[Politics] Brexit

[Baldseagull]

Already been done to death twice.They had plenty of notice to register a UK address if they wanted to vote,but for reasons best known to themselves couldn't be bothered.Or perhaps they had not so good reasons for not registering.Loads of criminals on the Costas.

As per usual, you have not grasped the difference between not able to, and not bothered to. If they have been outside of the UK for 15 years, they were not able to vote.

 

[Baldseagull]

Your words not miine.



I dont know any peoples vote types to explore with, but i find it odd that remainers who are solely focused on the economy and trade with regard to Brexit wouldnt have trade as a priority when it came to the new peoples vote.
Maybe they really are as scheming and dishonest as you seem to be implying ( in a round about way) . Certainly looks that way.



No idea on the accuracy of their claim,has anyone looked into it?
How many of those who did not qualify are not of voting age for example.

Latest ONS figures has 784,900 Brits living in mainland EU (excluding Ireland) so 700,000 for Europe alone seems quite high.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...onalmigration/articles/livingabroad/april2018

Numbers of Brits abroad globally registered to vote by the end of 2016 was 264,000. Not a big uptake really is it, but certainly a big jump and improvement from the 35,000 previous high registered up to 2015.
https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN05923

Yes I am happy the franchise wasn’t amended to accommodate a one off vote. That would have stunk of deliberately rigging a vote either way. If the franchise is to change it should be done through separate legislation, which I believe the gov are backing to abolish the 15 year rule, labour oppose it obviously.

Accepted figures for the date of the vote was 1.2 million Brits in the EU. The report you link to has counted "British residents" another set of figures in the same report says more than 4.9 million British born people were living elsewhere in the world, and more than 25% of them were in the EU. That would be about 1.2 million people by my reckoning, it also excludes the 3.7 million elsewhere in the world that could also lose the rights that they currently have, to live and work in the EU, though it might seem less important to those that have lives in the US or Australia.
In any case, hundreds of thousands of people that used the right to live and work in the EU, were not able to vote, precisely because they had chosen to live and work in the EU, and the result of that vote could remove that right. Rules for a General election are irrelevant here, it matters little to someone resident in Spain for 15 years who the MP for Stafford is going to be, but for a referendum on EU membership, they are going to be more concerned about the result than most.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

So, basically, with 'no deal' the country is ****ed for generations.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ you don't live here
regards
DR

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

Why do you keep editing your posts when proved wrong. Just wondering ??

another for Watford bloke, he's just bluffing his way through this thread along with the Czech bloke, they're just going around in circles like the magic roundabout
regards
DR

 

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

We are now approaching (belatedly) the 'business end' of the negotiations. Raab and Bernier had agreed to hold weekly talks from mid-August onwards. Let's hope their diary secretaries are efficient.

 

[daveinprague]

another for Watford bloke, he's just bluffing his way through this thread along with the Czech bloke, they're just going around in circles like the magic roundabout
regards
DR

Im not bluffing anything. I have asked leavers a very simple question, and none have managed to come up with a credible answer. If idiots like you get their way, and the country leaves with no deal, the country is ****ed, for a very long time. Shame halfwits like you were allowed a vote.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

I can't be arsed to get into the tuition fee discussion, or the implications of it, but I will point out that this post is a load of bullshit.

First, it's worth noting that the government still funds university education - they've just implemented a scheme where they increased tuition fees (and scrapped maintenance grants), and made students fund these increases by an increasing their loans. But they still pay the upfront costs, but they've just rigged the system so that the deficit appears less than it is because student loans do not count as part of the deficit, even though it's money the government has paid out. Scraping fees and bringing back the maintenance grant would therefore technically increase the deficit, but the upfront fees paid by the government would increase only by £1 billion (because of self-funders getting free education). But because of how the repayments actually work out, it was estimated at the time of the last GE it would cost £8 billion per year. Still a significant wedge, no doubt, but quite a different take compared to how you presented it.

Where did you get your figures from? They look out of date anyway.

Even ignoring that there are other ways to fund university tuition, and any indirect benefits which may occur, you are wrong in what additional funds would be required. Even after I pointed out your inaccuracies, you continue to mention the inaccurate figures:

The point is that your entire post based on so-called figures was inaccurate. £14.6 billion is not the number that would need to be raised each year.

As I have already point out more than once, and as you continue to ignore, it wouldn't cost £14bn. Perhaps you should try re-reading the posts in this thread. Or does accuracy not matter to you?

