Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

[AndrewJB]

That's an answer to a different question Andrew.

I'll try again-

When 5 million labour voters, voted Leave in 2016, were they "weak in character" so they were conned?

Yes or No?

When the same 5 million voted Labour voted labour in 2017 , " weak in character " so they were conned?

Yes or No?

Many of the people who voted leave in 2016 were conned. They were promised various different outcomes that have proved not to be possible, or are now being told that things like the Norway option, which was touted by many leave advocates, doesn’t count as real leave. How would you describe it if not a con when people are told one thing, and then after they’ve signed up for it they get another?

[RingoMcCartney]

I think Wrongo would call this ‘pedantry’, in Wrongo speak ‘the facts not backing up my view’. Although i’ll probably get pulled up for pedantry for pointing out the incorrect use of the word ‘pedantry’.

If remain had won 52 to 48, because we were already in the EU, the result would have been implemented immediately. That's democracy.

Well no, it’s the existing position and therefore not ‘implementing the result’ would have been impossible

Not "pulled up" for being a pedant Marty. Just laughed at, for proving that pedantry is the last bastion of the desperate poor loser!

[RingoMcCartney]

Many of the people who voted leave in 2016 were conned. They were promised various different outcomes that have proved not to be possible, or are now being told that things like the Norway option, which was touted by many leave advocates, doesn’t count as real leave. How would you describe it if not a con when people are told one thing, and then after they’ve signed up for it they get another?

One last try Andrew!

Two questions requiring a simple "yes" or "no" answer-

When 5 million labour voters, voted Leave in 2016, were they "weak in character" so they were conned?

Yes or No?

When the same 5 million voted Labour voted labour in 2017 , " weak in character " so they were conned?

Yes or No?

[martin_p]

One last try Andrew!

Two questions requiring a simple "yes" or "no" answer-

When 5 million labour voters, voted Leave in 2016, were they "weak in character" so they were conned?

Yes or No?

When the same 5 million voted Labour voted labour in 2017 , " weak in character " so they were conned?

Yes or No?

I suspect the majority of Labour voters who voted Leave in 2016 were no longer Labour voters in 2017.

[RingoMcCartney]

I suspect the majority of Labour voters who voted Leave in 2016 were no longer Labour voters in 2017.

Trying to answer a question asked to some one else, but not actually giving a straight forward "yes" or "no" yourself! Brilliant Marty! Just brilliant!

Try again -

When 5 million labour voters, voted Leave in 2016, were they "weak in character" so they were conned?

Yes or No?

When the same 5 million voted Labour voted labour in 2017 , " weak in character " so they were conned?

Yes or No?

[martin_p]

Trying to answer a question asked to some one else, but not actually giving a straight forward "yes" or "no" yourself! Brilliant Marty! Just brilliant!

Try again -

When 5 million labour voters, voted Leave in 2016, were they "weak in character" so they were conned?

Yes or No?

When the same 5 million voted Labour voted labour in 2017 , " weak in character " so they were conned?

Yes or No?

I’m demonstrating that the premise of your question is flawed and therefore can’t be answered. First you have to believe that the 5 million (your figure) Labour voters who voted Leave also voted Labour in 2017 which is probably demonstrably untrue. Then you have to believe that Labour tried to con voters in the 2017 election (how else could it’s voters be conned). That’s more a matter of opinion, but they seem to have been true to their manifesto on Brexit (wanting a Brexit with a customs union, fiercely anti no deal).

Your question doesn’t work so it’s no wonder it hasn’t been answered.

[Colburn_Claret]

Fifty-five areas of co-operation - all of which (except flights for one year) come to an abrupt end on 1st November. This is what I mean by “cutting all ties”

Leaving without a deal is stupid, and a pointless waste of money. It won’t be just the same but trading on different terms. Tariffs will price some firms out of Europe , and increase prices here. As for Johnson allowing EU citizens to stay - how is he going to know who came when? Irish border, and twenty years of peace - yeah whatever, who cares? And what do we get out of it? The “ability to strike trade deals with whomever we wish”? If I were a betting man I’d stake my left nut on us never getting a trade deal as good as the on we have in the EU. Never. And this control we’re “taking back”? It’ll be negotiated away as the government desperately attempts to sign new deals. They’re already laying the groundwork for chlorinated chicken (“ we already have chlorinated water, so why not?” - as though we’re all stupid).

