More post brexit referendum good news!!!!

[Lancasterclaret]

Its almost like people want to ignore or deflect the total incompetence that appears to be the only thing the government are united about.

[Greenmile]

Slightly OT, but I saw this today, and found it interesting

“From Hansard 26 Nov 2002 : Column 202

David Davis: There is a proper role for referendums in constitutional change, but only if done properly. If it is not done properly, it can be a dangerous tool. The Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, who is no longer in the Chamber, said that Clement Attlee—who is, I think, one of the Deputy Prime Minister's heroes—famously described the referendum as the device of demagogues and dictators. We may not always go as far as he did, but what is certain is that pre-legislative referendums of the type the Deputy Prime Minister is proposing are the worst type of all.

Referendums should be held when the electorate are in the best possible position to make a judgment. They should be held when people can view all the arguments for and against and when those arguments have been rigorously tested. In short, referendums should be held when people know exactly what they are getting. So legislation should be debated by Members of Parliament on the Floor of the House, and then put to the electorate for the voters to judge.

We should not ask people to vote on a blank sheet of paper and tell them to trust us to fill in the details afterwards. For referendums to be fair and compatible with our parliamentary process, we need the electors to be as well informed as possible and to know exactly what they are voting for. Referendums need to be treated as an addition to the parliamentary process, not as a substitute for it.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/c ... 126-17.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;”

[Paul Waine]

That’s all fine, but the problem is the governments thinking seems to be less mature that a letter in the FT at the moment. Surely that’s got to be a worry?

Hi martin, I'm trying to understand where we are going with all these posts, not specifically yours, but all of them.

So, the UK gov't is negotiating something with a group representing 27 other governments - and this group is originally 28, with UK also a member. How did you expect that to progress? How have previous negotiations between government bodies progressed? Whether we are looking at climate change, Group of 20 post-wfc, united nations or lots and lots of other groups and topics, these things go on and on, and on and on....

And, then this specific subject was triggered by a referendum where the whole of the UK voted - and the outcome was relatively close... And, maybe, just maybe the "establishment" wanted another outcome from the referendum, so a lot of the country is saying "that's going wrong," "that's not going to work..." and, on and on and on.

But, it appears that a lot of these comments are repeating and repeating and repeating - and very few seem to want to offer to "step up" and assist the situation and provide solutions rather than "find fault."

I'm posted a few times already that we all need to" offer the hand of friendship" to get things sorted. The UK government needs to "offer the hand of friendship" to the EU27 - and the EU27 and Brussels need to "offer the hand of friendship" to the UK. And, we need to do the same on this mb. I reckon there are a lot of great posters with great experience of things - and, if we all "offer the hand of friendship" to each other we might be able to agree some things that can be the start of solving problems rather than just adding to them. We need to break out of this perpetual circle of reinforcement of our own opinions - and, instead, start looking at the things from an "outsiders" point of view. Let's start to gather information and opinions from those that we currently consider we disagree with. Let's see if we can understand the other guy's views. Let's see if we can start to find the "win-win" solutions.

What do you think?

[Paul Waine]

Its almost like people want to ignore or deflect the total incompetence that appears to be the only thing the government are united about.

Hi Lancs, or is it that there are a large number of people who want to magnify the things that don't appear to be working out immediately?

Of course, it makes people defensive. We know that, it's the natural human response.

How do we change things for the better?

[RingoMcCartney]

Martin Schultz "I want a United States of Europe by 2025. Anybody not agreeing? There out!"

It was always about it. Ted Heath knew it. Thatcher new it. Blair new it. Major new it. Brown new it. Cameron knew it. May knows it.

It was never just about a trading bloc. With the announcement of an EU army, the veil is finally being pulled away. It's about a superstate. With unelected presidents and unelected Commisioners.


The biggest lie ever told. And the fanatical Remoaners like Clegg, Hesletine, Mandelson, Starmer, Ummuna, Cable and the multi millionaire off the back of it, Kinnock family. Knew it all along......

Liars

[Lancasterclaret]

It's about a superstate. With unelected presidents and unelected Commisioners.

Crap. Total, utter crap.

If its a United States of Europe, do you really think that the president will be unelected? The commissioners will be unelected?

The fact that they are not unelected now is kinda relevant as well.

