Brexit - Post Match Reaction

People are free to base their opinions on half truths, falsehoods, or even fairy tales if they so wish. This does not in any way reflect the pertinant facts concerning a particular subject of discussion.

It’s a democracy, their opinions are as valid as yours or mine. Fact is most of the uk want a sovereign UK democracy and whilst the EU is a democracy Britain’s voice is just a fart in a jacuzzi and the uk people have chosen to not have their laws and regulations decided on by foreigners, wether elected or not.

It’s a democracy, their opinions are as valid as yours or mine. Fact is most of the uk want a sovereign UK democracy and whilst the EU is a democracy Britain’s voice is just a fart in a jacuzzi and the uk people have chosen to not have their laws and regulations decided on by foreigners, wether elected or not.

How much current UK Law do you think the EU is directly responsible for ? How much of the EU legislation covers material that would inevitably have to be instituted by the UK Parliament even if we were not in the EU ?

Quite a lot.

Quite a lot.

Good lad.

In areas that are of greatest concern to British citizens -health, education, pensions, welfare, monetary policy, defence and border security- how does the EU encroach on UK sovereignty?

Quite a lot.

Hahahahahahahahhahahahhahahahahaha.

You are fu_cking clueless lad. Clueless.

Good lad.

 

In areas that are of greatest concern to British citizens -health, education, pensions, welfare, monetary policy, defence and border security- how does the EU encroach on UK sovereignty?

Shurlock my old pal I cannot continue to stand by any more. It is a very straightforward answer. The EU's right to free movement and uncontrolled immigration encroaches on all of these - what bigger encroachment on sovereignty can there be than not allowing a country to decide how many people and who comes to live in your country. The EU's inflexibility and insensitivity to immigration will be its undoing. Pandering to big business and not ordinary people has facilitated Brexit and the unpalatable rise of the right wing across Europe. I am afraid there is no EU funded think tank journal for me to quote but you have to just get out more and realise that when your population rises by 6m in little more than a decade people will become anxious. It is simply lazy to label them racists; they are not. Well 85% of them are not.

Quite a lot.

I think if you google it you will see varying figures but you could conclude that if you take both the highest and even the lowest estimates you are indeed correct. It is indeed 'quite a lot'.

Shurlock my old pal I cannot continue to stand by any more.

Shurlock my old pal I cannot continue to stand by any more. It is a very straightforward answer. The EU's right to free movement and uncontrolled immigration encroaches on all of these - what bigger encroachment on sovereignty can there be than not allowing a country to decide how many people and who comes to live in your country. The EU's inflexibility and insensitivity to immigration will be its undoing. Pandering to big business and not ordinary people has facilitated Brexit and the unpalatable rise of the right wing across Europe. I am afraid there is no EU funded think tank journal for me to quote but you have to just get out more and realise that when your population rises by 6m in little more than a decade people will become anxious. It is simply lazy to label them racists; they are not. Well 85% of them are not.

Do explain how the EU is responsible for non-EU immigration or an ageing population; or why the UK has not enforced the powers it enjoys under the freedom of movement regime. Do provide evidence how EU immigration has fundamentally limited the UK's policy space or opportunity set (I guess you must be thinking of all those European doctors or nurses or the fact that EU migrants, on average, put more into public finances than they take out) instead of resorting to lazy and thick as pigs**t tropes about EU funded think tank journals. Not surprisingly you have little evidence: gut-based reactions from a mumbling moron that I should get out more don't count.

Hahahahahahahahhahahahhahahahahaha.

 

You are fu_cking clueless lad. Clueless.

**** me that’s just plain rude. Where did you learn your manners - prison?

Do explain how the EU is responsible for non-EU immigration or an ageing population; or why the UK has not enforced the powers it enjoys under the freedom of movement regime. Do provide evidence how EU immigration has fundamentally limited the UK's policy space or opportunity set (I guess you must be thinking of all those European doctors or nurses or the fact that EU migrants, on average, put more into public finances than they take out) instead of resorting to lazy and thick as pigs**t tropes about EU funded think tank journals. Not surprisingly you have little evidence: gut-based reactions from a mumbling moron that I should get out more don't count.

