2.7 Million Brexiteers Have Changed to Remain

[CrosspoolClarets]

To what JohnMcGreal said above, remember that Remainers want the conversation to be entirely about the economy, Leavers also about culture and happiness. The other thing is that a slightly lower GDP rise doesn’t automatically have to be passed on to the man in the street. The Chancellor’s job is to cushion that - something our Remain-fanatic guy isn’t interested in doing. Doesn’t make Brexit wrong.

And yes, I do still believe that in 5 years any dip will have settled and after 10 years we will be better off. If the Euro explodes, replace that with 2 years and 4 years.

[burnleymik]

lol?

Considering we've never left the EU before I would say the whole thing is based on what might happen no? Or is that just the best you can do?

Here's another prediction, considering politics has now become populist and the current populist sentiment is to Remain then it won't be long before somebody runs on a "rejoin the EU" promise and wins and we rejoin. I expect it to be one of these "thankful" grandchildren.

You don't need a crystal ball to see that support for Leave is collapsing while support for Remain is escalating.

You are claiming that Brexit will be a disaster in the future and you are stating it as fact. That is a fact you cannot know, you can only guess.

Also, your claims about leavers moving to remain... come on man. You are citing statistical data collected by an organisation (Best For Britain) with a specific agenda based upon YouGov polls, the YouGov polls of averaging 1,000 people. These are not accurate representations at all or they would have understood and predicted the Referendum result...

[CrosspoolClarets]

Yup, it is a class half m/t post and I freely admit it.

Though I think you are seriously letting the cat out of the bag with your political views with this zinger!

Ha! I don’t think I have been in any way hiding of my view that ultra-liberalism is a threat to society, akin to ultra-lefties. That’s compared to being a “normal” liberal which I think I am (in fact, most people in this fairly sensible centric country are).

Five of the biggest threats to happiness are addiction, worthlessness, debt, broken homes and ill health. At least 4 of those ultra-liberalism fuels, rather than addresses, by considering it wrong to take a tough line on them.

Which is why the government is stockpiling food and medicines, for the great "unhindering".

Because it is an incompetent bunch of Remain-seeking numpties? If the EU refuses to sell us medicines it would be one step short of an act of war because it would deliberately kill people. Of course they won’t. For Barnier and May to let this myth build up shows how despicable both their approaches have been.

[Claret-On-A-T-Rex]

You are citing statistical data collected by an organisation (Best For Britain) with a specific agenda based upon YouGov polls, the YouGov polls of averaging 1,000 people. These are not accurate representations at all or they would have understood and predicted the Referendum result...

No I'm not. I haven't seen any statistical data by either Best For Britain or YouGov.

[burnleymik]

No I'm not. I haven't seen any statistical data by either Best For Britain or YouGov.

They were the ones who claimed, within the last few days, that Leavers were switching to remainers. If you were not citing that data, then how did you draw your conclusions?

[dsr]

I also think people may have misunderstood their grandchildren's ideals, young people aren't going to thank you in **** years for saving the country they are going to hate you for short-sightedly destroying it.

This is the problem - you have absolutely no concept of how other people think. Not just you, it's a common thing among remainers. To you, it is 100% fact that the country will be ruined by Brexit - it's not conjecture, it's not prediction, it's fact. So you assume that everyone else thinks the same, and that people who voted for Brexit want the country to be ruined.

That's not true. People voted Brexit because they thought it would be best for the country. Feel free to disagree, but try and understand that - there are different opinions on whether the EU is the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything.

[claretandy]

Apologies but this tweet from Mr James O'Brien sums it up a lot better than I can

"The effortless glide from: "We'll get a great deal because they need us more than we need them," to: "I knew all along there'd be no deal. That's exactly what I voted for,:" is complete."

He's gone all in on no deal, he's going to look very silly when it doesn't happen.

[Rileybobs]

Why would anyone vote for brexit for the benefit of their non-existent grandchildren but to the deftriment of their actual children?

