Brexit matters

[DynamicSpirit]

Funny you mention that, the EU being the second-largest economy on the planet and all...

That doesn't guarantee that economies of scale will be sufficient to outweigh lack of competition. Remember too, that economists also recognise that there are diseconomies of scale. I was referring more to, if there is some reason why an individual country is too small to benefit from significant economies of scale on its own. That seems unlikely in the context that this discussion is primarily about regulations, since I doubt that many EU countries are small enough to lack expertise in devising regulations.

 

[najaB]

That seems unlikely in the context that this discussion is primarily about regulations, since I doubt that many EU countries are small enough to lack expertise in devising regulations.

Given the mess that was UKCA, I'm not sure that argument holds any water.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Given demographics (older Leave voters being replaced by younger more pro-EU ones) and increasing numbers of former Brexiters regretting their choice, public opinion may ultimately be strongly enough in favour and the Tories might then back it as a matter of political survival. That may happen in time but not anytime soon.

I'm not so sure of that. It seems to me that a lot of the desire to rejoin the EU is driven by people who were angry about leaving and feel that they lost something by leaving and so want to revert to how things were before. But the people joining the electorate now and in the future will increasingly be people who have no memory of the referendum or of ever having been in the EU, and that's likely to mean that they won't care nearly as much. From now on, being out of the EU will increasingly become the 'normal' thing for the UK, and (re)joining will look like a disruptive change.

 

[nw1]

I'm not so sure of that. It seems to me that a lot of the desire to rejoin the EU is driven by people who were angry about leaving and feel that they lost something by leaving and so want to revert to how things were before. But the people joining the electorate now and in the future will increasingly be people who have no memory of the referendum or of ever having been in the EU, and that's likely to mean that they won't care nearly as much. From now on, being out of the EU will increasingly become the 'normal' thing for the UK, and (re)joining will look like a disruptive change.

Except young people who were too young to vote in 2016 have, I suspect, been brought up to "expect" a connected and open world with only soft barriers (whether that be by parents, older siblings, teachers or just general culture). I'm not just talking about the EU, but the world in general. Essentially, I'd expect Gen Z-ers to see themselves as "world citizens" first and foremost, and are more likely to believe in free immigration than even Gen-Xers like myself, let alone baby boomers and older.

Winding the clock back to a more restricted and closed world with less opportunity to travel seems like a reversion to a long-past era and I doubt that young people are, in general, in favour of that.

You've only got to look at the opinion polls, arranged by demographic, to see that the young are less supportive of socially-conservative ideas (including, one might expect, immigration restrictions) than the rest of us.

Plus, the generations born in the 70s, 80s and 90s who comprise most of the 2016 Remain vote - and those born in the early 00s who were marginally too young to vote but spent their teenage years in the EU - are going to dominate the electorate for a good while yet, so need to be listened to.

And it might seem a "disruptive change", but, by younger people, a positive one. Most European or partially-European countries outside the EU seem to have a far more positive attitude to joining, even Erdogan has made noises - the only question is whether the EU will let them join, which is a different argument. The UK government seems to be alongside only Russia and Belarus in having such a negative attitude!

 

[Enthusiast]

Except young people who were too young to vote in 2016 have, I suspect, been brought up to "expect" a connected and open world with only soft barriers (whether that be by parents, older siblings, teachers or just general culture). I'm not just talking about the EU, but the world in general.

Which "world in general" would this be? Most of the rest of the world does not operate with soft barriers. No normal country - or bloc of countries for that matter - allows unfettered access to half a billion people across 27 very different nations. There's quite a difference between being "connected and open" and abandoning your borders.

 

[edwin_m]

Which "world in general" would this be? Most of the rest of the world does not operate with soft barriers. No normal country - or bloc of countries for that matter - allows unfettered access to half a billion people across 27 very different nations. There's quite a difference between being "connected and open" and abandoning your borders.

As far as I'm aware, most of the population in most of the EU countries are in favour of remaining members and other countries want to join. So if they find this unattractive, it's outweighed by the other benefits of membership.

 

[najaB]

So the term Brexiteer would be hardly used then - were there really many (any?) people who thought there would be no downsides ? Ignoring the downsides (on the basis that upsides, either now or in the future, are worth the downsides now) can be understood, especially if those downsides are not particularly impactful on their lives.

