https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/ ... 0286588928

Knock yourselves out.

This nation has been built on sand since Thatcher, the sooner we strip it all back and start again the better.

How far back do we need to go bleeding?

And how do we do it?

Time have changed, and much more importantly, the world has changed.

Interesting to see it all laid out like that, but it doesn't tell us anything that we didn't already know. Brexit, particularly the 'hard' type, will absolutely ruin this country.

The whole thing is a disaster, and any government that deliberately pursues and implements policy that will severely damage the country is simply not fit for office.

Puts it all in writing though, so you know that it isn't "Project Fear".

Its all about fish and blue passports (thanks to Mr James O'Brien)

Even official government papers are now part of Project Fear. It's ridiculous. The sooner I get a blue passport to wave at foreigners the better - it's getting hot down here with my head in the sand and my tinfoil hat on.

JohnMcGreal wrote:Interesting to see it all laid out like that, but it doesn't tell us anything that we didn't already know. Brexit, particularly the 'hard' type, will absolutely ruin this country.

The whole thing is a disaster, and any government that deliberately pursues and implements policy that will severely damage the country is simply not fit for office.

Would the same not also apply to a government that goes against the democratically decided result of a referendum? No win situation?

Goobs wrote:Would the same not also apply to a government that goes against the democratically decided result of a referendum? No win situation?

It's fine for someone to go against the result because it would suit the remain side to do so.

Goobs wrote:Would the same not also apply to a government that goes against the democratically decided result of a referendum? No win situation?

Not if you accept that a big part of a government's role is leadership. They are taking the country down a disastrous road because most Parliamentarians are too **** scared to stand up and tell the country that they were lied to.

Yep

Which is why we have to find a way around it that suits as many people as possible. The word we are looking for is "compromise".

Assessment confirms that it is difficult to assess economic impacts because Government ask is “unprecedented and ambitious” so it models a range of existing EU trade arrangements

Sensible comment.

It's fine for someone to go against the result because it would suit the remain side to do so.

With the greatest respect Sid, thats why the debate isn't going anywhere

Bacchus wrote:Not if you accept that a big part of a government's role is leadership. They are taking the country down a disastrous road because most Parliamentarians are too **** scared to stand up and tell the country that they were lied to.

Both sides lied, so which do we believe?

Lancasterclaret wrote:With the greatest respect Sid, thats why the debate isn't going anywhere

Not really.

It's fine to go against a referendum to suit your side of the dispute is what it boils down to for most of the remain side.

If remain had won but the government decided to ignore it there would be an uproar and rightly so.

Dispute that bit all you like, but that's what it looks like to me.

Assessment confirms that it is difficult to assess economic impacts because Government ask is “unprecedented and ambitious” so it models a range of existing EU trade arrangements

Again, that part is based on something that is being ruled out by the EU. Its called "Project Unicorn" or "having your cake and eating it"

Course it does, because you don't agree with it.

I'm fine with people voting leave, I'm not fine with people telling me that everyone voted for a UKIP brexit, because nothing supports that.

Does anyone believe anything that any politician says? They only tell you what they want you to know in any case and even that is usually of a doubtful nature.
As Sidney says ---who de we believe?

Who said I agree with either side of this?

I'm amused by the constant complaining by the losing side.

No, not everyone voted for a UKIP Brexit, people made a choice based on their opinions and life experiences, same for both sides.

Both sides were also lied to by both camps.

Sidney1st wrote:Both sides lied, so which do we believe?

Exactly my point. The vote was utterly ill-informed so it's about time Parliament showed some balls and admitted as much and stopped taking the country down what they pretty much all believe to be a disastrous road out of nothing more than fear for their own careers.

Ashingtonclaret46 wrote:Does anyone believe anything that any politician says? They only tell you what they want you to know in any case and even that is usually of a doubtful nature.
As Sidney says ---who de we believe?

I think we have to believe the remain side, partly because they didn't put information about NHS money on the side of a bus.
I could be wrong though.

Bacchus wrote:Exactly my point. The vote was utterly ill-informed so it's about time Parliament showed some balls and admitted as much and stopped taking the country down what they pretty much all believe to be a disastrous road out of nothing more than fear for their own careers.

It was ill informed because BOTH sides spent far to much time trotting out campaign slogans and mocking the opposing side instead of ensuring the voters were informed.

Also there's no proof it will be disastrous, it's likely, but not a given.

