Brexit - Post Match Reaction

I wouldn't pay much attention to anyone wearing a load of bum grapes around her neck.

I think you'll find its the dessicated missing balls of UKIP MEPs.

Four quotes from my hero, Winston Churchill, seem quite apposite at the moment.

 

When asked what qualities a politician required:

 

 

 

 

 

 

and one for Donald Trump:

And its all gone quiet over here.

Whilst there is a short lull in the Brexit proceedings because of the Parliamentary recess, here is an interesting article discussing what we may need to cough up as a "divorce settlement" from the EU.

Where there have been shrill estimates varying that it will be somewhere between 24.5 - 72.8 billion Euros, here is a more sober article suggesting that we have a strong claim towards EU assets which would offset some of the amount claimed by the more strident EU bureaucratic bigwigs.

http://bruegel.org/2017/02/the-uks-brexit-bill-could-eu-assets-partially-offset-liabilities/

Whilst there is a short lull in the Brexit proceedings because of the Parliamentary recess, here is an interesting article discussing what we may need to cough up as a "divorce settlement" from the EU.

 

Where there have been shrill estimates varying that it will be somewhere between 24.5 - 72.8 billion Euros, here is a more sober article suggesting that we have a strong claim towards EU assets which would offset some of the amount claimed by the more strident EU bureaucratic bigwigs.

 

http://bruegel.org/2017/02/the-uks-brexit-bill-could-eu-assets-partially-offset-liabilities/

Interesting article Les, though I thought such thinktanks -much like the LSE- were in bed with the EU so that their ideologically motivated and flawed research could not be trusted. Ask Baldrick and Trident, our resident conspiracy theorists.

Whilst there is a short lull in the Brexit proceedings because of the Parliamentary recess, here is an interesting article discussing what we may need to cough up as a "divorce settlement" from the EU.

 

Where there have been shrill estimates varying that it will be somewhere between 24.5 - 72.8 billion Euros, here is a more sober article suggesting that we have a strong claim towards EU assets which would offset some of the amount claimed by the more strident EU bureaucratic bigwigs.

 

http://bruegel.org/2017/02/the-uks-brexit-bill-could-eu-assets-partially-offset-liabilities/

I think that ultimately the Brexit bill will be the key tool used by negotiators to discourage others from leaving the EU. A sizeable sum will be quite a deterrent for others to leave and that will give more flexibility to ensure that existing trade is not disrupted. Nobody will win a trade war and if they are pragmatic the EU will know that.

Interesting article Les, though I thought such thinktanks -much like the LSE- were in bed with the EU so that their ideologically motivated and flawed research could not be trusted. Ask Baldrick and Trident, our resident conspiracy theorists.

I think you're confusing an organisation that is transparent with its funding (receiving money from member states and corporations as opposed to the EU itself), winning Think Tank of the year for two years running with an organisation that takes blood money in return for giving PHDs to dictators' offspring...

I think you're confusing an organisation that is transparent with its funding (receiving money from member states and corporations as opposed to the EU itself), winning Think Tank of the year for two years running with an organisation that takes blood money in return for giving PHDs to dictators' offspring...

Bruegel receives plenty of money from the European Commission, European Parliament and the ERC. Its board is decked with EU luminaries -its chairman is the former president of the ECB among other things. The LSE's Centre for Economic Performance can't boast any of those close ties or funding, though your pal Ottaviano who you (wrongly) labeled an pro-european stooge is a nonresident fellow at bruegel (now conveniently forgotten). Think tank of the year for two years? That's as hypocritical as it is laughable coming from you Balders.

