Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
Aboutreika18 said:
I'm just waiting for the penny to drop for people like this.

When the reality sinks in, how will these people respond?
Click to expand...

Bit late now though isn't it.
I doubt very much that anyone will actually acknowledge that they made a mistake (if indeed that turns out to be the case).
Still some twists and turns yet.
 
Aboutreika18 said:
I'm just waiting for the penny to drop for people like this.

When the reality sinks in, how will these people respond?
Click to expand...
It will be terrible. It is like when someone dies; it is easier at first to just deny it has happened. Then it sinks in and it hurts.

Imagine how this feels for remainer, Nissan workers? Your livelihood threatened. For what?

I have never understood why when companies warn about consequences such as this it is considered fear mongering, project fear. What would motivate companies to engage in fear mongering? Above all they are interested in the health of their businesses, not politics.

Also, isn't it ironic that Brexiteers, who don't want immigrants, moan about foreign firms choosing to leave because of Brexit?
 
Ducklegs said:
The problem is most people (be they ignorant right wing mouth breather, or cowardly left wing snowflake) think the withdrawl agreement is the permanent agreement with the EU, and not the interim framework we will be dealing with the EU under while we negotiate or decide our long term relationship with them.

The biggest problem, is that both sides of the argument are just as ignorant and stupid as the other, as they deal in absolutes and fear, both sides think we will be severing all ties with the EU, with one side thinking we will stride mightly into the future with the Union Jack flying on every corner, bent bananas and no more eastern Europeans, the other side thinks we will collapse into a mad max style apocalypse were everyone who cant prove they were born within spitting distance of the bow bells back 6 generations will be lined up and shot, no food on the shelves and their children dying in their arms because there is no medicine.

Neither side seem to grasp that countries dont work like that, they ignore every other country that has left a long term political union (like most of Europe, India, parts of Africa, the United States) and instead think that the UK will be some special exception in what actually happens.
Click to expand...

Did i give you the impression that i thought that the bolded is the case?

All i'm saying is after triggering Article 50 you have 2 years before leaving, might as well use that time to get an agreement in place to ensure we exit the EU as smoothly as possible. And then give yourself some breathing room to discuss what shape the future UK/EU relationship will be.

As someone from Northern Ireland i must say that as bumbling and incompetent as the whole process has been so far, and the situation in Ireland it might yet still all go tits up if it's no deal. I'm at least thankful that sort of effort was made by the British government to negotiate with Ireland and the EU and to get some border arrangements in place to try to preserve the Good Friday Agreement.

As opposed to the other train of thought some people have which seems to be that leaving with no deal is somehow a good thing.
 
Last edited:
stevoc said:
Did i give you the impression that i thought that the bolded is the case?

All i'm saying is after triggering Article 50 you have 2 years before leaving, might as well use that time to get an agreement in place to ensure we exit the EU as smoothly as possible. And then give yourself some breathing room to discuss what shape the future UK/EU relationship will be.

As someone from Northern Ireland i must say that as bumbling and incompetent as the whole process has been so far, and the situation in Ireland it might still all go tits up if it's no deal. I'm thankful that at least some sort of effort was made by the British government to negotiate with Ireland and the EU and to get some border arrangements in place to try to preserve the Good Friday Agreement.

As opposed to the other train of thought some people have which seems to be that leaving with no deal is somehow a good thing.
Click to expand...

No you didnt, which is why I didnt address that point to you and instead expressed it as a generality.
 
Ducklegs said:
No you didnt, which is why I didnt address that point to you and instead expressed it as a generality.
Click to expand...

Ok no worries mate fair enough, yeah i agree theres a lot of ignorance on both sides. From personal observation there seems to be a very vocal section on the leave side that display staggering levels of ignorance though. I don't know for certain if they are a minority or not i'm sure they are, no doubt lots of intelligent well informed people also voted leave for a myriad of reasons.

But with all the bullshit that has been spewed over the last 2-3 years by basically everyone from politicians to pub landlords. I think it does highlight why such a complex question with wide ranging and possibly long lasting consequences for this country shouldn't have been put to the people in such a simple in/out referendum.
 
stevoc said:
So let me get this right you think the UK governments stance from day one should have been to not even try to negotiate any sort of withdrawal agreement?

