Keir Starmer

[Chris152]

In my estimation, Boris's style was different, entertaining and he managed the pandemic as well as anyone else could have. In fact, there wasn't anyone else around at the time who could have handled it as well. He listened to the medical, business and other specialist advisers and took the path that, in hindsight, did the right things at the right time, and each of those specialists, having their own agenda, had to accept the choices he made.

Like locking down a week late, when it was (by then) so utterly clear what we were facing (based on events in the far east and Europe) leading to many, many extra lost lives
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/covid-inquiry-matt-hancock-boris-johnson/

He failed to take Covid seriously - even businesses were shutting down in advance of his announcement of a lock down. Proudly announcing how he'd shaken hands in hospital with patients when the advice to all was not to. The list of his failures goes on and on. It's largely down to his incompetence, but also to his attitude toward others' lives and well-being:



The defence that he was 'entertaining' sickens me.

 

[Blackswanwood]

In the same vein, I, too, amazed and saddened that nobody since Thatcher has done any better than Boris and yet he has been vilified by those who wanted to remain in the EU for gain, rather than what was best for the country.

Of course Boris lied. Who doesn't in politics? And he wasn't going to make any friends in the Civil Service either, was he?

Personal attacks are sign of lost arguments and, it seems a lot of people in politics, and the media, are suffering from democratiitis. The people who worked with him would have found him to be different and, as they were likely to be Remainers, they had a purpose in their criticisms.

In my estimation, Boris's style was different, entertaining and he managed the pandemic as well as anyone else could have. In fact, there wasn't anyone else around at the time who could have handled it as well. He listened to the medical, business and other specialist advisers and took the path that, in hindsight, did the right things at the right time, and each of those specialists, having their own agenda, had to accept the choices he made.

During his term, Boris kept people and busineses afloat during the pandemic, oversaw and supported the vaccine development and organised the roll-out ahead of any other country in the world. He ensured that the NHS had as much support as the government could get it, at a time when the world was competing for the rapidly-depleting PPE.

Post Covid, the country was coming back. Wages were starting to rise, the economy, too, looked to be improving and the portents of growth were apparent. And, I note, that there hasn't been an huge outcry about his handling of the pandemic. There couldn't be really, could there, as there was nothing to compare it with, no precedent. Not even the Spanish Flu was anything to compare it with.

We all realised, post-pandemic, that the country had spent all we had but I think we knew that without that financial support the country would have been in a right state. We now have to take measures to restore our economy, improve trade across the world markets and get our debt down and our GDP up. Ten years? More? Who knows? But we have to be thankful that enough was done to save as many people as possible and it was worth it.

I tend to agree with Rory Stewart …

“Johnson is … the most accomplished liar in public life – perhaps the best liar ever to serve as prime minister,”

“He has mastered the use of error, omission, exaggeration, diminution, equivocation and flat denial. He has perfected casuistry, circumlocution, false equivalence and false analogy. He is equally adept at the ironic jest, the fib and the grand lie; the weasel word and the half-truth; the hyperbolic lie, the obvious lie, and the bullshit lie – which may inadvertently be true.”

Recollections on the handling of the pandemic clearly differ. I’d agree he deserves credit for the things he got right but equally the Dominic Cummins eye test, PPE procurement and parties etc also deserve criticism.

 

[selectortone]

I’d agree he deserves credit for the things he got right

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

 

[Superduner]

Starmer agrees to send illegal migrants in Chagos Islands to British territory in St Helena, - despite surrendering the Chagos Islands just days earlier. Is this surreal development "Rwanda MK2?" Ought it not warrant a debate in Parliament?

While taking a breather from accepting another freebie jolly, Sir Keir Starmer, (Prime Minister for the time being, KC, noted Human Rights lawyer and former Director of Public Prosecutions), has agreed to a controversial deal to deport migrants arriving at the Chagos Islands to St Helena - despite giving up its sovereignty to Mauritius. The Labour leader's decision bears striking similarities to the Rwanda deportation plan, which he previously denounced as "completely wrong" and "immoral"

Under the new arrangement, asylum seekers reaching the British-owned archipelago on small boats will be sent to St Helena, a remote UK territory over 5,000 miles away in the Pacific Ocean. This move comes just weeks after Starmer provoked anger by agreeing to cede the Chagos Islands to Mauritius.

