David Davis resigns

[Devils_Advocate]

So the EU is refusing to agree to a chequers deal or a fudge deal which is something you lot are against and don't want to happen. They are thereby trying to push us down an avenue where we have to just come out of the EU lock stock and two smoking barrels which is exactly what you and your 17.4m friends actually voted for and want.

It seems the EU are on your side and are teaming up with the "will of the people" so I'm not sure what you are crying about them for

[martin_p]

Why else would they submit a white paper they knew the Eu would reject?

Because there isn’t a white paper that would satisfy the Tory hard Brexit right (who May depends on the stay in power) and the EU.

[burnleymik]

So the EU is refusing to agree to a chequers deal or a fudge deal which is something you lot are against and don't want to happen. They are thereby trying to push us down an avenue where we have to just come out of the EU lock stock and two smoking barrels which is exactly what you and your 17.4m friends actually voted for and want.

It seems the EU are on your side and are teaming up with the "will of the people" so I'm not sure what you are crying about them for

Firstly no one is "crying". I am now almost convinced you and IT are the same person, always ending with some strange derogatory comments at the end of your post.

Secondly, if you have been following the flow of the thread and the arguments and counter arguments you would know my position and why. If you fail to grasp that, it's on you.

[burnleymik]

Because there isn’t a white paper that would satisfy the Tory hard Brexit right (who May depends on the stay in power) and the EU.

Exactly. Now suddenly the government are doubling down hard on the fact a No deal is not possible and the Eu have, also suddenly, decided that the deadline can't be extended with this huge change.

Come on man, I know you can see the bigger game being played. It's quite obvious really.

[martin_p]

Exactly. Now suddenly the government are doubling down hard on the fact a No deal is not possible and the Eu have, also suddenly, decided that the deadline can't be extended with this huge change.

Come on man, I know you can see the bigger game being played. It's quite obvious really.

A no deal is possible because we leave in just over 7 months time and our politicians couldn’t negotiate their way out of a paper bag.

It’s not some devious plan to get to another referendum, it’s massive incompetence!

[burnleymik]

A no deal is possible because we leave in just over 7 months time and our politicians couldn’t negotiate their way out of a paper bag.

It’s not some devious plan to get to another referendum, it’s massive incompetence!

Okay, well let's wait and see. I think it's a ploy to get that 2nd ref.

I absolutely agree with you about the massive incompetence.

[quoonbeatz]

if there is one thing this government do not want, its another public vote, whether that be a referendum or an election.

[Devils_Advocate]

Firstly no one is "crying". I am now almost convinced you and IT are the same person, always ending with some strange derogatory comments at the end of your post.

Secondly, if you have been following the flow of the thread and the arguments and counter arguments you would know my position and why. If you fail to grasp that, it's on you.

Youre overselling yourself if you believe there is a flow to your threads/posts with arguments and counter arguments.

The shortened version seems to be you don't like it that the EU aren't prepared to put up with our Brexit farce any longer and unless we get our act together they're not budging on the A50 date. You then follow on from this with some fantasists idea that everyone else is conspiring against you and team idiot to force a 2nd referendum which would be laughable if it wasn't so sad and pathetic

You manage to pad this out with endless waffle and bullsh*t but if it gives some meaning to your day you have every right to continue just like the EU has every right to decide if they want to extend A50 should we ask them too

Edit: I missed out the overarching part of your posts that its everybodys fault but yours and team idiots

[burnleymik]

Youre overselling yourself if you believe there is a flow to your threads/posts with arguments and counter arguments.

It's not my issue if you have a problem following a thread. Maybe your mind is so pre-occupied with trying to find an insult that you cannot keep it on track.

The shortened version seems to be you don't like it that the EU aren't prepared to put up with our Brexit farce any longer and unless we get our act together they're not budging on the A50 date. You then follow on from this with some fantasists idea that everyone else is conspiring against you and team idiot to force a 2nd referendum which would be laughable if it wasn't so sad and pathetic

This is you putting words into my mouth and then creating your own pathetic ending. You really need to get a grip. You are like a child, throwing labels and insults because you do not have the ability to respond like a civil adult.

You manage to pad this out with endless waffle and bullsh*t but if it gives some meaning to your day you have every right to continue just like the EU has every right to decide if they want to extend A50 should we ask them too

Again, worthless, literally worthless. No context, no realativity, no honesty.

Edit: I missed out the overarching part of your posts that its everybodys fault but yours and team idiots

There are many people on this board who have the ability to debate their point and stay reasonable and civil, and still get their point across, but some people just cannot handle other people not agreeing with them and they resort to insults and childlike replies.

It's quite clear which one you are. Best pop you on ignore until one day you may grow up.

[Devils_Advocate]

Waffle waffle waffle

[aggi]

Well Raab must have impressed. May to take over.

https://news.sky.com/story/live-pm-take ... b-11447341" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Lancasterclaret]

That is mental.

