Brexit - Post Match Reaction

In what way? What parts do you specifically disagree with?

He got as far as 'The Guardian'.

He got as far as 'The Guardian'.

Is that because the word 'Guardian' proved so difficult for him to read?

Fwiw, according to the Dutch news May will survive the confidence vote and Corbyn will then support a second referendum as his party wishes.

Some sources reporting this morning that Corbyns tactics will be a series of confidence votes. The reason is two fold 1; it stops him having to back a “people’s vote” rerun, and 2; he’ll eventually win one. Finally he’s worked out that the only way the DUP will vote down the Government is if a deal they’re unhappy with passes. If they’re happy with one then maybe he’ll get enough Tory turncoats to vote their own Government down. Either way, he’s got more chance than he has today.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Just listening to Steve Baker on SN, for a Brexiteer he speaks a lot of sense about the deal he's proposing.

However, as Brexit is unimplementable without a customs union, it doesn't really matter.

One thing we can't say, is that it is boring.

 

( This is almost certainly total BS )

May I suggest you attach this to all of your posts?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Just listening to Steve Baker on SN, for a Brexiteer he speaks a lot of sense about the deal he's proposing.

 

One thing we can't say, is that it is boring.

What? A regurgitated ‘managed’ no deal? You’re obviously not listening very closely. It’s the same crap that the ERG have been spouting for months.

What? A regurgitated ‘managed’ no deal? You’re obviously not listening very closely. It’s the same crap that the ERG have been spouting for months.

I'm not saying it's a good deal - just saying he orates it very well. And managed no deal will probably be better than the unmanaged no deal that we're looking at now...

So pals, what we voting Tory or Labour?

So pals, what we voting Tory or Labour?

Depends if Corbyn offers a second referendum. As a traditional Conservative voter it'll hurt, but there is only so much damage he can do in 5 years as anything crazy will be unlikely to get through parliament/HoL.

Depends if Corbyn offers a second referendum. As a traditional Conservative voter it'll hurt, but there is only so much damage he can do in 5 years as anything crazy will be unlikely to get through parliament/HoL.

Oh he will offer one, no doubt about it.....

I predicted this months back.

General election, one party offering another vote or Remain, they win, No Brexit.

It's very obvious really.

So pals, what we voting Tory or Labour?

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

Oh he will offer one, no doubt about it.....

 

I predicted this months back.

 

General election, one party offering another vote or Remain, they win, No Brexit.

 

It's very obvious really.

Issue is there won't be a general election.

May I suggest you attach this to all of your posts?

Only if you preface all of yours with the same.

I'm not saying it's a good deal - just saying he orates it very well. And managed no deal will probably be better than the unmanaged no deal that we're looking at now...

If you say so. He sounds like a complete psycho to me (when he’s not spreading conspiracy theories and untruths in Parliament). If being a true believer, devoid of doubt and dismissive of complexity, means that he comes across as confident and assured, then each to their own.

A managed no deal is just tedious doublespeak - it’s like adding a plus or a plus plus plus to a Canada deal. It means little in practice. The fact is that the UK was always going to take contingency measures but their effectiveness depends to a significant extent on factors outside its control. The EU may strike some side deals with the UK but they will only be where the EU needs them and will be done to turn the screw on the UK where possible -and none will be allowed to dilute the four freedoms. All the bluster in the world doesn’t change the fact that the UK is a relative minnow compared to the EU. Either way, no amount of side-deals will come close to providing the full trading continuity that the UK currently enjoys.

Only if you preface all of yours with the same.

To be fair, his username does the same job.

To be fair, his username does the same job.

All I can think of is this

He got as far as 'The Guardian'.

I disagree. He got as far as the author's name, which had a certain, let's say, Levantine quality.

I disagree. He got as far as the author's name, which had a certain, let's say, Levantine quality.

It’s like Brexit has woken old demons in ilk like Les.

In what way? What parts do you specifically disagree with?

Jonnyboy said it was a good summary, I responded by an equally short rebuttal.