There is a way to honour the referendum result, keep the Good Friday Agreement intact, stay in the 55 areas of co-operation, and not subject our economy to a huge shock. Leave the EU but remain in everything else.

You're living in a fantasy Andrew.
Leaving the EU isnt about not cooperating with our neighbours, it's about not having our neighbours setting our laws and policies.
We've cooperated with America for 70 years, they dont dictate our lives.
How is he going to know who came and when well how about their NI records, that will show how long they've been here. It isnt rocket science, but you cant help looking for pitfalls, even when they dont exist.
Leaving the EU but remaining in everything else isnt an option, because as soon as they pass new legislation they would expect us to agree to it. It would be legislation we had no say or input to and if we didn't accept it where would it leave us or the EU.
If you think Brussels wont do a deal they might have no choice. The backlash of no deal affects both sides of the channel, although I'm sure Junker and Tusk and the rest of the Federalists would rather swim in **** than deal with us the economic realities mean that the French and Germans, and the Irish would insist that they deal.
How long it takes for that message to get through who knows but I doubt it will take long for countries throughout Europe to work out what the cost is to themselves.

[Colburn_Claret]

You’re right, the cost per household at the end of last year was £1500 not £1400 as predicted.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.inde ... html%3famp

Did you read that yourself.
It's full of so many innuendos and supposition its pathetic.
The forecast for growth is less than anticipated.....
When do they ever correctly forecast economic growth and then to link the lower growth to Brexit....
One small step for man, one giant leap for stupidity.

[martin_p]

You're living in a fantasy Andrew.
Leaving the EU isnt about not cooperating with our neighbours, it's about not having our neighbours setting our laws and policies.

This is the usual Brexiteer drama queenery. This isn’t being done to us, it’s being done with us. There’s only a small percentage of regulations we haven’t agreed with and in many cases it’s effectively the rest of the EU adopting what we do anyway. All the major stuff we haven’t liked we’ve opted out of.

[martin_p]

Did you read that yourself.
It's full of so many innuendos and supposition its pathetic.
The forecast for growth is less than anticipated.....
When do they ever correctly forecast economic growth and then to link the lower growth to Brexit....
One small step for man, one giant leap for stupidity.

It’s the only measure we have and the predictions you said were wrong we’re all based on the same forecast growth without Brexit. Now the real growth figures are less than the ones forecast and fall broadly in line with the predicted loss per household. On what basis are you claiming the £1400 loss per household is wrong?

[Colburn_Claret]

It’s the only measure we have and the predictions you said were wrong we’re all based on the same forecast growth without Brexit. Now the real growth figures are less than the ones forecast and fall broadly in line with the predicted loss per household. On what basis are you claiming the £1400 loss per household is wrong?

Because it's a fall in growth that is echoed all around Europe in fact most of the World, and it has sod all to do with Brexit.
It's also not how Osborne envisaged the £1400 loss.

[martin_p]

Because it's a fall in growth that is echoed all around Europe in fact most of the World, and it has sod all to do with Brexit.
It's also not how Osborne envisaged the £1400 loss.

So why have we suffered the sharpest slow down in growth of all the countries the OECD measures as suggested in the article I linked. Why have we moved from being one of the fastest growing economies in the G7 to one of the slowest?

Here’s another quote, ‘ Had household incomes grown in line with other advanced economies they would have been £2,000 higher in 2017.’

All this suggest something more influencing our economic slowdown than just global factors.

And you still haven’t told me how you’re so sure the £1400 loss per household is wrong.

[Burnley Ace]

We've cooperated with America for 70 years, they dont dictate our lives.

There are a few who would disagree. For example anything we export to America has to meet their rules, we have to abide by their rules when it comes to intelligence sharing, don’t we have to have their agreement if we wanted to use nuclear weapons?

What have the EU dictated to us?

[Bordeauxclaret]

Whatever it takes to point and laugh, apparently.

Any proof I’m a United fan yet?

Apologies for my jibe about you being entertaining after a poor result for United.

Although your posts last night just 24 hours after a poor result for United were very entertaining.

[Darthlaw]

Apology accepted.

After all, it’s understandable you were in a jovial mood after Rovers victory.

[Bordeauxclaret]

Indeed I was. Cracking result for Bristol.
I just get furious whenever people slag them off, or worse when someone praises Bristol City.

Someone people might call that a bit weird, but I’m not a humongous snowflake so it’s fine.