[Spiral]

"Raab refuses to part Red Sea, is not Moses."

[mkmel]

If the centre right and right wing posters on here are admitting that the Government are incompetent then they must be

And this lot are running our country

[Lancasterclaret]

into the ground

[martin_p]

Normally I’d be supportive of a PM getting involved to sort out a vitally important issue that’s going really badly, but this is Theresa May!

[aggi]

Ambition has dropped a little

[martin_p]

Apparently Rees-Mogg is now admitting it may be 50 years before the much trumpeted ‘Brexit dividend’ is seen. Something he forgot to mention before the referendum. Never mind, his investment funds will prosper so he’ll be ok.

[CrosspoolClarets]

Apparently Rees-Mogg is now admitting it may be 50 years before the much trumpeted ‘Brexit dividend’ is seen. Something he forgot to mention before the referendum. Never mind, his investment funds will prosper so he’ll be ok.

The way the Remain side win the argument is by being totally honest and accurate to sway the “swing voters”. The trouble is that we started with Project Fear (the 100 page document for which I read cover to cover in 2016 and it was hogwash). We then went to the EU and their rhetoric over the last 2 years (planes not flying etc). We then get our press talking about stockpiling food, Amazon talking of civil unrest, Tory rebel MPs like Soubry saying it isn’t about reversing the decision.

Now we have people lying about what prominent Leavers have said.

(Not Martin who could have read it somewhere, I’m talking about the media).

Rees-Mogg actually said that the benefits are over the next 50 years - he did NOT say we would have to wait 50 years for them. One could argue that he implied the first year or two, or even a few, could be worse off, but he sure as heck didn’t mean nor say what has been reported.

That’s why Remain will lose the argument (even if we stay in following a 2nd Ref, until the 3rd Ref, which sure as anything there would be). Because one side can be accused of being over-hopeful or optimistic, the other side can be accused of lying. Swing voters only ever go for the former once the latter gets proven.

[Greenmile]

The way the Remain side win the argument is by being totally honest and accurate to sway the “swing voters”. The trouble is that we started with Project Fear (the 100 page document for which I read cover to cover in 2016 and it was hogwash). We then went to the EU and their rhetoric over the last 2 years (planes not flying etc). We then get our press talking about stockpiling food, Amazon talking of civil unrest, Tory rebel MPs like Soubry saying it isn’t about reversing the decision.

Now we have people lying about what prominent Leavers have said.

(Not Martin who could have read it somewhere, I’m talking about the media).

Rees-Mogg actually said that the benefits are over the next 50 years - he did NOT say we would have to wait 50 years for them. One could argue that he implied the first year or two, or even a few, could be worse off, but he sure as heck didn’t mean nor say what has been reported.

That’s why Remain will lose the argument (even if we stay in following a 2nd Ref, until the 3rd Ref, which sure as anything there would be). Because one side can be accused of being over-hopeful or optimistic, the other side can be accused of lying. Swing voters only ever go for the former once the latter gets proven.

Here’s a tip for you. If you’re going to accuse people of lying, it’s probably best not to do it in the middle of an incredibly dishonest post. Do you really expect anyone to believe that brexiters / the leave campaign cant be accused of lying? You know, the people that committed electoral fraud / told us Turkey were on the brink of joining the EU / said the negotiations would be the easiest in history etc etc ad almost infinitum

Re the JRM quote, context is everything, so here it is for people to make their own minds up.

Rees-Mogg: “We will know at some point, of course we will. But it’s a question of timescale.”

Guru-Murthy: “So how long have you got?”

Rees-Mogg: “We won’t know the full economic consequences for a very long time, we really won’t.”

Guru-Murthy: “Of course not, but I mean we’ll have an indication. We’ll know if there’s been chaos, we’ll know if there have been job losses.”

Rees-Mogg: “The overwhelming opportunity for Brexit is over the next 50 years.”

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=My4UM_zCpk0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In context, I think the message is a lot closer to what Martin (and the “lugenpresse”) are saying, than how you’re painting it. That may be my confirmation bias kicking in, though, so people can make up their own minds up.

Btw, what exactly was the 100 page “project fear” document you read cover to cover? I didn’t know the entire project was detailed in a single pamphlet - I always thought it was made up of various interviews and pronouncements by the cowards who resigned almost immediately after the referendum.

[Lancasterclaret]

Got to be honest here, not sure that "Project Fear" mentioned stockpiling food.

Starving ourselves thin must be one of this upsides that we keep hearing about eh?

[tiger76]

Aaron Banks keeping true to form https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44939665 interfering in another countries politics surely not.

[Imploding Turtle]

Got to be honest here, not sure that "Project Fear" mentioned stockpiling food.

Starving ourselves thin must be one of this upsides that we keep hearing about eh?

Don't you know? Everything negative ever said about Brexit was project fear.