They should have just let the 2 years run down and crash out with no deal, make no effort to agree to border arrangements in Ireland and jeopardize the Good Friday Agreement?
Click to expand...

There was no negotiated withdrawal deal to be had with the EU, just a litany from the EU of what they expected us to do on leaving and to request a lump sum for doing so. May found this out eventually, although it should have been obvious from day one.
Even if for the sake of saving face, we had to look like we were negotiating a withdrawal agreement, we should still have behind the scenes at home been preparing for a no deal. For the UK the main element in the withdrawal arrangement would always be what we paid the EU, in terms of agreed debt. The backstop is a nonsense, all parties agreed there will be no hard border re-introduced on the Isle of Ireland, so whose going to do it, May has said time and again it wont be us?

The UK's main concern is the new trade agreement, which the EU has made clear cannot be negotiated until we have left the EU, so we leave t1hen deal. Not the best solution, but the only solution, unless you cancel Brexit altogether, which I believe will happen, when both main parties can agree not to blame the other for this outcome.
 
Maticmaker said:
There was no negotiated withdrawal deal to be had with the EU, just a litany from the EU of what they expected us to do on leaving and to request a lump sum for doing so. May found this out eventually, although it should have been obvious from day one.
Even if for the sake of saving face, we had to look like we were negotiating a withdrawal agreement, we should still have behind the scenes at home been preparing for a no deal. For the UK the main element in the withdrawal arrangement would always be what we paid the EU, in terms of agreed debt. The backstop is a nonsense, all parties agreed there will be no hard border re-introduced on the Isle of Ireland, so whose going to do it, May has said time and again it wont be us?

The UK's main concern is the new trade agreement, which the EU has made clear cannot be negotiated until we have left the EU, so we leave t1hen deal. Not the best solution, but the only solution, unless you cancel Brexit altogether, which I believe will happen, when both main parties can agree not to blame the other for this outcome.
Click to expand...

You said the same thing yesterday and it was all explained but you still repeat the same. You don't undertstand .
 
Paul the Wolf said:
You said the same thing yesterday and it was all explained but you still repeat the same. You don't undertstand .
Click to expand...

No, a point of view was put forward, some of which I agree with but not all.

What I do understand is that May couldn't negotiate her way out of a paper-bag and Corbyn couldn't find his way into one to start with. This why eventually I believe these incompetent politicians will finish up cancelling Brexit, but only if they can agree not to blame each other, but lay the blame at the door of the dastardly EU. We will then return meekly to the fold and watch the continual-loop Farage show in the European Parliament and the largest group of anti-EU MEPS ever assembled!
 
Maticmaker said:
No, a point of view was put forward, some of which I agree with but not all.

What I do understand is that May couldn't negotiate her way out of a paper-bag and Corbyn couldn't find his way into one to start with. This why eventually I believe these incompetent politicians will finish up cancelling Brexit, but only if they can agree not to blame each other, but lay the blame at the door of the dastardly EU. We will then return meekly to the fold and watch the continual-loop Farage show in the European Parliament and the largest group of anti-EU MEPS ever assembled!
Click to expand...

The problem is the UK government implied they would have a trade agreement in place at the end of the two years.

The two years were to guarantee citizens rights and start untangling all the legal issues that 46 years of being so closely associated involves. The financial settlement is a very minor point but a point of principle. The Irish border is the other major point to which there is no solution but which the backstop provides a way for the UK to technically leave the EU.

I don't blame May for not negotiating a different agreement but pretending that she could negotiate a different agreement.
The trade talks will start after the UK leaves.

Still to bear in mind that negotiating a trade deal does not solve the backstop.

Don't think any one in parliament has got the guts to cancel Brexit.

Things may have been different , if the UK had been better represented in the EU instead of voting a moron like Farage and his pals who instead of looking after their constituents' interests just used the few occasions they bothered to turn up in the EU parliament to throw insults around. Don't know how he got away with it for so long.
 
Maticmaker said:
There was no negotiated withdrawal deal to be had with the EU, just a litany from the EU of what they expected us to do on leaving and to request a lump sum for doing so. May found this out eventually, although it should have been obvious from day one.
Even if for the sake of saving face, we had to look like we were negotiating a withdrawal agreement, we should still have behind the scenes at home been preparing for a no deal. For the UK the main element in the withdrawal arrangement would always be what we paid the EU, in terms of agreed debt. The backstop is a nonsense, all parties agreed there will be no hard border re-introduced on the Isle of Ireland, so whose going to do it, May has said time and again it wont be us?

