Brexit - Post Match Reaction

We're not in, and are not going to be in the ****ing Euro. I'm really not sure what your obsession with it is, it's irrelevant.

The Euro is irrelevant to the economic situation in Europe?

The Euro is irrelevant to the economic situation in Europe?

Morning Les. Looking forward to the game today?

The Euro is irrelevant to the economic situation in Europe?

No, irrelevant to us. Maybe you can explain what the above means to us, if we stayed in the EU?

No, irrelevant to us. Maybe you can explain what the above means to us, if we stayed in the EU?

Haha, good luck!

Haha, good luck!

All I want is instead of just parroting and plagiarising, I want an explanation as to why certain situations are good or bad for the UK, our current situation and our future situation. We have a number of economics graduates on our side, so it'd be interesting to see if they can come up with plausible arguments.

No, irrelevant to us. Maybe you can explain what the above means to us, if we stayed in the EU?

I guess the answer was no, he can't explain.

After 29 March, will there be anything further to discuss?

After 29 March, will there be anything further to discuss?

Quite a bit I expect.

My partner leaves the Uk on 29/3 so the question is will she be stamped out? In? Not at all? And we can only hope the new UK only lane is open with sufficient staff to cover. Will they wait until 23.00 to enforce?

After 29 March, will there be anything further to discuss?

1. Nothing will happen on 29 March. Nada. We will not have exited.

2. The Brexit process will go on for a further 5-10 years, while we 'implement' a trade deal we don't have so that we limp into what's now called Common Market 2.0. That's if we end up leaving at all.

Happy to help.

After 29 March, will there be anything further to discuss?

Think this is just the start.

When (if) we leave then it’ll be the start of strong sustained pressure to rejoin, which won’t stop until we do. That could go on for decades. This issue is never going to go away.

Brexiteers seem to be under some delusion that it’s over as soon as we leave, but I can see it intensifying...

Think this is just the start.

 

When (if) we leave then it’ll be the start of strong sustained pressure to rejoin, which won’t stop until we do. That could go on for decades. This issue is never going to go away.

 

Brexiteers seem to be under some delusion ...

Corrected for you.

...and Elvis isn't dead."

Nick Clegg, the man that wants a second referendum said the above in the Nick Clegg v's Nigel Farage, Europe Debate II, 2nd April 2014,

Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, President of the CDU and the person most likely to take over from Merkel, posted an article in response, 5 years later, on Saturday, to Macron's b@tsh!t crazy plans to reform the EU, here. An interesting quote from this article below:

From now on Germany and France are working together on the project of a future European combat aircraft, and other nations are invited to join them. The next step could be a highly symbolic project, the construction of a common European aircraft carrier, to highlight the role of the European Union in the world as a guarantor of security and peace.

A Franco-German aircraft carrier? Nice to know the surrender monkeys are happy to help re-arm the Germans, although we can all relax. Nick Facebook had his finger on the pulse and Farage and the rest of his ignorant Brexiteers were just spreading fear...

https://brexitcentral.com/defence-intelligence-threats-national-security-embedded-draft-brexit-deal/

Meanwhile, this is how some our own high level Defence experts view the implications of the Withdrawal Agreement on UK Defence policies.

https://brexitcentral.com/defence-intelligence-threats-national-security-embedded-draft-brexit-deal/

 

Meanwhile, this is how some our own high level Defence experts view the implications of the Withdrawal Agreement on UK Defence policies.

Sorry, who are these high level defence experts?

Sorry, who are these high level defence experts?

Professor Gwythian Prins is an Academic Board Member of Veterans for Britain. Sir Richard Dearlove was head of MI6 between 1999 and 2004. Surprisingly, it was at the top of the page Wes linked....

duplicate

Professor Gwythian Prins is an Academic Board Member of Veterans for Britain. Sir Richard Dearlove was head of MI6 between 1999 and 2004. Surprisingly, it was at the top of the page Wes linked....

