Jump to content

Brexit Penny Dropping?


ManxTaxPayer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just now, Eris said:

For the return of sovereignty and independence to the UK any price is worth paying.

Really?  So the total destruction of the UK economy is worth it?

I though Brexit was all about opportunities and yet here you are talking about sacrificing anything and everything for the sake of so.e vague notion of sovereignty and independence? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Eris said:

For the return of sovereignty and independence to the UK any price is worth paying.

Yet independence was never lost, and some small areas of sovereignty were pooled, and for the most part sovereignty remained exclusive.

And of course, trade, on WTO rules, or Canada, or Norway2, or the sows ear we’ve actually got, involves a loss of sovereignty.

And unless there’s an unexpected rabbit to be pulled out of the proverbial hat then our manufacturers and agricultural producers and service providers will have to comply with the rules imposed by others, and into which, in our largest market, we no longer have a say.

Its already started with the AUS and NZ deals, where UK farmers are being sacrificed in the name of cheaper food, produced by standards not acceptable here.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, John Wright said:

You can’t even read and comprehend. “Says Ofcom”

Yep I read it and comprehended it. There is no need to be so rude

The Guardian reported that Ofcom said that the print edition of the Guardian is most trusted by its readers amongst UK newspapers. But not apparently the news source provided by the online version, which fact conveniently does not appear in the headline.

So there is a little selectively and obfuscation going on here 

Never mind. That’s what happens. People are taken in.

As regards my comment re the gullibility of Guardian readers this is a classic example of confirmation bias which our friend PK has displayed in spades. They read it in blind faith and are blind to its flaws.

I used to take the Guardian for years until it stopped being serious. Shame really as it did make you think then, rather than telling you what to think ( I suppose that suits some, mentioning no names)

In the same way that my ex father in law thought that reading the Daily Mail made him a member of the intelligentsia, those that read the Guardian think it makes them somewhat superior, and that they are somewhat unique.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Yep I read it and comprehended it. There is no need to be so rude

The Guardian reported that Ofcom said that the print edition of the Guardian is most trusted by its readers amongst UK newspapers. But not apparently the news source provided by the online version, which fact conveniently does not appear in the headline.

So there is a little selectively and obfuscation going on here 

Never mind. That’s what happens. People are taken in.

As regards my comment re the gullibility of Guardian readers this is a classic example of confirmation bias which our friend PK has displayed in spades. They read it in blind faith and are blind to its flaws.

I used to take the Guardian for years until it stopped being serious. Shame really as it did make you think then, rather than telling you what to think ( I suppose that suits some, mentioning no names)

In the same way that my ex father in law thought that reading the Daily Mail made him a member of the intelligentsia, those that read the Guardian think it makes them somewhat superior, and that they are somewhat unique.

 

 

You really have a chip on your shoulder about Guardian readers and Remainers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said:

The Guardian reported that Ofcom said that the print edition of the Guardian is most trusted by its readers amongst UK newspapers. But not apparently the news source provided by the online version, which fact conveniently does not appear in the headline.

So there is a little selectively and obfuscation going on here 

Never mind. That’s what happens. People are taken in.

As regards my comment re the gullibility of Guardian readers this is a classic example of confirmation bias which our friend PK has displayed in spades. They read it in blind faith and are blind to its flaws.

I used to take the Guardian for years until it stopped being serious. Shame really as it did make you think then, rather than telling you what to think ( I suppose that suits some, mentioning no names)

In the same way that my ex father in law thought that reading the Daily Mail made him a member of the intelligentsia, those that read the Guardian think it makes them somewhat superior, and that they are somewhat unique.

Sure you like winding folks up but the above just makes you look stupid:

"The Guardian reported that Ofcom said that the print edition of the Guardian is most trusted by its readers amongst UK newspapers. But not apparently the news source provided by the online version, which fact conveniently does not appear in the headline.

So there is a little selectively and obfuscation going on here."

So you compare the online version of the Guardian against the printed version and find "selectivity and obfuscation going on" on a regular basis then...? Yeah... Right...

The rest of your post is just condescending nonsense...

Incidentally, has your Telegraph come up with any Brexit Benefits recently...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking for Brexit benefits is a bit like looking for gold off the end of Peel breakwater; plenty of turds and used condoms, but no gold.

