Brexit - Post Match Reaction

[Wes Tender]

Which 3rd party is making the decision ? The original decision was indeed made by the electorate, who may subsequently, it seems to some, have changed their mind once the truth of the situation started to emerge.

 

It isn't the electorate who have changed their minds, at least not a significant percentage of them. It is the losers who never accepted the decision in the first place, trying to whip up a frenzy of hysteria and pretending that there exists a groundswell of opinion for another referendum.

[Plastic]

It isn't the electorate who have changed their minds, at least not a significant percentage of them.

 

How do you know this, and if it’s true, why does a second vote concern you?

Also, what do you class as a ‘significant’ percentage? I’d imagine circa 2%, but I guess that depends on the context!

[badgerx16]

It isn't the electorate who have changed their minds, at least not a significant percentage of them. It is the losers who never accepted the decision in the first place, trying to whip up a frenzy of hysteria and pretending that there exists a groundswell of opinion for another referendum.

 

Many bookies are offering odds-on for a second public vote. That's a lot of 'pretending'.

[Verbal]

Many bookies are offering odds-on for a second public vote. That's a lot of 'pretending'.

 

It's interesting to compare and contrast. The People's Vote campaign, which is largely run by young people - the ones whose future would be stolen by Brexit - managed to get more than 700,000 on the streets in support of their demands.

 

The best the miserable Jihadists could do is have a dozen of them dress up in yellow hi-viz and block an ambulance trying to reach an emergency. A better demonstration of Jihadists' feebleness and breathtaking selfishness I couldn't imagine.

[Batman]

Many bookies are offering odds-on for a second public vote. That's a lot of 'pretending'.

 

That does not mean anything in terms that the electorate has changed its mind, which you implied

[Batman]

War criminals should be in prison not Parliament.

 

 

Talking of Blair wanting another vote etc

 

I wonder if Blair is open to another/new Chilcot report seeing as most didn’t like the outcome regarding him in the original.

[Guided Missile]

I wonder if Blair is open to another/new Chilcot report seeing as most didn’t like the outcome regarding him in the original.

If the public had been offered a referendum on whether to invade Iraq, my guess is we would have voted against it and thousands of lives would have been saved, particularly if the public had seen the legal advice regarding that war, at the time.

[badgerx16]

That does not mean anything in terms that the electorate has changed its mind, which you implied

Wes's post said that it was a pretence that there was a groundswell of opinion for a second vote. Bookies' odds tend to indicate the direction of public opinion.

[Verbal]

Another landmark day of celebration for al-Tenderi, JJ and other Brexit Jihadists - Land Rover are making 5,000 Brexit-related job cuts.

[OldNick]

Another landmark day of celebration for al-Tenderi, JJ and other Brexit Jihadists - Land Rover are making 5,000 Brexit-related job cuts.

Im sure Brexit is the reason, but I suspect we will see massive cuts in motor car employment due to the onset of new electric technology for cars.A client of mine was invited to a Mercedes factory and was told that few if any of the models on show now will be in the showrooms in 2 years time, due to the new electric cars coming forward. Of course few engine parts will be needed and so the workforce will be reduced.

[Batman]

Wes's post said that it was a pretence that there was a groundswell of opinion for a second vote. Bookies' odds tend to indicate the direction of public opinion.

 

Not entirely true. I think there will be another referendum. I will still vote leave (if remain is even an option)

[Plastic]

If the public had been offered a referendum on whether to invade Iraq, my guess is we would have voted against it and thousands of lives would have been saved, particularly if the public had seen the legal advice regarding that war, at the time.

 

How about if the legal advice only came to light after a successful vote? I assume because the British public had already voted you would not approve of a second referendum on the matter?

[Guided Missile]

Here's an extract from the Government leaflet, published here:

 

The referendum on Thursday, 23rd June is your chance to decide if we should remain in or leave the European Union. The Government believes it is in the best interests of the UK to remain in the EU. This is the way to protect jobs, provide security, and strengthen the UK’s economy for every family in this country – a clear path into the future, in contrast to the uncertainty of leaving.