Jeff,

Professor Gwythian Prins:-

He was a University Lecturer in Politics. He has also served in many public service roles since the 1990s at NATO, within the UK Ministry of Defence and as advisor to several governments on issues of energy and climate policy.

He is currently a member of the Chief of the Defence Staff’s Strategy Advisory Panel and of the Royal Marines Advisory Group. He is an honorary member both of the RN Special Boat Service and of the Army Intelligence Corps.

I assume that you do not question the expertise in security matters of the former head of M16, Sir Richard Dearlove.

And the article referenced to the additional support of Field Marshal the Lord Guthrie. I take it that you would also accept his expertise in military matters too, Jeff?

https://brexitcentral.com/defence-intelligence-threats-national-security-embedded-draft-brexit-deal/

 

Meanwhile, this is how some our own high level Defence experts view the implications of the Withdrawal Agreement on UK Defence policies.

Obviously the irony and hypocrisy of hard brexiters/no-dealers playing the national security card is lost on some here

#glasshouses

Professor Gwythian Prins is an Academic Board Member of Veterans for Britain. Sir Richard Dearlove was head of MI6 between 1999 and 2004. Surprisingly, it was at the top of the page Wes linked....

I don't want a Brexit website on my search history, thanks.

So, with a little research it looks like both Prins and Dearlove are incredibly pro-Brexit and write for Brexit websites, so not really sure we can trust what they say as genuine.

Jeff,

Professor Gwythian Prins:-

He was a University Lecturer in Politics. He has also served in many public service roles since the 1990s at NATO, within the UK Ministry of Defence and as advisor to several governments on issues of energy and climate policy.

He is currently a member of the Chief of the Defence Staff’s Strategy Advisory Panel and of the Royal Marines Advisory Group. He is an honorary member both of the RN Special Boat Service and of the Army Intelligence Corps.

 

I assume that you do not question the expertise in security matters of the former head of M16, Sir Richard Dearlove.

 

And the article referenced to the additional support of Field Marshal the Lord Guthrie. I take it that you would also accept his expertise in military matters too, Jeff?

All very pro-Brexit, so can't be trusted to tell the truth unfortunately.

Jeff,

Professor Gwythian Prins:-

He was a University Lecturer in Politics. He has also served in many public service roles since the 1990s at NATO, within the UK Ministry of Defence and as advisor to several governments on issues of energy and climate policy.

He is currently a member of the Chief of the Defence Staff’s Strategy Advisory Panel and of the Royal Marines Advisory Group. He is an honorary member both of the RN Special Boat Service and of the Army Intelligence Corps.

 

I assume that you do not question the expertise in security matters of the former head of M16, Sir Richard Dearlove.

 

And the article referenced to the additional support of Field Marshal the Lord Guthrie. I take it that you would also accept his expertise in military matters too, Jeff?

Just as an aside as I'm not sure whether it says in the article - staying in the EU is better than both the withdrawal agreement or no deal options.

I don't want a Brexit website on my search history, thanks.

 

So, with a little research it looks like both Prins and Dearlove are incredibly pro-Brexit and write for Brexit websites, so not really sure we can trust what they say as genuine.

Stick your fingers in your ears, place your hands over your eyes and demonstrate just how blinkered and narrow minded you must be to ignore any counter arguments or criticism to your beloved EU.

All very pro-Brexit, so can't be trusted to tell the truth unfortunately.

Remoaners = all trustworthy and honest as the day is long.

Leavers = all liars, totally untrustworthy.

Are you really that simple?

Stick your fingers in your ears, place your hands over your eyes and demonstrate just how blinkered and narrow minded you must be to ignore any counter arguments or criticism to your beloved EU.

But you're not criticising the EU, aren't you criticising the Withdrawal Agreement? Is not staying in the EU better for our security than both the Withdrawal Agreement and No Deal Brexit.

You seem to be getting confused what you're arguing for and against here...

 

Remoaners = all trustworthy and honest as the day is long.

Leavers = all liars, totally untrustworthy.

 

Are you really that simple?

Why are you starting with the insults already? Amazing how you Brexiteers seem to have such short fuses.

