Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Brexit supporters:

are racists and xenophobes.

automatically believe everything they read in The Mail, the Express, and The Sun.

Want to destroy human rights.

Worship Nigel Farage

Didn't know what they were voting for.

Are thick and didn't have a proper education.

Probably shouldn't have been allowed to vote in the first place...

And so on and so on and so on...

I'm not sure anyone has ever said this. It is true that there are a proportion of the population have from mild to worrying amounts of bigotry or plain racism (you only have to follow the BBC comments section to see how extreme peoples views on both sides can get). However my gut feeling is that this applies to about 15% of the population. Not only is it based on what UKIPs support was, but if we look at other countries the figure that follow the far right (either partially or fully) is about at the 15% mark. The problem is that the loudest and most obnoxious (not here) generally fall into this crowd. That therefore biases people's perceptions of the Leave camp, but then that is no different to any other issues (we only hear about complaints against faulty goods etc). However and I'd always state this, is that we must always take people as individuals not as part of a group. But you will always get tarnished by perception by supporting one side or another. In some ways you above comments reflect that - you are voicing some of the worst individual comments and mashing them into 'this is what people that support remain think of people wanting to leave'. it's best avoided because it infuriates the other side and can make divisions worse.

There is a large following of the Daily Mail. It's current readership is roughly 4million. If they don't believe it, they are unlikely to buy it. However just as in the Russian case by continually reading this you will get a perception that EU is always bad. Whether people want to accept it or not we are influenced by what we read and see (hence why there is always an argument over BBC bias). It is the reason why people on social media sites have to state whether they are being sponsored to advertise a certain product; otherwise the perfume the well known blogger talks about suddenly becomes the in thing without people realising it was a manipulation by the company. The same goes for Russian influence, if the posts all came with a "paid for by your friendly Russian president" people wouldn't take a blind bit of notice. The difference between the majority of the Leave papers is that they use exploitative headlines to get an emotional reaction "Enemies of the State" etc. Whereas remain papers generally are more broadsheets and have more information to allow you to make up your mind.

No one has ever said people voting leave are 'thick'. All evidence suggests that both educated (and young) people favoured remain but that doesn't make people thick for not having that education. We have had a discussion before and there is no consensus as to why educated people are more prone to wanting to remain. More research is needed on this issue.

The argument for not voting has always been that it should have been a parliamentary decision. People from both sides never had enough information on all EU aspects to make reasoned judgement and therefore such a decision is more susceptible to an emotional choice not a reasoned one.

Working class people are so stupid, they don't even know the Russians are telling them how to vote.

No one said 'working class' people at all. That's you own interpretation without reading the articles. We are all open to manipulation, what stops it is challenge of the information. It doesn't matter what your background if you don't question that you could be manipulated you leave yourself seriously open for that to open. It doesn't matter what 'class' you come from. And that is what the research shows when you read it.

...ssooo ...



Deficit not due to be eliminated until 2031 -- that's just a mere 16 years or so after the Tories said it'd all be sorted by with "austerity politics".
- Growth below 2% in every forecast year for first time in modern history.
- Annual pay not due to return to 2008 peak until 2025.

And that's assuming that growth/the economy goes well and is upset by, say, Brexit -- even if that's only for a few years.

or, I dunno yet another war or whatever.

So we watched as the chancellor has to commit £3bn worth of extra funds to Brexit planning and only £2.8bn extra to the NHS.

And that's on top of the £700M we've already spent.



.. where's a bus when you need one eh ?


.. TBF the cough sweet gag was well played., I guess.


and the opposition ....

... credit where it's due Corbyn has improved immensely since.. well.. since the snap election started ... ?

But I still cannot quite sit through an entire one of his speeches ... and....

... hmm ..... I think maybe he might've "peaked" -- if you follow me -- maybe ?


... that said....

April 27 2015

November 22 2017


March 13 2015

October 12 2017




7 January 2012




27 August 2017


......

Cameron did win the election right ? Dr. Manhattan hasn't been fiddling with our continuity too has he ?

But remember folks, Labour can't be trusted with the Economy! Only the Tories have the expertise to put Labour policy into place 5 years, two elections and two leaders later!