This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.

 

Read the f***in' leaflet, delivered to every household in the UK, at a cost of £9.3M and tell me how the people that voted leave, were in any doubt about what may happen and what they were voting for.

I've ordered my yellow jacket, BTW...

[shurlock]

It’s pretty clear that Brexiters are sh*tt*ng their pants and running scared.

[Guided Missile]

How about if the legal advice only came to light after a successful vote? I assume because the British public had already voted you would not approve of a second referendum on the matter?

I was happy about the Chilcot inquiry, even though it cost £13.5M. A second referendum on the Iraq war wouldn't have brought back the 182 British lives that were lost. That was the true cost and for what?

I find it sad that there are some on this thread would want Blair back. That fact says a lot about both the posters with the memories of goldfish and the current leader of the Labour party...

[Guided Missile]

How about if the legal advice only came to light after a successful vote?

Oh, and my point is that Labour fought for the publication of legal advice on Brexit, before a vote, a stance which I admired, but for some reason didn't do the same when the public swallowed the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" b0ll0x Blair peddled...

[shurlock]

Here's an extract from the Government leaflet, published here:

 

 

 

Read the f***in' leaflet, delivered to every household in the UK, at a cost of £9.3M and tell me how the people that voted leave, were in any doubt about what may happen and what they were voting for.

I've ordered my yellow jacket, BTW...

 

Even though that same leaflet mentioned a host of models from Norway to Canada compatible with leaving the EU, as required by Section 7 (1)(b) of the 2015 Referendum Act. Yep it was blindingly clear what people were voting for when they voted to leave the EU, you dopey ****

Edited 17 December, 2018 by shurlock

[Guided Missile]

Im sure Brexit is the reason, but I suspect we will see massive cuts in motor car employment due to the onset of new electric technology for cars.A client of mine was invited to a Mercedes factory and was told that few if any of the models on show now will be in the showrooms in 2 years time, due to the new electric cars coming forward. Of course few engine parts will be needed and so the workforce will be reduced.

Brexit is not the reason that an Indian company is cutting costs. They may be telling unions that, but it is total bulsh!t. It's all down to satisfying their investors.

 

The 40,000 British employees of Jaguar Land Rover face the prospect of further job cuts after Britain’s biggest carmaker launched a £2.5bn plan to reduce costs and free up cash. JLR announced its intentions on Wednesday after slumping £90m into the red in the three months to September, hit by falling sales in China and Europe.

The company will reduce annual investment from £4.5bn to £4bn this year and next, while reducing the stock of finished cars it holds and its working capital by £500m. It will also cut £1bn in costs. The firm has implemented a freeze on recruitment and all non-essential travel, as it battles against falling demand.

 

I recall years before the referendum that Ford withdrew investment from Southampton and moved their production to Turkey. This was the reason, but the scapegoat of Brexit wasn't available to Ford at that time:

 

Ford Otosan:

 

€190 million loan agreement signed with EIB in 2012

8-year loan with 2-years grace period

€100 million in Q3 at 2.06%

€90 million in Q4 at 1.47%

 

€100 million loan agreement signed with EIB in December 2015

The loan was utilized in the first quarter of 2016

6-year loan at 0.87%

 

31 % of their vans are exported to the UK, 18% to Germany, 8% to France, 6% to Spain, 7% to Italy and 3% to Belgium.

 

EU membership worked out well for Southampton, didn't it lads?

[Wes Tender]

Another landmark day of celebration for al-Tenderi, JJ and other Brexit Jihadists - Land Rover are making 5,000 Brexit-related job cuts.

 

Another day of puerile name-calling by Verbal. When are you finally going to grow up? You never did tell me how old you are.

[Guided Missile]

More reasons Ford Transits are manufactured in Turkey and why JLR are moving production to Slovakia...

