Possible 2nd EU Referendum

DCWat · Post by **DCWat** » Sat Jun 09, 2018 8:01 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:I disagree entirely, and don't in all honesty understand your logic.
If the EU know that the deal has to be approved by the British electorate, then it would be in their interests to come up with something that a good majority will support. They would have to listen when our negotiators said: "There's no way the British voters will vote for that".
Let's take for example the Customs Union and Single Market. They might agree to us retaining the current arrangements (or similar) but would in return ask for "freedom of movement". Our negotiators could simply say, "We're wasting our time because it'll be rejected at the ballot box".
If we reject the deal at the end and decide to "go it alone" then we are in for a difficult time, but it won't do them much good either, so they would be under pressure to listen to the voice of the people.
They would be far more likely to take this seriously than a Tory negotiating team that is hopelessly divided, has no real strategy, and can't be relied on to say the same thing from one day to the next.

That’s not really any different to where we are already, without the further complication of another vote.

Freedom of movement isn’t something that can be negotiated on, whether the public would say no or not.

Caballo · Post by **Caballo** » Sat Jun 09, 2018 8:20 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:I disagree entirely, and don't in all honesty understand your logic.
If the EU know that the deal has to be approved by the British electorate, then it would be in their interests to come up with something that a good majority will support. They would have to listen when our negotiators said

Thought Collins would say it more succinctly me!!

naive
(naɪiːv , US nɑː- ) also naïve
adjective [ADJECTIVE to-infinitive]
If you describe someone as naive, you think they lack experience and so expect things to be easy or people to be honest or kind.
It's naive to think that teachers are always tolerant.
I must have been naive to think we would get my parents' blessing.
...naive idealists.
Their view was that he had been politically naive.
naively adverb [usually ADVERB with verb]
...naively assuming that they would be protected by local development plans.
I thought, naively, that this would be a nine-to-five job.
naivety (naɪiːvɪti ) uncountable noun
I was alarmed by his naivety and ignorance of international affairs.
Synonyms: gullibility, innocence, simplicity, inexperience More Synonyms of naive
Synonyms: gullibility, openness, candour, frankness More Synonyms of naive

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Sat Jun 09, 2018 9:03 pm

Caballo wrote:Thought Collins would say it more succinctly me!!

naive
(naɪiːv , US nɑː- ) also naïve
adjective [ADJECTIVE to-infinitive]
If you describe someone as naive, you think they lack experience and so expect things to be easy or people to be honest or kind.
It's naive to think that teachers are always tolerant.
I must have been naive to think we would get my parents' blessing.
...naive idealists.
Their view was that he had been politically naive.
naively adverb [usually ADVERB with verb]
...naively assuming that they would be protected by local development plans.
I thought, naively, that this would be a nine-to-five job.
naivety (naɪiːvɪti ) uncountable noun
I was alarmed by his naivety and ignorance of international affairs.
Synonyms: gullibility, innocence, simplicity, inexperience More Synonyms of naive
Synonyms: gullibility, openness, candour, frankness More Synonyms of naive

is this naivety that you describe the naivety of Liam Fox and David Davis who both said that negotiating a good deal with the EU would be very easy, or just the naivety of brexiteers in general, who are convinced that everything will be fine if we walk away, but have no facts or evidence to support their blind faith.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Sat Jun 09, 2018 10:06 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:I don't follow your logic.
The USA does have a hard border, and isn't part of the EU, but it is pragmatic enough to have treaties with the EU (and that currently includes us). We would have to negotiate these separately, as the USA have done, if we were to come "completely out".
Much better to decide which ones we want to keep before we actually leave. I believe that this is the "cherry-picking approach" much advocated by many.
Why was my point about EU standards odd? In many cases our standards our higher than the EU, but if we are buying and selling goods, most potential importers will expect us to meet those standards, (not just the EU).

And how hard is it going to be to continue the current arrangements re. flying, for example? It wouldn't take 5 minutes. Are (say) the Germans going to be impressed with the idea that they can't fly into or over Britain? - they don't want to have to detour their transatlantic flights.

