Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

[martin_p]

No Brexit at all would be better than a May's deal. In either case we would be subject to all the rules and have to make the EU payments, minus the £39bn in the former case of course, and the former has an escape clause.

If we sign May's deal, it's over. We are stuck.

So don’t come on here saying ‘it just said leave on the ballot paper’ when people say no deal has no mandate. You can’t be against one form of leave and then talk about ‘anti democratic’, etc just because people are opposed to one you happen to like.

You can’t have it both ways!

[dsr]

But you were against the May deal. We’d have left six months ago had that been supported by Brexiteers.

We'd have left six months ago had it been supported by almost anyone - Labour, Liberals, SNP, DUP, Brexiteers, etc etc. Everybody hated that deal.

[RingoMcCartney]

But you were against the May deal. We’d have left six months ago had that been supported by Brexiteers.

Was it ONLY brexiteers that voted against May's deal?

No


Did brexiteers vote against may's deal cos it was BRINO?


Yes


Did all those claiming they were against no deal Brexit yesterday and today vote against the deal?

Yes.

[Lancasterclaret]

I disagree only so much as I think Boris’s steamroller was to focus minds on his deal, which I fully expected to arrive (in whatever form). Had Parliament rejected it and then forwarded the law Boris would be dead in the water... as it his he can now play the blame game against a largely unimpressive Opposition(s). He will attack Labour that remains hamstrung over brexit and antisemitism, while the Liberal Democrat’s are rarely in tune with domestic issues.

If I were a party activist I’d be looking for where Boris will come next. He will return to the attack and that would be my major focus right now, it is far too early for anyone to think the balance has tipped. IMHO there is a lot to play out yet.

Problem is he hasn't got a deal

He's promised everyone the backstop must go.

Its absolutely 100% sure that the EU will never agree to that.

There are lots and lots of reports that the EU have received no new proposals, lots and lots of reports that the UK team is 1/4 of the size of the previous one, the support base for the PM is the ERG and his Chief of Staff is the biggest "No Deal" advocate out there.

No one believes he wants a deal, because all the evidence points the other way.

[martin_p]

Was it ONLY brexiteers that voted against May's deal?

No


Did brexiteers vote against may's deal cos it was BRINO?


Yes


Did all those claiming they were against no deal Brexit yesterday and today vote against the deal?

Yes.

Was I asking about other people? No

Was I pointing out your hypocrisy? Yes

See post to dsr above, the same applies to you.

Edit - by the way your last point is another lie. Clarke, Stewart, Gauke amongst others consistently supported May’s deal but voted against no deal.

[dsr]

So don’t come on here saying ‘it just said leave on the ballot paper’ when people say no deal has no mandate. You can’t be against one form of leave and then talk about ‘anti democratic’, etc just because people are opposed to one you happen to like.

You can’t have it both ways!

I doubt that many people really thought that "Leave" would be translated as "change the name but nothing else". Staying in the single market, staying in the customs union, continuing to pay the fees, still under EU law, and with the "free movement" replaced a "social security entitlement" for EU citizens - it isn't leave.

If the only form of leave that Remainers will expect is the one that every single party in the House of Commons opposes, then it's not going to please any leavers, is it?

[RingoMcCartney]

Wayhey. Ringo's joining in.

A few questions. I know you'll just babble rather than answering them with facts but let's try:

1. Please provide evidence for Lowbank's made up claims. Or if you agree that they're bullshit then say so.

2. Please explain why RBS, Lloyds, HBOS and various other had to divest themselves of various business groups, spin off into separate companies and set up a fund for their smaller competitors. You need to do this without mentioning the EU (as you claimed the EU said the bailout was fine so it can't be anything to do with them).

3. Please explain why me wanting us to leave the EU on something akin to May's deal whereas you stamped your foot and said no makes me the one who is refusing to respect the referendum and leave the EU (bear in mind that the referendum only referred to leaving the EU, not what the deal was, so vague comments about not really leaving are meaningless, we're talking facts here).

I agree with low bank. You dont.

I wont "babble" you carry on being a sore loser in the London bubble.

[martin_p]

I doubt that many people really thought that "Leave" would be translated as "change the name but nothing else". Staying in the single market, staying in the customs union, continuing to pay the fees, still under EU law, and with the "free movement" replaced a "social security entitlement" for EU citizens - it isn't leave.