Blood money? You obviously didn't read the Woolf Report if you think it calls into question the LSE's overall reputation -one which frankly p*sses on Bruegel in terms of quality and influence. But why am I surprised that this is the case when a poster with a third rate degree from a third rate institution suddenly thinks he's an expert on the UK's higher education scene

Bruegel is recruiting an EU funding project manager to join the Development Team (in charge of raising funds for Bruegel). She/he will be responsible for submitting proposals, managing, monitoring and developing all BRUEGEL projects with EU institutions in particular, but also Public Institutions/International Organizations when opportunities arise.

http://www.cosmopolitalians.eu/eu-funding-project-manager-bruegel/

Bruegel receives plenty of money from the European Commission, European Parliament and the ERC. Its board is decked with EU luminaries -its chairman is the former president of the ECB among other things. The LSE's Centre for Economic Performance can't boast any of those close ties or funding, though your pal Ottaviano who you (wrongly) labeled an pro-european stooge is a nonresident fellow at bruegel (now conveniently forgotten). Think tank of the year for two years? That's as hypocritical as it is laughable coming from you Balders.

Yes they do, but they are transparent about it where they come from. The LSE isn't anywhere near as transparent. So much so, that your mate opened his report with "I'm not biased. I am not pro-EU. I never said the Euro was a good idea! Honest, guv." :lol:

Blood money? You obviously didn't read the Woolf Report if you think it calls into question the LSE's overall reputation

Heads rolled after that scandal (and I'm not talking about be-headings in Libya) , which seriously discredited the LSE. If there was no case to answer, why was there a raft of resignations???

But why am I surprised that this is the case when a poster with a third rate degree from a third rate institution suddenly thinks he's an expert on the UK's higher education scene

This actually made me LOL. I can only assume that you work in HE, given your staunch defence of the profession and by the amount of time you spend on here

Interesting and possibly relevant to some of the debate on here, we're told that the young who voted to remain, are better educated. Since many youngsters have 3rd rate degrees from 3rd rate institutions, maybe the so called "research" into the intelligence of remain voters needs to be looked at again? :lol:

Interesting article Les, though I thought such thinktanks -much like the LSE- were in bed with the EU so that their ideologically motivated and flawed research could not be trusted. Ask Baldrick and Trident, our resident conspiracy theorists.

The article appeared on this morning's daily epistle from Brexit Central and as it argued that we had a solid counter-negotiating stance to that put out by the likes of Barnier, I have no particular reason to discount it. It isn't as if the debated material could be categorised as typical of that churned out pre-referendum forecasting doom and gloom and economic meltdown if we voted to leave the EU. I could equally have linked to the article in the Times, who published their own article on the Bruegel one and then commented on it.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/brussels-told-to-share-150bn-assets-h6s96wtpv

But speaking of the project fear prophecies that did not come to pass following the referendum vote, there was plenty of other good news out there today:-

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-4228258/MARKET-REPORT-Eight-months-Brexit-FTSE-flying.html#ixzz4YpNHsxw6

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/02/15/employment-hits-record-high-uk-firms-keep-hiring/

http://www.cityam.com/259115/uk-investor-confidence-hits-highest-level-since-brexit-vote

So, reasons to be cheerful, one, two, three

The article appeared on this morning's daily epistle from Brexit Central and as it argued that we had a solid counter-negotiating stance to that put out by the likes of Barnier, I have no particular reason to discount it. It isn't as if the debated material could be categorised as typical of that churned out pre-referendum forecasting doom and gloom and economic meltdown if we voted to leave the EU. I could equally have linked to the article in the Times, who published their own article on the Bruegel one and then commented on it.

 

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/brussels-told-to-share-150bn-assets-h6s96wtpv

 

But speaking of the project fear prophecies that did not come to pass following the referendum vote, there was plenty of other good news out there today:-

 

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-4228258/MARKET-REPORT-Eight-months-Brexit-FTSE-flying.html#ixzz4YpNHsxw6

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/02/15/employment-hits-record-high-uk-firms-keep-hiring/

http://www.cityam.com/259115/uk-investor-confidence-hits-highest-level-since-brexit-vote

 

So, reasons to be cheerful, one, two, three

The FTSE rise is driven by the decline in the pound and has no impact on the real economy. The continuing rise in employment, decline in productivity and broadly flat wages and unemployment rate are real and important numbers though. Traditionally wages and productivity would rise in times of high employment, but that hasnt been happening for six or seven years, long before Brexit, and no-one really seems to know why.