Yes. There are an alarming number of people who downplayed or completely ignored any suggestion of downsides.

 

[RT4038]

Yes. There are an alarming number of people who downplayed or completely ignored any suggestion of downsides.

Probably about the same alarming number of people who downplay or ignore any suggestion of the downsides of the UK being a member of the EU?

 

[najaB]

Probably about the same alarming number of people who downplay or ignore any suggestion of the downsides of the UK being a member of the EU?

I suppose so, the difference being that the majority of the downsides of our EU membership that they raised were either: a) non-tangibles (e.g. perceived loss of sovereignty), b) not the fault of the EU (e.g. UK housing policy); or c) completely made up (e.g. straight vs bendy bananas).

 

[Enthusiast]

I suppose so, the difference being that the majority of the downsides of our EU membership that they raised were either: a) non-tangibles (e.g. perceived loss of sovereignty),...

Because a downside is non-tangible does not make it irrelevant. But that aside, the loss of sovereignty is eminently tangible. Whilst an EU member, EU law maintained primacy over domestic law. The UK Parliament was unable to frame legislation which was incompatible with EU law, meaning the Westminster Parliament was not sovereign. There is no argument about this. Unlike the (abandoned) Constitutional Treaty, the Treaty of Lisbon contains no article formally enshrining the supremacy of Union law over national legislation. But that supremacy is described in a declaration (#17) which was attached to the Treaty:

EUR-Lex - 12008E/AFI/DCL/17 - EN - EUR-Lex

eur-lex.europa.eu

You may believe this "non-tangible" issue does not matter. But I do because it does. No nation should sacrifice its domestic legislature to a supra-national entity - even one of which it is a member - and I cannot imagine any country outside the EU being foolish enough to do so.

Since this was never going to change, the only way the UK could regain its sovereignty was to leave.

 

[najaB]

You may believe this "non-tangible" issue does not matter. But I do because it does. No nation should sacrifice its domestic legislature to a supra-national entity - even one of which it is a member - and I cannot imagine any country outside the EU being foolish enough to do so.

I respect your opinion. But it is exactly that: an opinion. And your argument carries zero weight with me, such is the nature of non-tangibles.

This is in stark contrast to the objective downsides of leaving the EU such as the OBR's estimation that imports and exports will be 15% lower in the long run than if the EU hadn't left the EU:

Both exports and imports will be around 15 per cent lower in the long run than if the UK had remained in the EU. The size of this adjustment is calibrated to match the average estimate of a number of external studies that considered the impact of leaving the EU on the volume of UK-EU trade (see our November 2016 EFO for more information).

Or that Brexit will result in higher net migration:

We had assumed that the Government’s new post-Brexit migration regime would reduce net inward migration to the UK (see Box 2.4 of our March 2020 EFO). But in our November 2022 and March 2023 forecasts we revised up our projections for net migration to reflect evidence of sustained strength in inward migration since the post-Brexit migration regime was introduced. We now assume net migration settles at 245,000 a year in the medium term (based on the ONS 2020-based interim migration projection). This compares to 129,000 in that year in our March 2022 forecast (based on the 2018-based ONS zero net EU migration variant).

Source: Office for Budget Responsibility

Since this was never going to change, the only way the UK could regain its sovereignty was to leave.

Last I checked, you can't buy food or medicines with sovereignty.

 

[RT4038]

I respect your opinion. But it is exactly that: an opinion. And your argument carries zero weight with me, such is the nature of non-tangibles.

Just as your opinion carries zero weight with others. However, it is worthwhile exchanging opinions, as there may be things that have not been thought of before. Your tangibles are non-tangibles to others.
15% less imports and exports is a non-tangible to many. ( 'We'll refocus and recover') Loss of rights to live and work in Bulgaria etc is a non-tangible to many.

Last I checked, you can't buy food or medicines with sovereignty.

Is there a problem with buying food and medicines?

 

[najaB]

Your tangibles are non-tangibles to others.

Sorry, but regardless of context, that is complete nonsense. By the very definition of the words.

• Tangible: a thing that is perceptible by touch.
• Non-tangible: incapable of being touched : having no physical existence

I'm familiar with pro-Brexit people moving the goalposts, but attempting to redefine the very language is a new one to me.

Is there a problem with buying food and medicines?