[Paul Waine]

Slightly OT, but I saw this today, and found it interesting

“From Hansard 26 Nov 2002 : Column 202

David Davis: There is a proper role for referendums in constitutional change, but only if done properly. If it is not done properly, it can be a dangerous tool. The Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, who is no longer in the Chamber, said that Clement Attlee—who is, I think, one of the Deputy Prime Minister's heroes—famously described the referendum as the device of demagogues and dictators. We may not always go as far as he did, but what is certain is that pre-legislative referendums of the type the Deputy Prime Minister is proposing are the worst type of all.

Referendums should be held when the electorate are in the best possible position to make a judgment. They should be held when people can view all the arguments for and against and when those arguments have been rigorously tested. In short, referendums should be held when people know exactly what they are getting. So legislation should be debated by Members of Parliament on the Floor of the House, and then put to the electorate for the voters to judge.

We should not ask people to vote on a blank sheet of paper and tell them to trust us to fill in the details afterwards. For referendums to be fair and compatible with our parliamentary process, we need the electors to be as well informed as possible and to know exactly what they are voting for. Referendums need to be treated as an addition to the parliamentary process, not as a substitute for it.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/c ... 126-17.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;”

Hi Greenmile, wise words from 15 years ago. Maybe it's a pity that some of this advice wasn't followed the political parties when the passed the law for the EU referendum.

On the other hand, it could also be argued that in democracy we are all equal and that for our vote to be counted we should not be required to prove that we can "write our name" or demonstrate any greater knowledge about any subject. Yes, I've picked out a method that has been used to deny members of the electorate - in some countries - the vote. If we can all agree that a test that as basic as "show you can write your name" is abhorrent in a democracy, can we also agree that the degree of knowledge of the electorate is neither a necessary pre-qualification to be included in that electorate, nor the absence of that knowledge in any way invalidates the outcome of the vote.

Some decades ago, I believe that parliamentary seats existed for Oxford and Cambridge universities. We would find that extraordinarily elitist and discriminatory today - and, of course, undemocratic.

[Lancasterclaret]

The fact that millions of people didn't have a clue what the actual effects of leaving the EU on a binary "Yes" or "No" vote doesn't bother you at all?

The fact that Farage, Hannan, Banks, Paterson all said before we voted that we were not talking about leaving the single market, and now they talk about it like its what was voted for not bother you in the slightest either?

It should really, especially if you think democracy is important.

[Greenmile]

I’m struggling to understand what the calamity is that has befallen the original person in the street this week?

The government aren’t doing thorough planning for Brexit - doesn’t make the outcome good or bad to the normal person.
Davis is doing sector analyses, not full impact statements - no big deal, we know what the big issues are.
The EU (via the Irish) are being stubborn about the border. Ditto above.
The Tories and DIP are infighting. Ditto again.

In fact, on the face of it the week has been good - Juncker seemed on the point of accepting us into Stage 2, I didn’t expect that.

Let’s judge it when we are out. If it is a disaster, deal with it. If it is brilliant, enjoy it. Following every nuance of a massively complex negotiation can make our heads spin.

I try very hard not to fall into the trap of using the term Remoaner but this week has begun to despair me. The Remain side are growing evermore shrill and hysterical.

From messageboards, to tweets, to newspapers to MPs like Soubry and Morgan. It’s starting to get tiresome.

I read a great letter in the FT today from a chap who runs a big manufacturing company. He got it spot in. We make goods, he said. We have to appeal to buyers, wherever they are (in his case, part EU, part US). That’s the challenge. All this talk of tariffs, currencies etc are minor issues in the grand scheme of making things that people want. Supply chain stuff is a bigger challenge for some but still not the biggest for these firms.

Britain will be fine after Brexit, hard or soft, just the same as it would have been fine staying in the EU too. Whether one is slightly less fine than the other is worth planning for, but not worth stressing over. The hysterics at times make us forget that.

I’m not big on memes, but if ever one was appropriate...



I realise this adds little to the debate, and probably only cements your view of the shrill hysterical remoaners, but this instantly jumped into my mind when I read these posts.

[Bacchus]

I'm not buying that it's the responsibility of anyone other than the government to sort these issues out. The notion that the man on the street can do anything to contribute to the success or failure of these negotiations is ridiculous.

Half the country was in favour of Brexit, half wasn't and of course that was always going to lead to criticism whatever happened. Whichever way the vote went though it was incumbent on the government to have a plan in place. 18 months later it's clear that there has been no significant planning for any eventuality, even those issues that were plainly visible long before anybody even cast a vote. The government don't even have an agreed view of what they are trying to achieve. The man in charge of the whole process has been exposed as continually lying to the public and to Parliament to hide his ineptitude.