The point about EU standards was odd because it's nonsense. We don't have use USA standards, but 15% of our exports go there. Obviously our exports to the EU will need to meet EU standards, just as our exports to the USA need to meet USA standards, but that doesn't mean that goods sold domestically be sutiable for sale in both parts of the world.

I wouldn't worry overmuch about the problems of export standards. Most exporting companies are either multinational, in which case they know all about how to meet international standards and have systems to cope, or else highly specialised, in which case they can keep close track on the trade news for their specific industry. As with tariffs, the risks and uncertainties of all this EU / non-EU stuff is relatively less significant that the risks of exchange rate movement; it is surmountable under normal trade conditions.

Claret-On-A-T-Rex · Post by **Claret-On-A-T-Rex** » Sat Jun 09, 2018 10:10 pm

It all comes out in the end, just revealed that the main funder of the Leave campaign had multiple meetings with Russia.
The referendum result should be written off and we should stay in, there's no need for a second referendum when the result was so blatantly manipulated by foreign powers.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... it-meeting" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Sat Jun 09, 2018 10:19 pm

Claret-On-A-T-Rex wrote:It all comes out in the end, just revealed that the main funder of the Leave campaign had multiple meetings with Russia.
The referendum result should be written off and we should stay in, there's no need for a second referendum when the result was so blatantly manipulated by foreign powers.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... it-meeting" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So is that report saying that a rich man who supported Brexit was at the same time doing a dodgy deal with Russian gold mines and kept it a secret?

It's certainly no secret that foreign governments were taking part in the process. Here's a USA contribution:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... rade-talks" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Sat Jun 09, 2018 10:24 pm

Claret-On-A-T-Rex wrote:It all comes out in the end, just revealed that the main funder of the Leave campaign had multiple meetings with Russia.
The referendum result should be written off and we should stay in, there's no need for a second referendum when the result was so blatantly manipulated by foreign powers.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... it-meeting" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Congratulations. You're my new favourite idiot!

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Sat Jun 09, 2018 11:02 pm

dsr wrote:And how hard is it going to be to continue the current arrangements re. flying, for example? It wouldn't take 5 minutes.
.

You might think so, mightn't you?, but given that the "Open Skies" Agreement comes under the jurisdiction of the ECJ, it's a bit of a headache for TM if we are going to have nothing to do with the ECJ.
The FT don't seem to think it will be all that simple:

One route is to retain membership of the European Common Aviation Area, which spans the EU as well as some non-EU countries. This would provide unrestricted access to all EU destinations. But it requires acceptance of all EU aviation law and European courts, an issue that UK Prime Minister Theresa May has said is a “red line

(I'm sure we've had this discussion before and the facts haven't changed)

Claret-On-A-T-Rex · Post by **Claret-On-A-T-Rex** » Sat Jun 09, 2018 11:05 pm

dsr wrote:So is that report saying that a rich man who supported Brexit was at the same time doing a dodgy deal with Russian gold mines and kept it a secret?

It's certainly no secret that foreign governments were taking part in the process. Here's a USA contribution:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... rade-talks" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What's the connection? Was Obama paid by Russia to say that? Was he also doing a dodgy deal to buy Russian gold mines?

Are you saying Russian interference in UK democracy is fine?

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Sat Jun 09, 2018 11:54 pm

Claret-On-A-T-Rex wrote:What's the connection? Was Obama paid by Russia to say that? Was he also doing a dodgy deal to buy Russian gold mines?

Are you saying Russian interference in UK democracy is fine?

No, I'm saying that if a very rich but dodgy businessman has been funding a particular campaign, then it's not really a big deal. If someone is using money to "buy" politicians, to persuade them to express different opinions and campaign for different things than what they feel is right, then that would be serious. But if the politicians concerned have genuine beliefs (and I think there isn't much doubt in this case that they have), then the fact that their limited amounts of spending have come from dubious people while the other side's cash comes from general taxation, isn't a big deal.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Sun Jun 10, 2018 12:22 am

Paul Waine wrote:Hi Greenmile, I've thought about your question, maybe the only ones who could work that out are Cambridge Analytica. Actually, that is said "tongue in cheek."

