Weston Super Saint

The majority of the fish industry still uses Imperial weights.

Which you hate literally everything about. Never seen a single good word from you about the country you live in. I guess some are never happy unless they are moaning.

Nope. Brexit is done and dusted, over, finished with, there's even a clue in the title of this thread. I've never said that means we can't renegotiate terms now that Brexit is done. Indeed, isn't that one of the benefits of Brexit that we are able to negotiate trade deals, even the ones we have with the EU?

I'm not sure you've grasped that Brexit has happened. It's done and dusted. There is no hard or soft to argue about. We are where we are...

Just to recap, Brexiters won the vote to leave the EU. The UK has left the UK and for some reason you think it is Brexiters that need to compromise on their ideology because 'you' don't like how it has turned out. Not sure you truly understand what 'compromise' means!

Hargreaves Lansdown. https://www.hl.co.uk/black-interns-pilot

The 'flu jab is updated on an annual basis to combat the most prevalent strain of influenza that year. I haven't seen any information that the COVID 'booster' has been updated and it would appear that they will be using the original vaccine that was created. The same vaccine that supposedly offered 90 - 95% protection after 2 doses (compared with 40-60% for 'flu). What makes more sense in this scenario, offering the 'booster' to a population that already has around 95% protection anyway so will potentially see only a very slight marginal gain of a couple of percentage points, or donating the vaccines we have agreed to pay for to a country that cannot afford their own, thus offering them around 70% protection (one dose), to limit the chances of the virus spreading and mutating to something more nasty? Booster jabs would be more effective next year once the most prevalent strain has been identified and the vaccine tailored towards that.

Yet, despite all those selfish people who have refused to have their vaccinations, more curbs will be imposed on those that have had them if / when the hospitals start to fill up. Maybe there is one situation where a covid passport would be warrented

203 miles

None. My issue is with the constantly moving goal posts. Get two jabs was the previous message to protect society. Kids don't need the jab because they just aren't affected to any great degree by the virus, was the previous message. Society will go back to normal once everyone has two jabs was the previous message. The process is irreversible was the previous message (although I'm happy to accept that was merely grandstanding from Boris making promises he couldn't keep). We won't be introducing vaccine passports was the previous message. Now we're being told that booster jabs are the way out. Like I said, the figures don't add up with what is actually being reported and the modellers have been way off the mark at pretty much every stage. If we've committed to paying for millions of vaccines that we don't need, donate them to countries that don't have them and where the virus is much more likely to spread and therefore mutate, which would be far more effective at reducing the chance of a 'new variant' rather than planning for the arrival of one....

Presumably these are the same 'modellers' that predicted 100k infections by mid August. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58566235 They certainly know how to hedge their bets with that range! Pretty much covered all of the covid bingo buzz words in that article, the only thing I can see missing is the mention of a new, 'far more transmissable, probably more deadly' strain of virus. There's only one way out of this and that's vaccinations, what happened to that mantra? 89% of the adult population have had one jab and 82% have had 2 jabs and we're still talking about possible lockdowns (or certainly some half arsed botched version commonly known as the tiers that were useless). My guess is that the Government committed to buying millions of doses more than we actually needed and rather than donate them to countries who can't afford to buy their own, we're pressing on full steam to use them up, with this being the start of the scare mongering to get everyone to have their 'booster' jab....

From where?

No thread is safe from the opinions of other people that dominate boriersaints twitter feed

Borriersaint's twitter feed is likely to be the very definition of confirmation bias.

Bless you for trying. As I stated in my post "certainly from the beginning of 2015 right up until the day before the vote" but nice to see you've chosen a tiny snippet of the polls mainly from the 2 months before the vote to prove your point about counting From the beginning of 2015 up until the referendum (a timescale that has a little more meaning during the campaigning for the vote!), there were 203 polls in total. 137 predicted a remain win and 66 predicted a leave win (28 of those were recording in May and June 2016). So 67% of the polls in the time period I quoted backed the remain campaign. As you point out, this stuff isn't hard, its just counting (and reading what was posted).

I'll put it in a few words for you, so you can try.... 'Total Population' is different to 'voting population'.

As you can see in the link, the polling results in general in the run up to the referendum (certainly from the beginning of 2015 right up until the day before the vote) predicted a remain win (although I am more than happy to admit that 'overwhelming victory' is a tabloid-esque exaggeration and will happily withdraw it!). https://ig.ft.com/sites/brexit-polling/

Sigh. Reverted back to type so soon with your "you're far too stupid to understand" argument. I understand what random sampling is, do you? In the link I posted, the data gathered by YouGov has the following caveats : They then go on to confirm that their samples are based on the 'voting' preferences for the country and to be fair, they do a fairly good job of matching the percentages. However, as I'm sure you are already aware, given that you brought the subject up, a 'random sampling' is an unbiased sampling of the TOTAL POPULATION. Given that the 'total population' includes many millions of people who aren't eligible to vote, the YouGov poll that you linked to is NOT an example of 'random sampling' as it is purely based on the 'voting population'.

Surely anyone selling the virtues of the EU would want all the requirements of EU membership including free movement and the Eurozone...

Not sure France could leave the ECJ without also leaving the EU...

To be fair, it's clear evidence that a majority of the 1653 people that were polled by YouGov on behalf of The Times have regret (although we don't actually know how they originally voted and they could all be remain voters, or conversely all leave voters). As before the referendum, all the polls suggested an overwhelming victory for the Remain campaign, yet we all know the actual result. I suspect that quite a lot of people who voted leave aren't really the target demographic for The Times.

39% is only 3% below the data from the 1st of January 1970 As ever the devil is in the detail when it comes to polls. One of the lowest polling sample sizes since the Brexit vote (1653), with 2 questions about grocery shortages and supply chain issues included in the questions in the 3rd September round of polling - in some circles these might be construed as 'leading questions'. https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/in-highsight-do-you-think-britain-was-right-or-wrong-to-vote-to-leave-the-eu/?notes What's the old addage about lies, damn lies and statistics?

Fucking Brexit! https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/michel-barnier-hardline-brexit-negotiator-embraces-merits-of-euroscepticism-tl9chglsd

Maybe it says more that you have stayed in touch for over four years

Living rent free in there