The deal has sparked fresh controversy, with critics questioning Labour's apparent U-turn on migration policies and raising concerns about the impact on St Helena's small community of less than 4,500 residents. The deal allocates £6.65 million in Treasury funding to St Helena, ostensibly to address its healthcare backlog. Migrants will undergo security screening before deportation, with arrivals potentially continuing for up to 18 months or until the Mauritius agreement is finalised. The agreement has drawn criticism from various quarters.

Yuan Yi Zhu, assistant professor of International Relations and International Law, questioned the logic: "Let me get this right. According to Mauritius sovereignty over the Chagos already belongs to Mauritius; but they are happy to offload any asylum seekers arriving in what they say is Mauritian territory to the British territory of St Helena?"

The impact on St Helena's small community has raised significant concerns. Andrew Turner, a St Helena councillor, expressed apprehension about the deal's effects on the island's close-knit society. "We are a very small island. There are less than 4,500 people who are resident on St Helena, so any influx to the island would have an impact," Turner said.

He highlighted the intimate nature of the community.

"This is the kind of place where you know pretty much anyone you pass on the street on a first-name basis. The cultural shock alone would have a big impact," he added. Notably, islanders claim they were not consulted about the agreement before its low-key announcement by chief minister Julie Thomas on Wednesday.

The Foreign Office had made no public statement about the deal.

Friends of the British Overseas Territories, a campaign group, criticised the deal, saying it showed a "lack of understanding" of St Helena's challenges by the British government. Saint Helena is a small island with public services that already face a number of pressures," a spokesman said. "The last thing it needs is an undetermined number of illegal migrants being homed there for an unspecified length of time."

The group accused the UK Government of using funding as leverage to impose the deal on St Helena.

"The local government is understandably eager for extra funding, and it's shameful that the UK Government is using funding as a tool to foist this deal upon them," the spokesman added. These concerns highlight the potential strain on the island's limited resources and infrastructure.

A Foreign Office spokesman defended the deal, telling The Telegraph that it was a response to a "deeply troubling situation" inherited from the previous government.

"Ministers have worked hard to find solutions and contingency plans which protect the integrity of British territorial borders and migrant welfare," the spokesman said. The official said the arrangement would only apply to future migrants arriving on Diego Garcia.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/ukne...&cvid=a127f19d5b9c4df994748d3f823817da&ei=364

Ho hum...

"You shall have a fishy in a little dishy, you shall have a fishy when the boat comes in..."

St Helena is in the South Atlantic ocean

 

[Chris Puttick]

The people decided. The people, for whatever reasons, chose Brexit and the government chose to honour the result and acted accordingly. Those are the decisions we all have to live with, like it or not.

If the people could never understand the reasons and consequences behind a vote then, surely, all elections and referendums are unnecessary.

No, the people did not decide. The people weren't all allowed to vote. And of those who were allowed not all voted. About 27% of the population voted yes for the major change that would be Brexit, and that group were not homogenous; for example there was a group voting no that wanted an EFTA/CU arrangement, as well as those who basically wanted a complete severance of ties with our neighbours. In addition the campaigns were so lightly regulated that the no campaign used falsehoods and misdirection to persuade people for vote for their cause.

The difference between an election and a referendum (in particular the childlike way the Brexit one was set up) is that in an election you elect representatives to make decisions; those elected representatives are granted the time and resources (whether or not they avail themselves of them or have the capacity) to understand the reasons and and consequences of a change in laws. Furthermore the lawmaking processes of most representative democracies are set up to ensure prospective changes in law are reviewed more than once, alongside checks and balances of the legal system itself. It is possible to organise referendums that enable informed voting; the Swiss system for example.

If the Swiss system was applied to the Brexit referendum it would have looked something like this:

Parliament would have voted to agree a form of Brexit and a process by which it would be worked towards, based on expert advice; an electorate would been agreed based on who would be impacted from such a change; campaigns would have been regulated such that their campaigning had to be for or against that form of Brexit and process; and given the potential impact of the change there would have been some of super majority requirement. This would probably include some measure requiring a majority of the components of the UK to vote for the change. The outcome would not have been in doubt; votes against would have carried the day by a considerable margin.

 

[Scruples]

Like locking down a week late, when it was (by then) so utterly clear what we were facing (based on events in the far east and Europe) leading to many, many extra lost lives
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/covid-inquiry-matt-hancock-boris-johnson/

He failed to take Covid seriously - even businesses were shutting down in advance of his announcement of a lock down. Proudly announcing how he'd shaken hands in hospital with patients when the advice to all was not to. The list of his failures goes on and on. It's largely down to his incompetence, but also to his attitude toward others' lives and well-being:



The defence that he was 'entertaining' sickens me.