If the only form of leave that Remainers will expect is the one that every single party in the House of Commons opposes, then it's not going to please any leavers, is it?

But it just said ‘Leave’ on the ballot paper. As I said, you can’t have it both ways.

[dsr]

But it just said ‘Leave’ on the ballot paper. As I said, you can’t have it both ways.

There is a lot of finicky technical interpretation of this referendum by the Remain side. You know the stuff - it was only advisory; it didn't mean giving up any of our obligations to paying the fee or following the rules, it was a purely technical name change.

It's no wonder they are so opposed to prorogation, because that involves use of procedures and technicalities to try and make Brexit happen. Technicalities and procedures are supposed to be reserved strictly for the Remain side, aren't they?

[RingoMcCartney]

Was I asking about other people? No

Was I pointing out your hypocrisy? Yes

See post to dsr above, the same applies to you.

Edit - by the way your last point is another lie. Clarke, Stewart, Gauke amongst others consistently supported May’s deal but voted against no deal.

You tried to hang the rejection of Mays deal on one relatively small group of MPs that voted against it. They were brexiteers who believe in a clean break from the EU. It wasn't a clean break that's why they did the honourable thing and stuck to their principles.

I point out that the biggest group, were those that yesterday and today were claiming that, while really trying to stop Brexit, they only wanted to stop a no deal brexit. !


For hypocrisy, see remoaner MPs and their blinkered supporters who go round shouting "hypocrit" at their opponents!!

[android]

Problem is he hasn't got a deal

He's promised everyone the backstop must go.

Its absolutely 100% sure that the EU will never agree to that.

There are lots and lots of reports that the EU have received no new proposals, lots and lots of reports that the UK team is 1/4 of the size of the previous one, the support base for the PM is the ERG and his Chief of Staff is the biggest "No Deal" advocate out there.

No one believes he wants a deal, because all the evidence points the other way.

Ruth Davidson believes Boris wants a deal. Obviously the BBC did their best to ensure you did not know that.

[martin_p]

There is a lot of finicky technical interpretation of this referendum by the Remain side. You know the stuff - it was only advisory; it didn't mean giving up any of our obligations to paying the fee or following the rules, it was a purely technical name change.

It's no wonder they are so opposed to prorogation, because that involves use of procedures and technicalities to try and make Brexit happen. Technicalities and procedures are supposed to be reserved strictly for the Remain side, aren't they?

I’m just throwing your own words back at you. Apparently leave only means leave when it’s the sort of leave you want. Anyone who opposes that leave is an enemy of democracy despite the fact you yourself have opposed leave.

[TheFamilyCat]

I see the Javid is promising money for everyone.

I hope those who slated Labour’s 2017 manifesto treat this in the same way.

[tarkys_ears]

I see the Javid is promising money for everyone.

I hope those who slated Labour’s 2017 manifesto treat this in the same way.

I hope those who called for it applaud him.

[Lancasterclaret]

Ruth Davidson believes Boris wants a deal. Obviously the BBC did their best to ensure you did not know that.

And Ken Clarke and twenty other Conservative MPs think he doesn't.

[RingoMcCartney]

He doesn't. You've made that up as well.

I made that up!?

What's your take on what the chief economist of Deutsche Bank makes of a no deal brexit then?

[martin_p]

You tried to hang the rejection of Mays deal on one relatively small group of MPs that voted against it. They were brexiteers who believe in a clean break from the EU. It wasn't a clean break that's why they did the honourable thing and stuck to their principles.

I point out that the biggest group, were those that yesterday and today were claiming that, while really trying to stop Brexit, they only wanted to stop a no deal brexit. !


For hypocrisy, see remoaner MPs and their blinkered supporters who go round shouting "hypocrit" at their opponents!!

But anyone who doesn’t want a clean break and voted to leave the eu is a democracy denying traitor. Can you see why I’m sensing a touch of hypocrisy. I do it Wrongo style to help you.

Remainers - there’s no mandate for a no deal Brexit

Brexiteers - it just said leave on the ballot paper not how we should leave!

Theresa May - I’ve got us a deal that means we leave the EU on 29th March

Brexiteers - I don’t like your Brexit that’s not how we should leave

Theresa May - it just said leave on the ballot paper not how we should leave

Brexiteers - we need a clean break, a no deal Brexit

Remainers - there’s no mandate for a no deal Brexit

Brexiteers - it just said leave on the ballot paper not how we should leave!