And I already point out that this is bollocks yet you continue to cite your incorrect figures. You've clearly been given the correct information so it shouldn't be hard. Unless you are purposely ignoring the correct figures to make your point?

I'm a separate person, as should be obvious. I'm not involved in the debate. I don't think either side is coming across particularly well in the debate. I just noticed some incorrect figures being bandied about and wanted to correct them. It's important that debates are based on accurate information, irrespective of your viewpoint, otherwise your viewpoint cannot be taken seriously. Especially if you wilfully ignore correct figures.

According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, it would cost £8bn to abolish tuition fees and bring back the maintenance grant. This was calculated around the time of the last GE. However, something which I haven't pointed out, is that since then the Conservatives have increased the threshold for paying back the Plan 2 loans to £25,000. This means it would actually now cost less. Also, there is currently a review being carried out of HE funding and tuition fees, which may change things further.

https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9217

Calm down dear !!! You seem to have confused yourself - you just called the figures 'bollocks' in your first set of posts - at no point did you provide any evidence or links or even any constructive discussion. It took to your final post for you to provide something constructive - so, just for arguments sake, let's assume the IFS figures are correct ( in reality I suspect the correct figure is something between IFS and the Universities figures ), that would still require a tax increase of 2p on the basic rate of income tax. There are other ways of raising this money obviously but I'm still awaiting [MENTION=15363]Plooks[/MENTION] to suggest how he's going to fund it - with details not just 'raise taxes'.

You seem to be very angry about a simple discussion.

 

[WATFORD zero]

As more and more of the Brexiteers on here seem to be struggling to decide which Brexit they want, I wonder which of the two Brexit extremes that we've managed to back ourselves into will get the nod. Looks like there's one or two problems arising for the WTO 'no deal' option.

Jeremy Hunt warns Britain would regret no-deal Brexit 'for generations to come
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/08/16/jeremy-hunt-warns-no-deal-brexit-would-amistake-generations/

Chris Grayling has no credible plan for 'no-deal' Brexit, road hauliers warn
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/08/15/chris-grayling-has-no-credible-plan-no-deal-brexit-road-hauliers/

Never Mind, maybe things are going better with TM's pick & mix negotiations with the EU

EU rebuffs idea of escalating Brexit talks to leaders' summit
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/15/brussels-rebuffs-idea-of-escalating-brexit-talks-to-leaders-summit

Chris Grayling: Theresa May's Brexit plans 'not an easy sell' to the public
https://inews.co.uk/news/brexit/chris-grayling-theresa-mays-brexit-plans-not-an-easy-sell-to-the-public/

It's starting to look like a right old pickle, If only someone could have seen this coming



We're on our way, Tick Tock, Brexit means Brexit, etc

 

[ManOfSussex]

As more and more of the Brexiteers on here seem to be backing away from making a simple decision on which Brexit they want, I wonder which of the two Brexit extremes that we've managed to back ourselves into will get the nod. Looks like there's one or two problems arising for the WTO 'no deal' option.

Cue a typical stock response of :

WHAT PART OF LEAVING THE EU DONT you GRIZZLERS UNDERSTAND.

WILL BE FINE, SO DRY YOUR EYES SON

https://www.express.co.uk/news/poli...th-care-no-deal-brexit-ema-drug-stockpile-nhs

tICK-tOCK ITS REALLY THAT simple
regards
MOS

 

[seagulls4ever]

Calm down dear !!! You seem to have confused yourself - you just called the figures 'bollocks' in your first set of posts - at no point did you provide any evidence or links or even any constructive discussion. It took to your final post for you to provide something constructive - so, just for arguments sake, let's assume the IFS figures are correct ( in reality I suspect the correct figure is something between IFS and the Universities figures ), that would still require a tax increase of 2p on the basic rate of income tax. There are other ways of raising this money obviously but I'm still awaiting [MENTION=15363]Plooks[/MENTION] to suggest how he's going to fund it - with details not just 'raise taxes'.

You seem to be very angry about a simple discussion.

Who's confused? Your figures were bollocks and still are. I'm not sure what there is to be confused about.

The most correct figures are the IFS ones, although it would actually be cheaper now. Just because I didn't provide the link in the first post doesn't mean you should ignore it - you could have easily searched for it yourself or asked for the link. It's not a figure in between your figures and IFS, as your figures are back of a fag packet calculations which don't take into account that not all student loans are paid back, for starters. I indicated I'm not getting involved in the debate, I just wanted to point out your incorrect figures as there's way too much bollocks spouted by people online who want to make a point. Debates should be based on accurate information. Yet when I called you out you wilfully ignored me. No surprise, people are happy to spew out what they know to be bollocks if it suits their agenda. Happens all the time.