Good. Serves you right.

Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing. It must be if Starmer is anything to go by.
I remember the decisions to lock down and they were made with due consideration to the need for isolation with the, likely, mental health of those affected. The decision was left until the 'right moment', at the time.

Some businesses were closing down early; one reason being that some companies needed to anticipate their supply chains and not place orders that would not be used should the lockdown occur sooner rather than later. They would mostly have been the food processing and hospitality industries; the service industries being able to stay on without loss.

I think he did take Covid seriously. Too seriously, some might argue, since he did shake a few hands to show his soilidarity with the sick.

And do remember that we are expressing opinions here, with few accurate facts on either side. When 'lists go on and on', without explanation, they tend to be for effect than accuracy.

 

[Scruples]

No, the people did not decide. The people weren't all allowed to vote. And of those who were allowed not all voted. About 27% of the population voted yes for the major change that would be Brexit, and that group were not homogenous; for example there was a group voting no that wanted an EFTA/CU arrangement, as well as those who basically wanted a complete severance of ties with our neighbours. In addition the campaigns were so lightly regulated that the no campaign used falsehoods and misdirection to persuade people for vote for their cause.

The difference between an election and a referendum (in particular the childlike way the Brexit one was set up) is that in an election you elect representatives to make decisions; those elected representatives are granted the time and resources (whether or not they avail themselves of them or have the capacity) to understand the reasons and and consequences of a change in laws. Furthermore the lawmaking processes of most representative democracies are set up to ensure prospective changes in law are reviewed more than once, alongside checks and balances of the legal system itself. It is possible to organise referendums that enable informed voting; the Swiss system for example.

If the Swiss system was applied to the Brexit referendum it would have looked something like this:

Parliament would have voted to agree a form of Brexit and a process by which it would be worked towards, based on expert advice; an electorate would been agreed based on who would be impacted from such a change; campaigns would have been regulated such that their campaigning had to be for or against that form of Brexit and process; and given the potential impact of the change there would have been some of super majority requirement. This would probably include some measure requiring a majority of the components of the UK to vote for the change. The outcome would not have been in doubt; votes against would have carried the day by a considerable margin.

Yes, the people did decide, by democratically voting in the referendum. The decision, however, wasn't legally binding and the government didn't have to accept it. But it did. I think it was mainly a case of being nervous about seemingly ignoring the democratic outcome.

All of the electorally registered citizens of the UK were allowed to vote. The terms were simple - Brexit? Yes/No. The Leavers won the vote. The relevance of the mix was irrelevant since those who would have preferred to have a more complex extraction from the EU could have voted to remain, leaving the option to lobby for what they thought was better, at a later date. But not enough of them did that, did they?
It was a close result but it was a result, despite any nit-picking after the event.

Anyway, it's all academic now. The world turns, Boris was good. Starmer has yet to prove himself. Again, the electorate will decide that in 4 years time. In the meantime, the economy will grow quietly, moves will be taken to reduce the debt and get us back to pre-pandemic times; when were doing OK with Boris.

 

[Yorkieguy]

The referendum question was:

'Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?'

The responses were:

1) Remain a member of the European Union.
2) Leave the European Union.

This was a change from the original question that was proposed by Parliament, which was ‘Should the UK remain a member of the European Union?’ The question was changed after the required assessment by the UK’s Electoral Commission.

BELOW IS THE RESULT OF THE 2016 BREXIT REFERENDUM VOTE BY REGION:

Region​	Turnout​	Remain votes​	Leave votes​	Remain %​	Leave %​
England (with Gibraltar)	73.0%​	13,266,996​	15,188,406​	46.62%​	53.38%​
East Midlands	74.2%​	1,033,036​	1,475,479​	41.18%​	58.82%​
East of England	75.7%​	1,448,616​	1,880,367​	43.52%​	56.48%​
London	69.7%​	2,263,519​	1,513,232​	59.93%​	40.07%​
North East England	69.3%​	562,595​	778,103​	41.96%​	58.04%​
North West England	70%​	1,699,020​	1,966,925​	46.35%​	53.65%​
South East England	76.8%​	2,391,718​	2,567,965​	48.22%​	51.78%​
South West England & Gibraltar	76.7%​	1,503,019​	1,669,711​	47.37%​	52.63%​
West Midlands	72%​	1,207,175​	1,755,687​	40.74%​	59.26%​
Yorkshire and the Humber	70.7%​	1,158,298​	1,580,937​	42.29%​	57.71%​
Northern Ireland	62.7%​	440,707​	349,442​	55.78%​	44.22%​
Scotland	67.2%​	1,661,191​	1,018,322​	62.00%​	38.00%​
Wales	71.7%​	772,347​	854,572​	47.47%​	52.53%​

