The economic consequences of Brexit (Vol 2)

[SantaBarbara]

There is no evidence that the Red Bus ever existed

[Deptford Draylons]

Eddie Strohacker said:

Deptford Draylons said:

In short, the only people talking about the big red bus a year on are solely remainers in the desperate hope of using it as an excuse to overturn the result in some way.

Course it is.

Deptford Draylons said:

I'm not sure why the past few days have been a repeat of the morning after the referendum with big red bus anger and ' but Dan Hanna said ' , but it is repetitive.

TBF if there's one world class authority on tedious repetition around here, it's definitely you.

You are the chap that wants a second referendum but and has sited this as a reason why, so I'd say it was accurate.
The moaning a year on over arguments that have been done a hundred times over is the repetitive part here. Like you, very boring.

[anonymous-user]

Eddie Strohacker said:

Deptford Draylons said:

In short, the only people talking about the big red bus a year on are solely remainers in the desperate hope of using it as an excuse to overturn the result in some way.

Course it is.

Deptford Draylons said:

I'm not sure why the past few days have been a repeat of the morning after the referendum with big red bus anger and ' but Dan Hanna said ' , but it is repetitive.

TBF if there's one world class authority on tedious repetition around here, it's definitely you.

As Socrates said, " when the debate is lost slander becomes the tool of the loser".

[Ridgemont]

Deptford Draylons said:

In short, the only people talking about the big red bus a year on are solely remainers in the desperate hope of using it as an excuse to overturn the result in some way.
..
I'm not sure why the past few days have been a repeat of the morning after the referendum with big red bus anger and ' but Dan Hanna said ' , but it is repetitive.

To be fair the reason for that zombie phrase polluting the debate, was down to Johnson's intervention last week. That article seems to have been viewed by Remainers as a deliberate attempt at high level trolling by resurrecting a concept that received opinion has now decided was a porky of the scale usually associated with Nixon.

I do regard Johnson as a bloody nuisance; he knows what he's doing, and I don't think his interventions are either helpful or altruistic given where we are at, and I write that as a Leaver..

Edited by Ridgemont on Monday 25th September 11:11

[Eddie Strohacker]

REALIST123 said:

As Socrates said, " when the debate is lost slander becomes the tool of the loser".

He did? Are you sure about that?

Anyway, on Deptford's boring merry go round, it's a fact he overlooks Leave icon BoJo's intervention last week, rightly bringing heaps of derision upon himself, even accounting for him knowing exactly what he was doing. But in Deptford land, it's all just remainers dragging up the past for no good reason. None so blind...as someone actually did once write.

[chow pan toon]

Eddie Strohacker said:

REALIST123 said:

As Socrates said, " when the debate is lost slander becomes the tool of the loser".

He did? Are you sure about that?

.

I think it was on his Twitter feed.

[Fittster]

pgh said:

Fittster said:

"Once we have settled our accounts we will take back control of roughly £350m per week. It would be a fine thing, as many of us have pointed out, if a lot of that money went on the NHS. "

Does this need further explanation? The significant word in the first sentence is control.

Are you ignoring the second sentence?

[andymadmak]

Fittster said:

pgh said:

Fittster said:

"Once we have settled our accounts we will take back control of roughly £350m per week. It would be a fine thing, as many of us have pointed out, if a lot of that money went on the NHS. "

Does this need further explanation? The significant word in the first sentence is control.

Are you ignoring the second sentence?

are you interpreting "a lot" as meaning "all" ? (genuine question, not picking a fight)

[anonymous-user]

andymadmak said:

I asked earlier (or maybe it was in another thread? It gets confusing!) what Remainers thought the vote split would have been if Juncker had made his "Future of Europe" speech before the referendum instead of just a week or so ago. I got no response.
From my viewpoint, I honestly think that if Juncker had made that speech in the week before the Referendum then the vote to leave would have been 65:35 or possibly even higher. Now I know that I cannot prove that, and I am just expressing an opinion, but the clue for Remainers as to why Britain voted to leave lies, at least in part, in the content of that speech and the future it evokes - a future which those on the mainland of Europe have always been far more open and honest about than most of our own rather shabby pro EU politicians. You could say that Junckers vision would never have happened if the UK had voted to stay, but I think that that position would be either naive or disingenuous.

Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 25th September 10:15

It’s not disingenuous or naive to say it would never have happened if we’d voted to remain.

It’s become a self fulfilling prophecy for the leavers as I’ve pointed out beforehand. We would never have allowed that vision to proceed, but now we are gone it can happen, allowing the leave scaremongers to bleat about how bad it is and how glad they are not to be moving in a direction we would never have been (or been able to be) forced down!

[FiF]

Ridgemont said:

Deptford Draylons said:

In short, the only people talking about the big red bus a year on are solely remainers in the desperate hope of using it as an excuse to overturn the result in some way.
..
I'm not sure why the past few days have been a repeat of the morning after the referendum with big red bus anger and ' but Dan Hanna said ' , but it is repetitive.

To be fair the reason for that zombie phrase polluting the debate, was down to Johnson's intervention last week. That article seems to have been viewed by Remainers as a deliberate attempt at high level trolling by resurrecting a concept that received opinion has now decided was a porky of the scale usually associated with Nixon.

I do regard Johnson as a bloody nuisance; he knows what he's doing, and I don't think his interventions are either helpful or altruistic given where we are at, and I write that as a Leaver..

Edited by Ridgemont on Monday 25th September 11:11

Agreed, for quite different reasons, I would align Boris along with his Nigelness as more of a hindrance than anything that can be regarded as positive help. Both know exactly what they are doing when they stir the pot in their different ways, both clever stirrers imo.

[Not-The-Messiah]

The remain side are still lying to this day, you hear a lot about staying in a reformed EU. When there have been no signs what's so ever from the EU that this could happen. The opposite in fact only signs of even closer union.

Edited by Not-The-Messiah on Monday 25th September 11:44

[Fittster]

pgh said:

Fittster said:

Are you ignoring the second sentence?

Less ignoring, more struggling to see what is contentious about it. What am I missing from your perspective?

I'd interpret what Boris said as: We'll be £350m a week better off and a high proportion of that would go the NHS.

The slogan on the Bus: "We send the EU £350 million a week. Lets fund the NHS instead".

[FiF]

cookie118 said:

andymadmak said:

I asked earlier (or maybe it was in another thread? It gets confusing!) what Remainers thought the vote split would have been if Juncker had made his "Future of Europe" speech before the referendum instead of just a week or so ago. I got no response.
From my viewpoint, I honestly think that if Juncker had made that speech in the week before the Referendum then the vote to leave would have been 65:35 or possibly even higher. Now I know that I cannot prove that, and I am just expressing an opinion, but the clue for Remainers as to why Britain voted to leave lies, at least in part, in the content of that speech and the future it evokes - a future which those on the mainland of Europe have always been far more open and honest about than most of our own rather shabby pro EU politicians. You could say that Junckers vision would never have happened if the UK had voted to stay, but I think that that position would be either naive or disingenuous.

Edited by andymadmak on Monday 25th September 10:15

It’s not disingenuous or naive to say it would never have happened if we’d voted to remain.

It’s become a self fulfilling prophecy for the leavers as I’ve pointed out beforehand. We would never have allowed that vision to proceed, but now we are gone it can happen, allowing the leave scaremongers to bleat about how bad it is and how glad they are not to be moving in a direction we would never have been (or been able to be) forced down!

But equally, with the EU going down a path which we clearly did not want to go down, possibly some other nations having similar questioning views, then there would be a two tier EU, those in the Eurozone/Schengen/ whatever else, and those who continued to exercise an opt out. The whole enterprise would then be run for the major benefit for the nation's fully in the club, and those on the perimeter / partially outside would have less of a deal. At that point you have to decide is it better to be fully in or out and go somewhere else, and now seems to be the time we have made that decision.

