Unbelievable Jeff

TBF, Boycott is also a Brexiteer, so that increases the chances that he did it.

To be fair, the way you're defending him I think you were correct first time.

Mate, stop. This is really not working for you.

Of course you're arguing hypotheticals, because it's hypothetical that we'd be locked into the WA forever (which we obviously wouldn't be as technology would come up with a solution far quicker than forever). It's an easy question, GFA or Backstop? The main train of thought is that it does, so if it does, which would you prefer? Or have you got an alternative? It seems that, after all, you're very much like the rest of the Brexiteers. You're happy to criticise the backstop, but have no credible solution to it.

It's really not semantics though, and that's the issue. Everyone goes on about it not being Brexit, but it was never meant to be Brexit. It was an interim period that allowed us to negotiate a deal whilst continuing to trade like normal with our partners, which is obviously a sensible option. If it violates the GFA, is it better or worse than the backstop?

As in the WA? It looks like we will go back to that.

Where was my discussion in bad faith? I am having a genuine discussion with you here. This has genuinely been misunderstood by so many Brexiteers on here. What do you reckon about the question I posed?

Your post points to not understanding it, so maybe think before you reply or you'll end up getting lumped into the same bracket as GM and Les. The flaw is the backstop, but that's better than leaving with No deal and contravening the GFA. I'm sure you'd agree with that as well?

It's not Brexit, because it's an interim state before Brexit happens and we go out on our own. It's amazing how many of you Brexiteers don't understand what the withdrawal agreement is and what it is for.

If there was a criminal or civil case, where one or both sides were found to have presented false evidence, there would be a re-trial, as that is the only fair way to deal with it. The same happens if new evidence appears. This is how it should be dealt with.

If you're comparing it to an election, it should be every 5, so let's have one in 18 months, yeah?

The ERG, who are now running the show, are the ones who have frustrated it most, first with the attempt at a vote of confidence in the PM, and then voting against a deal. It has gone on for too long, but it's a mix of the remain and leave supporters that have frustrated it - again which points to the merits of a second referendum.

Stop comparing an election and this referendum - there is no similarity apart from the fact that the nation voted. You could also try to compare it to Strictly if you like - it would make as much sense. This should never have been put to a referendum - however as it has, and there was so much misleading information from both sides, it makes sense that, nearly 4 years down the line we have another referendum to make sure the public are still in support of it. Why is that a bad idea? If we need to have an in/out referendum every 5 years then sobeit, I'll happily do that.

Weston trying to be the Brexiteer version of Shurlock by copying his posting style. What a chump

Immediately? When was the referendum again? This isn't an immediate thing. If we voted out and went out straight away then fine, I get you, but that's not happened. Yes, I would, in the same way I support VAR even if it's against my team.

People get lied to in elections every time. However, you can change your mind every 5 years. This is not the same as an election, and if you think it is you're more out of your depth than I thought.

Of course you can, why can't you? It's ridiculous to say that if there were excessive lies on both sides it shouldn't be re-run. Are you saying that the lies just cancel each other out? That's a very poor argument if it did. What's the issue with a second referendum if the country was lied to on both sides, unless you think the result would change?

Yep, and we get to change our mind after 5 years. We are now 3 years down the road so what's wrong with having a second referendum to see if everyone still feels the same? It was the ERG that stopped Brexit last time. This latest vote wasn't to stop Brexit - one of the reasons was to get May's deal through.

Absolutely, both sides were lied to (or misled). Hence why we need a second referendum.

As I said a week or so ago, there is definitely an opportunity there... https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9917718/boris-johnson-general-election-oust-mp-plot/amp/

Shurlock doesn't strike me as someone from a law background - not because he's wrong but because he has more of an economic mind (all IMO obviously).

Not from WTO countries, no. We have trade deals with everyone apart from a few select like N Korea, and a free trade and area agreement with the EU (where 54% of all our imports come from). So, including all the extra customs strain when exporting, we will also be making at least twice the number of incoming checks at customs. It's not just a case of needing more people either, we don't have the infrastructure capable of dealing with twice the amount of checks.

Yeah, this was something I think we broached a long time ago after GM and Wes were getting their knickers in a twist about ECHR judgements.

It's not that they won't arrive, more that there will be delays.

It was renamed from "Base Case" to "Reasonable Worst Case" - that's the point. Don't forget this was put together by the Government, for the Government. We're being lied to again.