So feel free to dismiss my complaints as Remoaning if you like, but this pantomime should be concerning to everybody regardless of your views on whether the whole enterprise is a good idea or not. It would take an Olympic standard leap of faith to believe that May or Davis has a grand plan that will all become clear in 6 or 12 months' time.

I don't agree with Brexit but there are ways that we could leave the EU without causing too much damage. I could reluctantly accept that. Most people could. That clearly isn't where we are headed though and no amount of positivity on my part is going to change that.

[Paul Waine]

If its a United States of Europe, do you really think that the president will be unelected? The commissioners will be unelected?

The fact that they are not unelected now is kinda relevant as well.

Hi Lancs, sorry, I'm not clear on what you are saying?

No reason in my book why there can't be ambitions for a United States of Europe. No reason in my book why some involved in EU politics can't express a desire to move ahead to this new political arrangements speedily.

My personal view is that for a United States of Europe to be successful requires the "demand" to come from the populations of the member states - and not from the current politicians.

There are a number of things that demonstrate today why it is the wrong time to speak of USofE. The euro zone is one - and the relative conditions in the mainly Mediterranean south. The calls of "national separatist" movements in a number of member states is another. Personally, I feel the way the EU is handling brexit is further demonstration that the conditions are far from right to dream about introducing USofE.

If things go well for EU for say 50 years, if there is a lot more convergence in that time, then, yes, USofE would have a chance.

And, looking back, if the EU had all joined in funding the re-unification of Germany and had seen it as a European "project" rather than a German project then we would be further along towards USofE.

[Greenmile]

Hi Greenmile, wise words from 15 years ago. Maybe it's a pity that some of this advice wasn't followed the political parties when the passed the law for the EU referendum.

On the other hand, it could also be argued that in democracy we are all equal and that for our vote to be counted we should not be required to prove that we can "write our name" or demonstrate any greater knowledge about any subject. Yes, I've picked out a method that has been used to deny members of the electorate - in some countries - the vote. If we can all agree that a test that as basic as "show you can write your name" is abhorrent in a democracy, can we also agree that the degree of knowledge of the electorate is neither a necessary pre-qualification to be included in that electorate, nor the absence of that knowledge in any way invalidates the outcome of the vote.

Some decades ago, I believe that parliamentary seats existed for Oxford and Cambridge universities. We would find that extraordinarily elitist and discriminatory today - and, of course, undemocratic.

Hi Paul

That’s not how representative democracy is supposed to work though.

Of course, there should be no knowledge based barrier to voting for our representatives, but those representatives should be better placed than the man on the street to make important and complex decisions (I recognise the irony of me making this point at the present time)

Would you prefer to live under a system where everything was decided by referendum? (if we ignore the logistical problems for the sake of argument). Because I would be terrified of the power that would give to the likes of Rupert Murdoch, for example.

[ClaretMoffitt]

Yet when we said this was the aim of the EU during the referendum campaign we were called scaremongers and conspiracy theorists. The likes of Cameron and Clegg all knew this was the aim, yet lied to us anyway. Yet we never heard about remains lies like we do with the leave bus, over and over again.

[Paul Waine]

The fact that millions of people didn't have a clue what the actual effects of leaving the EU on a binary "Yes" or "No" vote doesn't bother you at all?

The fact that Farage, Hannan, Banks, Paterson all said before we voted that we were not talking about leaving the single market, and now they talk about it like its what was voted for not bother you in the slightest either?

It should really, especially if you think democracy is important.

Hi Lancs, I'm guessing you are responding to my post? Hope I'm guessing right (why do some posters not use the "quote" to make this a bit easier? No worries).

It bothers me that there were campaigns on both the "yes" and "no" sides that were no more than political campaigns. It bothers me that we had gone many, many, years without testing the views of the electorate on the direction of development of the EU. It bothers me that we have so many politicians that are "a disappointment" - but, you might have seen some of my earlier expressions of political views and areas for reform.

Does it surprise me that people have different views about what "leaving the EU" means? No, not really. But, it doesn't surprise me that people who voted "remain" may have voted that way for many different reasons - and were equally unaware of what is good and what "could be better" about the EU.

What bothered me most about the referendum was the murder of Jo Cox.