In a word: yes. There haven't been riots or anything like that, but it's well documented that the price of food and some medicines has gone up, while the supply and quality of (fresh food particularly) has decreased.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I suppose so, the difference being that the majority of the downsides of our EU membership that they raised were either: a) non-tangibles (e.g. perceived loss of sovereignty), b) not the fault of the EU (e.g. UK housing policy); or c) completely made up (e.g. straight vs bendy bananas).

Have you forgotten, the inability to control levels of immigration from lots of European countries, and all the impacts that had on lowering wages, putting pressure on housing and infrastructure, making it harder for people to get somewhere to live, etc.?

Besides, do you think that being 'non-tangible' (which I guess in reality means, non-economic) makes something not important?

Or that Brexit will result in higher net migration:

Brexit is not the cause of higher net migration. As has been pointed out to you over and over again, but for some reason you seem every time to forget it, higher net migration over the last few years has been caused partly by pent-up demand from the Covid years, partly by various crises not connected to Brexit that resulted in the UK giving humanitarian visas to an unusually large number of people. And partly of course, the decisions the UK Government makes about who they choose to give visas to will impact immigration levels (indeed now we are out of the EU, it's pretty much the sole thing that determines levels of legal immigration), .

You may note that, unlike FOM immigration, the UK Government can change visa requirements to make immigration harder, if it decides that immigration is too high.

 

[najaB]

Besides, do you think that being 'non-tangible' (which I guess in reality means, non-economic) makes something not important?

It's not about importance since that is a subjective value judgement.

Tangibles are, at least, measurable. Net immigration, GDP, unemployment, housing availability, etc. are all measurable and one can have a meaningful discussion the merits from a shared reality. How does one do that with a non-tangible? What is the unit of sovereignty?

Brexit is not the cause of higher net migration.

Argue that with the OBR, not me.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It's not about importance since that is a subjective value judgement.

I don't think believe there's anything subjective (or unmeasurable) about the UK Government having got powers back to do stuff that it was not previously able to do thanks to EU membership (although I'd grant that it's subjective whether it's a good thing)

Argue that with the OBR, not me.

Does the OBR actually claim that Brexit is the cause of the recent increase in immigration (as opposed to merely pointing out that the timing happened to correlate with Brexit)? I believe you yourself have pointed out more than once in other discussions that correlation is not causation.

 

[najaB]

I don't think believe there's anything subjective (or unmeasurable) about the UK Government having got powers back to do stuff that it was not previously able to do thanks to EU membership (although I'd grant that it's subjective whether it's a good thing)

No. The very concept of "importance" is, by definition, subjective. Whenever someone says "That is important." they are actually saying "That is important to me."

Which is why I despair of people who say that Brexit was about "sovereignty". What does that mean? You've gotten closer by defining it as "having got back powers to to stuff" - though I'd point out that "stuff" isn't a definitive so that still doesn't form the basis of a rational discussion.

Does the OBR actually claim that Brexit is the cause of the recent increase in immigration (as opposed to merely pointing out that the timing happened to correlate with Brexit)? I believe you yourself have pointed out more than once in other discussions that correlation is not causation.

Indeed, you would be correct to say that the rise in immigration numbers isn't a result of Brexit itself (defined as the UK renouncing our membership in the EU) but rather a consequence of the Brexit we got, thanks to our government's ineptitude.

 

[nw1]

Which "world in general" would this be? Most of the rest of the world does not operate with soft barriers. No normal country - or bloc of countries for that matter - allows unfettered access to half a billion people across 27 very different nations. There's quite a difference between being "connected and open" and abandoning your borders.

What I was trying to say is that I would suspect that the younger generations would welcome more FoM (e.g. to and from Canada, USA, Australia, NZ etc), not less.

For context I was countering @DynamicSpirit's point that the electorate might not move in a pro-EU or pro-FoM direction in future. I beg to differ as it was the younger generations (who will dominate the electorate in the 2030s and 2040s) that formed the Remain vote, and people marginally too young to have voted in 2016 will have spent their teenage years with the EU as the norm. Perhaps the very, very young who will turn 18 in the next few years will have no memory - but this very young generation is unlikely to be influenced by pro-Brexit points of view very much.

 

[RT4038]

Sorry, but regardless of context, that is complete nonsense. By the very definition of the words.