The UK's main concern is the new trade agreement, which the EU has made clear cannot be negotiated until we have left the EU, so we leave t1hen deal. Not the best solution, but the only solution, unless you cancel Brexit altogether, which I believe will happen, when both main parties can agree not to blame the other for this outcome.
Click to expand...
This is a good read, which demonstrates the real back and forth that went on in the negotiation, and some of the concessions the EU made to get the Withdrawal Agreement finalised:
https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2018/1207/1015924-brexit-backstop-uk/
 
stevoc said:
Ok no worries mate fair enough, yeah i agree theres a lot of ignorance on both sides. From personal observation there seems to be a very vocal section on the leave side that display staggering levels of ignorance though. I don't know for certain if they are a minority or not i'm sure they are, no doubt lots of intelligent well informed people also voted leave for a myriad of reasons.

But with all the bullshit that has been spewed over the last 2-3 years by basically everyone from politicians to pub landlords. I think it does highlight why such a complex question with wide ranging and possibly long lasting consequences for this country shouldn't have been put to the people in such a simple in/out referendum.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, but by the same token there is a case for trying to understand why these people voted as they did and if there is a case to made for “they are just a bit thick”.

We know why they did, the poor neighborhoods are the places all the refugees and immigrants igrants get placed, places where services and standards of living are already poor get lowered even further by us importing further poverty into those areas.

Crime increases, cultures clash, racial tensions increase, and these neighbourhoods, Splott in Cardiff, areas of Bullwell and Beeston in Nottingham, Bretton in Peterborough, turn into what are effectively demilitarized zones.

And Europe carried the can.

It carried the can for everything, lack of work at the bottom end of society, lack of services due to increased strain looking after our freshely imported peasant population.

I imagine if more us lived in that situation we might have a better understanding of the “why” even if we dont agree with it.
 
Maticmaker said:
There was no negotiated withdrawal deal to be had with the EU, just a litany from the EU of what they expected us to do on leaving and to request a lump sum for doing so. May found this out eventually, although it should have been obvious from day one.
Even if for the sake of saving face, we had to look like we were negotiating a withdrawal agreement, we should still have behind the scenes at home been preparing for a no deal. For the UK the main element in the withdrawal arrangement would always be what we paid the EU, in terms of agreed debt. The backstop is a nonsense, all parties agreed there will be no hard border re-introduced on the Isle of Ireland, so whose going to do it, May has said time and again it wont be us?

The UK's main concern is the new trade agreement, which the EU has made clear cannot be negotiated until we have left the EU, so we leave t1hen deal. Not the best solution, but the only solution, unless you cancel Brexit altogether, which I believe will happen, when both main parties can agree not to blame the other for this outcome.
Click to expand...

No. Brexit will not be cancelled. That will not be allowed to happen for many reasons.

What I do believe will happen is that there will be a minimal change to the WA Backstop and when it is put to Parliament there will be just enough of a majority to accept it.

There is not sufficient appetite for a no deal, not sufficient appetite for a second referendum and not sufficient appetite to withdraw Article 50.

Remember. Politicians are past masters self preservation.
 
Ah, the good old "demilitarized zones". "Freshely imported peasant population".:lol:

Probably should've known what was up after the "cowardly left wing snowflakes" phrase in the first post.
 
Maticmaker said:
There was no negotiated withdrawal deal to be had with the EU, just a litany from the EU of what they expected us to do on leaving and to request a lump sum for doing so. May found this out eventually, although it should have been obvious from day one.
Even if for the sake of saving face, we had to look like we were negotiating a withdrawal agreement, we should still have behind the scenes at home been preparing for a no deal.
Click to expand...

Well there are always going to be conditions for leaving anything you join and agree to take part responsibility for.

Maticmaker said:
For the UK the main element in the withdrawal arrangement would always be what we paid the EU, in terms of agreed debt. The backstop is a nonsense,
Click to expand...

How is it nonsense mate?

It's a mechanism to ensure the GFA can be preserved, that might not mean much to some but to people over here it's pretty much everything. People in Ireland are worried about the economic impact also for sure but the prospect of a border and the troubles kicking off again is a very real fear.