Who taught you your charm Shurlock - Martin Selmayr? Non EU Immigration can in theory be controlled. If the electorate are unhappy with levels of immigration then they can speak at the ballot box - the only way that you can do that in the EU is to vote for protest parties liken UKIP to represent you among all the growing number of other crackpot protest parties being elected by other countries to the European Parliament. You cannot change it - it is in the rules.

Unlimited EU immigration amongst a community with considerable wage disparity is flawed. That is why our population has ballooned since 2004. If your population jumps by 6m then that automatically influences your 'policy set'. I am afraid I don't now what an 'opportunity set' is - maybe I should stay in more and become more familiar with the musings of people like Dani Rodrik.

EU migrants put in more than they take out yes but that is down to the million French high earners and others in London not the million and a half unskilled migrants that have pushed down wages and put pressure on housing and services.

The evidence that you are looking for about the impact of immigration on peoples lives came in the form of the referendum result. That and the 6m population increase in a decade.

Who taught you your charm Shurlock - Martin Selmayr? Non EU Immigration can in theory be controlled. If the electorate are unhappy with levels of immigration then they can speak at the ballot box - the only way that you can do that in the EU is to vote for protest parties liken UKIP to represent you among all the growing number of other crackpot protest parties being elected by other countries to the European Parliament. You cannot change it - it is in the rules.

 

Unlimited EU immigration amongst a community with considerable wage disparity is flawed. That is why our population has ballooned since 2004. If your population jumps by 6m then that automatically influences your 'policy set'. I am afraid I don't now what an 'opportunity set' is - maybe I should stay in more and become more familiar with the musings of people like Dani Rodrik.

 

EU migrants put in more than they take out yes but that is down to the million French high earners and others in London not the million and a half unskilled migrants that have pushed down wages and put pressure on housing and services.

 

The evidence that you are looking for about the impact of immigration on peoples lives came in the form of the referendum result. That and the 6m population increase in a decade.

To repeat, where is evidence that EU migrants have pushed down wages in any meaningful way? Or is that just another inbred kipper article of faith? I take it you understand that people dont always act or vote on complete information?

No it's not only French high earners - EU migrants as a whole are healthier and younger than the UK population so do not use public services as intensively. Either way, the fact that EU migrants put in more than they take out means that at the margins, there are more resources for public services for the rest of us as a result of EU migration.

And what is the relevance of the 6 million figure: EU net migration probably accounts for ~20% of that figure (net migration also includes students), assuming your 6m figure is correct. So in effect you're admitting that vote leave had very little to do with the EU. Now I wouldn't want tar all leave voters with the brush of ignorance and not knowing how to tie their shoelaces but good to see some honesty coming from you.

Finally it's characteristic of the ignorance and arrogance of closed-minded ideologues like yourself that you instinctively mock work that you haven't heard of. FWIW Dani Rodrik has written extensively about the public's anxieties and concerns with globalisation. In the same I way I approvingly cited Ivan Krastev's work earlier on in this thread, there is a debate to be had on how to manage globalisation in ways that work for everyone (alas you're too dim to realise that the market fundamentalist wing of the Brexiteer camp is all too happy to throw the likes of you under the bus of untrammelled globalisation).

But that debate looks very different from the uninformed gibberish you put out pal.

It’s a democracy, their opinions are as valid as yours or mine. Fact is most of the uk want a sovereign UK democracy and whilst the EU is a democracy Britain’s voice is just a fart in a jacuzzi and the uk people have chosen to not have their laws and regulations decided on by foreigners, wether elected or not.

Everyone can have an opinion. That does not necessarily make the opinion valid. Only incontrovertible evidence in support of it can determine that.

To repeat, where is evidence that EU migrants have pushed down wages in any meaningful way? Or is that just another inbred kipper article of faith? I take it you understand that people dont always act or vote on complete information?

 

No it's not only French high earners - EU migrants as a whole are healthier and younger than the UK population so do not use public services as intensively. Either way, the fact that EU migrants put in more than they take out means that at the margins, there are more resources for public services for the rest of us as a result of EU migration.

 

And what is the relevance of the 6 million figure: EU net migration probably accounts for ~15-20% of that figure (net migration also includes students), assuming your 6m figure is correct. So in effect you're admitting that vote leave had very little to do with the EU. Now I wouldn't want tar all leave voters with the brush of ignorance and not knowing how to tie their shoelaces but good to see some honesty coming from you.