OK, so like last time I've looked at the budget by 2019/20 and compared to the last two in terms of revenue.



Now there isn't too much movement, by 2019/20 there has not been much change. Those areas where there are a generally associated with moving money between departments (e.g Business to Education for University costs) and devolution (e.g. Scotland/Wales etc).

There's a few things to note...anyone remember the foreign aid pledge, well that seems to have fallen by the wayside as 0.9bn has been taken from this budget.
Compared to the 2016 budget (noting that this covered up to 19/20) there has been a £15.8bn decrease in public spending.
Any reserve they had has gone now so if the forecasts are wrong again that means a lot of pain. Hammond has eased some pressure by using this up.

The NHS is a classic. They have effectively given the NHS back what they took away in the Spring budget. It is hence questionable how they anticipate that this will improve things during the winter given that in reality they are going to get the same money as they were promised before last winter.

There has been a £0.6bn increase in education spending (it is difficult to determine whether this is up/down vs 2016 budget simply because of moving money around). However I'd question the goal of getting more maths teachers and computer scientists is really going to work at all. These can be some of the highest paid employees out there. The problem isn't training, it's retention. How do you expect someone with software skills to take on a £22-25k job, high stress job, when they can be earning £30-40k from day one is beyond me.

As for the stamp duty that is just a joke. It's not going to do anything but increase house prices as there will no longer be the pressure on sellers to keep things under £125k for the starter properties. If you have some money (good job/wealthy parents etc) then you will benefit. For those that have difficulty making ends meet because of rent it's not going to help at all (and in reality almost certainly make things less affordable as the sellers now know they can get the stamp duty instead). However all is good for the Tories as they will happily squash the poorest into the cities whilst protecting the green belt and the core voters that don't like new buildings anywhere near them. (edit it was still a stupid idea under Milliband). They need more houses not ways of allowing builders/home owners to squeeze more money out of the properties.

I think it was the Labour Shadow Chancellor who said about the Stamp Duty gimmick that GCSE economics will tell you that increasing the supply of money to buy a product while not increasing the amount of product available will simply increase the price of the product.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think it was the Labour Shadow Chancellor who said about the Stamp Duty gimmick that GCSE economics will tell you that increasing the supply of money to buy a product while not increasing the amount of product available will simply increase the price of the product.

Yes you've got to wonder whether Hammond has tried to sell it as for the younger generation, whereas in reality what he is doing is giving more money to the home owners and businesses. Alternatively does he really believe this will help and he is just deluded? I'm sure the younger generation will be really happy to see prices spike over the next couple of years.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 reds8n wrote:


Cameron did win the election right ? Dr. Manhattan hasn't been fiddling with our continuity too has he ?

Tory party new motto..."Taking other people's ideas and claiming them as our own"

David Mundell tweeting about how it's a disgrace that the SNP have failed to roll out broadband everywhere in Scotland.

It's reserved to Westminster.

It suits a lot of interests that house prices continue to rise. More money for investors and banks, building/land occupiers, more costs for renting and an expanding rental market. Most people don’t want to rent long term; they’re forced to by housing stock being unaffordable. About a third of MPs are landlords and are therefore significant property owners. Says it all. No market controls.

If you just built more damn houses prices would come down and stamp duty wouldn’t be the issue it is. Investment firms sit on land and drag their feet building houses because they want a premium for that land. There needs to be a revolution in housing in this country that serves the British public first. Not foreign investors looking to hoard housing stock and rent it back to us at an inflated rate, not large investment groups wanting mass rental properties with sky high prices. I mean houses that give the opportunity for working people to put secure roofs over their heads - so that they aren’t trapped in a cycle of costly letting unable to save, living in homes where their security lasts as long as whim of the landlord not to refuse to renew the contract or sell the property from under them.

The right to affordable housing should be a basic one. Some people will be hit by negative equity but something as basic as creating homes for people should be the priority. I don’t like to blame older generations but they are the ones sitting on all the housing, endlessly fussing about their house prices or trying to block developments through NIMBYism. We need a serious house building programme in the UK or strict market controls to release housing stock at affordable rates to buy and rent.