[Darthlaw]

In fairness I wouldn't know if people call you weird or a snowflake. You don't stand out enough to be noticeable above any other keyboard warrior on here. Certainly not enough to have me follow your posts regularly with any degree of interest but it's nice to hear you're so engrossed in mine, though.

I save my interest for the real IT, not a plastic imitation one.

[nil_desperandum]

You're living in a fantasy Andrew.
Leaving the EU isnt about not cooperating with our neighbours, ........

But by definition and in reality that's exactly what a "no deal" brexit is.
Leaving the EU and co-operating on many things, which is basically the Labour Party policy as set out in their 2017 manifesto, is the majority view across most of the UK and is generally reflected in Parliament.
[The exceptions to this are in Scotland and NI where the vast majority don't want to leave at all, and in one or two areas of England where absurdly the prefered choice is to have no co-operation on those 55 essential policy areas that Andrew JB referenced.]
It's for this reason that the vast majority of MPs are looking at all means possible to ensure that we don't cut all ties on Oct 31st.
As Andrew pointed out, the only agreement we have in place if we walk out on Oct 31st is a time limited agreement on keeping planes in the air, and that only lasts for 12 months as things stand.
And if you think that getting agreements in these other 54 areas will be easier once we've cancelled them and don't have a relationship with the EU (than it would be to agree them now) - then I'm pretty sure you'll be disappointed.

[Bordeauxclaret]

In fairness I wouldn't know if people call you weird or a snowflake. You don't stand out enough to be noticeable above any other keyboard warrior on here.

Yet here we are.

Hang in there, the glory days might return and hopefully you’ll be less angry.

[dsr]

There are a few who would disagree. For example anything we export to America has to meet their rules, we have to abide by their rules when it comes to intelligence sharing, don’t we have to have their agreement if we wanted to use nuclear weapons?

What have the EU dictated to us?

The first one is a weird argument. Anything we export to anywhere has to meet their rules. Were you thinking that once we leave the EU we we'll be able to export stuff to them that doesn't meet their own standards? Not going to happen. The EU does and will dictate to us that we can't sell stuff in the EU that is illegal there.

We don't have to follow their rules for intelligence sharing. I'm sure there is an agreement on intelligence sharing, but it's not dictated by one side. And we don't have to ask permission to fire a nuclear weapon, though I certainly hope we would discuss it - it isn't something to do on a whim.

[Colburn_Claret]

But by definition and in reality that's exactly what a "no deal" brexit is.
Leaving the EU and co-operating on many things, which is basically the Labour Party policy as set out in their 2017 manifesto, is the majority view across most of the UK and is generally reflected in Parliament.
[The exceptions to this are in Scotland and NI where the vast majority don't want to leave at all, and in one or two areas of England where absurdly the prefered choice is to have no co-operation on those 55 essential policy areas that Andrew JB referenced.]
It's for this reason that the vast majority of MPs are looking at all means possible to ensure that we don't cut all ties on Oct 31st.
As Andrew pointed out, the only agreement we have in place if we walk out on Oct 31st is a time limited agreement on keeping planes in the air, and that only lasts for 12 months as things stand.
And if you think that getting agreements in these other 54 areas will be easier once we've cancelled them and don't have a relationship with the EU (than it would be to agree them now) - then I'm pretty sure you'll be disappointed.

This is the ridiculous nature of your argument
Planes from all over the world fly over and into Europe, but we'll be grounded.
Give your head a bloody good shake.

[claretonthecoast1882]

This is the ridiculous nature of your argument
Planes from all over the world fly over and into Europe, but we'll be grounded.
Give your head a bloody good shake.

nils been banging the we will never fly again scare since the day after the vote, it was funny then and it's still funny now. We will also have no electricity either.

[CombatClaret]

This is the ridiculous nature of your argument
Planes from all over the world fly over and into Europe, but we'll be grounded.
Give your head a bloody good shake.

He's saying the exact opposite, planes won't be grounded. He's just pointing out this is one of the very few arrangements we do have in place in event of a no deal.
You're the one going OTT about an argument someone isn't even making.

[nil_desperandum]

He's saying the exact opposite, planes won't be grounded. He's just pointing out this is one of the very few arrangements we do have in place in event of a no deal.
You're the one going OTT about an argument someone isn't even making.