But you're not criticising the EU, aren't you criticising the Withdrawal Agreement? Is not staying in the EU better for our security than both the Withdrawal Agreement and No Deal Brexit.

 

You seem to be getting confused what you're arguing for and against here...

Les is crashing out again.

Why are you starting with the insults already? Amazing how you Brexiteers seem to have such short fuses.

It was an observation, made calmly. If the cap fits, then wear it.

You stating that no Brexit supporters can be trusted to tell the truth wasn't insulting? You like to dish it out, but can't take it back? Diddums.

But you're not criticising the EU, aren't you criticising the Withdrawal Agreement? Is not staying in the EU better for our security than both the Withdrawal Agreement and No Deal Brexit.

 

You seem to be getting confused what you're arguing for and against here...

Read the article again (even if it is on a pro-Brexit site and you might feel stupidly unclean) and see what they have to say about their proposals for our national security and defence policies post Brexit here:-

https://briefingsforbrexit.com/treaty-between-the-uk-and-northern-ireland-and-the-european-union-for-defence/

Also, what they said in the article linked above:-

First, we were both signatories with thirty others to the Briefings for Brexit letter published in the Telegraph last week, explaining why a sovereign Brexit – leaving with no negotiated agreement at the end of the month – is superior to any other course in our national interest.

The three of us believe that the EU has no business at all in the national security realm. These are sovereign responsibilities. The proposed deal, were it to be adopted this week, would actively impair the autonomy of UK decision-making in this most fundamental of sovereign tasks of government.

In the same way that if we leave the EU on WTO terms we will then arrange a mutually beneficial FTA with the EU, so we will post Brexit make mutually beneficial cooperative arrangments on security and military matters. In both cases, these arrangements will be on terms that suit us.

edit

In the same way that if we leave the EU on WTO terms we will then arrange a mutually beneficial FTA with the EU, so we will post Brexit make mutually beneficial cooperative arrangments on security and military matters. In both cases, these arrangements will be on terms that suit us.

But what happens if the EU don't want the terms that are beneficial to the UK, because they are not beneficial to the EU ? Doesn't the process of negotiation often involve compromise ?

Both trade and defence/security are matters of mutual benefit. In trade of goods, we have a large deficit compared to the EU. In defence and security, we have by far the greater capabilities. It is in the interests of both parties to cooperate together on both matters. It should not be impossible to agree on arrangements that suit both of us.

I don't want a Brexit website on my search history, thanks.

 

Why not? Do you think it will make you a less loyal remainer if you dare to look at the arguments presented by the opposition?

Who do you think is looking at your web history - apart from you - that you don't want to find out you've looked at a Brexit website?

Do you think you can adequately contribute to the debate if you steadfastly refuse to read anything but the position you've chosen? Seems a little blinkered to be fair....

Read the article again (even if it is on a pro-Brexit site and you might feel stupidly unclean) and see what they have to say about their proposals for our national security and defence policies post Brexit here:-

https://briefingsforbrexit.com/treaty-between-the-uk-and-northern-ireland-and-the-european-union-for-defence/

 

Also, what they said in the article linked above:-

 

 

 

In the same way that if we leave the EU on WTO terms we will then arrange a mutually beneficial FTA with the EU, so we will post Brexit make mutually beneficial cooperative arrangments on security and military matters. In both cases, these arrangements will be on terms that suit us.

I didn't read the article in the first place so be difficult to read it again - as I said before I don't want it on my internet history.

From what I gather above, you are saying that they have come up with a security agreement which will be better than the terms we're in now - but unless they're in the Government how are they going to push that forward.

So, are you saying that if we leave the EU with no deal, an idea from some random ex-peeps on a Brexiteer website will be implemented, and that idea will propose a better security arrangement than we have currently. Is that what you're saying?

Oh, and by the way, here is another ex head of MI6 saying the exact opposite - so who to believe eh?

https://news.sky.com/story/national-security-will-be-severely-weakened-in-no-deal-brexit-former-security-chiefs-11616825

Why not? Do you think it will make you a less loyal remainer if you dare to look at the arguments presented by the opposition?