 

Happily, Ford Otosan was able to maintain their dividend payments, "during the heavy capex period" of 2012-2015, as follows:

 

[TABLE=width: 500]

[TR]

[TD]Year[/TD]

[TD]2012[/TD]

[TD]2013[/TD]

[TD]2014[/TD]

[TD]2015[/TD]

[TD]2016[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Dividend (US$ mn, gross)[/TD]

[TD]325[/TD]

[TD]166[/TD]

[TD]79[/TD]

[TD]146[/TD]

[TD]226[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

 

With Ford US owning 41%, by my reckoning, Ford US earned just over $386 million in dividends over this period, gross. Let's take away the 15% tax they would have paid on that figure, without any other deductions, which comes to around $58 million and they are left with a net figure of $328 million. With prime borrowing rates of 4.5% in the US at the time Ford Otosan took out their $100 million loan in 2015, their interest savings over borrowing the money in the US were $27 million (@ 4.5% x 6 years). (who would bother to pay the capital off early?) minus $5.22 million (@ 0.87% over 6 years) making $21.78 million.

 

Corporation tax in the UK is 20%, so Ford saved 5% over taking dividends, rather than profits in the UK. Summing it all up, I reckon the EU Turkish deal to Ford US was worth about $19 million in tax savings and around $9 million in interest savings on the capital invested. So, EU tax payers wrote a cheque for around $28 million, payable to a US car manufacturer, to invest in a non-EU country, at the expense of Southampton jobs.

 

Of course, I could be wrong and the Ford may have signed the deal to reduce CO2 emissions, not for $28 million in tax free cash.

[Guided Missile]

Meanwhile, back in June 2018, a spokesman for JLR made the following statement, here:

 

Jaguar Land Rover to move UK production of Discovery to Slovakia.

Hundreds of jobs could be at risk but Solihull plant to be upgraded for electric models

 

JLR, owned by the Indian firm Tata, had signalled it would move a large amount of the production on the Discovery, which sold around 45,000 units last year. Britain’s biggest car manufacturer, , is to transfer all production of its Land Rover Discovery model from the West Midlands to a plant in Slovakia, potentially putting hundreds of jobs at risk. A spokesman for JLR said the Slovakian plant had been developed over several years and the latest move was unconnected to the Brexit headwinds that led to it announcing thousands of jobs going in April. Its profits have also been dented by the decline in diesel sales, slumping to £364m pre-tax in the three months to the end of March, compared to £676m in the same period last year.

 

Hilarious to watch the socialists on this thread, swallowing the corporate bulsh!t served up by US and Indian multinationals.

[Wes Tender]

Even though that same leaflet mentioned a host of models from Norway to Canada compatible with leaving the EU, as required by Section 7 (1)(b) of the 2015 Referendum Act. Yep it was blindingly clear what people were voting for when they voted to leave the EU, you dopey ****

 

A host of options? LOL. It only mentioned Norway and Canada and told us that under a Norway deal we would have to continue to accept uncontrolled freedom of movement. That is a downside to the Norway option, isn't it? Because now some are advocating we go that way.

 

As for Canada.....

 

"No other country has managed to secure significant access to the single market, without having to:

 

follow EU rules over which they have no real say

pay into the EU

accept EU citizens living and working in their country 27’28

 

A more limited trade deal with the EU would give the UK less access to the single market than we have now – including for services, which make up almost 80% of the UK economy.29 For example, Canada’s deal with the EU will give limited access for services,30 it has so far been 7 years in the making and is still not in force. 31

 

The weasel word in the statement above is "significant". Of course the vast majority of nations have access to the single market under WTO terms without having to pay into the EU or to have to accept freedom of movement of EU citizens. Canada doesn't do so either.

 

But it is futile raking over old coals and re-fighting the referendum campaign again. The whole leaflet is anyway a massive propaganda exercise funded by us, the taxpayers. If loose statements like these were being made in a leaflet supporting the leave position, you would be all over them like a rash.

[Verbal]

Meanwhile, back in June 2018, a spokesman for JLR made the following statement, here:

 

 

 

Hilarious to watch the socialists on this thread, swallowing the corporate bulsh!t served up by US and Indian multinationals.