Thanks for clarifying what I clearly wrote for those who either can't read, or more likely choose to distort and distract from what I actually wrote,and more importantly the more important point that I was making.
I did indeed say that this was the only agreement that we currently have in place beyond Oct 31st.
Why people then claim I've said the opposite when the original UNEDITED post is there for all to see is Johnsonesque.

[nil_desperandum]

nils been banging the we will never fly again scare since the day after the vote, it was funny then and it's still funny now. We will also have no electricity either.

I've never once claimed that.
What I have said is that planes can't fly without deal. I've always been correct about this, and if proof were needed, this is the only agreement that we have actually made, (because it was necessary).

[claretonthecoast1882]

Thanks for clarifying what I clearly wrote for those who either can't read, or more likely choose to distort and distract from what I actually wrote,and more importantly the more important point that I was making.
I did indeed say that this was the only agreement that we currently have in place beyond Oct 31st.
Why people then claim I've said the opposite when the original UNEDITED post is there for all to see is Johnsonesque.

"a time limited agreement on keeping planes in the air "


Which is it ? you think planes will be grounded or won't be ?

[nil_desperandum]

"a time limited agreement on keeping planes in the air "


Which is it ? you think planes will be grounded or won't be ?

Why does it have to be one or the other? Do you not understand even slightly how these things work?
An agreement has been made to cover the first 12 months. One assumes that it will either be rolled over or a new agreement will be made beyond this. Flights can't take place without it. It would be too dangerous. That should be obvious.
Presumably you do understand from a safety point of view why we have to have joint protocols with the EU and the rest of the world in order to regulate air travel and minimise the risk of incidents?

[Colburn_Claret]

So why have we suffered the sharpest slow down in growth of all the countries the OECD measures as suggested in the article I linked. Why have we moved from being one of the fastest growing economies in the G7 to one of the slowest?

Here’s another quote, ‘ Had household incomes grown in line with other advanced economies they would have been £2,000 higher in 2017.’

All this suggest something more influencing our economic slowdown than just global factors.

And you still haven’t told me how you’re so sure the £1400 loss per household is wrong.

Its suggested in the article you linked because it's been written by somebody who wants to remain as I intimated in my post.
The problem you have as a remainer is you link every piece of bad news to Brexit, when clearly that isnt true and just because you fall for it, isnt going to make it true to anyone with their eyes open

If it was true that each house had lost £ 1400 per year, we would have had it confirmed 3 years ago, when we were supposed to feel it. Someone comes along now, looks at a slowing in growth, puts 2 and 2 together to make 6 and uses it to blame Brexit.
Pitiful.

[martin_p]

Its suggested in the article you linked because it's been written by somebody who wants to remain as I intimated in my post.
The problem you have as a remainer is you link every piece of bad news to Brexit, when clearly that isnt true and just because you fall for it, isnt going to make it true to anyone with their eyes open

If it was true that each house had lost £ 1400 per year, we would have had it confirmed 3 years ago, when we were supposed to feel it. Someone comes along now, looks at a slowing in growth, puts 2 and 2 together to make 6 and uses it to blame Brexit.
Pitiful.

So you’ve no basis for claiming the figure is wrong other than a suspicion that the report that says it was right was written by a remainer? Now that’s pitiful!

[AndrewJB]

You're living in a fantasy Andrew.
Leaving the EU isnt about not cooperating with our neighbours, it's about not having our neighbours setting our laws and policies.
We've cooperated with America for 70 years, they dont dictate our lives.
How is he going to know who came and when well how about their NI records, that will show how long they've been here. It isnt rocket science, but you cant help looking for pitfalls, even when they dont exist.
Leaving the EU but remaining in everything else isnt an option, because as soon as they pass new legislation they would expect us to agree to it. It would be legislation we had no say or input to and if we didn't accept it where would it leave us or the EU.
If you think Brussels wont do a deal they might have no choice. The backlash of no deal affects both sides of the channel, although I'm sure Junker and Tusk and the rest of the Federalists would rather swim in **** than deal with us the economic realities mean that the French and Germans, and the Irish would insist that they deal.
How long it takes for that message to get through who knows but I doubt it will take long for countries throughout Europe to work out what the cost is to themselves.

While we're in the EU, we are not just "rule takers" but we also participate in making the rules, have a veto, opt out of certain things, and all the benefits of the single market and areas of co-operation.

As others have said, if we leave without a deal, we also leave the fifty five areas of co-operation. In these areas Britain plays a leading role, so that will be no more. Things like security, and scientific research - our seat at the table gone. It's not just the exchange of information (which we all hope with continue, but without the formal structure will be haphazard, and greatly reduced) but the fact that our membership allowed us to shape policy and direction.