Serious response: I don't think the question is phrased as it should be: "How do any of the electorate decide which parts of any campaign do the feel is true and which parts are just campaign rhetoric?" That would be the better question.

I'm sure the brexit voters made their decision to vote with exactly the same knowledge and understanding as the remain voters. I don't claim that any demographic had the better knowledge or made the better decision. It would be profoundly undemocractic to deem one person's vote was a vote from a position of ignorance and another person's vote was a considered vote with full knowledge and understanding of the information that should be known and considered before their vote was cast.

The UK determined through the Representation of the People Act 1918 that (some) women should have the vote. (It was extended in 1928 so that all men and all women were treated equally so far as matters pertaining to elegibility to vote was concerned).

Hi Paul

My question was phrased exactly how it should have been.

My issue is with Brexiters claiming (as you did) that we know what leave meant as Cameron et al made it clear, whilst also disputing other thing that they made clear as being part of “project fear” (which, to be fair, you may not have done, but loads of brexiters have and continue to do, in the face of increasingly overwhelming evidence that “project fear” was, in fact, “project unpalatable truth”)

I’ll ask again, since you have avoided answering my question by telling me what I should have asked and answering that instead - how did you decide which parts of what the government of the time said were entirely true (eg what a vote to leave would mean), and which parts were just said to scare folk into voting remain (eg it will screw our country over for generations to come)?

Couldn’t one also argue that any comments from Cameron re a “hard /clean Brexit” prior to the referendum were also just used to try to scare (sensible) people into voting remain?

To be clear, I’m not trying to suggest that remain voters had any greater knowledge or understanding than leave voters overall. In fact, I believe that everyone was essentially voting from a position of ignorance, to a greater or lesser degree, which for me made the entire thing a bit less “democratic” than a lot of brexiters seem to think, since proper democracy relies on an informed electorate.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Sun Jun 10, 2018 2:21 am

Greenmile wrote:... proper democracy relies on an informed electorate.

In a sense this is true, I suppose, but not in a sense to back up your argument. Democracy where the electorate is ill-informed is not as good as democracy where the electorate has perfect knowledge, I would agree. But a poor democracy is better than none. If the option is democracy where people are ill-informed, or democracy where people aren't allowed to vote because the politicians tell us they will make the decisions because they know best, then give me imperfect democracy.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Jun 10, 2018 8:05 am

dsr wrote:In a sense this is true, I suppose, but not in a sense to back up your argument. Democracy where the electorate is ill-informed is not as good as democracy where the electorate has perfect knowledge, I would agree. But a poor democracy is better than none. If the option is democracy where people are ill-informed, or democracy where people aren't allowed to vote because the politicians tell us they will make the decisions because they know best, then give me imperfect democracy.

Do if democracy with an ill-informed electorate is less good than a democracy with a well-informed electorate, then surely it follows that you support a referendum on the final Brexit deal, since that display of democracy will occur with a better informed electorate than the display of democracy you previously expressed support for two years ago.

I haven't read the rest of your posts, but i'm sure you're consistent with logic in regards to that. Right?

Claret-On-A-T-Rex · Post by **Claret-On-A-T-Rex** » Sun Jun 10, 2018 8:59 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:I'm sure you're consistent with logic in regards to that. Right?

I doubt it!

Leave voters are scared the result of the next (more informed) referendum will be to stay in the EU.
Then they'll cry foul because the country changed its mind.
Something forbidden in a modern democracy apparently.

Look at the attitude by the Leave supporters on here, they can't even admit they were lied to about the 350 million per week.

Claret-On-A-T-Rex · Post by **Claret-On-A-T-Rex** » Sun Jun 10, 2018 9:00 am

Or this...

dsr wrote:If a very rich but dodgy businessman has been funding a particular campaign, then it's not really a big deal.

Claret-On-A-T-Rex · Post by **Claret-On-A-T-Rex** » Sun Jun 10, 2018 9:02 am

Anything that works for them is ok...

"Oh, Russia interfered with our democratic process but they got the result I wanted so that's fine."

Claret-On-A-T-Rex · Post by **Claret-On-A-T-Rex** » Sun Jun 10, 2018 9:05 am

Instead of fighting a war with us in 1939, Germany should have just blagged the electorate into electing Hitler as our Prime Minister.
Legitimate tactic according to the Leave voters on here.