Just say hypothetically that when all the agreements are sorted and studies made that Brexit appears to be a really bad option and will cripple the country for years if not decades. Do we say well that's a stupid idea but democratically we have to ruin the country or is there another option ?
By this time the electorate will have substantially changed of course. About 3 million will have qualified to vote and likewise 3 million passed on if we take a 4 year timescale - that's a lot of people who are being denied a say in what will be their future.

The vast majority of people who know what they are talking about (because they have worked, studied, dealt with etc etc etc) voted "remain"

I know certain people don't like to be called out for stuff, but it would have to be a very compelling argument to get people to vote for a great leap into the unknown.

That would probably involve more money for the NHS, something about Turkey joining the EU and immigration being out of control (especially the bit that we can't apparently control).

Now as all that is proved to be ********, the democratic mandate is looking a bit shaky.

Lancasterclaret wrote:Yep

Which is why we have to find a way around it that suits as many people as possible. The word we are looking for is "compromise".

Absolutely true mate but that will never happen because the EU don't do 'compromise'. That is what is wrong with the whole damn thing, it likes to give the illusion of democracy but it is anything but. Hundreds of toothless puppet over-paid so-called MEP's and thousands of bureaucrats pulling the strings. And we must be of some use to them otherwise why are they making the split so difficult? The period of transition may well be difficult but in the long term all will be fine.

Unfortunately no one will know with absolute certainty if it will be a disaster until we leave.

Studies are all based on opinions and guesswork because there aren't any facts to use because we are the first to leave.
I don't think we'd be the last if we make it work either.

Lancasterclaret wrote:
That would probably involve more money for the NHS, something about Turkey joining the EU and immigration being out of control (especially the bit that we can't apparently control).

Now as all that is proved to be ********, the democratic mandate is looking a bit shaky.

Are we allowed to highlight the guff spouted by remain in attempt to instil fear into voters?

I'm still waiting for the emergency budget if we are going down that route.

Sidney1st wrote:I think we have to believe the remain side, partly because they didn't put information about NHS money on the side of a bus.
I could be wrong though.

Or claim that we'd be able to stay in the single market, customs union, and sort out a deal in 5 minutes, keep all the best bits and lose all the worst bits and that leaving was the only way to avoid £50m Turks suddenly arriving in the country replacing all the Brits who had been conscripted into the EU army. The campaign on both sides was poor, but the whoppers told by the Leave campaign are all proving to be exactly that.

People are largely better informed now. Whether they are well informed enough is questionable, but at least we have a pretty good indication of what Brexit means now by comparison to the fantasies, delusions and guesswork of 2016. If another vote on the matter revealed that public opinion still says we should leave then the government would be correct to act on that, and I'm pretty sure most remain campaigners would accept that (not agree with it, but accept that it is a more informed and democratic outcome than the farce that we're seeing right now.)

Bacchus wrote:Not if you accept that a big part of a government's role is leadership. They are taking the country down a disastrous road because most Parliamentarians are too **** scared to stand up and tell the country that they were lied to.

Yes, governments role is leadership and they lead us into the referendum.
Next part is your (and some others too) opinion, not a fact.

What is the point in having a referendum if the wishes of the majority who cared enough to vote is not taken?

Wow, another Brexit/Remain thread - WHOOPEE.
More opportunity to admire some reasoned, unbiased, high-class debate.

Bacchus wrote:Or claim that we'd be able to stay in the single market, customs union, and sort out a deal in 5 minutes, keep all the best bits and lose all the worst bits and that leaving was the only way to avoid £50m Turks suddenly arriving in the country replacing all the Brits who had been conscripted into the EU army. The campaign on both sides was poor, but the whoppers told by the Leave campaign are all proving to be exactly that.

People are largely better informed now. Whether they are well informed enough is questionable, but at least we have a pretty good indication of what Brexit means now by comparison to the fantasies, delusions and guesswork of 2016. If another vote on the matter revealed that public opinion still says we should leave then the government would be correct to act on that, and I'm pretty sure most remain campaigners would accept that (not agree with it, but accept that it is a more informed and democratic outcome than the farce that we're seeing right now.)

People aren't largely better informed because they aren't taking the time to look up information.

Whoppers like an emergency budget?
EU Army could potentially happen, it's not a million miles off being a reality considering they're trying to standardise some equipment and have a HQ etc.