Like most I guess, I was surprised at the outcome of the EU referendum – I’d imagined that with the pre-referendum ‘Project Fear’ campaign as it was referred to, the result would have been something like 57/43 to remain, due to the effect of London and Scottish votes. The standard of debate was appalling – little objective information – just a lot of name-calling on both sides.

Every single Region of Great Britain (including Gibraltar), except London, N.I. and Scotland voted to leave - the highest proportion being not in the North, but in the West Midlands, where 59.6% voted to leave – the same proportion who in London, voted to stay, but then London is no more typical of G.B. than the Vatican is of Italy.

It was said that ‘ignorant old fogies have trashed their grandchildren’s future’. Well consider the proportion that bothered to vote in each age band, and how they voted:

Age bands % who voted How they voted
18-24 yrs old: 38% 64/36% remain/leave
25-34 yrs old: 45% 57/43% remain/leave
35-44 yrs old: 53% 54/46% remain/leave
45-54 yrs old: 66% 44/54% remain/leave
55 yrs plus: 80% 40/60% remain/leave

So, if six in ten under 25s didn’t even bother to vote, fewer than half of 25-34 yr olds, and just over half of 35-44 yr olds, it seems to me that if they don’t like the outcome, maybe they should have put their votes where their mouths are? Do they ever consider how much of a struggle former generations had to get the vote that six out of ten under 25s don’t bother to use?

Want to know why old fogies voted to leave? In my view because when they (myself included) voted to go in all those years ago, it was into the Common Market, period. Not federalism, not to have the unelected bureaucrats of 27 other countries, not to be told how and on what to spend our taxes and what laws to introduce and comply with.

People often referred to ‘Brussels Bureaucrats’ but it’s much worse than that.

The figures below were back in 2016 - they will have escalated since then.

It is perhaps the most outlandish of the European Union’s excesses; a £130 million travelling circus that once a month sees the European Parliament decamp from Belgium to France. Over the course of a weekend each month, some 2,500 plastic trunks will be loaded on to five lorries and driven almost 300 miles from Brussels to Strasbourg. About 1,000 politicians, officials and translators then make the same journey on two specially chartered trains hired at taxpayers’ expense. A few thousand more will go to Strasbourg by other means, as the European Parliament switches from Brussels, its permanent base, to its “official” home in northern France.

In all, the EU admitted that the monthly Strasbourg sitting, which lasts just four days, costs an additional £93 million a year. The Conservative Party in Europe, which is leading a campaign to abandon it, estimates the cost a little higher at £130 million, or about £928 million in the seven-year cycle of an EU budget.

Among the costs are £250,000 a year to transport the plastic boxes containing documents, diaries and other items from Brussels to Strasbourg and back again. The boxes are left outside offices in Brussels on a Friday evening, collected by a courier company and driven to Strasbourg, where they are unloaded and left outside offices there. The process is repeated in reverse on Thursday evening.

It is thought it costs up to £200,000 for the EU to charter two express trains to take officials, MEPs and others there on a Monday morning and back on a Thursday afternoon. The trains stop only once at an airport in Paris to collect or drop MEPs and no ordinary member of the public can get on board, for a train which arrives in time for parliamentary sessions beginning in the afternoon.

Many of the details were contained within a report into the “financial and environmental impact” of operating two parliaments, which was overseen by Klaus Welle, the secretary-general to the European Parliament, its top civil servant. Mr Welle had been requested by MEPs to give an accurate figure on the costs of two parliaments amid a growing clamour to scrap one of them. The report showed how taxpayers foot the £2.5 million bill for relocating freelance translators from Brussels to Strasbourg and back again, including costs of travel, accommodation and other expenses.

Providing catering services in Strasbourg cost an additional £1 million, while extra medical support comes to some £330,000.

About 100 people are employed in Strasbourg full-time, even though the European Parliament meets for 12 sessions, each lasting four days, a total of only 48 days each year. But during those four-day sessions, the circus is in town. About 5,500 people pour into Strasbourg; not only politicians and officials but lobbyists, too.