[AndrewJB]

To what JohnMcGreal said above, remember that Remainers want the conversation to be entirely about the economy, Leavers also about culture and happiness. The other thing is that a slightly lower GDP rise doesn’t automatically have to be passed on to the man in the street. The Chancellor’s job is to cushion that - something our Remain-fanatic guy isn’t interested in doing. Doesn’t make Brexit wrong.

And yes, I do still believe that in 5 years any dip will have settled and after 10 years we will be better off. If the Euro explodes, replace that with 2 years and 4 years.

As a remained I don’t want the argument to be solely about the economy. It never was just that for me. The benefits of free movement and EU. Citizenship is something I feel has been taken away from me and my children. I never felt the EU was undemocratic. How can a collection of democracies be so? It wasn’t perfect, but could be better improved through continued membership. Many of today’s challenges are global, so far better to be in group to collectively deal with those than alone. I see tax avoidance as being a huge problem and bigger than one country to deal with, so I hope the U.K. will still work to harmonise taxes with the EU to cut down on the problem. Culturally Britain is better off in, because culture flourishes most through exchange, and leaving will diminish exchanges. Even with issues like immigration, I don’t see that we'll be doing anything much different, apart from there being more red tape.

[RingoMcCartney]

He's gone all in on no deal, he's going to look very silly when it doesn't happen.

Not as silly as when he tried to blame Boris Johnson for the cladding on grenfell tower on the morning that tragedy happened. Only to find, out a day or so later, that the same , or similar cladding, had been used on flats the length and breadth of the country. Even in a neighbouring Labour controlled borough!

Obrian - the posh boy, Beaujolais socialist, with starrf.

[RingoMcCartney]

Why would anyone vote for brexit for the benefit of their non-existent grandchildren but to the deftriment of their actual children?

Because they simply don't concur with your assumption that brexit will be detrimemtal to their children.

2 people can assess a situation and draw entirely different conclusions.

Something Remoaners just can't accept......

[Rileybobs]

Because they simply don't concur with your assumption that brexit will be detrimemtal to their children.

2 people can assess a situation and draw entirely different conclusions.

Something Remoaners just can't accept......

A poster on this thread has said that they are willing to take a short(ish) term financial hit for the benefit of their grandchildren. Yet on subsequent posts goes on to reveal that he doesn’t have any grandchildren but has children of school-going age.

Firstly I find the idea that someone would prioritise the well-being of a non-existent generation to their own children very difficult to understand. And secondly, I don’t understand how voting for a situation which leaves your children poorer will in any way benefit their children, if/when they have any. It doesn’t make any sense.

[dsr]

A poster on this thread has said that they are willing to take a short(ish) term financial hit for the benefit of their grandchildren. Yet on subsequent posts goes on to reveal that he doesn’t have any grandchildren but has children of school-going age.

Firstly I find the idea that someone would prioritise the well-being of a non-existent generation to their own children very difficult to understand. And secondly, I don’t understand how voting for a situation which leaves your children poorer will in any way benefit their children, if/when they have any. It doesn’t make any sense.

What about a parent who goes to university as a mature student? It happens. They're making their children poorer in the short term so that they can be richer in the long term. Does that make sense?

[RingoMcCartney]

A poster on this thread has said that they are willing to take a short(ish) term financial hit for the benefit of their grandchildren. Yet on subsequent posts goes on to reveal that he doesn’t have any grandchildren but has children of school-going age.

Firstly I find the idea that someone would prioritise the well-being of a non-existent generation to their own children very difficult to understand. And secondly, I don’t understand how voting for a situation which leaves your children poorer will in any way benefit their children, if/when they have any. It doesn’t make any sense.

Being PREPARED to take a hit, for the longer term benefit, WERE it to happen, is different to KNOWING it will happen.

Like I say, presented with a given situation 2 people will draw a different conclusion. .....

