John Forde #fbpe

Lady in stripes, "What about the troubles inside our own country?" "It was Nigel Farage who responded to misinformation about stabbings by saying that people should respond with cold hard rage" "There were race riots in 2024, I had black and brown friends who were scared to leave the house" "And there was a massive racial bias with Brexit pushing people to vote in certain ways" Fiona Bruce, "And when it comes to freedom of movement with the EU would you welcome that?" Lady in stripes, "I would welcome Freedom of Movement. I was only 16 when the vote happened" "Many adults I spoke to voted for Brexit and then regretted it because they voted on it based on lies" "There was also the Cambridge Analytica scandal" "I'm firmly of the belief that the Brexit vote was not democratic and that we should have another referendum" My view: She is right to challenge the idea that Britain’s problems begin at its borders. The rhetoric used by politicians at home has consequences too. When false claims about violence are amplified and people are urged to channel their anger, the damage does not stop when the headlines move on. The 2024 riots left many people frightened in their own communities, including people who felt targeted because of their race. Her argument about Brexit also deserves to be heard. A generation too young to vote has lived with the consequences, while many people who did vote later said they regretted it. The Cambridge Analytica scandal raised further questions about how personal data was used in the campaign. That alone does not prove the result was changed, but it deepened public concern about the way the debate was conducted. If the case for Brexit still stands, let the public judge it again—with the consequences visible and the facts in front of them.

Alastair Campbell, "I will say to Zia Yusuf and his friend Nigel Farage" "Brexit has taken 6-8% out of economy" "If we had not left, the Chancellor today would have had £90 billion more to spend" "He could have doubled the defence budget" Fiona Bruce, "That is a projection Alastair, no one can be sure about that" Alastair Campbell, "And added 50% to the health budget as well" "The people who gave us Brexit now want to give you another set of false promises" "Do not fall for them because they are a bunch of conmen. They're being found out. And its one reason why Nigel Farage will never be Prime Minister of this country" My view: Fiona Bruce was quick to dismiss Campbell’s figures as “a projection”. But that shouldn’t be a way to shut down the argument. Campbell was making a point about what Brexit has cost the country: on his figures, a 6–8% hit to the economy means around £90 billion less for the Chancellor to spend—enough, he said, to double the defence budget or increase health spending by 50%. And remember what Nigel Farage was saying in 2016: that even without a trade deal, Britain would be better off than it was then. The evidence points the other way. The OBR estimates that Brexit will leave UK productivity around 4% lower than it would have been inside the EU; other studies put the economic hit higher. That means we’re poorer than we would have been had we stayed. So yes, these are estimates—but the claims made by Brexit’s champions were projections too. Bruce’s caveat shouldn’t obscure the central question Campbell raised: how much has Brexit cost us, and what could that money have done for the country?