The FTSE rise is driven by the decline in the pound and has no impact on the real economy. The continuing rise in employment, decline in productivity and broadly flat wages and unemployment rate are real and important numbers though. Traditionally wages and productivity would rise in times of high employment, but that hasnt been happening for six or seven years, long before Brexit, and no-one really seems to know why.

Personally I think we may as well go to WTO tariffs and get on with it as the EU will drag things out and I doubt we will ever get 27 nations to agree.

Personally I think we may as well go to WTO tariffs and get on with it as the EU will drag things out and I doubt we will ever get 27 nations to agree.

Here is an interesting read proposing just that. It is argued that we do not need to trigger Article 50 (2) and that if we only went for Article 50 (1), then we would be out of the EU and able to negotiate whatever trading arrangements we wanted from a stronger negotiating position. We would not need to pay anything further into the EU slush fund and would be able to arrange our own trade deals with the rest of the World right away, not having to wait until we had left the EU under Article 50 (2) which might be two years later.

http://moneyweek.com/dont-trigger-article-50-just-leave/

Yes they do, but they are transparent about it where they come from. The LSE isn't anywhere near as transparent. So much so, that your mate opened his report with "I'm not biased. I am not pro-EU. I never said the Euro was a good idea! Honest, guv." :lol:

 

THE CENTRE FOR ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE SET OUT ITS FUNDING SOURCES - THE EURO COMMENT WAS AS MUCH AN ANTICIPATORY BONE FOR THE KIPPERS WHO WOULD HAVE QUESTIONED THE POLITICAL MOTIVATIONS OF THE RESEARCHERS. DON'T BE COY BALDERS, YOU DO IT ALL THE TIME. DAMNED IF YOU, DAMNED IF YOU DON'T.

 

Heads rolled after that scandal (and I'm not talking about be-headings in Libya) , which seriously discredited the LSE. If there was no case to answer, why was there a raft of resignations???

 

HEADS ROLLED BUT I'VE READ THE REPORT AND FRANKLY THE PROBLEM WAS NOT A SYSTEM OR EVEN A DEPARTMENT-WIDE PROBLEM. IT WAS LARGELY ISOLATED TO THE PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT. LIKEWISE WOOLF FOUND NO EVIDENCE THAT GADDAFI BOUGHT HIS PHD. THE DONATION WAS MADE ONLY AFTER HE HAD BEEN AWARDED HIS PHD. INDEED THE LSE HAD PREVIOUSLY REJECTED LIBYAN FUNDING IN 2005 DUE TO A RULE THAT IT COULDN'T RECEIVE A DONATION FROM A CURRENT STUDENT. OF COURSE PERCEPTIONS MATTER AND THE TIMING OF THE SUBSEQUENT DONATION WAS POOR AND THE LSE BEHAVED VERY NAIVELY.

 

This actually made me LOL. I can only assume that you work in HE, given your staunch defence of the profession and by the amount of time you spend on here

 

NO I DON'T WORK IN HE, THOUGH I OFTEN COLLABORATE WITH ACADEMICS.

 

Interesting and possibly relevant to some of the debate on here, we're told that the young who voted to remain, are better educated. Since many youngsters have 3rd rate degrees from 3rd rate institutions, maybe the so called "research" into the intelligence of remain voters needs to be looked at again? :lol:

 

ARE YOU PUTTING WORDS IN PEOPLES MOUTHS BALDRICK? I DOUBT RESEARCHERS HAVE CLAIMED REMAINERS ARE MORE INTELLIGENT - JUST MORE HIGHLY EDUCATED AS PROXIED BY CRUDE EDUCATIONAL LEVEL. IT DOESN'T TAKE A GRADUATE FROM A THIRD-RATE INSTITUTION WITH A THIRD RATE DEGREE TO POINT OUT THE LIMITATIONS OF SUCH PROXIES, THOUGH COLLECTING MORE DETAILED DATA IS PRACTICALLY CHALLENGING.

