Trump said: “On immigration you better get your act together or you’re not going to have Europe anymore.”

Err ... not quite how I read both headlines and OPs Allira. Although they probably seem OK if they meet your bias.

Stop the attacks please, PoliticsNerd.

My posts are not biased but I do dislike goading and bullying.

For historical reasons and so much more, the Red Cross is so close to my heart, and so is Médecins Sans Frontières- and very proud to support both.

Claremont

For historical reasons and so much more, the Red Cross is so close to my heart, and so is Médecins Sans Frontières- and very proud to support both.

We donate goods to the Red Cross, they are always first there in a crisis. DH makes monthly donations to RNLI and I donate lump sums to various charities as I see fit but not specific one.
(That's not virtue signalling, is it?!)

We've been to so many funerals in the past few years and there is always a collection box for various charities, so much more thoughtful than flowers, apart from family flowers.

Allira

Stop the attacks please, PoliticsNerd.

My posts are not biased but I do dislike goading and bullying.

Your politics create a personal bias Allira, just as everyone elses bias theirs. The only thing we can do about it is be aware of it and question if it influences us unreasonably.

You seem to be suggesting that you are allowed to have an opinion, but try and close down anyone else's if it doesn't agree with yours. Does FGT deny she starts many posts that support the far right? I doubt she would see herself as centrist or on the left of politics with her strong support for Brexit and Trump.

Nobody had said anything to suggest FGT posts might appear to be intend to "goad" other posters until you jumped to her defence. Why, when no one had suggested such a thing? By doing that even your post might be seen in that light. You introduced the subject. Did it not occur to you that someone might not agree?

We seem to be well and truly in the political "silly season".

FriedGreenTomatoes2

My fault PoliticsNerd I was referring to the other countries (tariffs) that Trump is dealing with and is resentful of. I didn’t make myself very clear.

I missed this FGT. It's as likely that I misread your previous post as you didn't make your meaning clear but thank you.

The Tariffs are not working and Trump seems not to have known that they become a tax on the American buyers not on the country of origin. It will also mean a downturn in jobs as countries react by moving manufacturing to their own country or negotiating trade deals with others. Bullying other countries doesn't usually turn out well. Negotiating goes better.

In America Ford's profits have plummeted by $800million in three months and this is expected to climb to $3billion dollars by year end. His 15% -20% tarrif has effectively triggered the companies collapse. Expansion is being frozen and workers are being sent on leave.

The Detroit News has reported (yesterday) that

An increasingly outspoken Ford Motor Co. is seeking tariff relief from the Trump administration after the White House reached trade agreements this past week with European and Asian trade partners but not Mexico and Canada.

The United States' neighbors play a crucial role in the automotive supply chain. But Ford and other select voices for Michigan's signature industry are decrying continued uncertainty over regional trade relationships and claiming they now face a competitive disadvantage compared to overseas exporters.

The F-150 maker has spent several days making the case to the public — and the White House — that the company is being penalized for its highly North American manufacturing process and described the situation as "urgent."

I think everyone will agree that Europe needed to pay more for their defence but this could have been negotiated. The rest just drives away both customer and supplier.

Within a month Americans will see prices rising in there supermarkets as the tarrifs are passed on to them. This could reignite core inflation. I think anyone with relative in the US must be getting very worried, while most Americans have learned to just be careful what they say.

Much of the left were opposed to Brexit, scepticism with regard to the EU was a tenant of the left for quite a long time.

FriedGreenTomatoes2

I just ❤️ how threads meander! 😁

I appreciate your posts, you never take offense to the nonsense thrown on you for stating your own opinions. Well done you!

Norah

FriedGreenTomatoes2

I just ❤️ how threads meander! 😁

I appreciate your posts, you never take offense to the nonsense thrown on you for stating your own opinions. Well done you!

👍

Galaxy

Much of the left were opposed to Brexit, scepticism with regard to the EU was a tenant of the left for quite a long time.

You can understand why those affected by Thatchers war on workers were pro-brexit, Galaxy because they were told Brexit would bring back the communities and neighbourhood they had known. We know that was never going to happen but it's also true that all neighbourhoods, everywhere, have evolved, changed by new behaviour towards work and leisure.

I'm hoping Angela Raynor's plan for improvements to communities helps. It's part of Labour's 10 year plan. I'm sure there will be some that expect things to happen overnight but those who make that sort of promise generally have no plan at all as Brexit proved.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/plan-for-neighbourhoods-prospectus-and-tools/plan-for-neighbourhoods-prospectus

I suppose voters for Brexit had various reasons PoliticsNerd.
Me?
I didn’t hark back for ‘the good old days’.
I just wanted to be shut of the profligate, bloated, undemocratic EU administration - to which we were a net contributor - receiving EU money back for projects they deemed of merit - provided we stuck an EU flag beside them (to remind us all how generous the EU were to the UK!).

Thank you for sharing FGT.

Well people are not happy, we will have to see how much more support Farage gets because that frightens both parties. People are not happy because governments don't listen. Immigration is talked about everywhere, its the one thing that
people worry about and yet nothing done,

Governments do listen but no one is going to get everything they want are they Allsorts. A single vote isn't a letter to Santa. If everyone recognised that, the propoganda wouldn't be able to deceive so easily.

. But if course it is only other people who fall for propaganda.