[Damo]

There's a far bigger threat to your grand children than foreigners coming here to take their jobs and benefits at the same time, but i'd be willing to bet that a disproportionate number of Leave voters oppose taking action to mitigate the effects of climate change.

Here we go again. Charlie blaming everything on foreigners

[Rileybobs]

What about a parent who goes to university as a mature student? It happens. They're making their children poorer in the short term so that they can be richer in the long term. Does that make sense?

Nice irrelevant example. The poster I have paraphrased claimed he voted brexit knowing it would make him and his children poorer for the benefit of his grandchildren, of which he has none.

Why would you knowingly forsake the well-being of your actual children for the benefit of our hypothetical children? And how is making your children poorer going to be of benefit to their eventual children? Your mature student example is quite different, but of course you knew that.

[Rileybobs]

Being PREPARED to take a hit, for the longer term benefit, WERE it to happen, is different to KNOWING it will happen.

Like I say, presented with a given situation 2 people will draw a different conclusion. .....

The poster claims;

’I voted to take a financial hit for the benefit of my grand children.’

He wasn’t prepared to take a financial hit, he voted to take a financial hit.

[Damo]

A poster on this thread has said that they are willing to take a short(ish) term financial hit for the benefit of their grandchildren. Yet on subsequent posts goes on to reveal that he doesn’t have any grandchildren but has children of school-going age.

Firstly I find the idea that someone would prioritise the well-being of a non-existent generation to their own children very difficult to understand. And secondly, I don’t understand how voting for a situation which leaves your children poorer will in any way benefit their children, if/when they have any. It doesn’t make any sense.

I don't expect you to understand.
Any explanation that doesn't fit a remainers narrative goes completely over their heads.
You can explain your reasons until you are blue in the face, but remainers will still decide that it was because of foreigners, a bus or blue passports.

I don't even know why I bother to engage anymore, with people who normally come across as being sensible and open minded

[RingoMcCartney]

The poster claims;

’I voted to take a financial hit for the benefit of my grand children.’

He wasn’t prepared to take a financial hit, he voted to take a financial hit.

I think you're splitting hairs about the reason why he voted to Leave. It could be that what he meant was he was prepared to take a hit, although, didn't expect it to happen. However, for brevity, said what he said. Some times people are juggling work and posting on here.

You've drawn your conclusion I've drawn mine. And that illustrates how 2 people can have a different opinion resulting from the same information.

Hope you're willing to accept it.

[nil_desperandum]

To what JohnMcGreal said above, remember that Remainers want the conversation to be entirely about the economy, .

I don't think that there's any evidence anywhere to support that view.
Speaking personally it's way down my list, (though should probably be higher).
Amongst my reasons would be:
1. Our international standing and reputation.
2. National security
3. Standing shoulder to shoulder with our neighbours.
4. Freedom for our young people to enjoy the same benefits that my generation have had to work, travel and trade without restriction with our nearest neighbours.
5. Honouring the Belfast Agreement.
6. Keeping the United Kingdom united.
7. The actual logistics of "leaving" when we are currently tied into so many treaties, (the vast majority of which are beneficial to us). It should now be evident to all that this will be a long and expensive process, with the only beneficiaries being the lawyers.

[Guich]

Why would anyone vote for brexit for the benefit of their non-existent grandchildren but to the deftriment of their actual children?

Maybe they don't like their children

[Damo]

Maybe they don't like their children

Maybe their children won't be worse off.
Maybe it's possible to negotiate a small financial hit without putting your kids into poverty.
I know I can by spending a little less on luxuries.
Taking on a couple more hours a week.
Paying a little less into my pension.
Take cheaper holidays etc.
Maybe my financial situation isn't as sensitive as some of you people who are terrified of Brexit.
That's not a criticism of anyone, I'm just explaining why I voted the way I did. And may explain why some people don't understand

[Rileybobs]

I don't expect you to understand.
Any explanation that doesn't fit a remainers narrative goes completely over their heads.
You can explain your reasons until you are blue in the face, but remainers will still decide that it was because of foreigners, a bus or blue passports.