See above

The article appeared on this morning's daily epistle from Brexit Central and as it argued that we had a solid counter-negotiating stance to that put out by the likes of Barnier, I have no particular reason to discount it. It isn't as if the debated material could be categorised as typical of that churned out pre-referendum forecasting doom and gloom and economic meltdown if we voted to leave the EU. I could equally have linked to the article in the Times, who published their own article on the Bruegel one and then commented on it.

 

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/brussels-told-to-share-150bn-assets-h6s96wtpv

 

But speaking of the project fear prophecies that did not come to pass following the referendum vote, there was plenty of other good news out there today:-

 

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-4228258/MARKET-REPORT-Eight-months-Brexit-FTSE-flying.html#ixzz4YpNHsxw6

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/02/15/employment-hits-record-high-uk-firms-keep-hiring/

http://www.cityam.com/259115/uk-investor-confidence-hits-highest-level-since-brexit-vote

 

So, reasons to be cheerful, one, two, three

Of course, you wouldn't discount it. That's all too obvious Les

The point is that research institutions funded by the EU value their autonomy and impartiality and are not politicised hacks, as is stated ad nauseum on here. Lets hope you show a bit more balance and perspective the next time one of these institutions says something you don't like. Deal pal?

Here is an interesting read proposing just that. It is argued that we do not need to trigger Article 50 (2) and that if we only went for Article 50 (1), then we would be out of the EU and able to negotiate whatever trading arrangements we wanted from a stronger negotiating position. We would not need to pay anything further into the EU slush fund and would be able to arrange our own trade deals with the rest of the World right away, not having to wait until we had left the EU under Article 50 (2) which might be two years later.

 

http://moneyweek.com/dont-trigger-article-50-just-leave/

The other thing in that article is that the only copy of the Lisbon treaty is in Rome. What a nonsense that all nations know what is in it.

I doubt anybody on here realised that before that article

Of course, you wouldn't discount it. That's all too obvious Les

 

The point is that research institutions funded by the EU value their autonomy and impartiality and are not politicised hacks, as is stated ad nauseum on here. Lets hope you show a bit more balance and perspective the next time one of these institutions says something you don't like. Deal pal?

I'm afraid that I still don't accept the premise that an organisation which is reliant for its existence or its funding on some other body, can be totally impartial towards that body. I'm not that naive as to ignore human nature and have developed a healthy cynicism over many years, but you believe it if you want. As I said already though, that particular article did not take a partisan stance, but in a fair and balanced way attempted to assess what we might have to pay the EU and what we should expect to deduct from it in return. I'll continue to assess each article based on content rather than its source, if that's OK with you, me old mucker, much as you usually do yourself.

Interesting, I assume the damage to the banking and services may be too much to do so, but the way that it seems the EU is lining up to hurt us makes it a gamble that we should perhaps consider.

The other thing in that article is that the only copy of the Lisbon treaty is in Rome. What a nonsense that all nations know what is in it.

I doubt anybody on here realised that before that article

What struck me about the article, is that whereas I had thought that Article 50 set out a procedure for a member state to leave, I had taken it that it comprised steps, as in Article 50 (1), (2), etc. It had not occurred to me that Article 50(1) was by itself a possibility without the period of up to two years in which to negotiate a settlement that is covered in (2), or in subsequent clauses.

Do these credentials of legal expertise of treaties that the author possesses infer that she is indeed correct, that we could actually leave the EU by simply giving notice under Article 50 (1)? And does she therefore believe that the Government either doesn't realise that, or are intent on pursuing a route of negotiation against a background of threats of various punishments and financial retributions?