I won't make any predictions about our economy, but lets look only at the facts. We have forty years of integration with EU partners in a free market, and the associate trade agreements that hang off the back of this coming to an abrupt end. There's no way to do this so suddenly without major consequences. It's like attempting to make a 90 degree turn at speed. Entirely reckless, because it's our choice to do this.

EU citizens - I'm sorry but I haven't seen a plan, apart from Priti Patel saying free movement ends on the 1st November. We know what they did with the WIndrush people (which was a shameful thing for our government to do), and I can see the same thing happening with EU citizens living here. And what of UK citizens living in the EU? Don't just say; "it can't happen" because it could. We'll be in uncharted waters, and a few scandals with EU citizens being denied rightful entry to the UK and we could see tit for tat.

I stand by what I said in that we'll never get a trade deal as good as what we already have with the EU. In fact I'll go further to say any trade deals we get with South American countries will fall short of what we have now in the EU / Mercasur deal announced recently. As for the US, I lived in Canada during the debate over the US Canada free trade deal, and yes Canada signed away elements of her sovereignty (with regard to access to natural resources, and energy) in order to get that deal over the line. If you are worried about a "dictatorial EU" (made up of nearly thirty countries) telling us what to do, then imagine what it's going to be like dealing with a single behemoth like the US. Trump recently tore up trade agreements with Mexico and Canada, and had them changed.

The EU as a whole will not be as adversely affected by a no deal UK withdrawal, than we will. If they stick together, and especially take steps to protect Ireland from the worst consequences, then they'll all come through it without major problems. We on the other hand... We are just holding a gun to our own heads, and threatening to bloody their walls and carpets.

[RingoMcCartney]

I’m demonstrating that the premise of your question is flawed and therefore can’t be answered. First you have to believe that the 5 million (your figure) Labour voters who voted Leave also voted Labour in 2017 which is probably demonstrably untrue. Then you have to believe that Labour tried to con voters in the 2017 election (how else could it’s voters be conned). That’s more a matter of opinion, but they seem to have been true to their manifesto on Brexit (wanting a Brexit with a customs union, fiercely anti no deal).

Your question doesn’t work so it’s no wonder it hasn’t been answered.

The only reason my questions " dont work" for both you and Andrew JB, is that it inconveniently shows that sore loser remoaners, like to pick and choose when they like to call voters " weak in character " or any of the multitude of regularly used disparaging terms . Or when you want to see the very same voters as, presumably, educated , informed and sophisticated !

The former is when they dont agree with you.

The latter is when they do!


When 5 million labour voters, voted Leave in 2016, were they "weak in character" so they were conned?

Yes or No?

When the same 5 million voted Labour voted labour in 2017 , " weak in character " so they were conned?

Yes or No?

[AndrewJB]

The only reason my questions " dont work" for both you and Andrew JB, is that it inconveniently shows that sore loser remoaners, like to pick and choose when they like to call voters " weak in character " or any of the multitude of regularly used disparaging terms . Or when you want to see the very same voters as, presumably, educated , informed and sophisticated !

The former is when they dont agree with you.

The latter is when they do!


When 5 million labour voters, voted Leave in 2016, were they "weak in character" so they were conned?

Yes or No?

When the same 5 million voted Labour voted labour in 2017 , " weak in character " so they were conned?

Yes or No?

You did this on the Owen Jones thread - attributed an incorrect meaning and motive to what I wrote, and proceeded to call me names over it.

So let's take this back to where I said; conmen look for the weakness in your character, and exploit it. What I meant by this is everybody has a vulnerability, and I'll go further to say that even people with the very highest of characters will have one virtue that stands out as only rating an eight, while all the rest are nines and tens. Nowhere have I said anyone has "a weak character"

If you want to understand my analogy about us being conned, think of it as the country as a whole. All the promises made by leave that have turned out to be bullshit, and now we've voted for leave they're insisting that just leaving the EU isn't good enough. Now we have to have the hardest possible exit. First they get you to make that initial investment (voting to leave - because we'll get a great deal, and if we don't we'll border Syria and Iraq, etc), and now if we don't want to lose that initial investment, we have to invest even more (a no deal exit). Do you follow? I'll accept "maybe" or "kinda".