Building houses is only the answer if sone of them are affordable. All the new builds up here have been luxury and thus too expensive for a lot of people. Like 5x DINK couples average salary, meaning they'd need a full salaries deposit and a bank willing to lend at 4.5x income these days


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The stamp duty change will only benefit the kids of those who the Tories already benefit. Those first time buyers being gifted a colossal deposit by their rich parents.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
@whirlwind. Hell, I may as well say this to everybody.

It's important to note that I'm not accusing anybody on dakka of saying these things. If anything, dakka has been a beacon of polite, robust debate, which has been conducted in a friendly manner. Long may it continue.

But this is what I'll say. Ever since June 24th 2016, a narrative has developed in the Remain supporting media, and amongst prominent Remain supporters, and it goes like this:

Brexit supporters:

are racists and xenophobes.

automatically believe everything they read in The Mail, the Express, and The Sun.

Want to destroy human rights.

Worship Nigel Farage

Didn't know what they were voting for.

Are thick and didn't have a proper education.

Probably shouldn't have been allowed to vote in the first place...

And so on and so on and so on...

There's only so much you can take of that. And the amazing thing is, not amazing, it's sad If I'm honest, these are the EXACT same arguments used in the Victorian age to stop working class men and women from getting the vote.

People are saying Brexit has set this county back. I would argue that we never really progressed. The elites, the establishment, have never lost their disdain, fear, or contempt they have of the so called 'lower' orders. They'd take the vote off us tomorrow if they thought they could get away with it.

These people love the EU. And they'll NEVER forgive people like me for voting for Brexit.

To cut a long story short, when this Russian influence argument gets wheeled out, I roll my eyes and think, here we go again.

Working class people are so stupid, they don't even know the Russians are telling them how to vote.

That is exactly what the establishment and the elites are thinking, and they cannot face the truth, and the truth is this:

Their campaign, and their arguments for remaining in the EU, were so worthless, so feeble, as to be fething useless.

Hell, I probably could have put up a better defence of the EU myself, than the likes of Clegg, Cameron and Miliband.

The EU is gak, but change is risky. That was their message, the grand vision they tried to sell to the British people. And they lost.

And deservedly so.

And the irony here is that the winning margin was so narrow, they could have won that with a better campaign, and a bit more passion...

Someone should frame this post and add it to the straw man definition at the encyclopedia of their choice.

To get back to the budget, the reaction this morning is interesting.

It seems that Hammond had to try to assemble a budget that would contain a few crowd-pleasing headlines (e.g. Stamp Duty and increase in Income Tax Allowance) while more importantly managing not to piss off either wing of the Tory Party, which continues to be at civil war over Brexit.

It seems he succeeded. The Tories across the board are calling the budget "solid". Unfortunately it is not a budget that really will help the country much.

That said, Hammond's hands are substantially tied by the UK's poor economic outlook for several years as the Brexit situation resolves.

I don't there is much in the budget to do active harm. The Stamp Duty point for example will have a fairly minor (though harmful) effect. But it doesn't really address the deep problems the UK faces.

The Stamp Duty removal looks like it will help first-time-buyers to whom, when buying a house, £1500 is a huge deal. What it will actually do is push up house prices - which everyone who has a house (to sell or not) will like. Like business rates it's a subject that really needed wholesale reform.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
To get back to the budget, the reaction this morning is interesting.

It seems that Hammond had to try to assemble a budget that would contain a few crowd-pleasing headlines (e.g. Stamp Duty and increase in Income Tax Allowance) while more importantly managing not to piss off either wing of the Tory Party, which continues to be at civil war over Brexit.

It seems he succeeded. The Tories across the board are calling the budget "solid". Unfortunately it is not a budget that really will help the country much.

That said, Hammond's hands are substantially tied by the UK's poor economic outlook for several years as the Brexit situation resolves.

I don't there is much in the budget to do active harm. The Stamp Duty point for example will have a fairly minor (though harmful) effect. But it doesn't really address the deep problems the UK faces.