What concerns me about politics in 2017 is how some of our political leaders want to build "hate" and "division." Maybe it is the emergence of "social media." Politics has become a lot more aggressive in recent times - and we are losing the ability to be tolerant of shortcomings in others....

Anyway, just my view....

[RingoMcCartney]

Crap. Total, utter crap.

If its a United States of Europe, do you really think that the president will be unelected? The commissioners will be unelected?

The fact that they are not unelected now is kinda relevant as well.

But you're not denying it was the plan all along are you!

"The fact that they are not unelected now is kinda relevant as well."

Crap. Total utter crap.

You know just as well as I do, that the commissioners are not vulnerable to the ballot box used by the People.

If you don't. Stop trying to portray yourself as some sort of Oracle of all things European Union.

They are not, nor are the presidents elected by the People. Stop being like your heroes and stop lying.

[RingoMcCartney]

Yet when we said this was the aim of the EU during the referendum campaign we were called scaremongers and conspiracy theorists. The likes of Cameron and Clegg all knew this was the aim, yet lied to us anyway. Yet we never heard about remains lies like we do with the leave bus, over and over again.

The Remoaner establishment are lying, self serving, anti Democracy fanatics.

Where was that on the ballot paper Farron!?

[Paul Waine]

Hi Paul

That’s not how representative democracy is supposed to work though.

Of course, there should be no knowledge based barrier to voting for our representatives, but those representatives should be better placed than the man on the street to make important and complex decisions (I recognise the irony of me making this point at the present time)

Would you prefer to live under a system where everything was decided by referendum? (if we ignore the logistical problems for the sake of argument). Because I would be terrified of the power that would give to the likes of Rupert Murdoch, for example.

Hi Greenmile, good post. I agree re representative democracy. However, the EU was one of those important issues that "cut across" party lines, Scottish nationalism and before that devolution in Scotland and Wales, respectively. Similarly, changes in the voting system - these are all important matters that are better to be addressed by referenda rather than being decided by parliamentary representatives.

With the EU, if we'd have a referendum re the Maastricht Treaty and another with the Lisbon Treaty there might never have been a need for Farage/UKIP.

[ClaretMoffitt]

The Remoaner establishment are lying, self serving, anti Democracy fanatics.

Where was that on the ballot paper Farron!?

I do love how you don't mince your words Ringo.

[RingoMcCartney]

I do love how you don't mince your words Ringo.

Respect to you also, my right-minded friend!

[evensteadiereddie]

You would, muffit. Two nutters goosestepping their way into oblivion.

[Paul Waine]

I'm not buying that it's the responsibility of anyone other than the government to sort these issues out. The notion that the man on the street can do anything to contribute to the success or failure of these negotiations is ridiculous.

Hi Bacchus, OK, I'm not arguing that "the man on the street" can take over the negotiations. But, it is our country, it is our futures etc. etc. and the way we all behave "sets the tone." We can be cool and constructive with our comments and advice to our government and all our political representatives - or we can be negative and destructive with our criticism. If we take the latter path. we aren't making it any easier for the negotiations to go well.

I'm speaking of people "offering the hand of friendship" and encouraging our politicians and the EU27 leadership to do the same. I'm sure the vast majority (and not just 52:48, or whatever) want friendship between the UK and Europe. If our government knows this and hears this from us, then we are starting to give everyone a better chance of a successful outcome.

[ClaretMoffitt]

You would, muffit. Two nutters goosestepping their way into oblivion.

At least we're taking you with us

[evensteadiereddie]

Doesn't matter to me, muff.
House paid for, family sorted, cracking early pension pot, in a nice rural spot in Staffordshire. Happy days.
I might have to pay a little more for my holidays abroad but, hey, no sweat.
As for the poor bastards struggling to cope, a huge number growing ever larger, I'm pretty sure they'll turn on this shitty, ridiculous excuse of a government at the first opportunity.

[CrosspoolClarets]

I like your cartoon Greenmile, maybe you are right, and we’ll go up in flames while the likes of me confidently assert it will be fine?

Maybe the Remainers are going to miss all the riches piling in because they are too busy still weeping hysterically?

I suspect somewhere in between is likely. We ain’t going to know for a while yet though and the public have told the politicians which general direction they want us to head in.