If she is correct, then that is one hell of a bargaining position to adopt, effectively the nuclear option.

The only fly in the ointment is that the Remoaners in the Commons and the Lords will prefer to go down the route of a two year post Article 50 negotiation with the EU in the hope of a "soft" Brexit, or even that there be some circumstance in the future that affords the possibility that a second referendum could be called.

 

The only fly in the ointment is that the Remoaners in the Commons and the Lords will prefer to go down the route of a two year post Article 50 negotiation with the EU in the hope of a "soft" Brexit, or even that there be some circumstance in the future that affords the possibility that a second referendum could be called.

As for the negotiations, whats the odds of it keep being pushed out into the long grass by the politicians on both sides.

Having just one copy of the Lisbon treaty that nobody is quite sure of the wording is scandalous

I do hope that the possiblilty of just walking is being considered with other options.

As for the negotiations, whats the odds of it keep being pushed out into the long grass by the politicians on both sides.

 

Having just one copy of the Lisbon treaty that nobody is quite sure of the wording is scandalous

The EU having a long history of kicking the can down the road. Just look at Greece... they can't pay their debts... the EU keep bailing then out with debt to pay the interest on the debt that was accrued to pay the interest on their debts...

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

I notice that blair has stuck his oar in and called for the people to rise up against brexit. Yeah right tony, perhaps may will take as much notice of the people as you did when they rose up against the iraq invasion.

I notice that blair has stuck his oar in and called for the people to rise up against brexit. Yeah right tony, perhaps may will take as much notice of the people as you did when they rose up against the iraq invasion.

Great , the more we hear from him on this subject the better

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You know we did the right thing with the vote leave result when Tony Blair is desperate for us to remain

You know we did the right thing with the vote leave result when Tony Blair is desperate for us to remain

As one of our resident Islamophobes are you going to apologise for falling hook, line and sinker for last year's fake news? The Cologne sex attacks never happened:

http://www.news.com.au/world/fake-news-mass-sexual-assault-by-refugees-in-frankfurt-never-happened/news-story/1b52bc617051867f9b15e7a0c1dfff0c

As one of our resident Islamophobes are you going to apologise for falling hook, line and sinker for last year's fake news? The Cologne sex attacks never happened:

You are a clown, mate. The article was talking about sex attacks in Frankfurt that were falsely reported one year after the Cologne attacks that were correctly reported and filmed, FFS....

As one of our resident Islamophobes are you going to apologise for falling hook, line and sinker for last year's fake news? The Cologne sex attacks never happened:

 

http://www.news.com.au/world/fake-news-mass-sexual-assault-by-refugees-in-frankfurt-never-happened/news-story/1b52bc617051867f9b15e7a0c1dfff0c

Taxi for Jonnyboy

As one of our resident Islamophobes are you going to apologise for falling hook, line and sinker for last year's fake news? The Cologne sex attacks never happened:

 

http://www.news.com.au/world/fake-news-mass-sexual-assault-by-refugees-in-frankfurt-never-happened/news-story/1b52bc617051867f9b15e7a0c1dfff0c

[emoji23] oh dear oh dear you've made yourself look a right wally...

As one of our resident Islamophobes are you going to apologise for falling hook, line and sinker for last year's fake news? The Cologne sex attacks never happened:

 

http://www.news.com.au/world/fake-news-mass-sexual-assault-by-refugees-in-frankfurt-never-happened/news-story/1b52bc617051867f9b15e7a0c1dfff0c

:spaz:

:spaz:

He didn't even read it did he...

http://brexitcentral.com/no-surprise-blair-referendums-breaking-promises/

An interesting article on the arch-hypocrite Blair and some good reasons why his intervention into the Brexit debate at this stage has been met with howls of derision, even from his former cohorts, Blairites in the Labour Party. It's a shame he doesn't recognise that he is yesterday's man, spouting yesterday's platitudes.