 

Who do you think is looking at your web history - apart from you - that you don't want to find out you've looked at a Brexit website?

 

Do you think you can adequately contribute to the debate if you steadfastly refuse to read anything but the position you've chosen? Seems a little blinkered to be fair....

I don't want to give traffic to websites that continue to perpetuate the crimes and frauds associated with the leave campaign. It just funds more liars.

People post the **** from those sites on here, so don't worry I still get to read it.

I don't want to give traffic to websites that continue to perpetuate the crimes and frauds associated with the leave campaign. It just funds more liars.

 

People post the **** from those sites on here, so don't worry I still get to read it.

Wow! You really are a certified loony!

I'm assuming that you have evidence that 'crimes' and 'fraud' have been committed and that the perpetrators of said crimes have undergone due legal process!

Wow! You really are a certified loony!

 

I'm assuming that you have evidence that 'crimes' and 'fraud' have been committed and that the perpetrators of said crimes have undergone due legal process!

You been living under a ****ing rock mate? Nowt to do with being a "loony".

https://www.markpack.org.uk/155076/brexit-campaigners-broke-law/

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/17/vote-leave-broke-electoral-law-and-british-democracy-is-shaken

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44856992

https://news.sky.com/story/leave-campaign-and-arron-banks-firm-elson-insurance-fined-for-illegal-marketing-11624617

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/high-court-found-that-vote-leave-broke-law-in-different-way/

You been living under a ****ing rock mate? Nowt to do with being a "loony".

 

https://www.markpack.org.uk/155076/brexit-campaigners-broke-law/

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/17/vote-leave-broke-electoral-law-and-british-democracy-is-shaken

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44856992

 

https://news.sky.com/story/leave-campaign-and-arron-banks-firm-elson-insurance-fined-for-illegal-marketing-11624617

 

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/high-court-found-that-vote-leave-broke-law-in-different-way/

a load of links on over spending, wow crime of the century .

Don't see why you think being tied to EU for ever is better than being in control of our own destiny..... do you not think its a good idea to make our own laws and trade agreements?

Would I take a bit of suffering to be better in the long term? or be happy now and make my kids kids live by the control of the undemocratic EU making laws and signing trade agreements that might not be in the best interest's of Britain EG the new trade agreement with Japan....

a load of links on over spending, wow crime of the century .

 

 

Don't see why you think being tied to EU for ever is better than being in control of our own destiny..... do you not think its a good idea to make our own laws and trade agreements?

 

 

Would I take a bit of suffering to be better in the long term? or be happy now and make my kids kids live by the control of the undemocratic EU making laws and signing trade agreements that might not be in the best interest's of Britain EG the new trade agreement with Japan....

Sorry, what did you want? Rape? Murder?

What EU laws would you repeal then?

What about the Japanese trade agreement do you not support?

I assume that you do not question the expertise in security matters of the former head of M16, Sir Richard Dearlove.

Sir Richard Dearlove, the former head of MI6 who, with the CIA's George Tenet, gave enthusiastic endorsement to the dodgy dossier? No, of course not - who on earth would question his expertise?

Or to put it another, how much of an utter tw at would you have to be to say that the expertise of Dearlove of all people should not be questioned?

And while on the subject of expertise - isn't that something that you, as a fully paid up Jihadist, are supposed to disapprove of?

You been living under a ****ing rock mate? Nowt to do with being a "loony".

 

https://www.markpack.org.uk/155076/brexit-campaigners-broke-law/

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/17/vote-leave-broke-electoral-law-and-british-democracy-is-shaken

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44856992

 

https://news.sky.com/story/leave-campaign-and-arron-banks-firm-elson-insurance-fined-for-illegal-marketing-11624617

 

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/high-court-found-that-vote-leave-broke-law-in-different-way/

So it's a 'crime' for one party to spend more than the £7m cap (I agree, they broke the electoral law in place), however, the other party can spend £9m+ (of public money) on leaflets in addition to the £7m cap but that is all well and good.