I don't even know why I bother to engage anymore, with people who normally come across as being sensible and open minded

I haven’t got a narrative, Damo. I haven’t anywhere suggested that you voted to leave the EU because of foreigners, a bus or blue passports. I just find it hard to believe that over 2 years ago you voted to leave knowing that you would make your children poorer for the benefit of your non-existent grandchildren. It smacks of revisionism.

[Rileybobs]

I think you're splitting hairs about the reason why he voted to Leave. It could be that what he meant was he was prepared to take a hit, although, didn't expect it to happen. However, for brevity, said what he said. Some times people are juggling work and posting on here.

You've drawn your conclusion I've drawn mine. And that illustrates how 2 people can have a different opinion resulting from the same information.

Hope you're willing to accept it.

I haven’t drawn a conclusion. I’ve interpreted his post literally, how it was written. If he had wanted to write something with a different meaning I’m sure he would have been more than capable of doing so.

You’ve decided to interpret his post how you wanted it to have been written. Now who is the one unwilling to accept it?

[biggles]

have remoaners become so desperate to vindicate their views? they'll tell you anything to prove they were right. the eu is the most corrupt organisation ever. their audited accounts haven't been signed off for 20 years. laws are made by an un-named few and MEPs don't have a say in the process... according to the book 'Corruption' by Paul Henke. it's a work of fiction [based on fact], which is more than can be said for the pure fiction spouted by many remainers.

ps. i voted to leave, then changed my mind to remain, then changed it back to the correct decision. stick that in you yougov stats.

up yours delors

[RingoMcCartney]

I haven’t drawn a conclusion. I’ve interpreted his post literally, how it was written. If he had wanted to write something with a different meaning I’m sure he would have been more than capable of doing so.

You’ve decided to interpret his post how you wanted it to have been written. Now who is the one unwilling to accept it?

Ok. If you say so. You haven't drawn your own conclusion and I haven't drawn a different conclusion.

You've just interpreted how you see It, and I've interpreted differently!. Will you accept that!?

You go down that pedantic rabbit hole if you like. Just don't expect me to join you.

The fact remains that 2 people can draw different conclusions (interpretations!) from the same information/ situation.

Why not just ask the guy himself? Does he KNOW he'll have to take a hit. Or does he mean he's PREPARED to take one if it were ever to happen?

[Rileybobs]

Ok. If you say so. You haven't drawn your own conclusion and I haven't drawn a different conclusion.

You've just interpreted how you see It, and I've interpreted differently!. Will you accept that!?

You go down that pedantic rabbit hole if you like. Just don't expect me to join you.

The fact remains that 2 people can draw different conclusions (interpretations!) from the same information/ situation.

Why not just ask the guy himself? Does he KNOW he'll have to take a hit. Or does he mean he's PREPARED to take one if it were ever to happen?

I don’t have to guess what someone might have meant when they have written what they meant. You want him to mean something different which is why you’re reading between imaginary lines.

I’ve got no fear that you’ll be joining me down a rabbit hole as you’ve dug yourself a far deeper one since your time on here.

[RingoMcCartney]

I don’t have to guess what someone might have meant when they have written what they meant. You want him to mean something different which is why you’re reading between imaginary lines.

I’ve got no fear that you’ll be joining me down a rabbit hole as you’ve dug yourself a far deeper one since your time on here.

You'll be wrong.

Enjoy your time with Alice.

[Rileybobs]

You'll be wrong.

Enjoy your time with Alice.

You win. I get more sense debating with my unborn grandchildren.

Remoaner 0 - 1 Ringo

[JohnMcGreal]

I don't think that there's any evidence anywhere to support that view.
Speaking personally it's way down my list, (though should probably be higher).
Amongst my reasons would be:
1. Our international standing and reputation.
2. National security
3. Standing shoulder to shoulder with our neighbours.
4. Freedom for our young people to enjoy the same benefits that my generation have had to work, travel and trade without restriction with our nearest neighbours.
5. Honouring the Belfast Agreement.
6. Keeping the United Kingdom united.
7. The actual logistics of "leaving" when we are currently tied into so many treaties, (the vast majority of which are beneficial to us). It should now be evident to all that this will be a long and expensive process, with the only beneficiaries being the lawyers.