 

Christ, this thread is turning into a constant fact-check for your blatantly false posts.

 

The statement you quote relates to the 1,000 jobs at JLR lost in April this year.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jun/11/jaguar-land-rover-to-move-production-of-discovery-from-uk-to-slovakia-jobs-solihull

 

This is different from the announcement that JLR have just made about the additional loss of 5,000 jobs, which is explicitly Brexit-related.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/dec/16/jaguar-land-rover-to-axe-up-to-5000-jobs

 

This is aside from the fact that ALL of Discovery production is being moved from the UK to the EU's Slovakia, and the I-Pace - JLR's outstanding electric car - being made in the EU's Austria.

 

That yellow jacket should look nice with your black flag.

[shurlock]

A host of options? LOL. It only mentioned Norway and Canada and told us that under a Norway deal we would have to continue to accept uncontrolled freedom of movement. That is a downside to the Norway option, isn't it? Because now some are advocating we go that way.

 

As for Canada.....

 

"No other country has managed to secure significant access to the single market, without having to:

 

follow EU rules over which they have no real say

pay into the EU

accept EU citizens living and working in their country 27’28

 

A more limited trade deal with the EU would give the UK less access to the single market than we have now – including for services, which make up almost 80% of the UK economy.29 For example, Canada’s deal with the EU will give limited access for services,30 it has so far been 7 years in the making and is still not in force. 31

 

The weasel word in the statement above is "significant". Of course the vast majority of nations have access to the single market under WTO terms without having to pay into the EU or to have to accept freedom of movement of EU citizens. Canada doesn't do so either.

 

But it is futile raking over old coals and re-fighting the referendum campaign again. The whole leaflet is anyway a massive propaganda exercise funded by us, the taxpayers. If loose statements like these were being made in a leaflet supporting the leave position, you would be all over them like a rash.

 

No Les, significant is the key word.

 

Again you’re demonstrating an absolutely shocking lack of understanding and yet you profess to know what you voted for.

[Guided Missile]

For those that have a problem understanding plain English:

The referendum on Thursday, 23rd June is your chance to decide if we should remain in or leave the European Union. This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.

[shurlock]

Les, was this you? Or maybe JJ? You’ve been busy this morning lads

 

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/james-obrien-caller-voted-brexit-three-pin-plugs/

[badgerx16]

For those that have a problem understanding plain English:

But, does the Maybot's proposal "implement what 'we' decided" ?

[badgerx16]

Not entirely true. I think there will be another referendum. I will still vote leave (if remain is even an option)

Which "leave' would you vote for ?

'Hard' Brexit

May's fudged deal

Norway, ( with however many plusses you care to add )

Canada, ( ditto )

[Batman]

Which "leave' would you vote for ?

'Hard' Brexit

May's fudged deal

Norway, ( with however many plusses you care to add )

Canada, ( ditto )

 

Dunno if any of what you say would be on the paper (if ‘the paper’ ever comes about)

 

Hard brexit is just brexit isn’t it?

[Wes Tender]

No Les, significant is the key word.

 

Again you’re demonstrating an absolutely shocking lack of understanding and yet you profess to know what you voted for.

 

OK, clever clogs, define significant in that context. What they were talking about was membership of the single market, not access to it. Whilst you're at it, define temporary in terms of the amount of time that we might have to be in a customs union as part of the so-called and totally unnecessary "back-stop".

 

Apart from the Norway and Canada options, which other options did it discuss as part of your "host" of options. Or does two constitute a host?

 

And of course, I knew exactly what I was voting for, certainly enough to pick holes in that propaganda leaflet, left, right and centre.

[Wes Tender]

Which "leave' would you vote for ?

'Hard' Brexit

May's fudged deal

Norway, ( with however many plusses you care to add )

Canada, ( ditto )

 

And here is the crux of the matter. Even if it were a starter to hold another referendum, what choice or choices would be on the ballot paper? Would staying in the EU be on it, even though a decision to leave had already been voted for? We are told by our Prime minister that her deal is the only deal on the table. Everybody but her knows that isn't true and you have yourself given two further trade deal options to hers.