 

Finally it's characteristic of the ignorance and arrogance of closed-minded ideologues like yourself that you instinctively mock work that you haven't heard of. FWIW Dani Rodrik has written extensively about the public's anxieties and concerns with globalisation. In the same I way I approvingly cited Ivan Krastev's work earlier on in this thread, there is a debate to be had on how to manage globalisation in ways that work for everyone (you're too thick to realise that the market fundamentalist wing of the Brexiteer camp is all too happy to throw the likes of you under the bus of untrammelled globalisation).

 

But that debate looks very different from the uninformed gibberish you put out pal.

Shurlock you weren't canvassing for remain in the North East were you? Your style of debate is very warm.

If there are 100 plumbing projects and there are 75 plumbers to undertake the work then each job will cost say £125. If suddenly 50 new plumbers arrive and there are 125 plumbers to do the 100 jobs then I would argue that the price of those projects will go down. Do you get that?

I would argue, and the majority of the electorate seem to agree with me that this is not the case. They cannot get their children into the local school, they have to wait longer at A&E, their children cannot move out of home etc etc. This is what you would call ground based evidence.

You never seem to tackle the core of the issue which is 'unlimited'. That is what people have a problem with. Immigration is a good thing but it is considered reckless to have no checks and balances. Your problem is that you cannot defend the principle of 'unlimited immigration' and just resort to name calling. Go on defend unlimited immigration?

I don't mean to worry you Shurlock but there is a danger that by constantly using terminology like 'opportunity set' and quoting high brow economists you will not make yourself look clever, just pretentious.

You are unable to recognise that the leave camp was a broad church. The referendum was lost because you lost people like me who think the EU is a good idea badly executed. All it would have taken was for the EU to budge a little on free movement and recognise its flaws and you would won by a landslide.

Everyone can have an opinion. That does not necessarily make the opinion valid. Only incontrovertible evidence in support of it can determine that.

You do understand that there is no such thing as incontrovertible evidence about something that might happen in the future. Does that mean there are no valid opinions about Brexit?

You do understand that there is no such thing as incontrovertible evidence about something that might happen in the future. Does that mean there are no valid opinions about Brexit?

Everyone can make their own prediction about the future - but if the prediction is based on false belief about the past inevitably its going to be nonsense. There are some good arguments for Brexit, but I have almost never seen them aired here, and when they have been it has been by remainers acknowledging the opposition case. Brexiteers, both here and in the country at large, very rarely seem to have the slightest clue about the issues.

Shurlock you weren't canvassing for remain in the North East were you? Your style of debate is very warm.

 

If there are 100 plumbing projects and there are 75 plumbers to undertake the work then each job will cost say £125. If suddenly 50 new plumbers arrive and there are 125 plumbers to do the 100 jobs then I would argue that the price of those projects will go down. Do you get that?

 

I would argue, and the majority of the electorate seem to agree with me that this is not the case. They cannot get their children into the local school, they have to wait longer at A&E, their children cannot move out of home etc etc. This is what you would call ground based evidence.

 

You never seem to tackle the core of the issue which is 'unlimited'. That is what people have a problem with. Immigration is a good thing but it is considered reckless to have no checks and balances. Your problem is that you cannot defend the principle of 'unlimited immigration' and just resort to name calling. Go on defend unlimited immigration?

 

I don't mean to worry you Shurlock but there is a danger that by constantly using terminology like 'opportunity set' and quoting high brow economists you will not make yourself look clever, just pretentious.

 

 

You are unable to recognise that the leave camp was a broad church. The referendum was lost because you lost people like me who think the EU is a good idea badly executed. All it would have taken was for the EU to budge a little on free movement and recognise its flaws and you would won by a landslide.

You know you're debating with a complete amateur when they fall for a variant of lump of labour fallacy - check it up, little fella.

Still no actual empirical evidence, then. What do you make of the BoE work (Nickell and Saleheen, 2015) on the impact of EU migration on wages that leavers from Iain Duncan Smith through Gisela Stuart to Boris Johnson approvingly cited during the referendum campaign?

Game-changing stuff, right pal?

And by the way, EU freedom of movement has never been unlimited or unconditional. While EU citizens are initially allowed to live in any member state, after three months they must prove that they are working (employed or self-employed), a registered student or have "sufficient resources" (savings or a pension) to support themselves and not be "a burden on the benefits system". Shame successive UK governments have never really enforced these conditions.