Fully agree with this. There are so many reasons why Brexit is such an awful idea that I simply don't have time to cover them all.

We're arguing against the economics of Brexit on this thread in particular because one poster claimed that he voted to take a financial hit in order to leave the EU. On another thread we could just as easily make the case against Brexit on other grounds.

Brexit is terrible idea for Britain in almost every sense. It would be much quicker to just list the areas where it will improve things.

[nil_desperandum]

You win. I get more sense debating with my unborn grandchildren.

Remoaner 0 - 1 Ringo

You've made the correct decision there by accepting the inevitable.
I similarly conceded defeat to Ringo a few weeks ago when I was stupid enough to assume that when another poster referred to "Polish workers" he mean't workers who originate in Poland.
I was, of course, being ridiculously pedantic, in taking the post literally, so I'm much more careful nowadays.

[RingoMcCartney]

You've made the correct decision there by accepting the inevitable.
I similarly conceded defeat to Ringo a few weeks ago when I was stupid enough to assume that when another poster referred to "Polish workers" he mean't workers who originate in Poland.
I was, of course, being ridiculously pedantic, in taking the post literally, so I'm much more careful nowadays.

Still smarting?

Please miss, that Ringo McCartney has been nasty to me too!

[Damo]

I haven’t got a narrative, Damo. I haven’t anywhere suggested that you voted to leave the EU because of foreigners, a bus or blue passports. I just find it hard to believe that over 2 years ago you voted to leave knowing that you would make your children poorer for the benefit of your non-existent grandchildren. It smacks of revisionism.

You don't have a narrative, yet you are still claiming that I voted to make my children poorer for several posts after I gave this explanation in post #221

"Maybe their children won't be worse off.
Maybe it's possible to negotiate a small financial hit without putting your kids into poverty.
I know I can by spending a little less on luxuries.
Taking on a couple more hours a week.
Paying a little less into my pension.
Take cheaper holidays etc.
Maybe my financial situation isn't as sensitive as some of you people who are terrified of Brexit.
That's not a criticism of anyone, I'm just explaining why I voted the way I did. And may explain why some people don't understand"

You are prepared to quote me over and over again on a quick, one line comment but then you completely ignore a reasonable explanation because it shows you were implying I said something that I didn't.

That isn't reasoned debating any more than someone saying "1 nil to me" etc
As I said earlier, explaining my position is pointless as some of you cannot grasp that I didn't vote Brexit because of bus slogans and the like

[Lancasterclaret]

No problem with any of that, but it surely make more sense if you said you were doing it for your actual kids?

Essentially you are saying it will all be ok in about 40 years time, and there is no way that we'd be doing Brexit if that was what going to happen

[Rileybobs]

You don't have a narrative, yet you are still claiming that I voted to make my children poorer for several posts after I gave this explanation in post #221

"Maybe their children won't be worse off.
Maybe it's possible to negotiate a small financial hit without putting your kids into poverty.
I know I can by spending a little less on luxuries.
Taking on a couple more hours a week.
Paying a little less into my pension.
Take cheaper holidays etc.
Maybe my financial situation isn't as sensitive as some of you people who are terrified of Brexit.
That's not a criticism of anyone, I'm just explaining why I voted the way I did. And may explain why some people don't understand"

You are prepared to quote me over and over again on a quick, one line comment but then you completely ignore a reasonable explanation because it shows you were implying I said something that I didn't.