It might surprise some that I did actually bother to read the whole article, but it confirmed my opinion of the sort of rubbish that is written by this type of leftie journalist living in the metropolitan bubble with hardly a clue of what the man in the street outside of it thinks or believes regarding the Brexit issue.

Where to begin? Typically the language of the arrogant entitled Remoaner shines through early on. The talk of "crashing out" without a deal, an outcome all but the most wild-eyed Brexiteers regard as an economic and social catastrophe. This will be a large proportion of the 52% of the electorate thickos who voted to leave the EU. This is just the preamble to the rubbish that he continued with, surprisingly stilted for one who claims to be a historian.

According to him, the 2017 election produced a result where Brexit lacked a majority as surely as May did. There might have been a majority of Remainers in the House, but the election manifestos of both major Parties promised to implement the decision of the referendum, so Freedland's claim that Brexit lacked a majority after the election is ridiculous. The MPs elected had a moral and ethical duty to carry out the wishes of their electorate both in the Referendum and the election, where if the referendum was fought on a constituency basis, Leave would have won by a landslide.

So May was at fault for the current situation because she triggered Article 50 when she was not ready? The vast majority of the house voted to trigger it. But blame May for not being ready and the rest who backed it of apparently not realising that we were not ready. Article 50 allowed 2 years to negotiate a deal with the EU, or we would leave under WTO terms. As it has taken the bulk of that time to arrive at the awful deal we had now, presumably we are not ready to trigger it even now. How long should the electorate have to wait before their wishes are fulfilled? What incentive would the EU have had to offer a deal without the pressure which the approaching departure on WTO terms concentrated their minds to get a move on? Freedman is a naive virgin when it comes to business matters and the strengths and weaknesses of the negotiation process.

The red lines painted us into a corner? No they didn't you moron. They defined the position of what the electorate instructed the government to negotiate based on the leave vote, which is summarised as taking back control of our laws, our borders and our money. Freedman claims that these red lines brought us the only deal possible that accorded with those parameters, but the deal is not Brexit, and May was stupid to be led into it by departing from the principles of her Lancaster House speech and allowing herself to be advised by arch remoaners like Commie Ollie Robbins, and surrounding herself in the Cabinet by the likes of Hammond and Rudd.

Then Freedman tries to rewrite history so recent in living memory by attempting to blame Cameron for not staying on following his dismal failure in the Referendum campaign to secure a remain decision. He makes the utterly ridiculous assertion that Cameron should have stayed on and said that we had not voted to leave the single market and the customs union, that they were not on the ballot paper. Cameron had stated numerous times during the campaign that leaving the EU would mean leaving the single market and the customs union. Freedman deserves nothing but contempt for this crass stupidity. So it wasn't on the ballot paper. Neither was the position on immigration, the ECJ, the CFP, CAP. Neither were there any provisos on the ballot paper for Remain. What does Freedman believe the electorate voted for in the Referendum? He claims to understand (wrongly) what they didn't vote for, but nothing that he believes they did vote for.

As I already said, he doesn't know, because wrapped up in his Londoncentric establishment elite bubble, he has little knowledge of how the man in the street thinks in the rest of the country.

I disagree. He got as far as the author's name, which had a certain, let's say, Levantine quality.

*Yawn* You're like a stuck record. As others said, you need help.

Jonnyboy said it was a good summary, I responded by an equally short rebuttal.

 

It might surprise some that I did actually bother to read the whole article, but it confirmed my opinion of the sort of rubbish that is written by this type of leftie journalist living in the metropolitan bubble with hardly a clue of what the man in the street outside of it thinks or believes regarding the Brexit issue.

 

Where to begin? Typically the language of the arrogant entitled Remoaner shines through early on. The talk of "crashing out" without a deal, an outcome all but the most wild-eyed Brexiteers regard as an economic and social catastrophe. This will be a large proportion of the 52% of the electorate thickos who voted to leave the EU. This is just the preamble to the rubbish that he continued with, surprisingly stilted for one who claims to be a historian.