[elwaclaret]

Problem is he hasn't got a deal

He's promised everyone the backstop must go.

Its absolutely 100% sure that the EU will never agree to that.

There are lots and lots of reports that the EU have received no new proposals, lots and lots of reports that the UK team is 1/4 of the size of the previous one, the support base for the PM is the ERG and his Chief of Staff is the biggest "No Deal" advocate out there.

No one believes he wants a deal, because all the evidence points the other way.

I can certainly see your point, and to a large degree agree with its sentiment. Whether the noise about little attempt to get a deal is justified or not Tory central office should certainly have been both banging on the doors of EU members, and letting everyone know they were moving heaven and earth to have a viable alternative to No Deal. I agree in that on that basis Boris’s lot have failed, if only to keep waverers from panicking. It remains to be seen if this was by design or bad management.

[aggi]

I made that up!?

What's your take on what the chief economist of Deutsche Bank makes of a no deal brexit then?

Yes.

My take was that in the short-term it will be bad with some spectacular business failures. In the medium to long term it will be OK with the strength of the UK economy overcoming the issues. I didn't see anything where he said no deal would be positive which is what you claimed. What specific quote makes you claim that?

[RingoMcCartney]

I’m just throwing your own words back at you. Apparently leave only means leave when it’s the sort of leave you want. Anyone who opposes that leave is an enemy of democracy despite the fact you yourself have opposed leave.

Leave means the just same as when the PM , David Cameron said Leave meant ,BEFORE , everybody voted.

Ending free movement of people.

Ending the jurisdiction of the ECJ

Leaving the single market.

Leaving the customs union.

Why do remoaners want to rewrite what everybody knew Leave meant AFTER the referendum!?





Sore Loser Syndrome?

[tiger76]

I suspect last night was the beginning of the end of brexit. I think we’ll end up with another referendum before too long which will be No Deal or Remain.

It’s been proved over the last 3 years that an acceptable deal isn’t possible, and no politician can push through a no deal without a mandate.

After all this farce if it came to another referendum,and those were the choices,i'd reluctantly vote remain,doesn't mean i'd be happy about it,but i'm vehemently opposed to a no deal.

My guess is that remain would win a straight run-off in that case,no deal is a fallacy anyway,because eventually we'd have to negotiate.

[martin_p]

Leave means the just same as when the PM , David Cameron said Leave meant ,BEFORE , everybody voted.

Ending free movement of people.

Ending the jurisdiction of the ECJ

Leaving the single market.

Leaving the customs union.

Why do remoaners want to rewrite what everybody knew Leave meant AFTER the referendum!?





Sore Loser Syndrome?

It just said Leave on the ballot paper. And incidentally, May’s deal delivered on all of the above once the Irish border issue was sorted (which numerous leavers on here claim is easy).

[martin_p]

After all this farce if it came to another referendum,and those were the choices,i'd reluctantly vote remain,doesn't mean i'd be happy about it,but i'm vehemently opposed to a no deal.

My guess is that remain would win a straight run-off in that case,no deal is a fallacy anyway,because eventually we'd have to negotiate.

It’s not a fallacy, it talks specifically about the point at which we leave. Clearly trade deals, etc would be negotiated over time (probably a longer time given the ill will no deal will cause) but we were promised a smooth and orderly exit not falling off a cliff and then having the huge task of trying to climb back up it again with broken legs.

[Imploding Turtle]

"But it's remainers doing the sabotage!" complete idiots, 2016 - present

[dsr]

I’m just throwing your own words back at you. Apparently leave only means leave when it’s the sort of leave you want. Anyone who opposes that leave is an enemy of democracy despite the fact you yourself have opposed leave.

And you were no doubt equally happy when the French rejected the new EU constitution so they introduced it anyway, but without the name "constitution". That is all you expect of democracy - that when they ask the public what they want, they put in a trap or two so that if the public get the "wrong" answer they can be ignored.

Democracy means the people are in charge - even when you don't like what they say. I have no doubt that if the vote had been for Remain and Boris Johnson was proposing some sort of deal that involved leaving all free trade agreements and the ECJ but remaining an honorary member, you would be equally happy because the strict letter of the result was enforced. I would still think it a betrayal of democracy.

