OT. The futures Bright, the Futures Brexit!!!

[Trickytreesreds]

Yay, I'm the only one.

Don't think that's true, but lets go with it.

Why did I vote for Brexit?
I didn't like the way things were going with ever closer Union. The EU was slowly sucking everyone in, but tripped up with timing.
The commission was becoming the ruling force in Europe. Never mind us, there are plenty of countries in the EU kicking back about the demands placed on them.
EU law/ Regulations/ Borders etc. The only things left to go for us(and would have happened) was currency and Schengen.
The "lies" as you guys say, swing both ways. I aint going over old ground, its pointless.

Did I expect it to get worse?
Of course I did, You do not undo nearly 50 years of EU regs/laws/ systems over night.

Did I think it would be this hard?
No I didn't. But I didn't factor in a Tory government, having no spine and dargging its heels over every aspect.
I didn't expect opposition parties to do their best to undermine everything, despite promising to uphold the result of the vote.

Do I regret it?
Nope, I still feel its the right thing to do, as the loudest I hear maoning about Brexit are those living comfortable lives and not one thought of the poor low end worker/social status person. They are the ones under the boot of EU membership.
They are the ones shafted with wages/ housing/ services etc.

What next?
Firstly, it gave the EU a reality check. They suddenly realised, if you push too hard, something snaps.
Lets be honest here, had they actually listened to Cameron and given him some carrots. It probably would have worked. Instead they smacked his arse, sent him back and got him to sell it to the rest of us, as a wonderful offer.
Like a prat, he did. Like them, he didn't think he'd lose.
So if anything, the EU may actually have to stop being so arrogant and listen. (SOMETHING THAT NEVER HAPPENED WHEN WE WAS A MEMBER)

Will we succeed?
I don't know. I actually don't believe the political will is there, as its a conflict of interests with many of them
Much as I hated the woman, Thatcher was the last one to stand up to them.
Major/.Blair/.Brown/Cameron were all on the gravy train and have made a **** load of money out of it.

So, it all depends now on who people vote for.
Torys are done, Labour has yet to convince anyone, Libs? Don't make me laugh.

That's why I still support proportional representation. Every walk of life needs its voice heard and not one parties/Individuals desires in parliament.

The opportunity is there, but will someone grab it?
I'll tell you this much. If anyone thinks rejoining by stealth will make everything all right, had better think again.
17.5 M voters is a lot of clout on ballot day.

[Andy_Faber]

Define Liberal? It means many things to many people and has quite different meanings at opposite ends of the political spectrum.

If by Liberal you mean left leaning, then that's certainly not true - given that the majority of the media is owned by right wing millionaires and relentlessly pushes a right wing agenda.

Even the BBC is and always has been (there has never been a Labour Chair) centre right at best and actively Tory at worst - most of its senior management has very close Tory connections.

Indeed if one is to look closer, there is evidence that in London and other urban areas, there is a decidedly left leaning view, but elsewhere in the UK it is the conservative view that holds sway, especially in county towns and rural areas.

It is certainly true that as people get older their views become more conservative, hence why the Tory party panders to older people. An example is the ID system for voting at elections there are obvious inconsistencies in the ID that's valid for younger and older voters and indeed many more acceptable forms of ID for older persons. As in Senior railcard OK, Student railcard not OK!

I deliberately used liberal rather than left leaning because the latter has party political connotations and I wasn’t making a party political point in fact I rarely do.

Below senior level my view is that BBC is massively liberal, I also see it as anti-Tory BUT it’s been a long time since they took power and BBC’s slant might in fact be ‘anti the party in power’ - we may well see if that’s the case in a few years. I thought it was fairly neutral on Brexit and in some cases very informative but let down by some who showed their true colours too much (kuenssberg, maitlis for instance)

[Andy_Faber]

Yes I did you’re correct. However, you have taken it right out of context, as I absolutely did not compare them to what the Tory party policies are, I mentioned Hitler and the "Good Germans" in respect of people enabling these aims to be achieved by the people doing nothing but adopting the attitude of "sucking it up" and getting on with things.

I will agree in so far as there’s those ‘on the gravy train /too fat and happy’ and there’s ‘too confused / disenfranchised to be bothered’ and no angry militancy in the middle, or at least not enough to have an impact. Just an observation

[swaledale]

I deliberately used liberal rather than left leaning because the latter has party political connotations and I wasn’t making a party political point in fact I rarely do.

Below senior level my view is that BBC is massively liberal, I also see it as anti-Tory BUT it’s been a long time since they took power and BBC’s slant might in fact be ‘anti the party in power’ - we may well see if that’s the case in a few years. I thought it was fairly neutral on Brexit and in some cases very informative but let down by some who showed their true colours too much (kuenssberg, maitlis for instance)

Ah but my point is that those who are right wing, are also called liberal or perhaps more accurately libertarians, who believe in freedom of the individual, less rules etc etc. Yet seem to want to impose certain rules on others.