 

According to him, the 2017 election produced a result where Brexit lacked a majority as surely as May did. There might have been a majority of Remainers in the House, but the election manifestos of both major Parties promised to implement the decision of the referendum, so Freedland's claim that Brexit lacked a majority after the election is ridiculous. The MPs elected had a moral and ethical duty to carry out the wishes of their electorate both in the Referendum and the election, where if the referendum was fought on a constituency basis, Leave would have won by a landslide.

 

So May was at fault for the current situation because she triggered Article 50 when she was not ready? The vast majority of the house voted to trigger it. But blame May for not being ready and the rest who backed it of apparently not realising that we were not ready. Article 50 allowed 2 years to negotiate a deal with the EU, or we would leave under WTO terms. As it has taken the bulk of that time to arrive at the awful deal we had now, presumably we are not ready to trigger it even now. How long should the electorate have to wait before their wishes are fulfilled? What incentive would the EU have had to offer a deal without the pressure which the approaching departure on WTO terms concentrated their minds to get a move on? Freedman is a naive virgin when it comes to business matters and the strengths and weaknesses of the negotiation process.

 

The red lines painted us into a corner? No they didn't you moron. They defined the position of what the electorate instructed the government to negotiate based on the leave vote, which is summarised as taking back control of our laws, our borders and our money. Freedman claims that these red lines brought us the only deal possible that accorded with those parameters, but the deal is not Brexit, and May was stupid to be led into it by departing from the principles of her Lancaster House speech and allowing herself to be advised by arch remoaners like Commie Ollie Robbins, and surrounding herself in the Cabinet by the likes of Hammond and Rudd.

 

Then Freedman tries to rewrite history so recent in living memory by attempting to blame Cameron for not staying on following his dismal failure in the Referendum campaign to secure a remain decision. He makes the utterly ridiculous assertion that Cameron should have stayed on and said that we had not voted to leave the single market and the customs union, that they were not on the ballot paper. Cameron had stated numerous times during the campaign that leaving the EU would mean leaving the single market and the customs union. Freedman deserves nothing but contempt for this crass stupidity. So it wasn't on the ballot paper. Neither was the position on immigration, the ECJ, the CFP, CAP. Neither were there any provisos on the ballot paper for Remain. What does Freedman believe the electorate voted for in the Referendum? He claims to understand (wrongly) what they didn't vote for, but nothing that he believes they did vote for.

 

As I already said, he doesn't know, because wrapped up in his Londoncentric establishment elite bubble, he has little knowledge of how the man in the street thinks in the rest of the country.

Les I thought you were above the fray of insults and abuse - at least, that's the impression you give when you arrogate to yourself the right to lecture others on the subject. You really are getting flustered, aren't you pal. It's not a pretty sight.

It’s like Brexit has woken old demons in ilk like Les.

Indeed. And his wild-eyed screed (above) has all the trappings and tropes of a late-Weimar window-smasher.

By the way, who the ****, I wonder, is 'Freedman'?

Issue is there won't be a general election.

Jezza will just keep voting till people cave. Thats what the insiders are saying

I can't help thinking about the tweet I quoted earlier in the thread:

Numerous sources have confirmed the British government is deliberately aiming for a no deal Brexit outcome in order to take advantage of extended powers available to them under the scenario - including civil contingencies and so-called Henry VIII. The Chequers plan is a ploy designed to engage the EU in distraction from the desired British outcome and create a false narrative at home in the UK that the EU are responsible. Sources claim emergency legislation is being prepared for January next year (2019) when the Withdrawal Act no deal deadlines pass - this would be 29/01 and the civil contingencies secretariat have been convened as per leaked Hammond notes recently, adding credibility. The British government aims to prevent France and other EU countries from properly preparing for no deal by continuing to falsely engage in the negotiations in bad faith, keeping the EU27 from moving from early stage plans to contingency measures as long as possible. The British government hopes this collateral damage will add to planned disruption around the EU election processes next spring and they will use dissident relationships to further this - likely to include Orban. On Ireland: The British government hopes the EU will be forced to move first and install a hard border in Ireland in order to avoid blame itself for a situation it has created. Further sources claim the data harvested during Repeal 8th will be used in some "unity" campaigns. The British government has progressed trade talks with the US to the point of potential emergency supply, moving substantially beyond informal discussions - though the Trump administration should not be taken at its word, a degree of reliance on this has been factored in UK side.The government intends to create a tax haven on the EU's doorstep to exploit financial service deregulation. This speaks for itself.