 

Apart from the obvious argument that a second referendum would be undemocratic when the decision of the first one had not even been implemented, there are the further problems including the one you have raised. Another is that if we allow the UK to have a second referendum because the losers didn't agree with the decision, we could hardly disallow the Scots having another one on their independence, could we? And if the result was 52/48 in favour of remain on a lower vote, the day after there would be an entirely legitimate campaign started to make it best of three. A further option is that a campaign among leave voters to boycott the second referendum would mean that the result did not give a mandate of legitimacy.

 

In any event, a second referendum wouldn't solve the impasse we are currently in, that the majority in the House don't want us to leave and are not prepared to honour the wishes of their constituents.

[Wes Tender]

Les, was this you? Or maybe JJ? You’ve been busy this morning lads

 

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/james-obrien-caller-voted-brexit-three-pin-plugs/

 

There are thick people on both sides.

 

[Lord Duckhunter]

Which "leave' would you vote for ?

'Hard' Brexit

May's fudged deal

Norway, ( with however many plusses you care to add )

Canada, ( ditto )

 

I voted to withdraw from the EU. “Leave”was all that was on the ballot paper, not “Leave with a deal”. Seeing as the question on the ballot was debated and agreed by Parliament, I don’t see what the ambiguity is. If you’re unhappy that the question wasn’t more specific, I suggest you’ve been let down by the Remainers in Parliament and should therefore be directing your anger at them. Of course, they thought they were going to win, so didn’t really bother thinking it through. We’re not Switzerland, we don’t govern by a series of referenda, we voted Leave, we leave.

 

As an aside, I’ve been reading Tim Shipmans book “All out war”. The story of Brexit. Interestingly I’m at the bit where “Stronger in” think they’ve scored a knock out blow during the campaign.

They think they’ve hassled Vote Leave into a strategic mistake, Will Straw and McGrory are sending emails to remain politicians to hammer it home. They want this highlighted and they think it’s the turning point, the thing that’ll win it for them. “Mention it every chance you get” is the plea.

 

What was this mistake?

 

Well, Gove, Boris and other Leave leaders stating we will be out of the single market. That’s what they went with, what they hammered home.

[buctootim]

And here is the crux of the matter. Even if it were a starter to hold another referendum, what choice or choices would be on the ballot paper? Would staying in the EU be on it, even though a decision to leave had already been voted for? We are told by our Prime minister that her deal is the only deal on the table. Everybody but her knows that isn't true and you have yourself given two further trade deal options to hers.

 

Apart from the obvious argument that a second referendum would be undemocratic when the decision of the first one had not even been implemented, there are the further problems including the one you have raised. Another is that if we allow the UK to have a second referendum because the losers didn't agree with the decision, we could hardly disallow the Scots having another one on their independence, could we? And if the result was 52/48 in favour of remain on a lower vote, the day after there would be an entirely legitimate campaign started to make it best of three. A further option is that a campaign among leave voters to boycott the second referendum would mean that the result did not give a mandate of legitimacy.

 

In any event, a second referendum wouldn't solve the impasse we are currently in, that the majority in the House don't want us to leave and are not prepared to honour the wishes of their constituents.

 

Its a democracy Les. People change their minds. Who would've thought that should be allowed? If either Leave or Remain had won by 60% or more the issue would be dead and buried. As it is, over the course of 2.5 years only one person in 50 needed to change their minds (or die and be replaced by a new voter) to give a different result. Thats why most democracies insist that fundamental changes are approved by 60:40 or two thirds majorities.

[buctootim]

I voted to withdraw from the EU. “Leave”was all that was on the ballot paper, not “Leave with a deal”. Seeing as the question on the ballot was debated and agreed by Parliament, I don’t see what the ambiguity is..