The fact the ruling political party is having to make an effort to keep it's own members happy, shows what a bloody mess this government is.

MarkNorfolk wrote:
The Stamp Duty removal looks like it will help first-time-buyers to whom, when buying a house, £1500 is a huge deal. What it will actually do is push up house prices - which everyone who has a house (to sell or not) will like. Like business rates it's a subject that really needed wholesale reform.

Very much this.

It's entry-level economics. Sales taxes applied to auctions are ostensibly paid by the buyer, but are really paid by the seller, as without them, the buyer could afford to bid higher by the same margin. People buying houses currently bid what they can afford including stamp duty, once it is removed they will bid what they can afford excluding stamp duty. It has zero impact on the end cost to the buyer unless every potential bidder gets together and decides to reduce all their offers by 0.3%.

Well, to nobody's surprise, the EU are up to their old tricks again.

Write a scathing report about Britain's negotiating position, 'accidently' leak it to the press, and get their henchmen in the Remain supporting press to try and kick up a stir.

They must think we were born yesterday, if they're still trying this tactic.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/23/irish-report-shows-eu-lack-of-respect-for-uk-handling-of-brexit

Ketara called this EU tactic out months ago, and as I said at the time, he was absolutely 100% spot on

If the EU position is as strong as some people claim it is, then why are they reduced to schoolboy negotiating tactics?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


If the EU position is as strong as some people claim it is, then why are they reduced to schoolboy negotiating tactics?

Because it's trying to negotiate with a country that has decided to take its ball and go home to huff?

Did you read the leaked report, or simply see the words Brexit and Guardian, and go all giddy?

It amounts to the EU saying ' the UK government is a bit of a mess right now isn't it' and says that a meeting billed as a Brexit discussion turned into a foreign policy discussion.

Do you think our government is particularly united or coherent in it's approach to leaving the EU?

In other "bully boy EU" news, the five British cities competing for European City of Culture 2023 have been told they are not eligible for the competition.

Business news continues to be bad.

Budget 2017: Stagnant earnings forecast 'astonishing'[ly bad]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42096806
UK possibly heading for second "lost decade".


Apprenticeship numbers fall by 59% after levy imposed
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42092171
Bad organisation by the government.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
In other "bully boy EU" news, the five British cities competing for European City of Culture 2023 have been told they are not eligible for the competition.

I had to check that wasn't an onion story

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

If the EU position is as strong as some people claim it is, then why are they reduced to schoolboy negotiating tactics?

To quote Brian Blessed:

Every Little Helps

The city of culture decision is concrete proof, if any were needed, that the EU just makes it up as it goes along.

Previous entrants have included Bergen and Istanbul, which are cities in non-EU nations.

And of course, Britain is still legally an EU member until 2019...

There's a touch of the Khmer Rouge to the EU with its year zero approach to European history and identity.

As far as the EU are concerned, if you're not in the EU, you're not in Europe, which may comes as a surprise to Switzerland.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
In other "bully boy EU" news, the five British cities competing for European City of Culture 2023 have been told they are not eligible for the competition.

Business news continues to be bad.

Budget 2017: Stagnant earnings forecast 'astonishing'[ly bad]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42096806
UK possibly heading for second "lost decade".


Apprenticeship numbers fall by 59% after levy imposed
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42092171
Bad organisation by the government.

They're not even following their own rules. Again, it only confirms that voting to leave was one of the best decisions I ever made.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Thebiggesthat wrote:
Did you read the leaked report, or simply see the words Brexit and Guardian, and go all giddy?

It amounts to the EU saying ' the UK government is a bit of a mess right now isn't it' and says that a meeting billed as a Brexit discussion turned into a foreign policy discussion.

Do you think our government is particularly united or coherent in it's approach to leaving the EU?

The headline was basically EU code for Britain is not giving us more money.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


If the EU position is as strong as some people claim it is, then why are they reduced to schoolboy negotiating tactics?

Because it's trying to negotiate with a country that has decided to take its ball and go home to huff?

Your default position seems to be everything EU does = good. Everything Britain does = bad.

At least I'm willing to admit the British side is not perfect.