For an EU obsessed by climate change and its possible effects, more embarrassing was the report’s admission that “10,200 tonnes of CO2 per year would be saved if Strasbourg were no longer used as a place of work”. That is the equivalent of 12,000 cars driving around the circumference of the world.

MEPs were fed up with the upheaval and cost created by the Strasbourg circus. At the end of 2015, they voted for the two-parliament system to be scrapped by a three-to-one majority. But change is unlikely to happen. The problem is simple: the French government, which has a power of veto, will not budge. The French insist on maintaining Strasbourg’s role because of the substantial amount of money the travelling circus brings to the region. Its status is set in stone under a European treaty signed in 1992, which can only be revoked should all member states agree it.

I'm not suggesting that in itself is a good reason for people voting 'leave' - just that it was one factor much in the news at the time.

We have to live with the reality. We can't create a future by wishing that the past had been otherwise.

It does seem to me that presently, the EU has becoming worryingly unstable, and not a little disunited.

 

[Chris152]

Good. Serves you right.

Yes, that's probably reasonable. I'm sure all those whose loved ones died as a result of tardy action agree with you.

Here's Johnson in the first week of February, 2020, playing down what was already a deeply serious pandemic, prioritising the economy (a false trade-off). Highly entertaining.

 

[paulrbarnard]

No, the people did not decide. The people weren't all allowed to vote. And of those who were allowed not all voted. About 27% of the population voted yes for the major change that would be Brexit, and that group were not homogenous; for example there was a group voting no that wanted an EFTA/CU arrangement, as well as those who basically wanted a complete severance of ties with our neighbours. In addition the campaigns were so lightly regulated that the no campaign used falsehoods and misdirection to persuade people for vote for their cause.

The difference between an election and a referendum (in particular the childlike way the Brexit one was set up) is that in an election you elect representatives to make decisions; those elected representatives are granted the time and resources (whether or not they avail themselves of them or have the capacity) to understand the reasons and and consequences of a change in laws. Furthermore the lawmaking processes of most representative democracies are set up to ensure prospective changes in law are reviewed more than once, alongside checks and balances of the legal system itself. It is possible to organise referendums that enable informed voting; the Swiss system for example.

If the Swiss system was applied to the Brexit referendum it would have looked something like this:

Parliament would have voted to agree a form of Brexit and a process by which it would be worked towards, based on expert advice; an electorate would been agreed based on who would be impacted from such a change; campaigns would have been regulated such that their campaigning had to be for or against that form of Brexit and process; and given the potential impact of the change there would have been some of super majority requirement. This would probably include some measure requiring a majority of the components of the UK to vote for the change. The outcome would not have been in doubt; votes against would have carried the day by a considerable margin.

And exactly the same can be said of those who voted No. No mater how many voted, why they voted or what could have been done differently, it wasn’t and there was a majority choice made. Better you castigate those who wanted to stay in EU who didn’t vote Yes than keep harping on about those who did vote No

 

[Delaney]

We ALL believe the cr*p we post. Except the trolls and the AI bots. God knows what they believe.

They don’t belive anything. They’re bots remember.

 

[Spectric]

Lets not forget that having hindsight is a great asset, the real issue is that no government Labour, Tory or otherwise had thought of being prepared for any form of pandemic and that the NHS was already crumbling yet no contingency plans. Was it not back in 2015 that the world just managed to avoid a global outbreak of Ebola and that people like Bill gates warned that we must learn from this and all be prepared for future pandemics but it seems little was done in the UK. An even more interesting question is are we now prepared for another pandemic if one came along next week ? I would say no, the NHS is in a bigger mess and with someone like Starmer at the helm it would be utter chaos just like with Boris.

 

[Delaney]

I will never understand those who cannot move on from Brexit.
Other than they keep getting wound up by narcissists like James O’Brien and perhaps they themselves, are people who don’t like being told ‘no’ and feel their world view is superior to everyone else's?
From what I can make out there is a small but very noisy cohort of what I would call ‘liberal authoritarians’, who no longer accept the democratic process (unless it lands in their favour).
Brexit and social media has brought them kicking and screaming into the public forefront and they have no intention of going away.

They scheme almost daily about how they will subvert one of the rare chances, the British have had, to partake in a truly democratic process.
To get round this problem they cry ‘it wasn’t democratic because someone put something on a buss’ or ‘some people told lies (as if their side didn’t tell a single one).