But I welcome his intervention for one reason alone; his arrogance in insinuating that those who voted to leave the EU didn't understand what the implications would be, is a gift to the Brexiteers, whose resolve to leave will have been hardened against the EU.

Oops guilty as charged that'll teach me for posting halfway through a bottle of wine (and listening to 5 live earlier this week). What a muppet.

Still, I have drawn a response from members of the "top 10 kippers on here list." And the Frankfurt thing shows just how fake news happens in all countries and spreads round the world. And people DO completely fall for it if it fits their prejudice.

Oops guilty as charged that'll teach me for posting halfway through a bottle of wine (and listening to 5 live earlier this week). What a muppet.

 

Still, I have drawn a response from members of the "top 10 kippers on here list." And the Frankfurt thing shows just how fake news happens in all countries and spreads round the world. And people DO completely fall for it if it fits their prejudice.

So, what you are saying is the "top 10 kippers" on here fall for fake news if it fits their prejudice but you don't. Mate keep digging. You can't even spot real news. As for your little fishing trip, you're straight on ignore, so you don't catch me anymore. Communicating with a complete moron is never any fun and I don't want to encourage you.

So, what you are saying is the "top 10 kippers" on here fall for fake news if it fits their prejudice but you don't. Mate keep digging. You can't even spot real news. As for your little fishing trip, you're straight on ignore, so you don't catch me anymore. Communicating with a complete moron is never any fun and I don't want to encourage you.

Glad to hear it. My least favourite poster on here and that's saying something.

Fake news has been fooling entire population for centuries

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-38995205

This thread will go into meltdown WHEN Article 50 is triggered.

If the UK had voted remain this thread would never have existed it would have been carry on as normal.

Remainers, please can I have next weeks lottery numbers.

Thank you.

Kippers and the unskilled are the least likely to trust experts. Who'd have thought?

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/02/17/leave-voters-are-less-likely-trust-any-experts-eve/

If the UK had voted remain this thread would never have existed it would have been carry on as normal.

Classic monumentally thick leave post. If the UK had voted remain it would have meant the status quo. Apart from a few posts about the rights and wrongs of the campaign or decision there would have been nothing to discuss. Leaving means a whole different economic, social and political landscape is being discussed and thrashed out - which of course people want to comment on.

Fake news has been fooling entire population for centuries

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-38995205

And our supposedly unbiased national broadcasting organisation is accused of peddling it too.

Anybody who believes that they are unbiased must be really naive.

And our supposedly unbiased national broadcasting organisation is accused of peddling it too.

 

 

Anybody who believes that they are unbiased must be really naive.

The real takeaway from that clip is that the President doesn't prepare for news conferences. You should watch the actual coverage of his Florida press conference. Its a car crash.

Classic monumentally thick leave post. If the UK had voted remain it would have meant the status quo. Apart from a few posts about the rights and wrongs of the campaign or decision there would have been nothing to discuss. Leaving means a whole different economic, social and political landscape is being discussed and thrashed out - which of course people want to comment on.

Classic monumentally arrogant and superior post from you, if I may so so. Your attitude towards Brexiteers appears to be very much in tune with Blair's, so here's a piece about his record on the EU. Feel free to praise his intervention into the debate and his crusade to overturn the will of the people.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/tony-blair-doesnt-deserve-opinion-brexit-1607189

Kippers and the unskilled are the least likely to trust experts. Who'd have thought?

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/02/17/leave-voters-are-less-likely-trust-any-experts-eve/

Is that from the polling experts who told us Cameron wouldn't win the GE and remain would win the referendum?

Is that from the polling experts who told us Cameron wouldn't win the GE and remain would win the referendum?

All experts are the same arent they? In it together. Cant trust any of them.

Classic monumentally arrogant and superior post from you, if I may so so. Your attitude towards Brexiteers appears to be very much in tune with Blair's, so here's a piece about his record on the EU. Feel free to praise his intervention into the debate and his crusade to overturn the will of the people.