I think the more subtle interpretation is that everything the EU does is in the interests of the EU and its member nations.

As the UK is not going to be in the EU any more, the EU is no longer interested in our individual national interests, except to the degree that satisfying them may also satisfy the EU's interests.

This is the core dichotomy of the negotiation.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think the more subtle interpretation is that everything the EU does is in the interests of the EU and its member nations.

As the UK is not going to be in the EU any more, the EU is no longer interested in our individual national interests, except to the degree that satisfying them may also satisfy the EU's interests.

This is the core dichotomy of the negotiation.

That logic doesn't stand up when you consider that Norway, the non-EU Norway, has been involved in the past, and nobody batted an eyelid.

It's nothing more than petty bureaucracy from the EU

If that's their attitude, good riddance to Brussels. I'll take my chances with the Yanks.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The city of culture decision is concrete proof, if any were needed, that the EU just makes it up as it goes along.

Previous entrants have included Bergen and Istanbul, which are cities in non-EU nations.

And of course, Britain is still legally an EU member until 2019...

Read the fine print. Entry is open to EU cities, EEA cities (which includes Norway) and candidate cities (which Turkey is).

By 2023 which is the current year being elected the UK won't be a member or a candidate.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Your default position seems to be everything EU does = good. Everything Britain does = bad.

And you appear not to read beyond the headlines of anything remotely related to the EU. With the occasional mental gymnastics and spinning for some added drama.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Well, to nobody's surprise, the EU are up to their old tricks again.

Write a scathing report about Britain's negotiating position, 'accidently' leak it to the press, and get their henchmen in the Remain supporting press to try and kick up a stir.

The leak is not from the EU, it's from the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs. If you read the article you linked to you'd see it's an internal document collating discussions with Irish diplomats. While it could have been deliberately linked it's probably wasn't created for that purpose. And it probably wasn't deliberately leaked since it contains direct attributed quotes which will damage the ability of Irish diplomats to do their jobs; the nebulous benefits will not outweigh the concrete harm to most of those who would have had access to it.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:The city of culture decision is concrete proof, if any were needed, that the EU just makes it up as it goes along.

Previous entrants have included Bergen and Istanbul, which are cities in non-EU nations.

And of course, Britain is still legally an EU member until 2019...

This is for the 2023 European City of Culture.

As for how Bergen and Istanbul have held the title in previous years, here's the explanation from the European Commission:

European Commission wrote:Explaining the decision, a spokesman for the European Commission said: "As one of the many concrete consequences of its decision to leave the European Union by 29 March 2019, the UK cannot host the European Capital of Culture in 2023.

"According to the rules adopted by the European Parliament and the Council (Decision 445/2014), this action is not open to third countries except candidate countries and European Free Trade Association/European Economic Area countries.

"Given that the UK will have left the EU by 29 March 2019, and therefore be unable to host the European Capital of Culture in 2023, we believe it makes common sense to discontinue the selection process now."

Norway is EFTA/EEA and Turkey is a candidate country.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think the more subtle interpretation is that everything the EU does is in the interests of the EU and its member nations.

As the UK is not going to be in the EU any more, the EU is no longer interested in our individual national interests, except to the degree that satisfying them may also satisfy the EU's interests.

This is the core dichotomy of the negotiation.

That logic doesn't stand up when you consider that Norway, the non-EU Norway, has been involved in the past, and nobody batted an eyelid.

It's nothing more than petty bureaucracy from the EU

If that's their attitude, good riddance to Brussels. I'll take my chances with the Yanks.

The EU likes Norway, which is a member of the EEA. The EU at one stage was kind of liking Turkey, which was keen on joiing.

From this perspective the EU position makes perfect sense.

jouso wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The city of culture decision is concrete proof, if any were needed, that the EU just makes it up as it goes along.

Previous entrants have included Bergen and Istanbul, which are cities in non-EU nations.

And of course, Britain is still legally an EU member until 2019...

Read the fine print. Entry is open to EU cities, EEA cities (which includes Norway) and candidate cities (which Turkey is).