The EU negotiated the backstop around the UK governments red lines. And they wanted it in place to ensure the UK government wouldn't go back on their word. Turns out they were bang on with that one, as May and the UK government signed a withdrawal agreement with the backstop in November and shortly after it was signed they wanted to renegotiate it.

all parties agreed there will be no hard border re-introduced on the Isle of Ireland, so whose going to do it, May has said time and again it wont be us?
Click to expand...

May said the exact opposite before the referendum so when was she lying?



The secretary of state for NI Karen Bradley has also said there will have to be border checks in Ireland in the event of a no deal.

https://www.irishnews.com/news/brex...l-mean-wto-customs-checks-in-ireland-1488385/

This idea i continually see being touted around almost everywhere that you can just have no sort of border controls at all just doesn't seem like a plausible option in the real world to me.
 
In fairness a lot of us would go far beyond "a bit thick" at this point.



Ducklegs said:
Absolutely, but by the same token there is a case for trying to understand why these people voted as they did and if there is a case to made for “they are just a bit thick”.

We know why they did, the poor neighborhoods are the places all the refugees and immigrants igrants get placed, places where services and standards of living are already poor get lowered even further by us importing further poverty into those areas.

Crime increases, cultures clash, racial tensions increase, and these neighbourhoods, Splott in Cardiff, areas of Bullwell and Beeston in Nottingham, Bretton in Peterborough, turn into what are effectively demilitarized zones.

And Europe carried the can.

It carried the can for everything, lack of work at the bottom end of society, lack of services due to increased strain looking after our freshely imported peasant population.

I imagine if more us lived in that situation we might have a better understanding of the “why” even if we dont agree with it.
Click to expand...

That's just not true. The most (proportionally and in absolute numbers) migrants live in London. London voted remain.

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migrants-in-the-uk-an-overview/
 
Also in the borrows mentioned in the post, the main non british demographics is largely from outside the EU which makes me wonder about the link with Brexit.
 
My soon to be father in law sent me some fake news about muslims in Birmingham today.

I give up, the internet has turned everyone's brains into mush.
 
Last edited:
GloryHunter07 said:
My soon to be father in law sent me some fake news about muslims in Birmingham today.

I give up, the internet has turned everyone into morons.
Click to expand...

After a long time hesitating , I have finally deleted my Facebook account, apart from the gibberish people believe about Brexit, Gilet Jaunes and all types of crap, I really got sick of people sharing posts about looking for dogs that disappeared 10 years ago (hundreds of miles from where they live).
 
JPRouve said:
Also in the borrows mentioned in the post, the main non british demographics is largely from outside the EU which makes me wonder about the link with Brexit.
Click to expand...

One of the main parts of the campaign was about immigrants from Turkey so ...
I think the media and politicians have been blaming the EU and foreigners and giving a platfrom to liars and clowns without doing enough to expose them for the sham they are for too long. Or maybe the problem is there's no alternative to a lieing politician, probably more benign lies but liars all the same. There's been decades of campaigning against foreigners and people offering up a vote as a solution to this made up problem and people voted for it. It doesn't seem that surprising or like a once off that a 2nd referendum will automatically save.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
After a long time hesitating , I have finally deleted my Facebook account, apart from the gibberish people believe about Brexit, Gilet Jaunes and all types of crap, I really got sick of people sharing posts about looking for dogs that disappeared 10 years ago (hundreds of miles from where they live).
Click to expand...
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes
 
Daniel Kawczynski is a moron. Another rich muppet pretending to give a shit about the commoners but actually simply in it to line his own pockets. Hopefully one day people will see through people like this.
 
There is a lot of delusion on both sides o
Sassy Colin said:
Anyone would think the EU were throwing us out, not that we insist on leaving, despite the obvious idiocy of it.

The EU dearly want us to stay, can't think why.
Click to expand...

Money?
 
So, poorer Brexiters voted to be worse off? There’s nothing wrong in that

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...rer-brexiters-worse-off-working-class-leavers
In Uncle Tom’s Cabin, there is a moment when Augustine St Clare, who owns Tom, suggests that he is better off as a slave than he would be as a free man. “No,” insists Tom. “Why Tom?” asks St Clare. “You couldn’t possibly have earned, by your work, such clothes and such living as I have given you.” “Know’s all that Mas’r,” says Tom. “But I’d rather have poor clothes, poor house, poor everything and have ’em mine, than have the best, and have ’em any man else’s.”