• Tangible: a thing that is perceptible by touch.
• Non-tangible: incapable of being touched : having no physical existence

I'm familiar with pro-Brexit people moving the goalposts, but attempting to redefine the very language is a new one to me.

Projected import/export figures and loss of rights they are unlikely to use are not something the ordinary person touches either, i.e. non-tangible to them.

In a word: yes. There haven't been riots or anything like that, but it's well documented that the price of food and some medicines has gone up, while the supply and quality of (fresh food particularly) has decreased.

There was always bound to be a period of adjustment to the new circumstances, with prices affected by the unproductive increase in money supply from the Covid response. Maybe there were people who thought this would not happen (although I do not personally know of any, and I know plenty with views on both sides of this spectrum).

Which is why I despair of people who say that Brexit was about "sovereignty". What does that mean? You've gotten closer by defining it as "having got back powers to to stuff" - though I'd point out that "stuff" isn't a definitive so that still doesn't form the basis of a rational discussion.

You may well have a problem with understanding sovereignty. So be it. (Perhaps a bit like love - it can be described but not really measured?) However, in the past few hundred years there has been an almighty amount of wars, and loss of life (both involving the UK and not), fighting over this very concept of sovereignty, of which there is no standard unit of measurement.

 

[nw1]

Have you forgotten, the inability to control levels of immigration from lots of European countries, and all the impacts that had on lowering wages, putting pressure on housing and infrastructure, making it harder for people to get somewhere to live, etc.?

Blame the good old capitalist system primarily, not immigration.

I'm not saying we should abandon free-market capitalism by the way. Just pointing out, in a dispassionate way, that the profit motive and the free market is the ultimate cause of all of this. There are other, admittedly more left-wing, ways of attempting to tackle these problems. For example, rather than prohibiting immigration, what about prohibiting lowering wages or prohibiting increasing rents way above inflation? Radical perhaps. But really more radical than taking away 50-year-old rights and making the country the "odd one out" in Western and Central Europe?

Plus, other European countries have significant anti-immigrationist movements (Le Pen, Meloni, Wilders, AfD, etc). Why, then, are said countries not leaving Schengen and the EU and closing their borders, in order to pacify the anti-immigrationists?

Perhaps because, despite there being a good number of people who dislike immigration, the governments believe that open borders produce more good than harm? Even Le Pen and co do not seem to want to leave the EU.

So, what's different about us in this respect? (And no, it's not that we're an island - see Ireland, Iceland, Malta, Cyprus for example).

Rhetorical question of course: Brexit was a Tory vanity project, end of, designed to win elections by forming an alliance of social and economic conservatives that was enough to get them a majority. And it worked. Would we have still had a Tory majority in the early 2020s without Brexit? Perhaps not. Would we ever have had Brexit if the ERG and Farage hadn't been constantly agitating and backing Cameron into a corner? Probably not.

At the end of the day, I think most people in politics (including many Tories) realise Brexit was a silly idea but don't really know the way out of it - but will not admit that publicly. Instead they big it up because they know that many people like confident politicians, not indecisive ones.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Indeed, you would be correct to say that the rise in immigration numbers isn't a result of Brexit itself (defined as the UK renouncing our membership in the EU) but rather a consequence of the Brexit we got, thanks to our government's ineptitude.

How were the crises in Ukraine, Hong Kong and Afghanistan that lead to our granting a vast number of humanitarian reasons a consequence of 'The Brexit we got'? Do you imagine that - for example - China would have chosen not to crack down on dissidents in Hong Kong and betray the terms of the handover agreement causing a large number of HK citizens to have good reason to flee to the UK, if only Boris had negotiated a better Brexit deal?

 

[nw1]

You may well have a problem with understanding sovereignty. So be it. (Perhaps a bit like love - it can be described but not really measured?) However, in the past few hundred years there has been an almighty amount of wars, and loss of life (both involving the UK and not), fighting over this very concept of sovereignty, of which there is no standard unit of measurement.

I have problems with this "sovereignty" argument too, as for one thing, we still made most of our laws ourselves. During the EEC/EU years we had Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown and Cameron - all very different. You can't claim that the UK under these five was the same, because all our laws were being set by the EEC/EU.