11:25 am - 1 Oct 2018

Given the two quotes below, maybe the above tweet was on the money.

Mrs Leadsom ruled out extending Article 50. She told the BBC: "Parliamentarians right across Europe and the UK have very strong and passionately held views on this subject. "We are clear we won't be delaying Article 50. We won't be revoking it. And we are determined to deliver on Brexit on March 29 which is what a vast majority of Parliamentarians voted for in triggering Article 50."

Mr Macron has ruled out EU concessions to “resolve a domestic political problem”. Speaking to hundreds of mayors during a debate on resolving France’s “yellow vest” crisis on Tuesday evening, he said: “The first option is they go towards a no deal.” “That scares everyone,” he said, adding: “Those who stand to lose the most out of that are the British.” Whatever the outcome, he promised to defend French fishing interests in negotiations on any future deal, saying “the pressure” was on the British.He added: “The second option, and in my view this is what they’ll do, is to say: ‘We’re going to try improve what we can obtain from the Europeans and vote again. “In that case, we’ll perhaps look at improving one or two point, which I don’t believe in really because we took what was possible all the way in the (current) deal and we’re not going to not defend European interests to resolve a domestic political problem,” he said. “There is a third option,” he went on. “That is to tell us - and in my view they’ll start with the second and end up on the third (option) - ‘the bottom line is we’re going to take more time’ so they’ll ask for a longer period to renegotiate something. They’ll take more time, perhaps beyond the European elections (in May) to try and find something else,” he said.

Jezza will just keep voting till people cave. Thats what the insiders are saying

The Times saying he’s only got till Jan 30th to take control of Brexit. Fixed term parliament act mandates 14 days after loss of confidence vote before GE can be called unless he can form Government. Although DUP might vote down May, they won’t vote for Jezza, so he won’t have the numbers. He’ll need a week to pass legislation before the leave date, and they claim there’s mandated minimum length a campaign can be. All added together, it means Jan 30th equates to polling day of March 21st. Anything after that means he misses the Brexit cut off. I just hope for his sake that Abbott isn’t calculating the cut off day for him.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Corbyn is all over the place

He keeps on about the EU reopening negotiations if he was Prime Minister.

what planet does he live on?

Some sources reporting this morning that Corbyns tactics will be a series of confidence votes. The reason is two fold 1; it stops him having to back a “people’s vote” rerun, and 2; he’ll eventually win one. Finally he’s worked out that the only way the DUP will vote down the Government is if a deal they’re unhappy with passes. If they’re happy with one then maybe he’ll get enough Tory turncoats to vote their own Government down. Either way, he’s got more chance than he has today.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Could be but there's not much time left. But all for the people right?

Where to begin? Typically the language of the arrogant entitled Remoaner shines through early on. The talk of "crashing out" without a deal, an outcome all but the most wild-eyed Brexiteers regard as an economic and social catastrophe. This will be a large proportion of the 52% of the electorate thickos who voted to leave the EU. This is just the preamble to the rubbish that he continued with, surprisingly stilted for one who claims to be a historian.

You still on your 1 man crusade against people saying "crash out"?

Even having seen multiple examples of pro-Brexit folks in the independent media using the very same phrase?

And with the official vote leave campaign having promised a deal because even they recognised that it would be essentially insane to do it any other way?

Keep up the good fight!

You still on your 1 man crusade against people saying "crash out"?

 

Even having seen multiple examples of pro-Brexit folks in the independent media using the very same phrase?

 

And with the official vote leave campaign having promised a deal because even they recognised that it would be essentially insane to do it any other way?