Your perspective on the BBC is interesting, very different to mine and indeed many others who have always seen it as a right of centre organisation, often behind the curve on liberal matters historically. It ties itself in knots over being "impartial" such that and this is merely an analogy, if someone says its raining, the tendency is to find someone who will say it isn't rather than look out the window and find the facts.

Its Brexit coverage was massively let down by featuring Farage too frequently and many other similar people who in my view had nothing of substance to say, but were merely the "balancing act". It failed miserably to actually cut through the nonsense and distil the facts on Brexit, which a serious news organisation ought to be able to do. It wasn't supposed to be neutral, it should ahve reported news, but ignored the obvious lies and inaccuracies.

Keunssberg is so obviously Tory that it makes me wince, Maitlis, not so sure she is actually left, just too good a journalist to let clear inaccuracies go by in the name of impartiality. When she reported that Cummins had broken lockdown rules (which pissed off the Tory party) she was reporting facts not being biased. If a media organisation cannot report facts that are offensive to the government of the day then it may as well become a state mouthpiece.

It is not only senior positions either, Andrew Neil, Fiona Bruce, Craig Oliver, Guto Hari, James Landale, Nick Robinson all connected or have worked for the Tories or known to be right of centre. Yes there are those known to have connections with labour or be left leaning, but taken with the senior management and the view that the BBC has a left leaning bias can be shown to be false.

[swaledale]

I will agree in so far as there’s those ‘on the gravy train /too fat and happy’ and there’s ‘too confused / disenfranchised to be bothered’ and no angry militancy in the middle, or at least not enough to have an impact. Just an observation

Ah but the disenfranchised or confused are not necessarily enablers. its those who perceive that what is happening has now significant impact on their lives who I class as the "Good Germans", they not only enable more extreme policies on say protests, Police powers, immigration, the run down of the NHS and voting ID (to name a few examples) but in some cases actively participate thinking it wont affect them!

[swaledale]

Yay, I'm the only one.

Don't think that's true, but lets go with it.

Why did I vote for Brexit?
I didn't like the way things were going with ever closer Union. The EU was slowly sucking everyone in, but tripped up with timing.
The commission was becoming the ruling force in Europe. Never mind us, there are plenty of countries in the EU kicking back about the demands placed on them.
EU law/ Regulations/ Borders etc. The only things left to go for us(and would have happened) was currency and Schengen.
The "lies" as you guys say, swing both ways. I aint going over old ground, its pointless.

Did I expect it to get worse?
Of course I did, You do not undo nearly 50 years of EU regs/laws/ systems over night.

Did I think it would be this hard?
No I didn't. But I didn't factor in a Tory government, having no spine and dargging its heels over every aspect.
I didn't expect opposition parties to do their best to undermine everything, despite promising to uphold the result of the vote.

Do I regret it?
Nope, I still feel its the right thing to do, as the loudest I hear maoning about Brexit are those living comfortable lives and not one thought of the poor low end worker/social status person. They are the ones under the boot of EU membership.
They are the ones shafted with wages/ housing/ services etc.

What next?
Firstly, it gave the EU a reality check. They suddenly realised, if you push too hard, something snaps.
Lets be honest here, had they actually listened to Cameron and given him some carrots. It probably would have worked. Instead they smacked his arse, sent him back and got him to sell it to the rest of us, as a wonderful offer.
Like a prat, he did. Like them, he didn't think he'd lose.
So if anything, the EU may actually have to stop being so arrogant and listen. (SOMETHING THAT NEVER HAPPENED WHEN WE WAS A MEMBER)

Will we succeed?
I don't know. I actually don't believe the political will is there, as its a conflict of interests with many of them
Much as I hated the woman, Thatcher was the last one to stand up to them.
Major/.Blair/.Brown/Cameron were all on the gravy train and have made a **** load of money out of it.

So, it all depends now on who people vote for.
Torys are done, Labour has yet to convince anyone, Libs? Don't make me laugh.

That's why I still support proportional representation. Every walk of life needs its voice heard and not one parties/Individuals desires in parliament.

The opportunity is there, but will someone grab it?
I'll tell you this much. If anyone thinks rejoining by stealth will make everything all right, had better think again.
17.5 M voters is a lot of clout on ballot day.

A few points.

The Uk had a great deal of clout, we didn't stay out of the Euro, schengen ect. by the goodwill of the EU.

There aren't 17.5 million voters who believe Brexit was a good move. and in any case what will they do? Vote for a right wing party that holds most of them in contempt?

Thatcher for all her faults (and they were many) recognised that the Eu was good for the UK and you contradict yourself by saying the EU never listened to the UK, then admitted they listened to Thatcher, oh and allowed us a veto and not to join the Euro and etc. etc.