Not at all Galaxy. I've rued one of my votes, bought by propoganda in the past. I learned from it and question anything that sounds too good to be true now.

It wouldn't suprise me if most people have been hooked at one time or another.

FriedGreenTomatoes2

I suppose voters for Brexit had various reasons PoliticsNerd.
Me?
I didn’t hark back for ‘the good old days’.
I just wanted to be shut of the profligate, bloated, undemocratic EU administration - to which we were a net contributor - receiving EU money back for projects they deemed of merit - provided we stuck an EU flag beside them (to remind us all how generous the EU were to the UK!).

👏👏👏👏👏👏

FGT and Teazel12, I understand that many people voted for Brexit because they believed it would bring positive change, such as more control over laws, borders, and trade. However, we now can see the proof that the Brexit campaign included messages that served specific political or personal agendas sometimes creating a myth that leaving the EU would be a straightforward solution to complex issues like immigration, economic growth, or sovereignty. These narratives were designed to appeal emotionally and simplify complex policies, but many can now see they didn't always reflect the full picture or potential consequences.

Did you take account of this at the time? Do you continue to hold a view based on what has been shown to be misinformation? Many have seen they were hoodwinked. If you do continue to be a "believer" why do you think the exposure of what we're lies designed to mislead has not been proved?

We can all undersrand that decision-making is often influenced by a combination of genuine concerns, identity, and economic factors. However, once we know certain ideas were amplified or propagated by those with vested interests shouldn't we critically re-evaluate the information we received, so that we can better understand the implications of such a significant choice and aim for policies grounded in facts rather than myths?

I understand what you’re saying PoliticsNerd and it makes sense. However - frustratingly - Brexit advantages that really were there were never grasped because the government of the day were too ‘frit’. The HoC tried their best to overturn it with all their bluddy ‘indicative votes’. I truly believe we could have had better negotiators than Theresa May (a Remainer) with Olly Robbins (ditto).

Brexit was therefore on a hiding to nothing. A wasted opportunity.

Hey ho.

I have little idea what all the narratives and myths about Brexit were back home because I was living and busy working in France for most of the build-up. However, I certainly evaluated the situation and formulated my ideas from an advantageous viewpoint where I saw our friends across the Channel receiving far greater subsidies, retiring earlier, disregarding the rules, protesting loudly and generally getting a better deal while the UK had to acquiesce.
I took what I saw with my own eyes into account. No one had to appeal to me emotionally in veiled messages because I think I got the picture from living the life.

I will repeat this a million times, for me Brexit was not about immigration.

PoliticsNerd

FGT and Teazel12, I understand that many people voted for Brexit because they believed it would bring positive change, such as more control over laws, borders, and trade. However, we now can see the proof that the Brexit campaign included messages that served specific political or personal agendas sometimes creating a myth that leaving the EU would be a straightforward solution to complex issues like immigration, economic growth, or sovereignty. These narratives were designed to appeal emotionally and simplify complex policies, but many can now see they didn't always reflect the full picture or potential consequences.

Did you take account of this at the time? Do you continue to hold a view based on what has been shown to be misinformation? Many have seen they were hoodwinked. If you do continue to be a "believer" why do you think the exposure of what we're lies designed to mislead has not been proved?

We can all undersrand that decision-making is often influenced by a combination of genuine concerns, identity, and economic factors. However, once we know certain ideas were amplified or propagated by those with vested interests shouldn't we critically re-evaluate the information we received, so that we can better understand the implications of such a significant choice and aim for policies grounded in facts rather than myths?

Your comments are informative and balanced but I will always believe we are better off out and would always vote for that. If it had stayed as a trading arrangement only I would have voted to remain but not what it became by the time of the referendum, many people must have thought the same for the leave vote to have won and wiser heads than mine also voted to leave. I also feel that both Tom Utley and Richard Littlejohn writers for the Daily Mail, are spot on with their observations and both were leave supporters. They were able to put the case for leaving far better than me!

You & me both then escaped ✔️

FriedGreenTomatoes2

I understand what you’re saying PoliticsNerd and it makes sense. However - frustratingly - Brexit advantages that really were there were never grasped because the government of the day were too ‘frit’. The HoC tried their best to overturn it with all their bluddy ‘indicative votes’. I truly believe we could have had better negotiators than Theresa May (a Remainer) with Olly Robbins (ditto).

Brexit was therefore on a hiding to nothing. A wasted opportunity.

Hey ho.

Just so I don't go off on a tangent FGT can you give me an idea of the Brexit advantages that really were there were never grasped. Which ones do you think could have been implemented?

Thanks for your kind comments Teazel. Just for clarity I was always in favour of being part of an economic block but had reservations about being part of a political block, but felt they were outweighed, for me, by the economic advantages. I felt quite sure the EU could never give us anything like the original agreement if we left.

Nobody objected to trade deals. What people objected to was stupid rules which benefitted other countries but never ours. No borders for example although now it makes no difference as instead of just flying into the country they set sail instead.

Trade deals could be positive. Unfettered immigration that changes the host country to a third world slum in some areas is not.

I said on another thread that the Germans have imposed strict rules, deported thousands, reduced their migration by half in the last six months. Why can’t we? Because people are making a lot of money from these illegal migrants including the father of Starmers right hand man McSweeney, in the papers this weekend for the usual doubters. Follow the money as usual always the case.