 

Keep up the good fight!

You will note that I quoted the whole of his sentence, not only about crashing out, but the wild-eyed Brexiteers / economic and social catastrophe bits too. The full arrogant rant at people who he obviously despises.

But I note that apart from these petty little niggles from you, Verbal and Shurlock, the main thrust of my post in response to the request to identify where I thought that Freedland was spouting rubbish, has not been challenged.

I would be interested to see the article wherein the official Vote Leave campaign said that it would be "insane" to leave without a deal.

I am in favour of arranging a mutually beneficial trade deal with the EU in preference to leaving without a deal, but not if it would take two years or more to set up and involve us paying copious amounts into the EU slush fund. As things stand right now, it is either Canada +++ or leave on WTO terms, keeping the £39 billion, which we can put to very good use in smo0othing the Brexit, boosting the economy and for services like the NHS.

You will note that I quoted the whole of his sentence, not only about crashing out, but the wild-eyed Brexiteers / economic and social catastrophe bits too. The full arrogant rant at people who he obviously despises.

 

But I note that apart from these petty little niggles from you, Verbal and Shurlock, the main thrust of my post in response to the request to identify where I thought that Freedland was spouting rubbish, has not been challenged.

 

I would be interested to see the article wherein the official Vote Leave campaign said that it would be "insane" to leave without a deal.

 

I am in favour of arranging a mutually beneficial trade deal with the EU in preference to leaving without a deal, but not if it would take two years or more to set up and involve us paying copious amounts into the EU slush fund. As things stand right now, it is either Canada +++ or leave on WTO terms, keeping the £39 billion, which we can put to very good use in smo0othing the Brexit, boosting the economy and for services like the NHS.

Les - you're a predictable bore. Your little hobby horses have been challenged countless times on here before; you can trawl through the thread if you want answers to each of them.

...keeping the £39 billion, which we can put to very good use in smo0othing the Brexit, boosting the economy and for services like the NHS.

Well, we know that's not true...

In relation to the rest of the post - I asked you to expand, just because I could, and frankly I felt like you owed it to yourself to stop being lazy as well as stupid. It's an opinion piece, by a Remainer - of course you are going to fundamentally disagree with everything on there, being a prominent Brexiteer. However, again, what you've written is opinion, and frankly, we've done to death how wrong your opinion is when put against facts, statistics, politics and legislation.

..... keeping the £39 billion, which we can put to very good use in smo0othing the Brexit, boosting the economy and for services like the NHS.

Isn't the £39Bn primarily to satisfy the UK's binding responsibilities for payments into such things as EU pensions for UK MEPs and (British) EU civil servants ? I'm sure Nigel Farage isn't willing to have the UK Government renege on his £150K payoff.

European quote from the Guardian today;

"It looks increasingly as if Britain needs the mayhem of a no-deal exit to wake up from its delusions."

That’s where I’ve been for the last two years to be honest. I think the EU hierarchy have seen it in those terms for a very long time now. As a remainer you simply can’t ignore the strength of feeling against you. Of course the key thing in winning the war is knowing how soon and how far to retreat from the battles that you lose, so that you can come back from them.

 

Well, we know that's not true...

 

In relation to the rest of the post - I asked you to expand, just because I could, and frankly I felt like you owed it to yourself to stop being lazy as well as stupid. It's an opinion piece, by a Remainer - of course you are going to fundamentally disagree with everything on there, being a prominent Brexiteer. However, again, what you've written is opinion, and frankly, we've done to death how wrong your opinion is when put against facts, statistics, politics and legislation.

It seems to have escaped your attention that we haven't yet left the EU, or stopped paying money into their slush fund. If we left without a deal on WTO terms, we owe them nothing legally, so some of those monies can go to the NHS to supplement recent Government expenditure. Yes, Freedland's article was an opinion piece, as was mine, but there were several things he said that were certainly not factual. The article contained no statistics, and was weak on the politics and legislation.

European quote from the Guardian today;

 

"It looks increasingly as if Britain needs the mayhem of a no-deal exit to wake up from its delusions."