Impact of Brexit is still guesswork and opinions from both sides, it hasn't been done before...

Sidney1st wrote:People aren't largely better informed because they aren't taking the time to look up information.

And in the same post:

Sidney1st wrote:Impact of Brexit is still guesswork and opinions from both sides, it hasn't been done before...

Absolutely staggering stupidity.

We could do, but how does that solve the problem we have?

The EU have their red lines, we have ours.

We are leaving the EU, its not a mutual split of assets.

We have to get a deal that works for the Uk long term, or we will be back in the EU in the near future. That involves compromise between remainers and brexiteers, and in the nicest possible way, that needs sorting out before you can then try to talk a deal with the EU.

We are heading for a very long transitional period otherwise, which though not ideal, at least allows businesses to plan for it.

Anything else is daft.

Goobs wrote:Yes, governments role is leadership and they lead us into the referendum.
Next part is your (and some others too) opinion, not a fact.

What is the point in having a referendum if the wishes of the majority who cared enough to vote is not taken?

It's not yet a fact, but all evidence is pointing towards it. Even the evidence that the hard-Brexit favouring government are publicising after desperately trying to suppress it for the last 12 months.

Is it your position that the vote of 2016 should be respected no matter what? What if it causes Northern Ireland to return to the dark old days? What if it becomes unquestionable that it is going to cause severe damage to the economy? Do we still just press on because a badly informed vote in 2016 narrowly suggested that it's what the country wanted at the time?

There has to be a trigger point for saying "hang on a minute, should we just take a moment to think about this" or the whole process is even more deranged than I thought possible.

O/T - can anyone tell me why they would comment on a subject that they have no interest in? Especially to say how dull it is?

I must make it clearer that its about Brexit in my thread title.......oh

Lancasterclaret wrote:Knock yourselves out.

This should be treated with caution. The House is full of remainers for a start. Secondly never forget the old adage that, 'there are lies, damn lies and (government) statistics'. May herself was a remainer and so where many of her cabinet, how do we know if this is actually a true reflection and not something to force a second referendum, which May et al may actually want? Propaganda is used in peace as well as war, and usually by governments on their own people. The fact is none of us on here really know what the impact will be, we only know what we are told and BOTH sides told lies in the run up to the referendum. Too many people with influence and a public voice have vested interests in staying in Europe and unfortunately they get heard more than most.

Anyway that's me finished on the subject, it's getting boring now and we need to just get on with the exit and have done with it. The remainers need to learn a bit of dignity and lose with good grace.

JohnMcGreal wrote:And in the same post:



Absolutely staggering stupidity.

Cheers for that comment, well thought out.

The impact of Brexit is guesswork based on studies and opinions, it hasn't been done before unless you can show me otherwise?

The average person hasn't spent any time studying Brexit since the referendum, most people are just getting on with life.

Sidney1st wrote:People aren't largely better informed because they aren't taking the time to look up information.

Whoppers like an emergency budget?
EU Army could potentially happen, it's not a million miles off being a reality considering they're trying to standardise some equipment and have a HQ etc.

Impact of Brexit is still guesswork and opinions from both sides, it hasn't been done before...

I love that you still think economic studies are mere guesswork and that you still pretend there are "both sides." Please could you point me to a credible study that says we'll all be better off after Brexit? From what I've seen they pretty much all point in the same direction.

The main reason it hasn't been done before is because the 27 other countries haven't been ignorant enough of the benefits of the EU to try.

Sidney1st wrote:Unfortunately no one will know with absolute certainty if it will be a disaster until we leave.

Studies are all based on opinions and guesswork because there aren't any facts to use because we are the first to leave.
I don't think we'd be the last if we make it work either.

Actually mate without checking I'm pretty sure that Denmark left some years ago and they are fine.

Remoaners just regurgitating last month's scare story! Must be running out of "the sky's falling in" BS.

houseboy wrote:Actually mate without checking I'm pretty sure that Denmark left some years ago and they are fine.

Are you sure?

Bacchus wrote:It's not yet a fact, but all evidence is pointing towards it. Even the evidence that the hard-Brexit favouring government are publicising after desperately trying to suppress it for the last 12 months.

Is it your position that the vote of 2016 should be respected no matter what? What if it causes Northern Ireland to return to the dark old days? What if it becomes unquestionable that it is going to cause severe damage to the economy? Do we still just press on because a badly informed vote in 2016 narrowly suggested that it's what the country wanted at the time?