Anyway this is just returning the EURef arguments all over again, and still not many really positive arguments for staying in emerging, just the usual swivel eyed racist fooled by a bus paint job type divisive comments from the usual suspects, though absolutely not accusing you of that obviously.

[anonymous-user]

pgh said:

Breadvan7p2 said:

Has anyone suggested that? I haven't.

Previously

Breadvan72 said:

Many fell for the bus claptrap (despite the claims by one or two here that they never even heard of the bus blah).

The inference here was clearly that the bus helped to influence the vote.
To clear things up, Perhaps you'd like to clarify 'many' with an estimated percentage of people who you feel "fell for" the bus?

What is it with Brexiteers and mobile goalposts? Influencing is not the same as determining. It would be daft to attribute the outcome of the vote to a single factor. That the false claim influenced some seems likely, although without a level of research that is not likely to be practicable, it is hard to say how many it influenced. I reiterate my comments about the historical success of big lies in politics. Start, say, with the demagogues who took Athens to disaster and destruction in the fifth Century BC, and move on through various historical eras (eg the Popish Plot, the Gordon Riots, the post-Bellum US, Nazi Germany, and so on) to see how telling massive fibs can be efficacious.

[anonymous-user]

I shall use small words. The false claim (which was not just on the bus) may have persuaded some people. I am sorry that one of those words had three syllables in it. Ooops, there's another.

[amusingduck]

cookie118 said:

It’s not disingenuous or naive to say it would never have happened if we’d voted to remain.

It’s become a self fulfilling prophecy for the leavers as I’ve pointed out beforehand. We would never have allowed that vision to proceed, but now we are gone it can happen, allowing the leave scaremongers to bleat about how bad it is and how glad they are not to be moving in a direction we would never have been (or been able to be) forced down!

Never is a very long time.

Trump is a great example of something that could "never" happen, yet it did. Luckily for them, there's an expiration date on Trump. Not so with a federalised EU.

[Digga]

Breadvan72 said:

I shall use small words. The false claim (which was not just on the bus) may have persuaded some people. I am sorry that one of those words had three syllables in it. Ooops, there's another.

Come on, in the great big world of lies that is politics, people are really milking the big red bullst bus a bit much. There's been lies and false promises in UK politics for years; some pretty big ones during the last election.

Anyone that unquestioningly takes any 'promise' at face value - and I agree some might - is at least part of the problem themselves.

[anonymous-user]

The 350 million claim (which was not just a one off on one bus) was just one of many fibs told by the Leave camp. The debate on both sides was marred by distortions and lack of evidence based analyses. Cameron deserves all the ire that is heaped on him for many reasons, and one of his many toxic legacies to the country is the driving further into the gutter of an already degraded political discourse. He is not alone to blame for that, of course.

[John145]

Breadvan72 said:

I shall use small words. The false claim (which was not just on the bus) may have persuaded some people. I am sorry that one of those words had three syllables in it. Ooops, there's another.

Using equally small words:

The false claims in the pamphlet produced by the then government coerced many people to vote remain.

[anonymous-user]

pgh said:

Breadvan72 said:

I shall use small words. The false claim (which was not just on the bus) may have persuaded some people. I am sorry that one of those words had three syllables in it. Ooops, there's another.

That you feel the need to try to belittle with your response says much more about you than me.

Read that response back and maybe consider if that was really the best you are capable of.

I do enjoy it when butthurted posters get all preachificatious and seek to instruct others on what is their best, what is beneath them, and so on. When I feel in need of moral or other guidance from you, I'll give you a call, but maybe don't cancel any appointments to wait in by the phone. Top tip: if you don't want people to treat you as dumb, don't do dumb stuff.

Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 25th September 12:42