Anyone who thinks that those who are being shafted on wages/housing/services because of the EU are simply ignorant of the facts! The UK Tory government had a conscious policy of austerity, which mean't there has been no investment to cope with the growth in population.

If the growth had been down to the birth rate of residents, we would still be in the same situation. What would the response be then? A one child policy for people, involuntary euthanasia?

Lets nail the massive lie that immigration is the reason one can't get housing, Dr's dentists schools etc. Its 13 years of zero investment.

Now one can argue about how sustainable population growth is, that's fine but to fully tackle that there would have to be a complete change in economic approach and the consumer society which most of those complaining about there being "too many" people would not accept.

The fact is that birth rates are going down globally and this is becoming an issue, as a population ages, japan has experienced this for decades, economic stagnation over time that will get worse for all countries and immigration won't be the panacea.

Brexit isn't going to improve the lot of the disadvantaged, Blair did more for those with his focus on education - again not perfect but it was a whole lot better than we have now. Its going and indeed already has increased it, reduced economic activity reduced tax revenue means less services and that high wage economy promised? Not going to happen.

I doubt we will join the EU politically for decades, but a Norway style arrangement will be the way forward. Indeed based on the narrow majority in favour of Brexit, that is what should ahve been agreed a long time ago, out of the politics and remain the economic ties.

In any case, rejoining the single market and probably the customs union is where will get to in a very short time, sure some of those unenlightened will froth about it, but they will be outweighed by those who have seen what a piss poor thing Brexit was and welcome the economic benefits it will bring.

What is really useful, is that we will have a part of the UK in Northern Ireland, that will be a living breathing example of the advantages, indeed it already is!!

One last question, I keep hearing about all these "EU" regulations and laws, exactly which ones do you think are the issue here? Indeed what is the issue?

[Trickytreesreds]

Its Brexit coverage was massively let down by featuring Farage too frequently and many other similar people who in my view had nothing of substance to say, but were merely the "balancing act"

Sorry, but that is just tosh.
If ever he was on, it was because he was always outnumbered on any debate panel. But he never let that faze him and fought the corner.
You or many others may not have wanted him on it, but the BBC knew it would get contentious, as the 3 or 4 against him would be slinging mud.

Don't believe that? Find any question time you like with him on it.

[Andy_Faber]

Ah but my point is that those who are right wing, are also called liberal or perhaps more accurately libertarians, who believe in freedom of the individual, less rules etc etc. Yet seem to want to impose certain rules on others.

Your perspective on the BBC is interesting, very different to mine and indeed many others who have always seen it as a right of centre organisation, often behind the curve on liberal matters historically. It ties itself in knots over being "impartial" such that and this is merely an analogy, if someone says its raining, the tendency is to find someone who will say it isn't rather than look out the window and find the facts.

Its Brexit coverage was massively let down by featuring Farage too frequently and many other similar people who in my view had nothing of substance to say, but were merely the "balancing act". It failed miserably to actually cut through the nonsense and distil the facts on Brexit, which a serious news organisation ought to be able to do. It wasn't supposed to be neutral, it should ahve reported news, but ignored the obvious lies and inaccuracies.

Keunssberg is so obviously Tory that it makes me wince, Maitlis, not so sure she is actually left, just too good a journalist to let clear inaccuracies go by in the name of impartiality. When she reported that Cummins had broken lockdown rules (which pissed off the Tory party) she was reporting facts not being biased. If a media organisation cannot report facts that are offensive to the government of the day then it may as well become a state mouthpiece.

It is not only senior positions either, Andrew Neil, Fiona Bruce, Craig Oliver, Guto Hari, James Landale, Nick Robinson all connected or have worked for the Tories or known to be right of centre. Yes there are those known to have connections with labour or be left leaning, but taken with the senior management and the view that the BBC has a left leaning bias can be shown to be false.

Most of my Brexit was via radio which imo was totally different and more considered than TV which was a bit of a circus

[swaledale]

Most of my Brexit was via radio which imo was totally different and more considered than TV which was a bit of a circus

I'd agree with that. Hardly watch any news oercurrent affairs programmes on the beeb, sometimes watch Channel 4.

[swaledale]

Its Brexit coverage was massively let down by featuring Farage too frequently and many other similar people who in my view had nothing of substance to say, but were merely the "balancing act"

Sorry, but that is just tosh.
If ever he was on, it was because he was always outnumbered on any debate panel. But he never let that faze him and fought the corner.
You or many others may not have wanted him on it, but the BBC knew it would get contentious, as the 3 or 4 against him would be slinging mud.

Don't believe that? Find any question time you like with him on it.

Whats tosh? The fact that he was the balancing act? I mean yes the BBC knew he would be contentious, but giving air time to a lying snake oil salesmen isn't news.

By the way I'm still waiting for your list of rules and regulations that you find so onerous.