Also if you are generally critical of the UK government, then more "sovereignty" to the UK government could be perceived as a bad thing.

 

[bahnause]

How were the crises in Ukraine, Hong Kong and Afghanistan that lead to our granting a vast number of humanitarian reasons a consequence of 'The Brexit we got'? Do you imagine that - for example - China would have chosen not to crack down on dissidents in Hong Kong and betray the terms of the handover agreement causing a large number of HK citizens to have good reason to flee to the UK, if only Boris had negotiated a better Brexit deal?

The refugee crisis in UK domestic politics has not muchto do with these crises. This discussion is, whether consciously or unconsciously, a home-made one. From a rational point of view, the asylum system was driven to the wall by the Conservative government. It could even be seen as an artificially created election campaign aid. The massive increase in unprocessed applications and therefore impossible returns cannot be statistically explained by the increase in the number of refugees arriving. Even by international standards, the proportion of refugees in the UK is exceptionally low for an industrialised European country. These are not unmanageable figures.

 

[ainsworth74]

How were the crises in Ukraine, Hong Kong and Afghanistan that lead to our granting a vast number of humanitarian reasons a consequence of 'The Brexit we got'? Do you imagine that - for example - China would have chosen not to crack down on dissidents in Hong Kong and betray the terms of the handover agreement causing a large number of HK citizens to have good reason to flee to the UK, if only Boris had negotiated a better Brexit deal?

I'm not sure that the numbers are a vast, anymore, as you think they are. We have stats for the number of such visa issued:

Safe and legal (humanitarian) routes to the UK

www.gov.uk

(Image shows a table giving the number of people offered a humanitarian route to the UK. For 2019 this was 13,068, 2020 it was 5,620, for 2021 it was 119,853, for 2022 it was 299,623 and 2023 it was 102,283. In 2022 Ukraine was 232,135 by itself)

I absolutely agree that in 2022 having a total of 300,000 people come to the UK via the various humanitarian schemes is a 'vast' number but 102,000 in 2023? It's not nothing but if you removed all 102,000 from the stats net migration would still be higher than pre-pandemic/pre-Brexit and presumably higher than those who wish to see a lower level of immigration would be comfortable with. I'll also agree they are larger than they were before the most recent decent into global disorder. But I'm not sure it's entirely tenable to continue to suggest that the real problem is the various humanitarian crises that we have rightly provided refuge for people from nor the small boats crossing the channel when you could take all those numbers out and they would still be dwarfed by the other forms of immigration. For instance there was somewhere on the order of 600,000 student visas issued (for dependents and the student themselves) in 2023. Now that's a 'vast' number of people coming to the UK!

Why do people come to the UK? To study

www.gov.uk

(Graph showing number of visas granted to main applicants and dependents for study between 2010 and 2023, numbers are broadly steady for most of the period dipping significantly during 2020 and spiking significantly from 2021 with a slight decrease again in 2023)

Admittedly Brexit may or may not have played a part in the student numbers. It does seem slightly strange it spikes so hard after 2020 but I guess there's no real way of knowing whether that some sort of pandemic related change (suppressed demand?) or some change to the post-Brexit immigration arrangements that encouraged more people from overseas that required visas to come to the UK instead of EU nationals?

Either way, the point remains that I think that calling the number of people here for humanitarian reasons as being "vast" is no longer accurate nor indeed a big driver of the rise in the immigration numbers (though absolutely agree it was in 2022 to be clear!).

 

[Dent]

However, in the past few hundred years there has been an almighty amount of wars, and loss of life (both involving the UK and not), fighting over this very concept of sovereignty, of which there is no standard unit of measurement.

Does that not teach you that fighting over this undefined concept of "sovereignty" for no good reason is not a good idea?

 

[nw1]

Does that not teach you that fighting over this undefined concept of "sovereignty" for no good reason is not a good idea?

John Lennon. Imagine. Second verse. Says it all.

While I'm less convinced about the third verse, I'd say the second verse is amongst the greatest lyrics ever written.

 

[edwin_m]

Projected import/export figures and loss of rights they are unlikely to use are not something the ordinary person touches either, i.e. non-tangible to them.