That isn't reasoned debating any more than someone saying "1 nil to me" etc
As I said earlier, explaining my position is pointless as some of you cannot grasp that I didn't vote Brexit because of bus slogans and the like

I can’t help what you posted. You’ve posted a further explanation since which doesn’t really explain your original comment, rather adds a series of alternative scenarios. The posts I have made since your alternative scenarios post were directed towards Ringo and questioning his reading between the lines.

I haven’t implied you said something which you didn’t, you clearly stated that you knowingly voted for a situation which would make your children poorer for the benefit of your hypothetical grandchildren. I have every right to question the sense in that in the same way you have every right to cast a vote for that reason. If you didn’t vote for the reason you stated then fair enough, but maybe you shouldn’t have said that you did.

It’s pointless debating this further because yours and Ringo’s retort is that you didn’t mean what you posted - which is your misjudgement, not mine.

[dsr]

Would it help this argument along to point out that "I voted to take a financial hit for the benefit of my grand children" does not, as I understand it, literally mean "for my grandchildren but not my children or my great-grandchildren". It means future generations as a whole. It's one of the problems of the English language - a lot of idioms sound fine to most of us, but if you don't know the idiom and take it literally word for word it can be misunderstood.

[Lancasterclaret]

But again, you wouldn't win Brexit if you told people that it will be their as yet unborn grandchildren will benefit.

No one wants forty years to we get back to normal ffs.

No one who is being completely honest with themselves anyway.

[Chip Harrison]

Maybe their children won't be worse off.
Maybe it's possible to negotiate a small financial hit without putting your kids into poverty.
I know I can by spending a little less on luxuries.
Taking on a couple more hours a week.
Paying a little less into my pension.
Take cheaper holidays etc.
Maybe my financial situation isn't as sensitive as some of you people who are terrified of Brexit.
That's not a criticism of anyone, I'm just explaining why I voted the way I did. And may explain why some people don't understand

Is this the difference between remainers and leavers?
Remainers want to work less hours per week, pay more into a pension, take better holidays and spend maybe more on life's luxuries. That is what we all should be aiming for, not cutting back on everything so we can justify our vote to leave.

I voted leave and I admit it was a massive error.

[Quickenthetempo]

On all the threads of Brexit on here, the argument from the remain side has been about 99% economy based.

But I suppose that's the only thing the politicians think they can influence us with, so it's most talked about.

[CrosspoolClarets]

As a remained I don’t want the argument to be solely about the economy. It never was just that for me. The benefits of free movement and EU. Citizenship is something I feel has been taken away from me and my children. I never felt the EU was undemocratic. How can a collection of democracies be so? It wasn’t perfect, but could be better improved through continued membership. Many of today’s challenges are global, so far better to be in group to collectively deal with those than alone. I see tax avoidance as being a huge problem and bigger than one country to deal with, so I hope the U.K. will still work to harmonise taxes with the EU to cut down on the problem. Culturally Britain is better off in, because culture flourishes most through exchange, and leaving will diminish exchanges. Even with issues like immigration, I don’t see that we'll be doing anything much different, apart from there being more red tape.

A very rare sensible, Remainer comment, not just slagging off Leavers, and one I agree with, apart from me judging the cost/benefit as being on the Leave side. But yes, not being isolated I agree with, but Australia and Canada aren't isolated and have fantastic, open cultures. Our geographic proximity to non-English speaking nations should mean we can do far better. I loved my interactions with the Greeks in Athens, for example, which is why I did not get on the buses.

[Damo]

I haven’t implied you said something which you didn’t, you clearly stated that you knowingly voted for a situation which would make your children poorer for the benefit of your hypothetical grandchildren.

No I didn't.
Feel free to show me where I said that

[Damo]

Would it help this argument along to point out that "I voted to take a financial hit for the benefit of my grand children" does not, as I understand it, literally mean "for my grandchildren but not my children or my great-grandchildren". It means future generations as a whole. It's one of the problems of the English language - a lot of idioms sound fine to most of us, but if you don't know the idiom and take it literally word for word it can be misunderstood.