[Bacchus]

Hi Bacchus, OK, I'm not arguing that "the man on the street" can take over the negotiations. But, it is our country, it is our futures etc. etc. and the way we all behave "sets the tone." We can be cool and constructive with our comments and advice to our government and all our political representatives - or we can be negative and destructive with our criticism. If we take the latter path. we aren't making it any easier for the negotiations to go well.

I'm speaking of people "offering the hand of friendship" and encouraging our politicians and the EU27 leadership to do the same. I'm sure the vast majority (and not just 52:48, or whatever) want friendship between the UK and Europe. If our government knows this and hears this from us, then we are starting to give everyone a better chance of a successful outcome.

Hi Paul, I hear what you're saying and I guess I wish I had your faith. Unfortunately, as with all things political, it's the media that sets the tone, and the current tone is exactly the one being set by Mail, Express, etc. I'd love to think that Davis, May, Fox et al were capable of showing some leadership on this issue.

Nobody wants them to extend the hand of friendship more than me. Maybe if they displayed even the slightest amount of preparedness, competence, respect for the EU, the public or Parliament then people like me might be more inclined to get behind them. As it is though they are showing none of the above and it's a stretch to suggest that people just need to show a bit more patience and everything will be okay.

There's a lot at stake here, and many people aren't happy watching a few self-interested millionaires playing games with it. Nor should they be.

[dsr]

The fact that millions of people didn't have a clue what the actual effects of leaving the EU on a binary "Yes" or "No" vote doesn't bother you at all?

The fact that Farage, Hannan, Banks, Paterson all said before we voted that we were not talking about leaving the single market, and now they talk about it like its what was voted for not bother you in the slightest either?

It should really, especially if you think democracy is important.

It would obviously have been very nice if we'd had clear knowledge of the effects of staying or the effects of leaving before the vote. But this is the real world, and it can't be done.

For example, these politicians saying that we want a United States of Europe by 2025. That's fine, obviously, they can say what they want. But what you';re saying is that it would have been nice to have a clear view of where the EU was going to be for quite a long time in the future, certainly more than 8 years, and there is no way the EU would give a categoric assurance that it wouldn't extend to be a USE.

And obviously the same problem on the leave side. We couldn't tell what the effects of leaving would be. How could anyone tell that? The EU won't (as yet) discuss a trade deal 18 months later, and 8 months after article 50. They certainly wouldn't have discussed it in advance so we could tell what we were voting for. Simply, you can't have a referendum based on what will happen in the future because what will happen can never be more than conjecture.

[dsr]

Hi Paul

That’s not how representative democracy is supposed to work though.

Of course, there should be no knowledge based barrier to voting for our representatives, but those representatives should be better placed than the man on the street to make important and complex decisions (I recognise the irony of me making this point at the present time)

Would you prefer to live under a system where everything was decided by referendum? (if we ignore the logistical problems for the sake of argument). Because I would be terrified of the power that would give to the likes of Rupert Murdoch, for example.

Obviously we can't say for sure what would have happened if there were no referendums, but it's still pretty likely that the SNP would have won an absolute majority in the Scottish parliament in 2010, and if so, Scotland would have left the UK without a referendum. Which considering that 55% voted to stay in the UK, seems a bit counterintuitive?

[aggi]

As for discussions with Ringo re: EU democracy, I wouldn't recommend going down that route. He's previously had it explained to him that there are elections, prior to those elections the various parties nominated their presidents, people voted, the biggest bloc got the President, etc but for Ringo that wasn't democracy.

[Damo]

Doesn't matter to me, muff.
House paid for, family sorted, cracking early pension pot, in a nice rural spot in Staffordshire. Happy days.
I might have to pay a little more for my holidays abroad but, hey, no sweat.
As for the poor bastards struggling to cope, a huge number growing ever larger, I'm pretty sure they'll turn on this shitty, ridiculous excuse of a government at the first opportunity.

Just naturally angry at the world then?

[Damo]

As for discussions with Ringo re: EU democracy, I wouldn't recommend going down that route. He's previously had it explained to him that there are elections, prior to those elections the various parties nominated their presidents, people voted, the biggest bloc got the President, etc but for Ringo that wasn't democracy.

IMG_20171208_002249.jpg (493.05 KiB) Viewed 2636 times

[claretandy]

Deal done, remoaners will be gutted.

[Lancasterclaret]

Devil will be in the detail Andy

But its good news, and its good that the UK Govt have realised that a no deal is a disaster, and that some parts of the EU are going to be around for a long, long time.