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Sun Jun 10, 2018 9:36 am

Claret-On-A-T-Rex wrote:Instead of fighting a war with us in 1939, Germany should have just blagged the electorate into electing Hitler as our Prime Minister.
Legitimate tactic according to the Leave voters on here.

BREXIT IS HITLER

bfcjg · Post by **bfcjg** » Sun Jun 10, 2018 9:37 am

Barrack Obama tried to persuade us to vote remain and he was a darling of the mainly left wing Trump tells us to vote leave and he is told to mind his own business by the left wing.
I voted leave on the facts as I saw them and to ensure the UK could always self govern due to the rise of fascist parties in Europe who will eventually run the EU.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Jun 10, 2018 9:54 am

bfcjg wrote:Barrack Obama tried to persuade us to vote remain and he was a darling of the mainly left wing Trump tells us to vote leave and he is told to mind his own business by the left wing.
I voted leave on the facts as I saw them and to ensure the UK could always self govern due to the rise of fascist parties in Europe who will eventually run the EU.

Want me to remind you of the right's reaction to Obama sharing his opinion? What craziness level would you like? One a 1-10 scale, 1 being, "i respectfully disagree" to 10 being, "Obama is just a puppet of the "elites". Totalitarianism is their goal, so "get back in your boxes and be quiet". We can take charge of our own destiny, and flourish, without the Brussels Suppression...Vote OUT...

ClaretAndJew · Post by **ClaretAndJew** » Sun Jun 10, 2018 9:55 am

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Sun Jun 10, 2018 11:29 am

*Sighs*

https://twitter.com/adampayne26/status/ ... 1871849472" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

South West Claret. · Post by **South West Claret.** » Sun Jun 10, 2018 11:40 am

ClaretAndJew wrote:

Interesting picture of those four individuals...now I wonder what is their own “self interest” is in us leaving?

Phathanded · Post by **Phathanded** » Sun Jun 10, 2018 12:00 pm

South West Claret. wrote:It matters not how they put it to the electorate but they must after having finished their negotiations with the eu and tell us what we are “Actually” voting for.. that’s the whole point I repeat an “informed” referendum.

We were all ‘informed’ of what might happen either way before the vote. Even if we know the exact deal on the table and we vote on it, we still can’t predict with any accuracy what will happen as a result. As I said before, we are made promises, told what the future holds if we vote a certain way in a general election. Very rarely does any of it materialise so should we have an election every time something we were promised/told doesn’t come to fruition. It’s about time everyone accepted this is happening and pulled together. The company I work for are a multi billion pound organisation, based mainly in Europe but have a massive presence here. We receive a brexit newsletter every month and the company is cautiously optimistic about the way this could open new markets.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Sun Jun 10, 2018 12:22 pm

Cool, if that is the case you can share the relevant bit on here.

Make sure there is no clue to which company is it like, or what field it is in and you'll be fine.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Sun Jun 10, 2018 12:23 pm

Claret-On-A-T-Rex wrote:Instead of fighting a war with us in 1939, Germany should have just blagged the electorate into electing Hitler as our Prime Minister.
Legitimate tactic according to the Leave voters on here.

Absolute comedy gold!!!!

Not only are you my new favourite idiot. But, despite, some extremely hysterical and extreme high quality, competition. You're cementing your self as the UTC message board number one clown!!

Good effort sunshine!!! Have you considered a career in script writing?

Anyway, please keep these nuggets of, laugh out loud, satire and light entertainment! Just brilliant!

Must go, got a rally in Nuremburg to attend!!!!!!!

South West Claret. · Post by **South West Claret.** » Sun Jun 10, 2018 12:33 pm

Phathanded wrote:We were all ‘informed’ of what might happen either way before the vote. Even if we know the exact deal on the table and we vote on it, we still can’t predict with any accuracy what will happen as a result. As I said before, we are made promises, told what the future holds if we vote a certain way in a general election. Very rarely does any of it materialise so should we have an election every time something we were promised/told doesn’t come to fruition. It’s about time everyone accepted this is happening and pulled together. The company I work for are a multi billion pound organisation, based mainly in Europe but have a massive presence here. We receive a brexit newsletter every month and the company is cautiously optimistic about the way this could open new markets.