It leaves me knowing that we’re not one people, one nation, respecting one another and the democratic choices we make. There are definitely those out there who will lie, cheat and bully their way, into getting what they want, regardless of everyone else.
Fair play and gentlemanly behaviour are not something they seem much interested in.
And they certainly do not care about democracy. If anything they detest it because it lets the ‘thicko’s’ get a say in their own future.

 

[sploo]

In the same vein, I, too, amazed and saddened that nobody since Thatcher has done any better than Boris and yet he has been vilified by those who wanted to remain in the EU for gain, rather than what was best for the country.

Of course Boris lied. Who doesn't in politics? And he wasn't going to make any friends in the Civil Service either, was he?

Personal attacks are sign of lost arguments and, it seems a lot of people in politics, and the media, are suffering from democratiitis. The people who worked with him would have found him to be different and, as they were likely to be Remainers, they had a purpose in their criticisms.

In my estimation, Boris's style was different, entertaining and he managed the pandemic as well as anyone else could have. In fact, there wasn't anyone else around at the time who could have handled it as well. He listened to the medical, business and other specialist advisers and took the path that, in hindsight, did the right things at the right time, and each of those specialists, having their own agenda, had to accept the choices he made.

During his term, Boris kept people and busineses afloat during the pandemic, oversaw and supported the vaccine development and organised the roll-out ahead of any other country in the world. He ensured that the NHS had as much support as the government could get it, at a time when the world was competing for the rapidly-depleting PPE.

Post Covid, the country was coming back. Wages were starting to rise, the economy, too, looked to be improving and the portents of growth were apparent. And, I note, that there hasn't been an huge outcry about his handling of the pandemic. There couldn't be really, could there, as there was nothing to compare it with, no precedent. Not even the Spanish Flu was anything to compare it with.

We all realised, post-pandemic, that the country had spent all we had but I think we knew that without that financial support the country would have been in a right state. We now have to take measures to restore our economy, improve trade across the world markets and get our debt down and our GDP up. Ten years? More? Who knows? But we have to be thankful that enough was done to save as many people as possible and it was worth it.

That's... just hallucination. Others have tried to respond with sensible points, countering the nonsense above. I assume it won't make a difference, so I guess there's little point in me bothering.

 

[Blackswanwood]

I will never understand those who cannot move on from Brexit.
Other than they keep getting wound up by narcissists like James O’Brien and perhaps they themselves, are people who don’t like being told ‘no’ and feel their world view is superior to everyone else's?
From what I can make out there is a small but very noisy cohort of what I would call ‘liberal authoritarians’, who no lknger accept the democratic process (unless it lands in their favour).
Brexit and social media has brought them kicking and screaming into the public forefront and they have no intention of going away.

They scheme almost daily about how they will subvert one of the rare chances, the British have had, to partake in a truly democratic process.
To get round this problem they cry ‘it wasn’t democratic because someone put something on a buss’ or ‘some people told lies (as if their side didn’t tell a single one).

It’s just bad behaviour and it leaves me knowing that we aren’t one people respecting another and the democratic choices we make. There are definitely those out there will lie, cheat and hully their way, into taking away our traditions and rights.

I agree with your underlying point - it is what it is. Arguing about what the question meant or what a different system could have delivered is irrelevant.

Equally though I find the reaction of those who voted leave and are now finding the reality not to be the land of milk and honey they envisaged a bit odd.

Disputing the validity of the outcome of of our voting system isn’t restricted to either end of the political spectrum.

 

[sploo]

I will never understand those who cannot move on from Brexit.

Probably because it's had real and lasting negative impact to the UK, and many people are continuing to have to suffer the consequences. It wasn't a one off event (like having your team lose an important match); it changed the rules for British businesses (huge increases in red tape), restricted the movement and opportunities for UK citizens, and resulted in significant loss of influence for the UK.

 

[Scruples]

That's... just hallucination. Others have tried to respond with sensible points, countering the nonsense above. I assume it won't make a difference, so I guess there's little point in me bothering.

Little point, indeed. I will stick with what I know. I haven't seen any 'sensible points' that have swayed my views. The decision was made, the government acted and we move on.

That the pandemic happened so soon after the referendum served to confuse some into believing that Brexit and the pandemic and the world downturn was all Boris's fault. He was the fall-guy. He couldn't survive that. He was blamed for every death that occurred rather than all the lives he saved. But that's what politics and today's media is all about, I suppose.