[Colburn_Claret]

While we're in the EU, we are not just "rule takers" but we also participate in making the rules, have a veto, opt out of certain things, and all the benefits of the single market and areas of co-operation.

As others have said, if we leave without a deal, we also leave the fifty five areas of co-operation. In these areas Britain plays a leading role, so that will be no more. Things like security, and scientific research - our seat at the table gone. It's not just the exchange of information (which we all hope with continue, but without the formal structure will be haphazard, and greatly reduced) but the fact that our membership allowed us to shape policy and direction.

I won't make any predictions about our economy, but lets look only at the facts. We have forty years of integration with EU partners in a free market, and the associate trade agreements that hang off the back of this coming to an abrupt end. There's no way to do this so suddenly without major consequences. It's like attempting to make a 90 degree turn at speed. Entirely reckless, because it's our choice to do this.

EU citizens - I'm sorry but I haven't seen a plan, apart from Priti Patel saying free movement ends on the 1st November. We know what they did with the WIndrush people (which was a shameful thing for our government to do), and I can see the same thing happening with EU citizens living here. And what of UK citizens living in the EU? Don't just say; "it can't happen" because it could. We'll be in uncharted waters, and a few scandals with EU citizens being denied rightful entry to the UK and we could see tit for tat.

I stand by what I said in that we'll never get a trade deal as good as what we already have with the EU. In fact I'll go further to say any trade deals we get with South American countries will fall short of what we have now in the EU / Mercasur deal announced recently. As for the US, I lived in Canada during the debate over the US Canada free trade deal, and yes Canada signed away elements of her sovereignty (with regard to access to natural resources, and energy) in order to get that deal over the line. If you are worried about a "dictatorial EU" (made up of nearly thirty countries) telling us what to do, then imagine what it's going to be like dealing with a single behemoth like the US. Trump recently tore up trade agreements with Mexico and Canada, and had them changed.

The EU as a whole will not be as adversely affected by a no deal UK withdrawal, than we will. If they stick together, and especially take steps to protect Ireland from the worst consequences, then they'll all come through it without major problems. We on the other hand... We are just holding a gun to our own heads, and threatening to bloody their walls and carpets.

Listen please, you are entitled to your opinion, I'm sure you are genuine in your fears but I genuinely dont see Armageddon. Even the media are now saying the remain camp had shot itself in the foot, by continuing to promote the doom and gloom predictions that haven't come true. So much so that even a lot of those who voted remain no longer trust them. As Gove said, there will be bumps in the road but well get to the end of it no worse off than we are now, but with the bonus that the road we take from then on is up to us.
When people have spoken of the benefits of being in the EU and there undoubtedly are some benefits, the real test of if we've made the right decision will show the next time a world recession comes along. The German and French economies are on the brink. If we were still a member then, it would have been a millstone around our necks. Too many of the countries within the EU, rely on the handouts of 4 or 5 countries. The likes of Greece, Italy Spain are struggling now how will they cope when the top few countries have to tighten the purse strings, and if Brussels wont allow them to tighten the purse strings, the backlash in their own countries will make the yellow vests seem like teddy bears.
They could, and should, have just left it as a trading bloc, but they had to try and take control and create a new super power.
The people you trust Junker, Fisk and their cronies have pulled the wool over your eyes for years, about their aims and final destination. I and the majority of the country, dont want to go there.

[Colburn_Claret]

So you’ve no basis for claiming the figure is wrong other than a suspicion that the report that says it was right was written by a remainer? Now that’s pitiful!

No, Osborne said the immediate effects of voting leave would be.........
He didn't say it would hit in 3 years time

I could forecast someone is going to get run over in Burnley next week. Then when someone gets run over in 3 years times, say I told you so.

[martin_p]

No, Osborne said the immediate effects of voting leave would be.........
He didn't say it would hit in 3 years time

I could forecast someone is going to get run over in Burnley next week. Then when someone gets run over in 3 years times, say I told you so.

Ah well if I’ve lost £1500 a year two years after the vote rather than the day after then that’s ok then! Of course ‘immediate’ in terms of a ‘per year’ prediction can only be measured at the earliest one year after the referendum and then only in economic years that usually start and end in line with a standard tax year. So the earliest it could have been felt was April 2018, no it’s happened not a lot behind the prediction.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Yeah, of course you’re not a brexiter. You’re the moderate wise neutral who sees everything from both sides (but only finds time to criticise one side and defend the other, strangely).