There has to be a trigger point for saying "hang on a minute, should we just take a moment to think about this" or the whole process is even more deranged than I thought possible.

IF those things become (in your own words) unquestionable and should it be a FACT that it is going to severely and irreparably damage the country then yes of course the government should review / over-rule the result. However unfortunately as has already been proven with so many different predictions from both sides, no one will KNOW what WILL happen until everything has been completed.

For that reason alone I would say that yes, the result should be followed as it was the wishes of the majority and we are a democracy (supposedly).

FWIW we'll probably all be killed by WW3 before Brexit goes through anyway so it's all irrelevant

Sidney, you just claimed that the general public is not better informed, because they aren't taking the time to look up the information. Implying that they could be more informed if only they did a bit of research.

In the very same post you then dismissed all the information as 'just guesswork anyway', implying that it's basically impossible for the general public to ever be well informed about anything.

houseboy wrote:

The remainers need to learn a bit of dignity and lose with good grace.

And here should endeth the thread

Bacchus wrote:I love that you still think economic studies are mere guesswork and that you still pretend there are "both sides." Please could you point me to a credible study that says we'll all be better off after Brexit? From what I've seen they pretty much all point in the same direction.

The main reason it hasn't been done before is because the 27 other countries haven't been ignorant enough of the benefits of the EU to try.

Any facts to say we'd be worse off leaving?
There aren't any, it's guesswork based on any information to hand, but as I've said, this hasn't been done before so it's guesses/opinions etc.

I've been castigated for saying this before on this forum, so I already know what to expect from people on here.

There's no facts either way about how we will be if we do actually leave the EU, it hasn't been done.

It could well result in a tough few years, BUT we could also end up in a similar position or better off.
NO ONE KNOWS.

JohnMcGreal wrote:Sidney, you just claimed that the general public is not better informed, because they aren't taking the time to look up the information. Implying that they could be more informed if only they did a bit of research.

In the very same post you then dismissed all the information as 'just guesswork anyway', implying that it's basically impossible for the general public to ever be well informed about anything.

So that's why you called me stupid?
Ok...

I didn't dismiss it, I pointed out all the studies are just that, there isn't much in the way of facts about what life will be like after Brexit, same as when the Governor of the BoE shared his views before the vote and afterwards admitted he was wrong.
You know he did that don't you?
That's a bloke in charge of our Bank of England...

As for the public, they can be as well informed as they wish to be, BUT until it happens nothing is a given, just like anything else in life.

And here should endeth the thread

Yeah, cos if we don't talk about it, everything will end up fine?

Don't ever change Ringo

Sidney1st wrote:Any facts to say we'd be worse off leaving?
There aren't any, it's guesswork based on any information to hand, but as I've said, this hasn't been done before so it's guesses/opinions etc.

I've been castigated for saying this before on this forum, so I already know what to expect from people on here.

There's no facts either way about how we will be if we do actually leave the EU, it hasn't been done.

It could well result in a tough few years, BUT we could also end up in a similar position or better off.
NO ONE KNOWS.

If the Met Office forecasts a hurricane do you put you shorts on, grab your kite and head off to the beach? After all, it's just guesswork, no one knows.

LeadBelly wrote:Wow, another Brexit/Remain thread - WHOOPEE.
More opportunity to admire some reasoned, unbiased, high-class debate.

And I could guess who started the thread without even looking.

It also includes words that I only seem to hear being quoted by foreseers of doom, such as the Apprentice Alastair Campbell who started this thread. "BLUE PASSPORTS". You could play a game of bingo on these threads and get a full house off Lancaster alone.

Bacchus wrote:If the Met Office forecasts a hurricane do you put you shorts on, grab your kite and head off to the beach? After all, it's just guesswork, no one knows.

Depends if it's a certain Michael Fish on the TV....

Sidney1st wrote:So that's why you called me stupid?
Ok...

I didn't dismiss it, I pointed out all the studies are just that, there isn't much in the way of facts about what life will be like after Brexit, same as when the Governor of the BoE shared his views before the vote and afterwards admitted he was wrong.
You know he did that don't you?
That's a bloke in charge of our Bank of England...

As for the public, they can be as well informed as they wish to be, BUT until it happens nothing is a given, just like anything else in life.

Please tell me you are trolling now.