[CombatClaret]

Leave means the just same as when the PM , David Cameron said Leave meant ,BEFORE , everybody voted.
Ending free movement of people.
Ending the jurisdiction of the ECJ
Leaving the single market.
Leaving the customs union.
Why do remoaners want to rewrite what everybody knew Leave meant AFTER the referendum!?

Ringo has fully committed to being a parody account now?

[RingoMcCartney]

Yes.

My take was that in the short-term it will be bad with some spectacular business failures. In the medium to long term it will be OK with the strength of the UK economy overcoming the issues. I didn't see anything where he said no deal would would be positive which is what you claimed. What specific quote makes you claim that?

You're pedantry has let you down!!

I did not claim he said it would.

What I said was-

The chief economist at Deutsch Bank ( who said no deal could be a positive)

Go back and look at what I actually wrote.

Then admit that its actually you that's making things up.

[android]

And Ken Clarke and twenty other Conservative MPs think he doesn't.

Apparently. And lots of people who think he does. Just a gentle reminder that you told a fib but I'll give you some artistic licence that you deny others on here.

But I really posted to highlight the BBC. Obviously anti Brexit from 24/6/19 but at least they used to try to be a bit subtle about it. The Ruth Davidson coverage was particularly egregious. Will be interesting to see how they cope with a GE where, in the past, they have traditionally been more reliably impartial than at other times but it would quite an adjustment from where they are now.

[RingoMcCartney]

Ringo has fully committed to being a parody account now?

Combat claret wants to take the rewriting of history to a new level.



Apparently.

[aggi]

I agree with low bank. You dont.

I wont "babble" you carry on being a sore loser in the London bubble.

So you have no facts at all to back up your various claims.

That's pretty telling but not really surprising.

[RingoMcCartney]

It just said Leave on the ballot paper. And incidentally, May’s deal delivered on all of the above once the Irish border issue was sorted (which numerous leavers on here claim is easy).

If it delivered on all of the above ONLY WHEN THE BACK STOP WAS REMOVED.

Then it didn't deliver on the above!!!


That's why brexiteers said it was brexit in name only!!


Hoist by your own petard Marty!

[martin_p]

And you were no doubt equally happy when the French rejected the new EU constitution so they introduced it anyway, but without the name "constitution". That is all you expect of democracy - that when they ask the public what they want, they put in a trap or two so that if the public get the "wrong" answer they can be ignored.

Democracy means the people are in charge - even when you don't like what they say. I have no doubt that if the vote had been for Remain and Boris Johnson was proposing some sort of deal that involved leaving all free trade agreements and the ECJ but remaining an honorary member, you would be equally happy because the strict letter of the result was enforced. I would still think it a betrayal of democracy.

So stop claiming there’s a mandate for no deal the , otherwise you look like a hypocrite. As I said to Wrongo, May’s deal took us out of everything once the Irish border issue was sorted.

Oh and your remain scenario is utterly pointless, it could never happen as you well know.

[aggi]

You're pedantry has let you down!!

I did not claim he said it would.

What I said was-

The chief economist at Deutsch Bank ( who said no deal could be a positive)

Go back and look at what I actually wrote.

Then admit that its actually you that's making things up.

Fair enough, I made a mistake. I'm happy to admit that.

What specific quote makes you believe that he said no deal could be positive?

[RingoMcCartney]

So you have no facts at all to back up your various claims.

That's pretty telling but not really surprising.

They weren't "my claims" they were low banks!

I just happen to agree with his opinion.

I am allowed to do that you know!

[Lancasterclaret]

Apparently. And lots of people who think he does. Just a gentle reminder that you told a fib but I'll give you some artistic licence that you deny others on here.

But I really posted to highlight the BBC. Obviously anti Brexit from 24/6/19 but at least they used to try to be a bit subtle about it. The Ruth Davidson coverage was particularly egregious. Will be interesting to see how they cope with a GE where, in the past, they have traditionally been more reliably impartial than at other times but it would quite an adjustment from where they are now.

I know Ruth Davidson wrote a letter to the PM saying she believed he wanted a deal. I read that on the BBC.

I also put two and two together, based on her previous interactions with Johnson and her current family status, which I also read about on the BBC, that she's need some time away from Brexit and that she's saying what guarantees her that. (there are mountains of evidence of the spats between Davidson and Johnson btw, almost all of them because he said something racist about the Scots and why he's the worst choice to lead a unifying government)

To convince people you are serious about a deal, you need to be serious about a deal. Elwa had summed it up quite well, we need to be banging on the doors of the EU 24/7 with proposals and ideas to try to shift this so it works.