One might say that the UK's opportunity set is larger than you make out

He said incontrovertible.

Shurlock you weren't canvassing for remain in the North East were you? Your style of debate is very warm.

 

If there are 100 plumbing projects and there are 75 plumbers to undertake the work then each job will cost say £125. If suddenly 50 new plumbers arrive and there are 125 plumbers to do the 100 jobs then I would argue that the price of those projects will go down. Do you get that?

 

I would argue, and the majority of the electorate seem to agree with me that this is not the case. They cannot get their children into the local school, they have to wait longer at A&E, their children cannot move out of home etc etc. This is what you would call ground based evidence.

 

You never seem to tackle the core of the issue which is 'unlimited'. That is what people have a problem with. Immigration is a good thing but it is considered reckless to have no checks and balances. Your problem is that you cannot defend the principle of 'unlimited immigration' and just resort to name calling. Go on defend unlimited immigration?

 

I don't mean to worry you Shurlock but there is a danger that by constantly using terminology like 'opportunity set' and quoting high brow economists you will not make yourself look clever, just pretentious.

 

You are unable to recognise that the leave camp was a broad church. The referendum was lost because you lost people like me who think the EU is a good idea badly executed. All it would have taken was for the EU to budge a little on free movement and recognise its flaws and you would won by a landslide.

You know you're debating with a complete amateur when they fall for a variant of lump of labour fallacy - check it up, little fella.

Still no actual empirical evidence, then. What do you make of the BoE work (Nickell and Saleheen, 2015) on the impact of EU migration on wages that leavers from Iain Duncan Smith through Gisela Stuart to Boris Johnson approvingly cited during the referendum campaign?

Game-changing stuff, right pal?

Ground-based evidence - is that a euphemism for an old wives tale, pub-bore anecdote pal? Again where is the evidence that EU migration has caused these outcomes? On increaed A&E waiting times, you might want to refer to a study by Oxford academics (looking at both EU and non-EU migration) who find no significant effects on the whole. In those limited cases where there are short-term disruptions, more effective NHS planning can play a role -rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

https://www.nuffield.ox.ac.uk/economics/papers/2015/giunt_nic_silva2015.pdf

EU freedom of movement has never been unlimited or unconditional. While EU citizens are initially allowed to live in any member state, after three months they must prove that they are working (employed or self-employed), a registered student or have "sufficient resources" (savings or a pension) to support themselves and not be "a burden on the benefits system".

Shame successive UK governments have never really enforced these conditions.

One might say that the UK's opportunity set is larger than you claim

Your problem is that you cannot defend the principle of 'unlimited immigration' and just resort to name calling.

I don't mean to worry you Shurlock but there is a danger that by constantly using terminology like 'opportunity set' and quoting high brow economists you will not make yourself look clever, just pretentious.

Shurlock is surely the most obnoxious, opinionated, sanctimonious and arrogant poster on here by some considerable distance.

I have tired of being patronised and insulted by him, so I have given up wasting my time on this thread.

Shurlock is surely the most obnoxious, opinionated, sanctimonious and arrogant poster on here by some considerable distance.

 

I have tired of being patronised and insulted by him, so I have given up wasting my time on this thread.

After threatening to rearrange my face, right Les

You know you're debating with a complete amateur when they fall for a variant of lump of labour fallacy - check it up, little fella.

 

Still no actual empirical evidence, then. What do you make of the BoE work (Nickell and Saleheen, 2015) on the impact of EU migration on wages that leavers from Iain Duncan Smith through Gisela Stuart to Boris Johnson approvingly cited during the referendum campaign?

 

Game-changing stuff, right pal?

 

Ground-based evidence - is that a euphemism for an old wives tale, pub-bore anecdote pal? Again where is the evidence that EU migration has caused these outcomes? On increaed A&E waiting times, you might want to refer to a study by Oxford academics (looking at both EU and non-EU migration) who find no significant effects on the whole. In those limited cases where there are short-term disruptions, more effective NHS planning can play a role -rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

 

https://www.nuffield.ox.ac.uk/economics/papers/2015/giunt_nic_silva2015.pdf

 

EU freedom of movement has never been unlimited or unconditional. While EU citizens are initially allowed to live in any member state, after three months they must prove that they are working (employed or self-employed), a registered student or have "sufficient resources" (savings or a pension) to support themselves and not be "a burden on the benefits system".