 

[Scruples]

Probably because it's had real and lasting negative impact to the UK, and many people are continuing to have to suffer the consequences. It wasn't a one off event (like having your team lose an important match); it changed the rules for British businesses (huge increases in red tape), restricted the movement and opportunities for UK citizens, and resulted in significant loss of influence for the UK.

It's difficult to observe the 'lasting impact' of Brexit on the heels of the pandemic and the subsequent downturn of the global economy.

 

[Scruples]

Probably because it's had real and lasting negative impact to the UK, and many people are continuing to have to suffer the consequences. It wasn't a one off event (like having your team lose an important match); it changed the rules for British businesses (huge increases in red tape), restricted the movement and opportunities for UK citizens, and resulted in significant loss of influence for the UK.

The referendum question was:

'Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?'

The responses were:

1) Remain a member of the European Union.
2) Leave the European Union.

This was a change from the original question that was proposed by Parliament, which was ‘Should the UK remain a member of the European Union?’ The question was changed after the required assessment by the UK’s Electoral Commission.

BELOW IS THE RESULT OF THE 2016 BREXIT REFERENDUM VOTE BY REGION:

Region​	Turnout​	Remain votes​	Leave votes​	Remain %​	Leave %​
England (with Gibraltar)	73.0%​	13,266,996​	15,188,406​	46.62%​	53.38%​
East Midlands	74.2%​	1,033,036​	1,475,479​	41.18%​	58.82%​
East of England	75.7%​	1,448,616​	1,880,367​	43.52%​	56.48%​
London	69.7%​	2,263,519​	1,513,232​	59.93%​	40.07%​
North East England	69.3%​	562,595​	778,103​	41.96%​	58.04%​
North West England	70%​	1,699,020​	1,966,925​	46.35%​	53.65%​
South East England	76.8%​	2,391,718​	2,567,965​	48.22%​	51.78%​
South West England & Gibraltar	76.7%​	1,503,019​	1,669,711​	47.37%​	52.63%​
West Midlands	72%​	1,207,175​	1,755,687​	40.74%​	59.26%​
Yorkshire and the Humber	70.7%​	1,158,298​	1,580,937​	42.29%​	57.71%​
Northern Ireland	62.7%​	440,707​	349,442​	55.78%​	44.22%​
Scotland	67.2%​	1,661,191​	1,018,322​	62.00%​	38.00%​
Wales	71.7%​	772,347​	854,572​	47.47%​	52.53%​

Like most I guess, I was surprised at the outcome of the EU referendum – I’d imagined that with the pre-referendum ‘Project Fear’ campaign as it was referred to, the result would have been something like 57/43 to remain, due to the effect of London and Scottish votes. The standard of debate was appalling – little objective information – just a lot of name-calling on both sides.

Every single Region of Great Britain (including Gibraltar), except London, N.I. and Scotland voted to leave - the highest proportion being not in the North, but in the West Midlands, where 59.6% voted to leave – the same proportion who in London, voted to stay, but then London is no more typical of G.B. than the Vatican is of Italy.

It was said that ‘ignorant old fogies have trashed their grandchildren’s future’. Well consider the proportion that bothered to vote in each age band, and how they voted:

Age bands % who voted How they voted
18-24 yrs old: 38% 64/36% remain/leave
25-34 yrs old: 45% 57/43% remain/leave
35-44 yrs old: 53% 54/46% remain/leave
45-54 yrs old: 66% 44/54% remain/leave
55 yrs plus: 80% 40/60% remain/leave

So, if six in ten under 25s didn’t even bother to vote, fewer than half of 25-34 yr olds, and just over half of 35-44 yr olds, it seems to me that if they don’t like the outcome, maybe they should have put their votes where their mouths are? Do they ever consider how much of a struggle former generations had to get the vote that six out of ten under 25s don’t bother to use?

Want to know why old fogies voted to leave? In my view because when they (myself included) voted to go in all those years ago, it was into the Common Market, period. Not federalism, not to have the unelected bureaucrats of 27 other countries, not to be told how and on what to spend our taxes and what laws to introduce and comply with.

People often referred to ‘Brussels Bureaucrats’ but it’s much worse than that.

The figures below were back in 2016 - they will have escalated since then.

It is perhaps the most outlandish of the European Union’s excesses; a £130 million travelling circus that once a month sees the European Parliament decamp from Belgium to France. Over the course of a weekend each month, some 2,500 plastic trunks will be loaded on to five lorries and driven almost 300 miles from Brussels to Strasbourg. About 1,000 politicians, officials and translators then make the same journey on two specially chartered trains hired at taxpayers’ expense. A few thousand more will go to Strasbourg by other means, as the European Parliament switches from Brussels, its permanent base, to its “official” home in northern France.