 

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/tony-blair-doesnt-deserve-opinion-brexit-1607189

My response is to posts. That was monumentally thick one by Portugalsaint. Or do you agree there would have been as much to debate if we had kept the status quo instead of voting for massive change? The thing is there are many good, powerful arguments Brexiteers could be making. The fact that so many dont spot them and instead make facile 'points' about supposedly 'fake news' and dodgy experts actually reinforce the case for most Breixteers being dumber than the average bear.

My response is to posts. That was monumentally thick one by Portugalsaint. Or do you agree there would have been as much to debate if we had kept the status quo instead of voting for massive change? The thing is there are many good, powerful arguments Brexiteers could be making. The fact that so many dont spot them and instead make facile 'points' about supposedly 'fake news' and dodgy experts actually reinforce the case for most Breixteers being dumber than the average bear.

oh well, we are leaving.

for someone who was a remainer all along, you are pretty bitter about it

oh well, we are leaving.

for someone who was a remainer all along, you are pretty bitter about it

Abyssus abyssum invocat.

And our supposedly unbiased national broadcasting organisation is accused of peddling it too.

 

 

Anybody who believes that they are unbiased must be really naive.

Les you must be really naive to put any weight on the accusations of a Trump loyalist and surrogate. In Trump's -and by extension Gorka's topsy-turvy world, the only media outlet that is unbiased is Fox News. Try thinking that one through pal.

My response is to posts. That was monumentally thick one by Portugalsaint. Or do you agree there would have been as much to debate if we had kept the status quo instead of voting for massive change? The thing is there are many good, powerful arguments Brexiteers could be making. The fact that so many dont spot them and instead make facile 'points' about supposedly 'fake news' and dodgy experts actually reinforce the case for most Breixteers being dumber than the average bear.

And your response to Portugalsaint's post shows your total failure to comprehend what he wrote, making you the thicky. I read it that had we voted to remain in the EU, this thread "Post EU - the way forward" would not have existed. I don't see anything that he wrote that suggests that the situation under those circumstances would not have been the status quo, i.e. business as usual. Feel free to highlight which words or what nuance you applied to his short sentence which led you to interpret it the way you did.

Regarding the many good, powerful arguments Brexiteers could be making, I suggest that there were plenty of them during the referendum campaign, but you must have chosen to ignore them. I accept that it is human nature though for those who have lost to be in denial, lashing out at the victors, trying to justify their position by claiming that everything was unfair, their case was misunderstood or not heard and that their opponents weren't intelligent enough to understand the rules. It's basic playground stuff, as is the puerile name-calling.

Les you must be really naive to put any weight on the accusations of a Trump loyalist and surrogate. In Trump's -and by extension Gorka's topsy-turvy world, the only media outlet that is unbiased is Fox News. Try thinking that one through pal.

I try and take a more balanced view, Shatlock. That is accepting that a spokesman for Trump will naturally defend his policies and utterances. Do you deny though that the BBC has a biased agenda based on a pro-Remain stance?

Regarding the many good, powerful arguments Brexiteers could be making, I suggest that there were plenty of them during the referendum campaign, but you must have chosen to ignore them. I accept that it is human nature though for those who have lost to be in denial, lashing out at the victors, trying to justify their position by claiming that everything was unfair, their case was misunderstood or not heard and that their opponents weren't intelligent enough to understand the rules. It's basic playground stuff, as is the puerile name-calling.

To be fair, it really is pointless posting any arguments on this thread that are pro-brexit. Unless they are backed up with several academic studies the likes of shurlock and buctootim will cry foul and claim they are the mere ramblings of dribbling thicko kippers! Even the few academic papers that have suggested leaving the EU would be a good thing have been shot down because the author aren't 'renowned' enough!

All experts are the same arent they? In it together. Cant trust any of them.

I don't have problem trusting experts' opinions but only a complete fool would trust politicians.