 

That’s where I’ve been for the last two years to be honest. I think the EU hierarchy have seen it in those terms for a very long time now. As a remainer you simply can’t ignore the strength of feeling against you. Of course the key thing in winning the war is knowing how soon and how far to retreat from the battles that you lose, so that you can come back from them.

Frankly that's what I feel at times, especially when you read the desperate guff of the arch-Brexiters on here -guff that is getting worse with time, notwithstanding the fact that they've been wrong on nearly every issue over the past two years and still won't admit responsibility. I'll be OK either way (I have French citizenship); but that's neither here or there. It seems such a monumentally costly lesson or experiment to inflict on the country just to disabuse part of the population of its delusions (with no guarantees that it actually will). I would have accepted May's deal and just drawn a line under things.

European quote from the Guardian today;

 

"It looks increasingly as if Britain needs the mayhem of a no-deal exit to wake up from its delusions."

 

That’s where I’ve been for the last two years to be honest. I think the EU hierarchy have seen it in those terms for a very long time now. As a remainer you simply can’t ignore the strength of feeling against you. Of course the key thing in winning the war is knowing how soon and how far to retreat from the battles that you lose, so that you can come back from them.

I don't think myself and my children should be punished because a lot of people in the UK are deluded. I really hope that if we do suffer, they get to see their loved ones suffer in the same way, and can actually understand the pain they will have caused.

History will not be kind to the baby boomers - and this act of selfish, self indulgence will be the final nails in the coffins of a generation that has taken for their own gain and given back the square root of **** all.

Isn't the £39Bn primarily to satisfy the UK's binding responsibilities for payments into such things as EU pensions for UK MEPs and (British) EU civil servants ? I'm sure Nigel Farage isn't willing to have the UK Government renege on his £150K payoff.

£39 Billion to pay the pensions! My God, what are the Eurocrats earning? There is no legal obligation to pay anything if leaving under WTO terms. Some say that we should hive off things like the pensions and pay that, but also present our bill to the EU for monies they owe us, £9 Billion or so as our share of the EIB, part ownership of some buildings, fine wines, artworks and a refund of our investment in the Galileo project among others.

I don't think myself and my children should be punished because a lot of people in the UK are deluded. I really hope that if we do suffer, they get to see their loved ones suffer in the same way, and can actually understand the pain they will have caused.

 

History will not be kind to the baby boomers - and this act of selfish, self indulgence will be the final nails in the coffins of a generation that has taken for their own gain and given back the square root of **** all.

Complete and utter drivel. I suggest that if the remoaners don't thwart the decision of the referendum, you make a judgement on how it will affect you and your children after a few years, not before it has even happened.

 

Well, we know that's not true...

 

In relation to the rest of the post - I asked you to expand, just because I could, and frankly I felt like you owed it to yourself to stop being lazy as well as stupid. It's an opinion piece, by a Remainer - of course you are going to fundamentally disagree with everything on there, being a prominent Brexiteer. However, again, what you've written is opinion, and frankly, we've done to death how wrong your opinion is when put against facts, statistics, politics and legislation.

Its up there with the immediate 700,000 job losses for a vote leave.

fantasy land stuff, eh

Complete and utter drivel. I suggest that if the remoaners don't thwart the decision of the referendum, you make a judgement on how it will affect you and your children after a few years, not before it has even happened.

To be honest, this isn't about me as such - me and my kids will be fine due to strategic financial decisions made prior to the referendum, and the fact that I am a Canadian citizen (which I may well exercise if this goes the way we expect it to).

This is about others - and I know you seem to struggle with not thinking about yourself first - but with the rise in child poverty, use of food banks etc, even the slightest fall in the economy post Brexit will lead to more child homelessness, poverty, and ultimately deaths.

Its up there with the immediate 700,000 job losses for a vote leave.

fantasy land stuff, eh

What you on about? You see the bus and immediately think I'm having a go at the leave campaign? I'm just saying it's been proven not to be true.