Otherwise people will draw the conclusion that is correct (Ie mine!)

[martin_p]

If it delivered on all of the above ONLY WHEN THE BACK STOP WAS REMOVED.

Then it didn't deliver on the above!!!


That's why brexiteers said it was brexit in name only!!


Hoist by your own petard Marty!

Sorting is so easy (apparently) that the backstop would never be needed anyway. But then that’s Brexiteers having it both ways again. Here, I’ll do it Wrongo style again.

Brexiteers - the WA is a trap the backstop needs to go!

Remainers - so what’s the alternative?

Brexiteers - there’s loads of technology solutions, we don’t need a backstop

Remainers - ok, if there’s solutions then support the WA, we’ll leave the eu, implement the solutions during the transition period and we can have it all sorted before the backstop kicks in.

Brexiteers - ermm, the WA is a trap the backstop needs removing!

[RingoMcCartney]

Fair enough, I made a mistake. I'm happy to admit that.

What specific quote makes you believe that he said no deal could be positive?

https://youtu.be/2-u0KjLdYa8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Over the medium to long term the UK economy will do well"

Chief economist at Deutsch bank. At 56 seconds on the video clip above.

I think any fair minded person would agree that him saying, in the context of a no deal brexit conversation with the presenter. That a no deal brexit could be positive.

But then again I did say fair minded.....

[tiger76]

It’s not a fallacy, it talks specifically about the point at which we leave. Clearly trade deals, etc would be negotiated over time (probably a longer time given the ill will no deal will cause) but we were promised a smooth and orderly exit not falling off a cliff and then having the huge task of trying to climb back up it again with broken legs.

Sorry you are correct trade talks would happen over time,but the EU won't commence those talks until the WA,or some form of WA has been agreed,i have to when people think the 39 billion is a bartering tool,that money is or was part of our spending commitments as EU members,it wouldn't be a good look if the UK wasn't honouring prior commitments.

[dsr]

Sorting is so easy (apparently) that the backstop would never be needed anyway. But then that’s Brexiteers having it both ways again. Here, I’ll do it Wrongo style again.

Brexiteers - the WA is a trap the backstop needs to go!

Remainers - so what’s the alternative?

Brexiteers - there’s loads of technology solutions, we don’t need a backstop

Remainers - ok, if there’s solutions then support the WA, we’ll leave the eu, implement the solutions during the transition period and we can have it all sorted before the backstop kicks in.

Brexiteers - ermm, the WA is a trap the backstop needs removing!

The trap is that May's deal relies on the EU acting in utmost good faith in adjudicating between the EU and the UK. We can't leave May's deal unless and until the EU agrees. We can't unilaterally leave May's deal.

[martin_p]

The trap is that May's deal relies on the EU acting in utmost good faith in adjudicating between the EU and the UK. We can't leave May's deal unless and until the EU agrees. We can't unilaterally leave May's deal.

And it’s that level of mistrust that has put us where we are now.

[RingoMcCartney]

Sorting is so easy (apparently) that the backstop would never be needed anyway. But then that’s Brexiteers having it both ways again. Here, I’ll do it Wrongo style again.

Brexiteers - the WA is a trap the backstop needs to go!

Remainers - so what’s the alternative?

Brexiteers - there’s loads of technology solutions, we don’t need a backstop

Remainers - ok, if there’s solutions then support the WA, we’ll leave the eu, implement the solutions during the transition period and we can have it all sorted before the backstop kicks in.

Brexiteers - ermm, the WA is a trap the backstop needs removing!

1 you said "Apparently leave only means leave when it’s the sort of leave you want. "

2 then when it was pointed out to you what everybody understood leave actually meant before and after the referendum result . You claim May's deal delivered all of what a true Leave means, if only for the back stop, which we cannot leave without EU agreement. So in other words we cannot ever leave!!

3 then you go into wriggle mode and blaim brexiteers for not agreeing to an eu imposed bear trap that the uk can never get out of.

[RingoMcCartney]

The trap is that May's deal relies on the EU acting in utmost good faith in adjudicating between the EU and the UK. We can't leave May's deal unless and until the EU agrees. We can't unilaterally leave May's deal.

And therefore, the uk can never achieve what everybody , including now Marty, understood to leave actually meant.