Unlike sovereignty, they can at least be monitored and measured to tell if they are getting better or worse. And they feed directly into the state of our economy, levels of taxes and quality of public services. Most people can see that all three have got worse since Brexit, and while there are other causes, Brexit itself can't be ignored. So while some are independently wealthy or prepared to suffer for the sake of "sovereignty" (and to insist everyone else suffers too), that's likely to be a fairly small proportion of Leave voters.

There was always bound to be a period of adjustment to the new circumstances, with prices affected by the unproductive increase in money supply from the Covid response. Maybe there were people who thought this would not happen (although I do not personally know of any, and I know plenty with views on both sides of this spectrum).

The OBR, the government's own independent forecaster, stands by its previous assessment that Brexit has reduced UK economic activity by 5% with others estimating more (https://obr.uk/efo/economic-and-fiscal-outlook-march-2024/ "Overall, our assumptions about the impact of Brexit appear to be broadly on track and recently published studies are also broadly consistent with these estimates."). Importantly this is a worsening that continues into the future compared with what would have happened had we remained as members, whereas Covid and hopefully Ukraine will be short-term hits.

You may well have a problem with understanding sovereignty. So be it. (Perhaps a bit like love - it can be described but not really measured?) However, in the past few hundred years there has been an almighty amount of wars, and loss of life (both involving the UK and not), fighting over this very concept of sovereignty, of which there is no standard unit of measurement.

Every EU member state except Sweden has suffered war with or occupation by another European country, or totalitarian government, since 1914. But none has since they joined up. Notably, EU membership underpinned the Good Friday agreement that largely ended the conflict in Northern Ireland, and trying to maintain that status post-Brexit will continue to be difficult. So perhaps the way to avoid fighting is to consider that sovereignty should not be quite so absolute.

 

[RT4038]

Blame the good old capitalist system primarily, not immigration.

I'm not saying we should abandon free-market capitalism by the way. Just pointing out, in a dispassionate way, that the profit motive and the free market is the ultimate cause of all of this. There are other, admittedly more left-wing, ways of attempting to tackle these problems. For example, rather than prohibiting immigration, what about prohibiting lowering wages or prohibiting increasing rents way above inflation? Radical perhaps. But really more radical than taking away 50-year-old rights and making the country the "odd one out" in Western and Central Europe?

Sounds like more and more rules, and interventions, against the natural way of people and commerce. Parts of Europe have already tried this kind of intervention in their economies, all bound together in a pact, and that went really well for individual rights, immigration and economies.

Rhetorical question of course: Brexit was a Tory vanity project, end of, designed to win elections by forming an alliance of social and economic conservatives that was enough to get them a majority. And it worked. Would we have still had a Tory majority in the early 2020s without Brexit? Perhaps not. Would we ever have had Brexit if the ERG and Farage hadn't been constantly agitating and backing Cameron into a corner? Probably not.

At the end of the day, I think most people in politics (including many Tories) realise Brexit was a silly idea but don't really know the way out of it - but will not admit that publicly. Instead they big it up because they know that many people like confident politicians, not indecisive ones.

Perhaps a bit of wishful thinking rather?

Does that not teach you that fighting over this undefined concept of "sovereignty" for no good reason is not a good idea?

Or perhaps that it is more important than those who wish to be in the EU make out? However, there are other more cynical views.....

Unlike sovereignty, they can at least be monitored and measured to tell if they are getting better or worse. And they feed directly into the state of our economy, levels of taxes and quality of public services. Most people can see that all three have got worse since Brexit, and while there are other causes, Brexit itself can't be ignored. So while some are independently wealthy or prepared to suffer for the sake of "sovereignty" (and to insist everyone else suffers too), that's likely to be a fairly small proportion of Leave voters.

So it is up to us to put ourselves right, nobody else.

Every EU member state except Sweden has suffered war with or occupation by another European country, or totalitarian government, since 1914. But none has since they joined up. Notably, EU membership underpinned the Good Friday agreement that largely ended the conflict in Northern Ireland, and trying to maintain that status post-Brexit will continue to be difficult. So perhaps the way to avoid fighting is to consider that sovereignty should not be quite so absolute.

Perhaps losing your sovereignty will eventually lose you your nation?

 

[Dent]

Perhaps losing your sovereignty will eventually lose you your nation?

What does that even mean?

 

[DC1989]

Of course if we stayed in the EU, we probably wouldn't be doing much better. But leave promised us the moon on a stick and have delivered a giant turd