Not so much a red line, as a pink wobbly one you can only see if you really believe in Brexit*

*more detail required obvs, but thats what it looks like early doors

[claretandy]

Devil will be in the detail Andy

But its good news, and its good that the UK Govt have realised that a no deal is a disaster, and that some parts of the EU are going to be around for a long, long time.

Not so much a red line, as a pink wobbly one you can only see if you really believe in Brexit*

*more detail required obvs, but thats what it looks like early doors

There has been some compromises, ECJ for citizens rights for 8 years, but only for cases that aren't already covered by case law. EU citizens WILL face criminal records checks if applying for citizenship.

[taio]

Devil will be in the detail Andy

But its good news, and its good that the UK Govt have realised that a no deal is a disaster, and that some parts of the EU are going to be around for a long, long time.

Not so much a red line, as a pink wobbly one you can only see if you really believe in Brexit*

*more detail required obvs, but thats what it looks like early doors

Detail here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... rom-the-eu

[Lancasterclaret]

Two year transition period makes sense, in fact it probably should be longer, but at least some common sense has broken out.

[Lancasterclaret]

If you want a good giggle, then check out all the andys and ringos replying to this LeaveEU tweet

https://twitter.com/LeaveEUOfficial/sta ... 3191655424" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[claretandy]

If you want a good giggle, then check out all the andys and ringos replying to this LeaveEU tweet

https://twitter.com/LeaveEUOfficial/sta ... 3191655424" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Err, i'm in favour of the agreement, but you carry on remoaning.

[Lancasterclaret]

So am I you numpty!

And you aren't, or you've been spinning a cracking yarn on here for the past 18 months.

[Paul Waine]

Listening to Junker and May on R4 earlier, it does sound as though the "hand of friendship" has been extended and accepted and the negotiations are progressing. Theresa Villiers, a big leave campaigner, also spoken of compromise and has welcomed the progress made.

Well done everybody.

[Lancasterclaret]

Two extra years of this though.

Can we cope?!?

[Lancasterclaret]

And after yesterdays revelations that the cabinet haven't actually agreed what we what yet, it would be nice if that was moved to the top of the agenda.

[claretandy]

And after yesterdays revelations that the cabinet haven't actually agreed what we what yet, it would be nice if that was moved to the top of the agenda.

Pointless having that discussion until we knew if we would get to phase 2, it will happen before christmas though.

[biggles]

i'm guessing lots of tears in the houses of the remoaners this morning. if you thought they were verging on suicide before this news they'll be forming a long line on motorway bridges and tall buildings round about now. no doubt they will claim some kind of victory though, even from this complete defeat.

anyone keeping score? must be about 7 - 0 for brexiteers by now. i am actually starting to feel a bit sorry for the remoaners they seem to get spanked every few days. personally i'm not bothered about the customs union remaining [to some extent] just as long as we aren't 'governed' by the bloody euro politicians and germany. happy days for all, i'm sure you will all agree.

[claretandy]

So am I you numpty!

And you aren't, or you've been spinning a cracking yarn on here for the past 18 months.

Remainers telling Leavers what they think is why you lost in the first place.

[taio]

Two extra years of this though.

Can we cope?!?

Judging by the last 18 months: the vast majority = certainly; a very small minority = no.

[Lancasterclaret]

Er, yeah, cheers for that

All we've done is moved the decision day down another two years effectively, but that extra time is essential as its not something that can be done by just leaving.

So both remainers and leavers should be happy today, which is nice!

[Lancasterclaret]

Remainers telling Leavers what they think is why you lost in the first place.

Yeah, cos you've been really skilful in hiding why you wanted to leave haven't you?

[claretandy]

Yeah, cos you've been really skilful in hiding why you wanted to leave haven't you?

Remainers are more deluded than leavers according to your mate on Twitter

https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/sta ... 7289635840" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[claretandy]

Yeah, cos you've been really skilful in hiding why you wanted to leave haven't you?

Have i ? we all have red lines, mine haven't been crossed, yet, so i'm happy so far.

[Paul Waine]

Two extra years of this though.

Can we cope?!?

Good morning, Lancs. 2 years (or 7 years ref Canada), it doesn't matter - everything is starting to move in the right direction.

As someone has posted earlier, so much of the "public perception" is "fed by the media" - and the politicians. So long as we understand this - and don't take the media too seriously everything will be OK.

Some good comments from Kate Andrews, Institute of Economic Affairs on QT last night.