I don't think myself and my children should be punished because a lot of people in the UK are deluded. I really hope that if we do suffer, they get to see their loved ones suffer in the same way, and can actually understand the pain they will have caused.

 

History will not be kind to the baby boomers - and this act of selfish, self indulgence will be the final nails in the coffins of a generation that has taken for their own gain and given back the square root of **** all.

I totally agree with all of that. I have always been a committed European and remainer. I do expose myself through social media to people on both sides of the argument. Some of the attitudes make me rage. The idea of meeting a Frenchman and expecting him to be grateful that his country was liberated 70 years ago, or that he should feel embarrassed that his grandparents were unable to hold 1000 mile long border against a Nazi regime! Crazy. But all of that said, a botched up deal with a half exit from Europe, or an exit avoided by a slim second referendum victory, will never expunge this country’s political dialogue of the Euro poison created by the popular print media, who got bored after they had vanquished the hard left in the early 80s. I have loads of time for lots of statesman on the remain-side, but I honestly think sometimes you have to know when to re-group. It’s even actually about bigger things than our own economic short-term future. It’s about preserving the group strength of the largest block oof free independent democracies in the world.

This thread is so funny. I try not to read it very often because it winds me up. You all seem to be arguing about the economic outcome of Brexit. It’s like you usually argue about football, (without really knowing how that will pan out either), up to Saturday morning, and then in the afternoon you get a result and can sort out who’s been right and who’s been wrong, and then move on. You have all been on a loop for the last two years, without a nice clean score at intervals to be able to settle the thing. Lols.

What you on about? You see the bus and immediately think I'm having a go at the leave campaign? 8m just saying it's been proven not to be true.

they all lied. They will all lie again on an epic scale if there is another vote

they all lied. They will all lie again on an epic scale if there is another vote

I'll repeat, what you on about? We know that. That's completely irrelevant to the point I was making.

I totally agree with all of that. I have always been a committed European and remainer. I do expose myself through social media to people on both sides of the argument. Some of the attitudes make me rage. The idea of meeting a Frenchman and expecting him to be grateful that his country was liberated 70 years ago, or that he should feel embarrassed that his grandparents were unable to hold 1000 mile long border against a Nazi regime! Crazy. But all of that said, a botched up deal with a half exit from Europe, or an exit avoided by a slim second referendum victory, will never expunge this country’s political dialogue of the Euro poison created by the popular print media, who got bored after they had vanquished the hard left in the early 80s. I have loads of time for lots of statesman on the remain-side, but I honestly think sometimes you have to know when to re-group. It’s even actually about bigger things than our own economic short-term future. It’s about preserving the group strength of the largest block oof free independent democracies in the world.

 

This thread is so funny. I try not to read it very often because it winds me up. You all seem to be arguing about the economic outcome of Brexit. It’s like you usually argue about football, (without really knowing how that will pan out either), up to Saturday morning, and then in the afternoon you get a result and can sort out who’s been right and who’s been wrong, and then move on. You have all been on a loop for the last two years, without a nice clean score at intervals to be able to settle the thing. Lols.

That's not strictly true - many of the discussions are about points of fact and understanding which have a more or less right and wrong answer.

Complete and utter drivel. I suggest that if the remoaners don't thwart the decision of the referendum, you make a judgement on how it will affect you and your children after a few years, not before it has even happened.

Thanks for that. A Brexiteers opinion on the best strategy for the remain side of the argument? Trunkie want a bun? Lols

That's not strictly true - many of the discussions are about points of fact and understanding which have a more or less right and wrong answer.

Fair enough. I’ll go away for another two weeks in a minute anyway. I appreciate that the worlds problems aren’t going to be resolved by football message board. I don’t read it all in detail by any means, but the right and wrong does seem to get disputed almost in perpetuity. The last thing I want to do is take away your purpose. ;-)

they all lied. They will all lie again on an epic scale if there is another vote

Duplicate post

Lovely to hear from Dave Cameron on the news

And why don’t police beat the sh1t out of the protestors disrupting the news?