 

Then why are you and most leavers ****ing yourselves about May's deal or Norway+? Its leave. The ballot paper didn't say 'leave with a deal'; 'leave with no deal' or 'leave and join EEA', just leave. I don't see what the ambiguity is. It's not remainers fault that a big chunk of those who voted leave would rather remain than accept the horse poo thats on offer.

Edited 17 December, 2018 by buctootim

[buctootim]

There are thick people on both sides.

 

 

Since when have Socialist Workers been representative of anybody apart from a tiny minority.

[badgerx16]

Dunno if any of what you say would be on the paper (if ‘the paper’ ever comes about)

Hard brexit is just brexit isn’t it?

That is my view, ( and I voted remain ). I'm not sure how to resolve some of the issues that come with it; NI, Gibraltar, Anguilla, etc, but I took leave to mean leave, and damn the consequences.

[Wes Tender]

Its a democracy Les. People change their minds. Who would've thought that should be allowed? If either Leave or Remain had won by 60% or more the issue would be dead and buried. As it is, over the course of 2.5 years only one person in 50 needed to change their minds (or die and be replaced by a new voter) to give a different result. Thats why most democracies insist that fundamental changes are approved by 60:40 or two thirds majorities.

 

You really have no idea about democracy putting forward specious arguments like that. And of course the establishment remoaners wouldn't have accepted a leave win under any circumstances, without trying their hardest to overturn it. But not only do they want to overturn the referendum vote, they want to ignore the GE manifestos of the two major Parties who both promised to honour the referendum decision. As for your final line, should democracy be ignored to the extent that there is a second referendum, I presume that you will be perfectly happy that for the original referendum decision to be overturned, it will require a two thirds majority, won't you?

[buctootim]

You really have no idea about democracy putting forward specious arguments like that. And of course the establishment remoaners wouldn't have accepted a leave win under any circumstances, without trying their hardest to overturn it. But not only do they want to overturn the referendum vote, they want to ignore the GE manifestos of the two major Parties who both promised to honour the referendum decision. As for your final line, should democracy be ignored to the extent that there is a second referendum, I presume that you will be perfectly happy that for the original referendum decision to be overturned, it will require a two thirds majority, won't you?

 

You really are worried, and with reason tbf. Gung ho Brexit is dead, the country has moved on as most people have woken up to reality. The only thing keeping it twitching is a seriously unwell PM.

[Wes Tender]

Then why are you and most leavers ****ing yourselves about May's deal or Norway+? Its leave. The ballot paper didn't say 'leave with a deal'; 'leave with no deal' or 'leave and join EEA', just leave. I don't see what the ambiguity is. It's not remainers fault that a big chunk of those who voted leave would rather remain than accept the horse poo thats on offer.

 

The horse poo that's on offer isn't leave, it's BRINO, half in/half out. It's the epitome of the bad deal that May famously said is worse than no deal. Likewise Norway. Now, I realise how much you love the Norway option, in your muddled let's stay as close to the EU as we can be thinking, but that doesn't fulfill the Brexit brief either. Just to refresh your memory, that required taking back control of our money, our laws and our borders. Do you see where Norway falls short of that?

[OldNick]

The horse poo that's on offer isn't leave, it's BRINO, half in/half out. It's the epitome of the bad deal that May famously said is worse than no deal. Likewise Norway. Now, I realise how much you love the Norway option, in your muddled let's stay as close to the EU as we can be thinking, but that doesn't fulfill the Brexit brief either. Just to refresh your memory, that required taking back control of our money, our laws and our borders. Do you see where Norway falls short of that?

A Norwegian customer said to me about a year ago, dont try and go down the Norway route as it is awful.

[Wes Tender]

You really are worried, and with reason tbf. Gung ho Brexit is dead, the country has moved on as most people have woken up to reality. The only thing keeping it twitching is a seriously unwell PM.

 

I'm not worried at all. Neither has public opinion moved far at all from June 2016. After all, the default position on 29th March is that we leave on WTO terms. It would take an act of some considerable daring for either or both of the main parties to thwart the democratic decision of the electorate in the referendum; even extending the Article 50 period would provoke considerable civil unrest.