It has long been a challenge, particularly for those who are comfortable, to understand why anybody who is struggling would choose to be worse off. Liberals can take it particularly personally when those who would most benefit materially from a change in policy or circumstance opt to reject it. The assumption is that they must be misinformed, ill-informed, uninformed, stupid, naive or cruelly misled.


Whether they are poor Americans demonstrating against healthcare provision they don’t have, or direct beneficiaries of European Union funding voting to leave the EU, those who act “against” their material interests invite a mixture of befuddlement and derision

Since becoming poorer is not a course of action any poor person would consciously take, goes the argument, they are clearly not acting rationally and deserve what is coming.

Quite why well-off liberals in particular would find someone voting against their material interests such a baffling idea is odd. They do it all the time. Whenever they vote Labour, or for any party that plans to raise taxes on the wealthy and redistribute income, they vote to make themselves worse off materially. True, they are better positioned to take a hit than those at the other end of the income scale. But there’s more to it than that. They do so, for the most part, because when it comes to politics they don’t just vote for their own financial wellbeing. They are thinking about the kind of country and world they want to live in, and the values that they hold dear.

The notion that working-class voters approach politics differently is extremely patronising. Indeed it is precisely the kind of attitude that provides fodder to the rightwing culture warriors who rail against the “coastal elites” in the US and “do-gooders”. There really are some liberals who think that they know what’s better for working-class people than working-class people themselves do.

This is not just a problem in and of itself – infantilising people in the name of their own advancement is a bad thing – it is counterproductive. When you start from the premise that those who disagree with you are acting illogically or are too unsophisticated to understand their own interests, no meaningful political engagement is possible – that would demand first understanding the logic and then challenging, converting, subverting or otherwise engaging it in the hope that you might change someone’s perspective and win them round.

This has, of course, been a particular challenge when it comes to Brexit, where the two things we know are that poor people will be the most adversely affected by Britain leaving the EU – particularly if there is no deal – and that the poorer you are, the more likely you were to vote for it.

With some notable exceptions, remain advocates have responded to this apparent conundrum by forsaking respectful engagement in favour of a combination of face-palming at the stupidity of lemmings going for a leap and promising Armageddon when they land. This didn’t work in the run-up to the referendum. And it’s not working now.

This is partly because leave voters don’t believe the hype. A recent poll showed a significant majority of them believed Brexit posed a less serious crisis than either the financial crash or the miners’ strike. In other words, it’s not that they don’t understand things could get worse; they just feel they’ve been through worse. That may, as Fintan O’Toole argued in this newspaper recently, reflect the complacency of those who have only known stability. “Only a country that does not really know what the collapse of political authority looks like would play this game,” he wrote. We won’t know until it’s too late.

But also many did not vote purely for their material interest, but for something bigger that they thought more important. Polling by the Centre for Social Investigation revealed that remain voters significantly underestimated the importance that leave voters attached to sovereignty. The UK making its own rules came a close second out of four (immigration was first) in the reasons why people voted leave. When remain voters were asked why they thought people had voted leave they put the UK making its own laws last, after “teach British politicians a lesson”.

Embodied in that preoccupation with sovereignty, I believe, was a notion of what this country has been, has become and might be – a story many British, and particularly English, people tell themselves about a once independent and impregnable distinct island that has lost its autonomy to a faceless potage of bureaucrats from Babel and how this is a chance to break free. That story did not come from nowhere. From the Falklands war to Fritz, the New Labour bulldog, the entire political class has colluded in its construction. It has now been leveraged by opportunists and is consuming the political class whole.

It is a story enduring enough that when someone argues, “If you do this your factory might close,” you might respond: “It’s not my factory and ‘they’ve’ been closing factories around here for years. But it is my country and I don’t want ‘them’ messing with it.” In this story “they” is a moving target. It could be immigrants, it could be Brussels, it could be foreign companies. The only thing “we” know for sure is it’s not “us”.