 

Shame successive UK governments have never really enforced these conditions.

 

One might say that the UK's opportunity set is larger than you claim

You think that if your labour market is suddenly inundated with 1.5m low skilled workers this will not cause deflationary wage pressures?

Ground based evidence based on a survey of over 30m people. 17.4m voted to leave. High levels of immigration cited a primary reason why. They voted to leave because they have seen first hand the A&E wait get longer, a housing crisis unfold, class sizes get bigger and their greenbelt concreted. You can cite other factors that have contributed to theses factors but a 6m rise in population is a pretty important one.

So you have chosen to argue that EU freedom of movement is not in fact the freedom to move. I think you will have to do better than that.

Do you think that if we made our own immigration regulations we could make it work better in our favour. Of course.

After threatening to rearrange my face, right Les

I'm not a violent person. You rearrange your own face yourself; usually into a sneer.

Here is my parting shot just for you.

Enjoy.

You think that if your labour market is suddenly inundated with 1.5m low skilled workers this will not cause deflationary wage pressures?

 

Ground based evidence based on a survey of over 30m people. 17.4m voted to leave. High levels of immigration cited a primary reason why. They voted to leave because they have seen first hand the A&E wait get longer, a housing crisis unfold, class sizes get bigger and their greenbelt concreted. You can cite other factors that have contributed to theses factors but a 6m rise in population is a pretty important one.

 

So you have chosen to argue that EU freedom of movement is not in fact the freedom to move. I think you will have to do better than that.

 

Do you think that if we made our own immigration regulations we could make it work better in our favour. Of course.

Spoiler alert: the study that kippers enthusiastically embraced but tragically misunderstood found that average wages in low or semi-skilled jobs fell by about a penny an hour since 2004 (assuming average wages of around £8 per hour).

What did you make of the link I sent on NHS waiting times?

Fill your boots with your ground-based evidence aka prejudice and preconception. Scapegoating is as old as time. When you have some real evidence, come back and we can have a chat. But I think you've taken things as you can pal.

Spoiler alert: the study that kippers enthusiastically embraced but tragically misunderstood found that average wages in low or semi-skilled jobs fell by about a penny an hour since 2004 (assuming average wages of around £8 per hour).

 

Fill your boots with your ground-based evidence aka prejudice and preconception. When you actually have some real evidence, come back and we can have a chat. I think you've taken things as you can pal.

How is it possible to measure the impact on average wages accurately? Economists argue against the basic rule of supply and demand.

Classic 'must be bigots and stupid to vote leave'.

I will let you get back to your reading but when you have been through the European Commission's recommended reading list, there is a very good book called the 'Power of Charm'.

I'm not a violent person. You rearrange your own face yourself; usually into a sneer.

 

Here is my parting shot just for you.

 

 

Enjoy.

Nice video.

Is that you pal? You seem remarkably spry: who's changing your overflowing turdpan now your polish carer has gone home? Whatever you're doing, it's working.

Couldn't help but spot a follow-up video "it's good to be anti-Islam". Is there one, by any chance, on "the state of modern-day usury aka the jewish problem"?

Always a pleasure Les.

Shylock xxx

Nice video.

 

Is that you pal? You seem remarkably spry: who's changing your overflowing turdpan now your polish carer has gone home? Whatever you're doing, it's working.

Couldn't help but spot a follow-up video "it's good to be anti-Islam". Is there one, by any chance, on "the state of modern-day usury aka the jewish problem"?

Always a pleasure Les.

 

Shylock xxx

As you enjoyed the last video so much, yes, there is one on the "Jewish problem".

You might also appreciate the one on "progressive liberals"

Peace.

As you enjoyed the last video so much, yes, there is one on the "Jewish problem".

 

 

You might also appreciate the one on "progressive liberals"

 

Peace.

My enemy's enemy is my friend Les. It's interesting how classic antisemites like your doppelgänger Pat have entered a marriage of convenience with modern Jewry -well Zionism to be accurate. No doubt their support of Israel and its marketing as an aggressive, no-nonsense defender of Western, Judeo-Christian values against darkies and other barbarians has something to do with it. As has the fact that the country is a delicious trigger for those on the left. But nobody's ultimately fooled pal.