No we were not “informed” because they had not even negotiated the terms before or even now 2 years later.

That remains the whole point.

taio · Post by **taio** » Sun Jun 10, 2018 12:34 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Cool, if that is the case you can share the relevant bit on here.

Make sure there is no clue to which company is it like, or what field it is in and you'll be fine.

It sounds like you don't belive him. Why? Despite the repetitive nonsense on here for the last two years the vast majority of people and companies seem to be just to be just getting on with their business.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Sun Jun 10, 2018 12:44 pm

I wouldn't go as far to say as I don't believe him, but I deal in facts and figures.

Far too many bullshit merchants around these days who are happy to spread any old rubbish for shits and giggles (or worse)

Put it one way, it goes against everything that I've read about it.

We have an ideal solution that no one outside of the UK Govt believes is possible. To suggest that a pan-european company is "cautious optimistic" with that is stretching it a bit.

taio · Post by **taio** » Sun Jun 10, 2018 12:52 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:I wouldn't go as far to say as I don't believe him, but I deal in facts and figures.

Far too many bullshit merchants around these days who are happy to spread any old rubbish for shits and giggles (or worse)

Put it one way, it goes against everything that I've read about it.

We have an ideal solution that no one outside of the UK Govt believes is possible. To suggest that a pan-european company is "cautious optimistic" with that is stretching it a bit.

Many companies are cautiously optimistic about post brexit. May be he works for one of the those.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Sun Jun 10, 2018 12:58 pm

I think you will find that is not the case if a no deal, or a WTO solution is the case.

And unless you worked in European Haulage or European freight ferries (which I did) then you'll understand that solutions that are being mentioned don't appear to fit in with my experience, and if the stuff can't go too and from the country seamlessly, then there are going to be issues very, very quickly.

Still time to sort all this out mind (and I'm still convinced that is what the vast majority want, despite all guff)

taio · Post by **taio** » Sun Jun 10, 2018 1:11 pm

[quote="Lancasterclaret"]I think you will find that is not the case if a no deal, or a WTO solution is the case.

And unless you worked in European Haulage or European freight ferries (which I did) then you'll understand that solutions that are being mentioned don't appear to fit in with my experience, and if the stuff can't go too and from the country seamlessly, then there are going to be issues very, very quickly.

Still time to sort all this out mind (and I'm still convinced that is what the vast majority want, despite all guff)[/quote

That's just your opinion and conjecture. The only point made was that many companies have signalled they are cautiously optimistic about Brexit.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Sun Jun 10, 2018 1:28 pm

taio wrote:
That's just your opinion and conjecture. The only point made was that many companies have signalled they are cautiously optimistic about Brexit.

I would hardly describe "cautiously optimistic" as being a ringing endorsement of the project.
Not many companies are going to express their concerns publicly as it would hit their share price.
"Cautiously optimistic" sounds like a soundbite intended to provide reassurance (IMO).
If I said I was cautiously optimistic that Burnley will stay up next season, a lot of people would consider me to be being negative.

taio · Post by **taio** » Sun Jun 10, 2018 1:31 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:I would hardly describe "cautiously optimistic" as being a ringing endorsement of the project.
Not many companies are going to express their concerns publicly as it would hit their share price.
"Cautiously optimistic" sounds like a soundbite intended to provide reassurance (IMO).
If I said I was cautiously optimistic that Burnley will stay up next season, a lot of people would consider me to be being negative.

I never said it was a ringing endorsement

And if you prefer let's just say optimistic then because many companies have said that as well.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Sun Jun 10, 2018 1:37 pm

taio wrote:I never said it was a ringing endorsement

And if you prefer let's just say optimistic then because many companies have said that as well.

No one said that you did, but what do you expect companies to say publicly? They're still looking for orders, investors etc.
2 companies - both in the same position: If one company says "I think we'll be ok", and the other says "we're very worried", which looks the better bet?

taio · Post by **taio** » Sun Jun 10, 2018 1:40 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:No one said that you did, but what do you expect companies to say publicly? They're still looking for orders, investors etc.
2 companies - both in the same position: If one company says "I think we'll be ok", and the other says "we're very worried", which looks the better bet?