By 2023 which is the current year being elected the UK won't be a member or a candidate.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Your default position seems to be everything EU does = good. Everything Britain does = bad.

And you appear not to read beyond the headlines of anything remotely related to the EU. With the occasional mental gymnastics and spinning for some added drama.

And as always, you completely miss the point. The EU has been flagging up Turkish human rights abuses for years, and yet, 'candidate' cities from Turkey are unaffected in this contest.

Britain democratically votes to leave the EU, and the EU response is red tape. Spanish police start cracking open people's skulls in Catalonia, but I doubt if the EU commission will let that bother them with regard to cities of culture.

The EU can and does change the rules and ignore their own values when it suits them.

I repeat, good riddance to them.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 monarda wrote:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Well, to nobody's surprise, the EU are up to their old tricks again.

Write a scathing report about Britain's negotiating position, 'accidently' leak it to the press, and get their henchmen in the Remain supporting press to try and kick up a stir.

The leak is not from the EU, it's from the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs. If you read the article you linked to you'd see it's an internal document collating discussions with Irish diplomats. While it could have been deliberately linked it's probably wasn't created for that purpose. And it probably wasn't deliberately leaked since it contains direct attributed quotes which will damage the ability of Irish diplomats to do their jobs; the nebulous benefits will not outweigh the concrete harm to most of those who would have had access to it.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:The city of culture decision is concrete proof, if any were needed, that the EU just makes it up as it goes along.

Previous entrants have included Bergen and Istanbul, which are cities in non-EU nations.

And of course, Britain is still legally an EU member until 2019...

This is for the 2023 European City of Culture.

As for how Bergen and Istanbul have held the title in previous years, here's the explanation from the European Commission:

European Commission wrote:Explaining the decision, a spokesman for the European Commission said: "As one of the many concrete consequences of its decision to leave the European Union by 29 March 2019, the UK cannot host the European Capital of Culture in 2023.

"According to the rules adopted by the European Parliament and the Council (Decision 445/2014), this action is not open to third countries except candidate countries and European Free Trade Association/European Economic Area countries.

"Given that the UK will have left the EU by 29 March 2019, and therefore be unable to host the European Capital of Culture in 2023, we believe it makes common sense to discontinue the selection process now."

Norway is EFTA/EEA and Turkey is a candidate country.

Naturally of course, the Republic of Ireland is NOT in the EU, and the Irish foreign office wouldn't be coordinating things with Brussels.

DINLT moves the goalposts! Read all about it!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The city of culture decision is concrete proof, if any were needed, that the EU just makes it up as it goes along.

Previous entrants have included Bergen and Istanbul, which are cities in non-EU nations.

And of course, Britain is still legally an EU member until 2019...

I agree, this one seems pretty off at first, but on some reading it's perfectly fair. How can we host an event only open to EU/EEA/Candidate nations when by the time it happens we will be none of those?

EU complaining about Turkish abuse is irrelevant here - they were a serious candidate with a pro-EU governemnt when they were nominated. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be allowed to enter now since as I understand it, they are no longer an active candidate.

We voted to leave the EU, so we can't really be surprised when we start getting excluded from things we need to be in the EU to be eligable for.

The headline was basically EU code for Britain is not giving us more money.

Can you break that down for people that don't understand "EU code"?
It's not mentioned or implied anyway, and the description seems pretty clear - the UK still doesn't seem to have any idea what it's doing.

At least I'm willing to admit the British side is not perfect.

No-one has said the EU is perfect. But you must be able to concede that the UK is a lot further from perfect than the EU.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
DINLT moves the goalposts! Read all about it!

It's a fair point.

Country leaving the EU = no city of culture.

Country not in the EU + human rights abuses = city of entrant.

I've never had a problem with people being hypocrites if they'd be honest about it, the EU being a prime example.

Naturally, of course, EU apologists will wave away Catalonia and Turkey, and focus on the UK for having the temerity to want to leave.

If Brexit supporters had been brutalised by the police during the referendum, but Remain had won, the EU would probably throw us another couple of billion.

At any rate, I feel sorry for the entry cities like Milton Keynes. The EU could have told them this months ago, instead of wasting their time and money.