We know there's different ways to fund it, but it wouldn't be far off 1p since various estimates state that would raise 5-6bn, and it would cost less than 8bn now thresholds have changed.

So quite different from your initial 4p suggestion.

My job is done, I'm now exiting the discussion.

 

[Two Professors]

Kissing doesn't require KY.

I never said an amoeba had a brain. I said that you have the brain of an amoeba.

Frankly, you are thick as shit.

you think pogue mahone means KISS my ass?

 

[Two Professors]

As per usual, you have not grasped the difference between not able to, and not bothered to. If they have been outside of the UK for 15 years, they were not able to vote.

As per usual you react rather than read.I said they had plenty of time to register a UK address to enable them to vote which,for whatever reason,they failed to do.

 

[Two Professors]

Who's confused? Your figures were bollocks and still are. I'm not sure what there is to be confused about.

The most correct figures are the IFS ones, although it would actually be cheaper now. Just because I didn't provide the link in the first post doesn't mean you should ignore it - you could have easily searched for it yourself or asked for the link. It's not a figure in between your figures and IFS, as your figures are back of a fag packet calculations which don't take into account that not all student loans are paid back, for starters. I indicated I'm not getting involved in the debate, I just wanted to point out your incorrect figures as there's way too much bollocks spouted by people online who want to make a point. Debates should be based on accurate information. Yet when I called you out you wilfully ignored me. No surprise, people are happy to spew out what they know to be bollocks if it suits their agenda. Happens all the time.

We know there's different ways to fund it, but it wouldn't be far off 1p since various estimates state that would raise 5-6bn, and it would cost less than 8bn now thresholds have changed.

So quite different from your initial 4p suggestion.

My job is done, I'm now exiting the discussion.

View attachment 99780

Can Plooks come back out to play now then?

 

[seagulls4ever]

Can Plooks come back out to play now then?

 

[WATFORD zero]

View attachment 99781

I think hacking his laptop cam may be illegal

 

[Baldseagull]

Calm down dear !!! You seem to have confused yourself - you just called the figures 'bollocks' in your first set of posts - at no point did you provide any evidence or links or even any constructive discussion. It took to your final post for you to provide something constructive - so, just for arguments sake, let's assume the IFS figures are correct ( in reality I suspect the correct figure is something between IFS and the Universities figures ), that would still require a tax increase of 2p on the basic rate of income tax. There are other ways of raising this money obviously but I'm still awaiting [MENTION=15363]Plooks[/MENTION] to suggest how he's going to fund it - with details not just 'raise taxes'.

You seem to be very angry about a simple discussion.

With respect mate, he pointed out where and why the figure is less in the first post you quoted there.

 

[Baldseagull]

you think pogue mahone means KISS my ass?

What do you think it means oh wise one?

 

[Baldseagull]

As per usual you react rather than read.I said they had plenty of time to register a UK address to enable them to vote which,for whatever reason,they failed to do.

I see, so they should have lied, and committed electoral fraud with the help of a UK based friend. Maybe they could have all said they were living with Bryan Robson?

 

[Baldseagull]

View attachment 99781

I think that one is Pastafarian, the strapping on the right wrist is the giveaway.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

you think pogue mahone means KISS my ass?

Shane MacGowan thinks it does

http://www.gaelicmatters.com/irish-gaelic-phrases.html

The Irish Gaelic phrase 'Póg mo thóin' (pronounced pogue mohone) is one of the first Irish Gaelic phrases that many visitors to Ireland learn, probably because people just seem to love learning curses as much as teaching them. It means literally 'Kiss my ass' but can be used as 'Get out of it' when you think somebody is trying to pull the wool over your eyes or when you get annoyed with them.

The London-Irish band 'The Pogues' were originally called 'Pogue Mahone', an anglicised version of the gaelic expression. Because of BBC censorship, they shortened the name to be less offensive

"Pogue Mahone" is the name of the Pogues seventh album. It is derived from the Gaelic phrase "póg mo thóin", which is translated to "kiss my ****". The term Pogue Mahone has become synonymous with póg mo thóin outside of Ireland

Pogue Mahone is the seventh and final studio album by The Pogues, released in 1996. The title is a variant of the Irish phrase póg mo thóin, meaning "kiss my arse", from which the band's name is derived.