[buctootim]

The horse poo that's on offer isn't leave, it's BRINO, half in/half out. It's the epitome of the bad deal that May famously said is worse than no deal. Likewise Norway. Now, I realise how much you love the Norway option, in your muddled let's stay as close to the EU as we can be thinking, but that doesn't fulfill the Brexit brief either. Just to refresh your memory, that required taking back control of our money, our laws and our borders. Do you see where Norway falls short of that?

 

2.5 years and you still haven't grasped the point of view of somebody you debate with regularly. Maybe thats why you struggle so much with Brexit.

 

I'd prefer to remain, that always been my position because the promised benefits of leave wont materialise but the economic costs will. Of all the leave options Norway+ will mean the least economic damage. I dont love it, it pointless, but its better than the other even more pointless options

[Wes Tender]

A Norwegian customer said to me about a year ago, dont try and go down the Norway route as it is awful.

 

Norway isn't keen on the idea of us joining them anyway as a short term expediency towards then leaving a couple of years later.

[shurlock]

The horse poo that's on offer isn't leave, it's BRINO, half in/half out. It's the epitome of the bad deal that May famously said is worse than no deal. Likewise Norway. Now, I realise how much you love the Norway option, in your muddled let's stay as close to the EU as we can be thinking, but that doesn't fulfill the Brexit brief either. Just to refresh your memory, that required taking back control of our money, our laws and our borders. Do you see where Norway falls short of that?

 

 

Les do you accept that the UK can’t have the same exact benefits of EU membership while taking back full control of our money, laws and borders as was repeatedly claimed? Do you also accept that this claim was the basis for some, if not, many voting leave?

[Wes Tender]

2.5 years and you still haven't grasped the point of view of somebody you debate with regularly. Maybe thats why you struggle so much with Brexit.

 

I'd prefer to remain, that always been my position because the promised benefits of leave wont materialise but the economic costs will. Of all the leave options Norway+ will mean the least economic damage. I dont love it, it pointless, but its better than the other even more pointless options

 

You were sure enough that we would end up with the Norway option that you accepted a £50 bet on it, payable to charity by the loser. Of course I always knew that you were a remoaner. 2.5 years later and you still claim that the promised benefits of leaving won't materialise, but the economic costs will. Blinkered enough to not recognise even the possibility of any upside at all.

[Batman]

That is my view, ( and I voted remain ). I'm not sure how to resolve some of the issues that come with it; NI, Gibraltar, Anguilla, etc, but I took leave to mean leave, and damn the consequences.

 

I think we agree there and had this been our hard stance from the off, we would probably be in a better situation with the EU right now.

[buctootim]

You were sure enough that we would end up with the Norway option that you accepted a £50 bet on it, payable to charity by the loser. Of course I always knew that you were a remoaner. 2.5 years later and you still claim that the promised benefits of leaving won't materialise, but the economic costs will. Blinkered enough to not recognise even the possibility of any upside at all.

 

Do you really not understand the difference between a prediction and a preference?

[Wes Tender]

Les do you accept that the UK can’t have the same exact benefits of EU membership while taking back full control of our money, laws and borders as was repeatedly claimed? Do you also accept that this claim was the basis for some, if not, many voting leave?

 

Of course we can't have the same exact benefits of EU membership if we left. The most ridiculous position in politics at the moment is that idiot Starmer making it a condition of Labour's acceptance. So we lose some benefits and gain others, such as the control of our own affairs as an independent sovereign nation. Worth it every day. The position that we couldn't have the same exact benefits was made abundantly clear during project fear and now they are employing it again, this time on steroids. Despite that, the electorate preferred to be free of the EU in the vote and if anecdotally some feel that they were deceived by things said by the leave campaign, there will be at least a similar number deceived by the remain campaign.

[saint si]

For those that have a problem understanding plain English:

 

1) that was the last government, not the current one

2) everything else the government said was touted as lies and project fear

3) government is not sovereign so can't make that promise

 

Apart from that, yeah it's cast iron.