I take it all back, you boycotting all websites to do with advocating leaving the EU is completely sane and rational!

a load of links on over spending, wow crime of the century .

 

 

Don't see why you think being tied to EU for ever is better than being in control of our own destiny..... do you not think its a good idea to make our own laws and trade agreements?

 

 

Would I take a bit of suffering to be better in the long term? or be happy now and make my kids kids live by the control of the undemocratic EU making laws and signing trade agreements that might not be in the best interest's of Britain EG the new trade agreement with Japan....

Jesus wept. You really are thicker than a butcher’s turd.

So it's a 'crime' for one party to spend more than the £7m cap (I agree, they broke the electoral law in place), however, the other party can spend £9m+ (of public money) on leaflets in addition to the £7m cap but that is all well and good.

 

I take it all back, you boycotting all websites to do with advocating leaving the EU is completely sane and rational!

And here’s another towering intellect

So it's a 'crime' for one party to spend more than the £7m cap (I agree, they broke the electoral law in place), however, the other party can spend £9m+ (of public money) on leaflets in addition to the £7m cap but that is all well and good.

 

I take it all back, you boycotting all websites to do with advocating leaving the EU is completely sane and rational!

Good, glad you've backtracked on your mistakes earlier.

Jesus wept. You really are thicker than a butcher’s turd.

If wanting the UK to be in control of its own boarders, trade agreements and laws is being thick?

and having no control at all is what, being smart? LOL. come on...………

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/mar/11/former-australian-pm-kevin-rudd-calls-brexit-trade-plan-utter-********

You've got to give it to the Aussies, they get straight to the point.

If wanting the UK to be in control of its own boarders, trade agreements and laws is being thick?

 

and having no control at all is what, being smart? LOL. come on...………

What laws would you repeal? And what don't you agree with in the Japanese trade agreement? Without any substantiation, it's just parroted words.

Endgame starts now. May has got her piece of paper with her "legal assurances" and everything.

So the ladder for the hard Brexiteers to climb down is now there, this is as good as it gets.

Make no mistake, they'll climb down, they'll swallow the fu cker whole and vote for the deal just to make sure Brexit happens. No peoples vote, no extension. They will bend over and by jingo they will take it right up em and say it tastes like Christmas cake.

For about a day they will claim it as a victory, plus they'll have their little blue passport themed street party on 29th March.

And then they will disown said deal the following day and then spend the next decade complaining about the EU and how badly they've treated us and they'd have definitely had done it better if only they were in charge.

Endgame starts now. May has got her piece of paper with her "legal assurances" and everything.

 

So the ladder for the hard Brexiteers to climb down is now there, this is as good as it gets.

 

Make no mistake, they'll climb down, they'll swallow the fu cker whole and vote for the deal just to make sure Brexit happens. No peoples vote, no extension. They will bend over and by jingo they will take it right up em and say it tastes like Christmas cake.

 

For about a day they will claim it as a victory, plus they'll have their little blue passport themed street party on 29th March.

 

And then they will disown said deal the following day and then spend the next decade complaining about the EU and how badly they've treated us and they'd have definitely had done it better if only they were in charge.

And the bitter pill for the Brexiteers on this thread are twofold. First of all, they believed everything the hard brexiteers of the ERG told them they'd get in relation to a hard Brexit, and now, they're being made mugs of a second time as that same ERG will vote for a deal that is nowhere near a proper Brexit.

Done like kippers. I really do pity them, as they've got to face their kids, and grandkids in years to come, and say that this is what they voted for.

What laws would you repeal? And what don't you agree with in the Japanese trade agreement? Without any substantiation, it's just parroted words.

The new copyright directive which will be the start of censorship on the internet. that's just one of the top of my head, that I don't want or had a chance nor did any one else on if we to bring it into law.

if you do not see why the EU's trade deal with Japan is bad for the UK, then Its pointless explaining it, cause you wont get it any way or just wont care as it wont directly effect you.