It won't help.
Riley wants to take my quote literally. Even the bits that I didn't write

[CrosspoolClarets]

I don't think that there's any evidence anywhere to support that view.
Speaking personally it's way down my list, (though should probably be higher).
Amongst my reasons would be:
1. Our international standing and reputation.
2. National security
3. Standing shoulder to shoulder with our neighbours.
4. Freedom for our young people to enjoy the same benefits that my generation have had to work, travel and trade without restriction with our nearest neighbours.
5. Honouring the Belfast Agreement.
6. Keeping the United Kingdom united.
7. The actual logistics of "leaving" when we are currently tied into so many treaties, (the vast majority of which are beneficial to us). It should now be evident to all that this will be a long and expensive process, with the only beneficiaries being the lawyers.

There is evidence in many books and research papers. It is becoming commonly accepted in academic circles, not just leave ones. It is a legit view that economics trumps all. But there is another view too, as you outline. Saying that though, on your list, all 7 could arguably directly affect very few people (even national security). I prefer to think of the ways our lives are impacted every day as we live in our homes, use TV and data, and interact in our towns and villages (e.g. in my tiny suburb EU data protection laws mean there cannot be council CCTV in the centre because a person HAS to monitor the feed at all times, unaffordably, and shop crime is rife as a result).

[Damo]

Is this the difference between remainers and leavers?
Remainers want to work less hours per week, pay more into a pension, take better holidays and spend maybe more on life's luxuries. That is what we all should be aiming for, not cutting back on everything so we can justify our vote to leave.

I voted leave and I admit it was a massive error.

That's fair enough.
My view is that I can't take what I imagine will be a very small financial hit and offset it easily enough by doing one of the things above.
I'm not going to go without, just make a tiny sacrifice.
1 hour extra at work would pay for the projected increase in my shopping bill for example.
Would remainers begrudge that if they thought it would benefit them and their offspring in the future?

[Jakubclaret]

Is this the difference between remainers and leavers?
Remainers want to work less hours per week, pay more into a pension, take better holidays and spend maybe more on life's luxuries. That is what we all should be aiming for, not cutting back on everything so we can justify our vote to leave.

I voted leave and I admit it was a massive error.

As a leaver that's so far from the truth it's unreal, lots of leavers I should imagine want to work more (even have employment would be a starting point) & thus have a better standard of living, unfortunately so that's a pipe dream due to the open door freedom of movement & the overcrowded job market that ensues. Your forecasted version of what a certain group motives are & what would be the likely outcome had remain won is completely unrealistic in my view. If life was so brilliant & people could envisage such a rosy future as predicted by some, people with far differing views wouldn't have entered a leave in the ballot box. I voted leave & adamant it was the right & only sensible option & have absolutely no regrets whatsoever.

[Rileybobs]

No I didn't.
Feel free to show me where I said that

’’I voted to take a financial hit for the benefit of my grand children.’

Considering your children are at school, I think you taking a financial hit directly makes your children poorer. I think if you thought your children would have been better of, as opposed to your non-existent grandchildren, as a result of the vote then surely you would have said so.

[dsr]

Would it help this argument along to point out that "I voted to take a financial hit for the benefit of my grand children" does not, as I understand it, literally mean "for my grandchildren but not my children or my great-grandchildren". It means future generations as a whole. It's one of the problems of the English language - a lot of idioms sound fine to most of us, but if you don't know the idiom and take it literally word for word it can be misunderstood.

Obviously not.

[Rileybobs]

It won't help.
Riley wants to take my quote literally. Even the bits that I didn't write

Why on earth wouldn’t I take your quote literally? How did you want it to be taken?

[dsr]

Why on earth wouldn’t I take your quote literally? How did you want it to be taken?

Idiomatically, of course. Or are you the one who hears the sentence "he was a mile offside" and points out that as the pitch is only 120 yards long and a mile is 1,760 yards then he couldn't have been a mile offside because he would have been off the pitch?

[quoonbeatz]

what if damo's kids don't have kids?