingstongraham

rjsterry wrote:

Interesting stuff from Peter Kellner of YouGov on the dilemma Farage's fanclub finds itself in with regard to a pro-Brexit pact.

So here is the paradox. A pact could advance the Brexit party’s main cause, but destroy the party itself: with no MPs, and watching Brexit happen from the sidelines, it would lose its purpose and its future. On the other hand, the refusal to enter into a pact may well kill Brexit, but it could also wound the Tories, possibly fatally, and lead to a political realignment in which Farage may well have a big impact and a shining future. Which future would he really prefer? We may not have long to find out.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... servatives

It's seriously dangerous for the Conservatives. Imagine only being able to proceed with anything in parliament if Farage agrees with it. He will not compromise, and will always blame the Conservatives for everything.

rjsterry

KingstonGraham wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Interesting stuff from Peter Kellner of YouGov on the dilemma Farage's fanclub finds itself in with regard to a pro-Brexit pact.

So here is the paradox. A pact could advance the Brexit party’s main cause, but destroy the party itself: with no MPs, and watching Brexit happen from the sidelines, it would lose its purpose and its future. On the other hand, the refusal to enter into a pact may well kill Brexit, but it could also wound the Tories, possibly fatally, and lead to a political realignment in which Farage may well have a big impact and a shining future. Which future would he really prefer? We may not have long to find out.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... servatives

It's seriously dangerous for the Conservatives. Imagine only being able to proceed with anything in parliament if Farage agrees with it. He will not compromise, and will always blame the Conservatives for everything.

The key point in that article is that the few constituencies where the Tories can afford to step aside are not necessarily easy wins for Farage. He could quite plausibly opt for a pact only to win no seats at all, which only really helps the Tories.

rick_chasey

Going von Pappen is a bad idea.

Farage in Westminster is a headache most MPs won't want.

john80

rjsterry wrote:

john80 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Labour's new Brexit position is looking even more stupid:

Labour would back Remain if the next Tory prime minister opts for a second referendum but, if there is a snap election, the party would seek to negotiate its own Brexit deal.

This deal would then be put back to a referendum and Labour could even campaign against its own deal...

I think we may as well write them off until the leader is replaced. I think it was Rafael Behr who commented that the goal is a mile wide, the keeper is on the floor and the ball is inches away from the line but Corbyn wants to consult (yet again) on whether the party really wants to score a goal.

The pro remainers are missing the voter spread for Labour. Labour will likely lose more or as many seats as they gain from becoming a remain party based on their current voter profile. Corbyn knows this hence his current position and future position which is plainly ludicrous. It served Labours purpose to not assist in the delivery of Brexit as it has given the Tories death by a thousand cuts over the last few years. A general election winning plan I would doubt though as I don't see them forming a government without some form of coalition where the likely partners will be very problematic for them.

That's not what polling data suggests. 'Lexiters' are in the minority within the party as a whole and very likely within Labour voters within their 'heartland' seats. For some reason people assume that because a majority of voters in, say, Don Valley voted Leave (actually this is only estimated as the results weren't counted by Parliamentary constituency), and a majority voted Labour at the following GE, that those Labour voters must also be predominantly Leavers. The statistics do not support this assumption.

A comparison of the 2015 and 2017 GEs for Don Valley shows what looks like the UKIP vote moving to the Conservatives, and Labour hoovering up half the LD vote, but mostly benefitting from increased turnout. This with Caroline Flint having campaigned for Remain. I'm sure there are some Lexiters there, but it seems much more likely that Leavers would be counted among the 42% of Conservative (including ex-UKIP) voters, especially considering what we now know about Conservative party members' views.

I will be interested to see how this plays out as I am questioning whether the polling data will sin them the seats in the North that they are so reliant on. Remember they have already lost a massive number of seats in Scotland that essentially for decades prior was a 40-50 seat cushion to take into a general election.

rick_chasey

I would like to know who you think is currently voting labour but won't when they announce they're backing remain.

Because pretty much everyone knows labour are not a Brexit party.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

Going von Pappen is a bad idea.

Farage in Westminster is a headache most MPs won't want.

I'm not sure he can engineer it so he gets in. And his previous proxies proved fairly ineffective.

rick_chasey

This US ambassador memo leak and subsequent spat is a good lens through which to see Britain's international new status post-Brexit.

kingstongraham

rjsterry wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Interesting stuff from Peter Kellner of YouGov on the dilemma Farage's fanclub finds itself in with regard to a pro-Brexit pact.

So here is the paradox. A pact could advance the Brexit party’s main cause, but destroy the party itself: with no MPs, and watching Brexit happen from the sidelines, it would lose its purpose and its future. On the other hand, the refusal to enter into a pact may well kill Brexit, but it could also wound the Tories, possibly fatally, and lead to a political realignment in which Farage may well have a big impact and a shining future. Which future would he really prefer? We may not have long to find out.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... servatives

It's seriously dangerous for the Conservatives. Imagine only being able to proceed with anything in parliament if Farage agrees with it. He will not compromise, and will always blame the Conservatives for everything.

The key point in that article is that the few constituencies where the Tories can afford to step aside are not necessarily easy wins for Farage. He could quite plausibly opt for a pact only to win no seats at all, which only really helps the Tories.

That key point is the surely bit that is wrong though. Why would the Brexit party step aside only in constituencies that they are not going to win? Any pact would have to include seats that they would be likely to win.