[martin_p]

1 you said "Apparently leave only means leave when it’s the sort of leave you want. "

2 then when it was pointed out to you what everybody understood leave actually meant before and after the referendum result . You claim May's deal delivered all of what a true Leave means, if only for the back stop, which we cannot leave without EU agreement. So in other words we cannot ever leave!!

3 then you go into wriggle mode and blaim brexiteers for not agreeing to an eu imposed bear trap that the uk can never get out of.

It just said ‘Leave’ on the ballot paper.

Loving the good old ‘everyone knew what leave meant’ claim, it’s a proper golden oldie that. Still a lie, but it now qualifies as a classic lie I think.

[RingoMcCartney]

So stop claiming there’s a mandate for no deal the , otherwise you look like a hypocrite. As I said to Wrongo, May’s deal took us out of everything once the Irish border issue was sorted.

Oh and your remain scenario is utterly pointless, it could never happen as you well know.

But we could never get out of it , if the EU didn't allow us or want us to!!

Brexit in name only!

[android]

I know Ruth Davidson wrote a letter to the PM saying she believed he wanted a deal. I read that on the BBC.

I also put two and two together, based on her previous interactions with Johnson and her current family status, which I also read about on the BBC, that she's need some time away from Brexit and that she's saying what guarantees her that. (there are mountains of evidence of the spats between Davidson and Johnson btw, almost all of them because he said something racist about the Scots and why he's the worst choice to lead a unifying government)

To convince people you are serious about a deal, you need to be serious about a deal. Elwa had summed it up quite well, we need to be banging on the doors of the EU 24/7 with proposals and ideas to try to shift this so it works.

Otherwise people will draw the conclusion that is correct (Ie mine!)

Really? You have done well to find that mentioned in a BBC report - do you have a link? The main story on the main BBC website certainly made no mention whatsoever of Davidson backing Johnson and calling on all MPs to support him regarding leaving the EU. There were 2 aspects to her departure - personal & political - leaked in name only on the eve of her resignation. The personal was obvious and the political was hoped by many to be a shafting of Johnson. The BBC report looked like it had been written the night before with this in mind - lots of references to her past differences over Brexit with Johnson. Literally zero mention of what was actually the news - she backed Johnson over Brexit.

Oh but the BBC did say that Davidson's success was down to her not looking or sounding like a Tory! Yes that was written in 2019! You know no horns or fangs! Shocking.

[Lancasterclaret]

Really? You have done well to find that mentioned in a BBC report - do you have a link? The main story on the main BBC website certainly made no mention whatsoever of Davidson backing Johnson and calling on all MPs to support him regarding leaving the EU. There were 2 aspects to her departure - personal & political - leaked in name only on the eve of her resignation. The personal was obvious and the political was hoped by many to be a shafting of Johnson. The BBC report looked like it had been written the night before with this in mind - lots of references to her past differences over Brexit with Johnson. Literally zero mention of what was actually the news - she backed Johnson over Brexit.

Oh but the BBC did say that Davidson's success was down to her not looking or sounding like a Tory! Yes that was written in 2019! You know no horns or fangs! Shocking.

You think the BBC is anti-Brexit?

I think the BBC is allowing Brexit lies to become mainstream

To me, if both of us such a wildly differing opinion about the BBC, then its probably doing a good job.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland- ... s-49495706" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thats pretty clear that she said she back Johnstone btw,

[martin_p]

But we could never get out of it , if the EU didn't allow us or want us to!!

Brexit in name only!

I give up. Even Jacob Rees-Mogg, your god, admitted May’s deal WAS leaving the EU. As I said, you can’t have it both ways, the ballot paper just said ‘leave’.

[Lancasterclaret]

But we could never get out of it , if the EU didn't allow us or want us to!!

Brexit in name only!

We've been here before, the EU is effectively making NI the place to invest in Europe for two years, ahead of all other nations within the EU, and you think that they are going to keep that any longer than they absolutely have to?

Reality mate, this is the reality!

[TheFamilyCat]

And therefore, the uk can never achieve what everybody , including now Marty, understood to leave actually meant.

But you all claimed that you knew what you were voting for. And now you admit you voted for something that isn’t possible. So why did you bother?

[claret2018]

The people were promised something that’s impossible to actually deliver. When that finally sinks in with the hardest of devotees then progress can be made on repairing the damage this whole sorry episode has caused.