I think that story’s deeply flawed. It is mythical about the past: those who evoke the wars conveniently forget that they could not have been won without allies. Those who evoke the empire conveniently forget that it could not have been maintained without brutality (as the current furore over Winston Churchill’s legacyillustrates). It is obtuse about the present: countries evolve, borders shift, identities develop. Our royal family is German; our favourite food is Indian; and if people could only agree on how to spell Muhammad it would be England’s most popular name for a boy. We are not who we were; nor should we seek to be. And it is fanciful about our future: our political sovereignty, like everybody else’s, is primarily constrained not by Brussels, but international capital. And since you can’t vote to leave that, staying in or out of the EU will make us less effective, but not more independent.


But I also think, in the absence of other stories, it is compelling. Far more compelling than the threat of a scarcity of fresh vegetables and a run on the pound if we crash out with no deal. Compelling enough that some would suffer to see it through. Our challenge is not to mock, but to tell a better story. One that includes them, has a future for all of us and, ultimately, turns “them” and “us” into “we”.
Click to expand...
 
Well yeah, Brexit would make sense if it was liberating Britain from slavery. As it is Brexit is more akin to giving up your driver's license and voting rights for the improvement of being allowed to live outside.

When you start from the premise that those who disagree with you are acting illogically or are too unsophisticated to understand their own interests, no meaningful political engagement is possible – that would demand first understanding the logic and then challenging, converting, subverting or otherwise engaging it in the hope that you might change someone’s perspective and win them round.
Click to expand...

And this is just taking the micky now. Three years of lies, insults, ignorance more lies and some extra insults brexiteers now want to be respected :lol:.
 
Sweet Square said:
So, poorer Brexiters voted to be worse off? There’s nothing wrong in that

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...rer-brexiters-worse-off-working-class-leavers
Click to expand...

That’s a well written piece.

Although it starts off taking the moral high-ground over jumped up liberals calling people stupid for voting Leave, then concludes by saying how stupid (ok, “flawed”) the main reasons for voting Leave actually were.

Classic Grauniad hand wringing effort to have cake and eat it.
 
I never took JRM to be a liar, I thought he had more integrity than that, but I heard him suggesting that it was Europe who forced us into diesel cars rather than the UK Government encouraging diesel car ownership due to the lower emissions.

They had been favouring diesel cars in Europe for decades before they were recommended in the UK, mainly because diesel was so much cheaper in Europe compared to the UK and diesel cars are more expensive than petrol, so it was often difficult to justify on economic grounds.

October 2017:

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/jacob-rees-mogg-labels-government-car-policy/

Mr Rees-Mogg believes the government's policy to force people to buy diesel cars is a scandal and he's furious that the motorist is being forced to pay because of it.
Click to expand...

February 2019:

"The issue for many of the car manufacturers begins with diesel engines and the big push that emanated from the European Union to encourage people to buy diesel engines and discourage petrol engines.
Click to expand...

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/special...cob-rees-mogg-nissan-move-not-down-to-brexit/
 
Never once have I watched Mogg and thought that he had an ounce of integrity.
 
What's amazing is that whenever brexit gets blamed for a negative impact to an industry the likes of JRM instantly become experts in that field.
 
Sassy Colin said:
I never took JRM to be a liar, I thought he had more integrity than that, but I heard him suggesting that it was Europe who forced us into diesel cars rather than the UK Government encouraging diesel car ownership due to the lower emissions.

They had been favouring diesel cars in Europe for decades before they were recommended in the UK, mainly because diesel was so much cheaper in Europe compared to the UK and diesel cars are more expensive than petrol, so it was often difficult to justify on economic grounds.

October 2017:

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/jacob-rees-mogg-labels-government-car-policy/



February 2019:



https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/special...cob-rees-mogg-nissan-move-not-down-to-brexit/
Click to expand...

This gives me an opportunity to make a point that people ignore. In France the only reason diesel was so much cheaper was because it wasn't taxed like petrol, some people seem to think that it is now being surtaxed when it's not, it's just being treated equally with petrol. And yes it was a french policy meant to incite people to purchase diesel cars.
 
JPRouve said:
This gives me an opportunity to make a point that people ignore. In France the only reason diesel was so much cheaper was because it wasn't taxed like petrol, some people seem to think that it is now being surtaxed when it's not, it's just being treated equally with petrol. And yes it was a french policy meant to incite people to purchase diesel cars.
Click to expand...

But that has been the policy in France, and the rest of mainland Europe, for decades before it became policy in the UK.

The differential between diesel & petrol in the UK used to be that diesel was maybe a penny or 2 more, now it is up to 10p more expensive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.