Maybe it’s Sidney who’s the brexiter and this GodIsADeejay fella has no opinions on the matter.

I can criticise Brexit quite easily because there's plenty of things to aim for.

I think it's been a complete and utter ******* shambles from start to finish.
Sending out people with little or no experience of negotiating things to deal with the EU .....
Dragging out the Irish issue, or allowing it to be dragged out etc.
Not preparing the country for a potential no deal from the start etc.
We failed to set out our stall properly and now we are looking at a No Deal.
I don't think No Deal will be the complete disaster some of you are adamant it will be, I also suspect deep down some of you want it to be a failure so you can start with the "I told you so" stuff.

Some of the MP's involved in this mess need voting out because they've shown themselves to be a complete turds.

May was handed and picked the wrong end of a shitty stick because Cameron was a coward, but she also lacked any sort of real backbone, or support, to get the job done.

I'm not overly convinced by Boris in the long term, but he's all we've got right now because we won't get a GE before Brexit and I'm fairly certain HoP won't be able to stop a no deal despite them flailing around trying.

I've stated more than a few times Brexit should've been dealt with by a cross party commission because it's going to be one of the biggest things to happen in this country for decades, I also think they should do the same with the NHS but hey ho.

A number of you **** and moan that I try not to sit on one side of the fence but that's because I'm not blinkered enough to do so.
The person who raised me wasn't an overly political person, so I don't favour one political party and hate the other blindly, regardless of how rubbish they are in power.

I find good things on both sides of the political spectrum and just as many things I don't agree with.

[Burnley Ace]

The first one is a weird argument. Anything we export to anywhere has to meet their rules. Were you thinking that once we leave the EU we we'll be able to export stuff to them that doesn't meet their own standards? Not going to happen. The EU does and will dictate to us that we can't sell stuff in the EU that is illegal there.

We don't have to follow their rules for intelligence sharing. I'm sure there is an agreement on intelligence sharing, but it's not dictated by one side. And we don't have to ask permission to fire a nuclear weapon, though I certainly hope we would discuss it - it isn't something to do on a whim.

So the Americans dictate the specifications for anything we export to them, currently the EU don’t. Once we leave both the US and EU will dictate to us. Can’t see any advantage there.

We do have to follow US conditions the intelligence sharing. They control the dissemination of information and who we can share it with. I think it stems from EO 12333 though that may have been superseded by FVEY.

We don’t need their permission to launch but they do service the warheads so really control their operations.

The US dictate to us, we have no leverage over them. What have we dictated to them? What do the EU dictate to us?

[dsr]

So the Americans dictate the specifications for anything we export to them, currently the EU don’t.

You must mean something different from what I understand this to mean.

If we export to Europe, we have to meet the same legal requirements of the product as their own producers have to meet. If, for example, the French insist that all electrical devices must have an earth wire, then that specification would apply to our exports. And vice versa, of course. This already does apply with US trade, incidentally.

But that isn't what you mean, presumably. Please enlighten me.

[Burnley Ace]

You must mean something different from what I understand this to mean.

If we export to Europe, we have to meet the same legal requirements of the product as their own producers have to meet. If, for example, the French insist that all electrical devices must have an earth wire, then that specification would apply to our exports. And vice versa, of course. This already does apply with US trade, incidentally.

But that isn't what you mean, presumably. Please enlighten me.

If we export to Europe we meet EU requirements. Those requirements are not dictated to us as we are part of the decision making process. We have absolutely no say in the requirements that the US set, we are dictated to by them. It might help if you read Colburns original post to which I responded. The question of what have the EU dictated to us remains unanswered.

[Spiral]

I'm aware this isn't particularly PC, Burnley Ace (clutch my fcuking pearls) but dsr is retarded. Good luck finding common ground with it...it's practically a gammon-AI account at this point. Don't seek reason, you're wasting your time. My compost bin is more intelligent.

(Matthew 6:14-15) Forgive me or literally go to hell.

[Greenmile]

I can criticise Brexit quite easily because there's plenty of things to aim for.

I think it's been a complete and utter ******* shambles from start to finish.
Sending out people with little or no experience of negotiating things to deal with the EU .....
Dragging out the Irish issue, or allowing it to be dragged out etc.
Not preparing the country for a potential no deal from the start etc.
We failed to set out our stall properly and now we are looking at a No Deal.
I don't think No Deal will be the complete disaster some of you are adamant it will be, I also suspect deep down some of you want it to be a failure so you can start with the "I told you so" stuff.