UK bows to EU demands with breakthrough offer on Brexit bill

Britain agrees to total liabilities worth €100bn but will aim to pay less than half.

https://www.ft.com/content/cabf22e2-d462-11e7-8c9a-d9c0a5c8d5c9#comments

So much for telling the jerries and frogs to go whistle.

Very true but BREXIT is the the most econimically stupid thing has happened to the UK as inflation grows growth and investment reduce and we all get poorer

 

Things only appear OK at the moment because consumer debt is increasing as real wages are significantly less than in 2008

A year on and Brexit is an even bigger pile of ****e than I thought and is going to cost us at least £50b .

Remind me what great things are we getting with Brexit not £350m for the NHS but aggro in Ireland and ridicule from most parts of the world

A year on and Brexit is an even bigger pile of ****e than I thought and is going to cost us at least £50b .

 

Remind me what great things are we getting with Brexit not £350m for the NHS but aggro in Ireland and ridicule from most parts of the world

who is ridiculing us, what aggro is there in Northern Ireland?

£50 billion. Disgraceful really.

£50 billion. Disgraceful really.

£98bn when everything is added in

The Daily Mash hits the nail on the head as usual.....

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/it-took-six-months-and-a-lot-of-work-but-weve-caved-completely-says-david-davis-20171129140020

The logical thing to do would be to have a second refurendum once th3 details have become clear, except every party that had that in their manefesto at the last election got a thorough kicking so it’s fair to say we are getting what we voted for.

NI is a bit of a worry, I can’t see how there can be anything other than a hard border with Ireland if the Tories are getting their way with a hard Brexit.

The logical thing to do would be to have a second refurendum once th3 details have become clear, except every party that had that in their manefesto at the last election got a thorough kicking so it’s fair to say we are getting what we voted for.

Who's "we"? You didn't vote for fu cking anything, remember?

Is Farage going to be chipping in with some of his ill gotten gains?

Who's "we"? You didn't vote for fu cking anything, remember?

We as in the British people.

We as in the British people.

We, as in the electorate that bothered to vote. As in not you.

Obviously. But choosing not to vote is also making a point.

Obviously. But choosing not to vote is also making a point.

I think we can all make our judgment on what you decided to not to do.

Post rationalising it into some grand act is between you and your tiny mind.

I think we can all make our judgment on what you decided to not to do.

 

Post rationalising it into some grand act is between you and your tiny mind.

It’s not a grand act you plumb, it’s a choice just as valid as anyone who chose to vote. By not voting you are saying you are either undecided or don’t care either way.

It’s not a grand act you plumb, it’s a choice just as valid as anyone who chose to vote. By not voting you are saying you are either undecided or don’t care either way.

The choice you made was to bottle it. Well done you.

Except you weren't undecided because you spent the campaign withering on about not doing what Goldman Sachs, the EU and big business wanted you to do and you clearly do care because you posted enough times on this and the previous thread.

 

The choice you made was to bottle it. Well done you.

Bottled it LOL, bottled walking down to the village hall and putting a cross on a piece of paper. Ooooo how scary!

I’ve always seen both sides, I’ve tended to lean towards the leave side because of the effects of immigration on public services and downward pressure on wages but as I am doing quite well financially and don’t use many services probably don’t have much to gain personally through Brexit - which I why I’ve generally been on the fence.

Bottled it LOL, bottled walking down to the village hall and putting a cross on a piece of paper. Ooooo how scary!

 

I'm glad you agree it's pretty pathetic to bottle out of the single most important electoral decision this country has ever faced.

A little cross on a piece of paper and you couldn't do it.

I'm glad you agree it's pretty pathetic to bottle out of the single most important electoral decision this country has ever faced.

 

A little cross on a piece of paper and you couldn't do it.

LOL you nob

LOL you nob

£50 billion. Disgraceful really.

£50bn to be outside of all of the influence and benefits of being inside, £50bn to limit the damage to the UK economy and yet more swivelled-eyed loons want us to go under WTO rules which would be even worse.

All because 52% of the electorate couldn't spot that we clearly weren't going to be getting £350m a week back for the NHS. Labour left and Tory right were mugs.

I wonder if the referendum result would have been the same if the campaign battle bus said "Vote leave. Lets give the EU an extra £1billion per week and take it from the NHS".