In all, the EU admitted that the monthly Strasbourg sitting, which lasts just four days, costs an additional £93 million a year. The Conservative Party in Europe, which is leading a campaign to abandon it, estimates the cost a little higher at £130 million, or about £928 million in the seven-year cycle of an EU budget.

Among the costs are £250,000 a year to transport the plastic boxes containing documents, diaries and other items from Brussels to Strasbourg and back again. The boxes are left outside offices in Brussels on a Friday evening, collected by a courier company and driven to Strasbourg, where they are unloaded and left outside offices there. The process is repeated in reverse on Thursday evening.

It is thought it costs up to £200,000 for the EU to charter two express trains to take officials, MEPs and others there on a Monday morning and back on a Thursday afternoon. The trains stop only once at an airport in Paris to collect or drop MEPs and no ordinary member of the public can get on board, for a train which arrives in time for parliamentary sessions beginning in the afternoon.

Many of the details were contained within a report into the “financial and environmental impact” of operating two parliaments, which was overseen by Klaus Welle, the secretary-general to the European Parliament, its top civil servant. Mr Welle had been requested by MEPs to give an accurate figure on the costs of two parliaments amid a growing clamour to scrap one of them. The report showed how taxpayers foot the £2.5 million bill for relocating freelance translators from Brussels to Strasbourg and back again, including costs of travel, accommodation and other expenses.

Providing catering services in Strasbourg cost an additional £1 million, while extra medical support comes to some £330,000.

About 100 people are employed in Strasbourg full-time, even though the European Parliament meets for 12 sessions, each lasting four days, a total of only 48 days each year. But during those four-day sessions, the circus is in town. About 5,500 people pour into Strasbourg; not only politicians and officials but lobbyists, too.

For an EU obsessed by climate change and its possible effects, more embarrassing was the report’s admission that “10,200 tonnes of CO2 per year would be saved if Strasbourg were no longer used as a place of work”. That is the equivalent of 12,000 cars driving around the circumference of the world.

MEPs were fed up with the upheaval and cost created by the Strasbourg circus. At the end of 2015, they voted for the two-parliament system to be scrapped by a three-to-one majority. But change is unlikely to happen. The problem is simple: the French government, which has a power of veto, will not budge. The French insist on maintaining Strasbourg’s role because of the substantial amount of money the travelling circus brings to the region. Its status is set in stone under a European treaty signed in 1992, which can only be revoked should all member states agree it.

I'm not suggesting that in itself is a good reason for people voting 'leave' - just that it was one factor much in the news at the time.

We have to live with the reality. We can't create a future by wishing that the past had been otherwise.

It does seem to me that presently, the EU has becoming worryingly unstable, and not a little disunited.

It is fortuitous that we left when we did and, when we have paid off the EU what legacy contributions are due, we can watch as the EU struggle without having to contribute any more.

 

[ey_tony]

When you say dizens of journalists were slagging Tory, you do understand that they weren't making stuff up, and were simply reporting the actual corruption and inappropriate, often unlawful behaviours, right?

And you do understand that Oakshitte isn't representing the truth, right?

She isn't representing the truth? That's merely your opinion.

If she isn't telling the truth, exactly which part of what she said is untrue? I'm not defending her as I haven't seen enough of her to judge whether or not she's factual but I would ask you to substantiate your argument that she isn't telling the truth in that video!

When the Tories were being constantly slated in the gutter press by such as the Guardian and Independent together with other media in their orchestrated and choreographed agenda to bring down the Tories, I'm quite sure you Labour supporters revelled in it and believed every word but now that Starmer et al are in the hot seat and under the cosh, Labour luvvies are up in arms because of the criticism that Labour is attracting.

So far as I can see they're nothing better than hypocrites and liars and Starmer and his chums have got more faces than a town hall clock none of which are appealing. They blatantly lied to the electorate and withheld their true agenda in order to make themselves electable, well now we're seeing the results.

They've only been in power since July and they've attracted nothing but criticism which says it all and this was the government which was supposed to save the UK...so far they haven't proven they can run a bath let alone the economy and judging by their pathetic start, typically they will destroy whatever they started with. That unfortunately is Labour's MO.
If you thought the Tories were bad, just wait until this lot get really started. One thing you can depend upon with Labour is that they sure know how to redistribute misery very well.