Brexiteers, however, would find a dead goldfish someone flushed down their bog, and declare victory. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found a Brexit benefit, but it only benefits the people who run mobile phone networks. 

Pre-Brexit, EU regulations stopped these companies from profiteering on roaming charges and while these companies promised they wouldn't make changes to roaming charges, surprise surprise, most have reneged. Ca-ching!

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2022/aug/08/mobile-firms-breaking-promises-on-roaming-fees-post-brexit-warns-martin-lewis 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Zarley said:

Looking for Brexit benefits is a bit like looking for gold off the end of Peel breakwater; plenty of turds and used condoms, but no gold.

Brexiteers, however, would find a dead goldfish someone flushed down their bog, and declare victory. 

Speaking of things at the end of Peel breakwater.

Did you know that until 2016 member states had to apply to the EU for permission ( yes, permission) to remove the tax on tampons and other sanitary items, as the EU deemed them nonessential or luxury items. Until then and without such permission the UK by dint of being a member of the EU was obliged to levy this disgraceful tax, which it has  since abolished.

“Wow big deal” I hear you Remainers say. OK in the scheme of things not that significant but it does illustrate that the terms “regaining sovereignty “ and “ taking back control” are so much more than the empty slogans that Remainers claim they are.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Speaking of things at the end of Peel breakwater.

Did you know that until 2016 member states had to apply to the EU for permission ( yes, permission) to remove the tax on tampons and other sanitary items, as the EU deemed them nonessential or luxury items. Until then and without such permission the UK by dint of being a member of the EU was obliged to levy this disgraceful tax, which it has  since abolished.

“Wow big deal” I hear you Remainers say. OK in the scheme of things not that significant but it does illustrate that the terms “regaining sovereignty “ and “ taking back control” are so much more than the empty slogans that Remainers claim they are.

 

Except.

UK government could have reduced to 5% at any time. Did it? No!

UK government could have sought a derogation to zero rate. Did it? No!

Would it have been refused? No!

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yes it could have reduced it to 5% at any time. But it couldn’t have abolished it altogether without going cap in  hand to the EU. Maybe the EU would have graciously granted the wish or maybe it wouldn’t have.

All these “excepts” only just illustrate the lack of self determination the UK had whilst a member of the EU

This from the UK government. Make of it what you will.


“The Chancellor announced on 1st January 2021 that the ‘Tampon Tax’ would cease. This was due to exiting the EU and the UK no longer being bound by the EU VAT Directive to charge 5% tax on all sanitary products. “

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Voice of Reason said:

“The Chancellor announced on 1st January 2021 that the ‘Tampon Tax’ would cease. This was due to exiting the EU and the UK no longer being bound by the EU VAT Directive to charge 5% tax on all sanitary products. “

That would be the Chancellor of a pro-brexit Government correct? 

The same Government that has had to appoint a Minister of Brexit Benefits who seems to be spending most of his time complaining about people working from home rather than finding and brexit benefits? 

Sorry but this Government had proves time and again it cannot be trusted to tell the truth and this statement is another example of it bending the truth to breaking point in an attempt to look good.

Did the PM get rid of the Kipper pillows yet?  Remember him waving around some Manx Kippers blabbering on about that and blaming the EU?

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

That would be the Chancellor of a pro-brexit Government correct? 

The same Government that has had to appoint a Minister of Brexit Benefits who seems to be spending most of his time complaining about people working from home rather than finding and brexit benefits? 

Sorry but this Government had proves time and again it cannot be trusted to tell the truth and this statement is another example of it bending the truth to breaking point in an attempt to look good.

Did the PM get rid of the Kipper pillows yet?  Remember him waving around some Manx Kippers blabbering on about that and blaming the EU?

 


Yes it’s correct that it is the Chancellor of a pro Brexit government.

I am not quite sure what point you’re trying to make. The only party ,except maybe for a few fringe parties,that was anti-Brexit was the Liberals ( and look how they fared!) Labour was ambiguous to say the least.

I’m really not sure how you come to the conclusion that the Government statement is “ another example of it bending the truth to breaking point in an attempt to look good”

Its a factual statement and is the truth. I can’t see that there is any bending involved but feel free to explain.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...