I was responding to Lancaster's points, for example:

"To suggest that a pan-european company is "cautious optimistic" with that is stretching it a bit"

It seems you agree with me that he was wrong.

Phathanded · Post by **Phathanded** » Sun Jun 10, 2018 2:44 pm

This is the thing about people who are staunch remainers, you are branded a liar if your facts go against their argument. I am not going to name the company I work for however I will divulge a couple of points that the company are putting across on the positive side.

We have manufacturing sites all over Europe. Mainly trading between each other or within their own territories. However we as the uk are the only branch that trade in Britain but outside the EU. Mainly China and the Middle East as the Market sees our British produce as superior. Now how will Brexit not be seen as a massive opportunity. They can shift some of the manufacturing around to greater benefit from the different trade deal we will receive as opposed to be stuck with the EU one.

That’s just one point and if you don’t believe me then fair do’s. I voted remain as I said before, however we have to try and see that there are going to be pluses and minuses to both leaving or remaining. The decision is made. Let’s make the best of it instead of squabbling over who is right.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Sun Jun 10, 2018 4:41 pm

That's just your opinion and conjecture.

Based on thirteen years of work experience in the sector I'm commenting on.

What is yours based on?

taio · Post by **taio** » Sun Jun 10, 2018 4:45 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Based on thirteen years of work experience in the sector I'm commenting on.

What is yours based on?

Facts.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Sun Jun 10, 2018 4:48 pm

I didn't say I didn't believe you, I said that is against the view of what everyone is currently saying.

My own experience suggests that they need to be frictionless trade or there will be significant issues on Day 1 and continuing for an unspecified period of time (certainly months, possibly years)

If your company thinks that a good thing, or a reason to be "cautiously optimistic" (I assume its in the supply chain) then that is fine*

*I don't think for one minute we will end up with no on stuff like this, but I'm not in charge and I'm never sure how a weak and incompetent govt will act under pressure.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Sun Jun 10, 2018 4:48 pm

What facts?

taio · Post by **taio** » Sun Jun 10, 2018 4:53 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:What facts?

The number of companies optimistic about post Brexit. I've read it.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Sun Jun 10, 2018 4:55 pm

Where?

taio · Post by **taio** » Sun Jun 10, 2018 4:56 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Where?

FT

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Sun Jun 10, 2018 4:59 pm

Cool, its behind a paywall for me anything FT related, any chance of a link with a date?

taio · Post by **taio** » Sun Jun 10, 2018 5:03 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Cool, its behind a paywall for me anything FT related, any chance of a link with a date?

I read it in hard copy a two or three months ago. As a remain voter I was pleasantly surprised at the proportions. I get the sense it's my turn not to be believed now. I couldn't give a toss.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Sun Jun 10, 2018 5:04 pm

Nope, only asking for a link.

If you haven't got one thats fine, I'll see if I can find it on the 'net.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Sun Jun 10, 2018 5:06 pm

https://www.ft.com/content/90994db0-3ef ... 972418fec4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Guess it is this one!

Some good news (due to the transitional agreement that Brexiteers are arguing about (weirdly)) and some bad news.

taio · Post by **taio** » Sun Jun 10, 2018 5:16 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:https://www.ft.com/content/90994db0-3ef ... 972418fec4

Guess it is this one!

Some good news (due to the transitional agreement that Brexiteers are arguing about (weirdly)) and some bad news.

Dunno. Can't see due to restriction. Some figures here: https://youtu.be/eQK22vkeqxg

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Sun Jun 10, 2018 5:20 pm

I'd trust an FT link Taio, I'd never trust an RT one!

Basically I think its the one you are on about, in which UK businesses are a happier since the transitional agreement since it gives them the extra time to sort stuff out. But that is counter balanced by continued pessimism about the whole process.

Basically, if we have time to do it right, then it might not be too bad. All we've got to do is convince those who demand we leave asap that its a bad idea and to leave in an orderly fashion.