[ClaretMoffitt]

Don't you know? Everything negative ever said about Brexit was project fear.

Economic arguments aren't going to influence racists who vote purely motivated on creating a white indigenous ethno-state though, are they? Which is obviously what every Brexit voter was really after, right? Thats why they voted to reduce European migration, (which is majority white) because they are racist, duh!

[Lancasterclaret]

Not worried in the slightest by even more facts that make it look really like you've shot yourself in the face?

[JohnMcGreal]

Economic arguments aren't going to influence racists who vote purely motivated on creating a white indigenous ethno-state though, are they? Which is obviously what every Brexit voter was really after, right? Thats why they voted to reduce European migration, (which is majority white) because they are racist, duh!

Nobody said they were intelligent racists...

[PutTheWheelieBinsOut]

I thought I'd help out our remain friends as they never have a positive vision (or any vision for that matter) for the future of Europe or even anything positive to say about remaining. They just whine and cry about the Leave side, imply they are all far right racists and just focus on the apparent impending doom if we were to leave (their view). So heres some assistance for them.



To cheer them up a little bit more heres a few words from their president.

[Lancasterclaret]

To be fair to CM, he's never going to be the dimmest Brexiteer on here is he?

[martin_p]

The way the Remain side win the argument is by being totally honest and accurate to sway the “swing voters”. The trouble is that we started with Project Fear (the 100 page document for which I read cover to cover in 2016 and it was hogwash). We then went to the EU and their rhetoric over the last 2 years (planes not flying etc). We then get our press talking about stockpiling food, Amazon talking of civil unrest, Tory rebel MPs like Soubry saying it isn’t about reversing the decision.

Now we have people lying about what prominent Leavers have said.

(Not Martin who could have read it somewhere, I’m talking about the media).

Rees-Mogg actually said that the benefits are over the next 50 years - he did NOT say we would have to wait 50 years for them. One could argue that he implied the first year or two, or even a few, could be worse off, but he sure as heck didn’t mean nor say what has been reported.

That’s why Remain will lose the argument (even if we stay in following a 2nd Ref, until the 3rd Ref, which sure as anything there would be). Because one side can be accused of being over-hopeful or optimistic, the other side can be accused of lying. Swing voters only ever go for the former once the latter gets proven.

Here’s Health Minister (not a member of the British press) talking about the NHS stockpiling drugs. More Project Fear presumably!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44946819

[JohnMcGreal]

To be fair to CM, he's never going to be the dimmest Brexiteer on here is he?

No, not by a long way.

[nil_desperandum]

I thought I'd help out our remain friends as they never have a positive vision (or any vision for that matter) for the future of Europe or even anything positive to say about remaining. They just whine and cry about the Leave side, imply they are all far right racists and just focus on the apparent impending doom if we were to leave (their view). So heres some assistance for them.

]

Was that poster designed as part of a Primary School project?
Looking at the spelling, grammar and punctuation that's the "innevitable" conclusion I would come to.

[Devils_Advocate]

Was that poster designed as part of a Primary School project?
Looking at the spelling, grammar and punctuation that's the "innevitable" conclusion I would come to.

Don't be mean about WheelieBins work. He tried really really hard and spent a lot of time on it so I say to him well done and you can have a virtual gold star from me. You may not be top of the class but as long as you try your best its the taking part that counts

[Lancasterclaret]

What makes those sorts of thing even more ridiculous is that we are talking of very gradual change over a period, certainly beyond all our lifetimes.

It also ignores that all the countries in eastern europe that used to be under Soviet control don't want it either, and there are substanial majorities in all countries that don't either.

So its not even got the "Will of the people" behind it, you could almost call it "Project Fear".

With the important caveat that that "project Fear" isn't going to happen!

[aggi]

Interesting theory that Brexit was directly linked to the Austerity policies of the past few years:

Did austerity cause Brexit? This paper shows that the rise of popular support for the UK Independence Party (UKIP), as the single most important
correlate of the subsequent Leave vote in the 2016 European Union (EU) referendum, along with broader measures of political dissatisfaction, are strongly and causally associated with an individual’s or an area’s exposure to austerity since 2010. In addition to exploiting data from the population of all electoral contests in the UK since 2000, I leverage detailed individual level panel data allowing me to exploit within-individual variation in exposure to specific rules-based welfare reforms as well as broader measures of political preferences. The results suggest that the EU referendum could have resulted in a Remain victory had it not been for a range of austerity-induced welfare reforms. These reforms activated existing economic grievances. Further, auxiliary results suggest that the underlying economic grievances have broader origins than what the current literature on Brexit suggests. Up until 2010, the UK’s welfare state evened out growing income differences across the skill divide through transfer payments. This pattern markedly stops from 2010 onwards as austerity started to bite

https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics ... fetzer.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


I've only skimmed through it but the argument seems reasonable.