Some of the MP's involved in this mess need voting out because they've shown themselves to be a complete turds.

May was handed and picked the wrong end of a shitty stick because Cameron was a coward, but she also lacked any sort of real backbone, or support, to get the job done.

I'm not overly convinced by Boris in the long term, but he's all we've got right now because we won't get a GE before Brexit and I'm fairly certain HoP won't be able to stop a no deal despite them flailing around trying.

I've stated more than a few times Brexit should've been dealt with by a cross party commission because it's going to be one of the biggest things to happen in this country for decades, I also think they should do the same with the NHS but hey ho.

A number of you **** and moan that I try not to sit on one side of the fence but that's because I'm not blinkered enough to do so.
The person who raised me wasn't an overly political person, so I don't favour one political party and hate the other blindly, regardless of how rubbish they are in power.

I find good things on both sides of the political spectrum and just as many things I don't agree with.

You’re not criticising Brexit there - you’re criticising the handling of Brexit, which is something even the most one-eyed brexiter would do.

[martin_p]

If we export to Europe we meet EU requirements. Those requirements are not dictated to us as we are part of the decision making process. We have absolutely no say in the requirements that the US set, we are dictated to by them. It might help if you read Colburns original post to which I responded. The question of what have the EU dictated to us remains unanswered.

dsr’s confusion is caused by the thinking that has created this whole Brexit mess in the first place. The thinking that caused Anne Widdecombe to liken leaving the EU to the emancipation of the slaves, the thinking that has somehow interpreted th U.K., one of the dominant countries in a 28 country partnership influencing the vast majority of decisions made, as a country who has sat quietly bearing the pain of decisions we have no control over crippling us.

[dsr]

If we export to Europe we meet EU requirements. Those requirements are not dictated to us as we are part of the decision making process. We have absolutely no say in the requirements that the US set, we are dictated to by them. It might help if you read Colburns original post to which I responded. The question of what have the EU dictated to us remains unanswered.

So when we import from the EU, could you argue that we aren't dictated to because we are one of 28 countries jointly making the rules? I'm sure sometimes we are outvoted by the other 27, which we wouldn't be if we make our own rules. And, incidentally, the US won't dictate our internal rules either.

[martin_p]

So when we import from the EU, could you argue that we aren't dictated to because we are one of 28 countries jointly making the rules? I'm sure sometimes we are outvoted by the other 27, which we wouldn't be if we make our own rules. And, incidentally, the US won't dictate our internal rules either.

The latest figures were 72 out of approx 4500 EU rules we didn’t agree with. Just for context the U.K. has over 34000 laws. So 72 out of over 34,000 laws ‘imposed’ upon us. Have a look at this Twitter thread for the earth shattering, life changing stuff those 72 laws relate to.

https://twitter.com/mac_puck/status/108 ... 13920?s=21

[Tall Paul]

And, as Ringo keeps telling us, that's how democracy works - sometimes you lose.

[nil_desperandum]

And, as Ringo keeps telling us, that's how democracy works - sometimes you lose.

I think you've forgotten to use UPPER CASE. It's clearly not authentic without it.
No one can out-Ringo Ringo!

[bfcmik]

Leavers: “The EU will do a deal because of the great economic damage that Brexit will cause them.”

Also Leavers: “Talk of the economic damage of Brexit to the U.K. is Project Fear.”

[dsr]

Leavers: “The EU will do a deal because of the great economic damage that Brexit will cause them.”

Also Leavers: “Talk of the economic damage of Brexit to the U.K. is Project Fear.”

Have you a link for the first assertion? The reason I thought the EU would do a deal was because it was in their economic interest to do a deal. I (and many others) underestimated how far their desire for political power outweighed their desire for economic benefit. That's not the same as believing it would do great economic damage to either side not to have a deal.

The EU won't sign a deal that has economic benefits for both sides unless they retain political power over the UK. The UK won't sign that deal because the referendum was about removing the EU's political power over the UK.

[JohnMcGreal]

Leavers: How dare you suggest that we didn't know what we were voting for. We knew we were voting for No Deal and that's what we want!

Also Leavers: The intransigent EU are forcing a No Deal exit on us with their mean and nasty bullying! How dare they!

[Devils_Advocate]

Leavers: Brexit is politically and not economically motivated

Also Leavers: Why are the EU putting their political values ahead of economic benefits