Brexit - Post Match Reaction

[shurlock]

Meanwhile, the death knell for the euro:

 

 

The euro is such a good idea that banks charge you for holding them in a deposit account.

 

$h!t or bust from Draghi and crooked Lagarde

 

Your boy Trump has been tweeting that the US should be doing the same thing.

[Guided Missile]

....and to continue the hilarity:

The EU’s new commissioner for economic affairs – the man in charge of implementing the bloc’s stringent spending rules for member states – is to be Paolo Gentiloni, an Italian, a former prime minister and foreign minister, who was awarded the job on Tuesday by Ursula von der Leyen, president-elect of the European Commission.

You couldn't make it up....

[Guided Missile]

...and while we're all ROFL:

Germany is in recession and will suffer its worst growth in six years in 2019, the influential Ifo Institute has predicted, as production in eurozone factories continued to sputter.

[mrfahaji]

I totally understand your concerns but Iam sure that there will be emergency measure. The RAF will be on standby and the pharm companies will be delighted to sell the product.

 

You might be right, but this is rather sympomatic of every Brexit argument - there's a genuine risk that something bad could happen but there is confidence without knowledge or information that it won't. In some cases, that confidence might be vindicated, but not for everything. If the response to every piece of expert analysis is "but they've been wrong before" or "but it might not happen", then you may as well not try to be informed about anything. At least if we make the wrong choice in a general election there's chance to put it right in a few years time.

 

And why are we actually taking all these risks? What is so wrong with our current situation that we need this upheaval? It was originally inspired by the anti-immigration sentiment, but that doesn't even seem to be the main focus anymore.

[OldNick]

I guess you don't know the difference between a set of forecasts that was politicised by one of the most political chancellors in living memory and meant for public advocacy and consumption and an internal technocratic document that was produced largely for planning purposes and not loaded with the same baggage. Nigel Evans made a fool of himself earlier today on the radio for missing that obvious difference.

But it has been released and used in the same way has it not? IMO as it is the worst case scenario ,it is indeed containing the same damage. If the government of any colour published the set of measures that weren't showing the worst case even improbable case, the opponents would be on them like a pack of wolves. As we are in a blame society they will go out of their way to go to absolute worst case nightmare. Of course you know this, but will use it for the case of your side of argument.

I notice that the pack has bullied Wes away, no doubt some of his thoughts on this are incorrect but the worst of political extremes shout any opposition down. No doubt they will move onto others using personal insults and bringing innocent family members into play. Something UJ started sometime ago doing and now it seems the fashion has spread.

A shame on some on here

[OldNick]

You might be right, but this is rather sympomatic of every Brexit argument - there's a genuine risk that something bad could happen but there is confidence without knowledge or information that it won't. In some cases, that confidence might be vindicated, but not for everything. If the response to every piece of expert analysis is "but they've been wrong before" or "but it might not happen", then you may as well not try to be informed about anything. At least if we make the wrong choice in a general election there's chance to put it right in a few years time.

 

And why are we actually taking all these risks? What is so wrong with our current situation that we need this upheaval? It was originally inspired by the anti-immigration sentiment, but that doesn't even seem to be the main focus anymore.

Totally agree, why are we here? Well mainly as a lot of the older generation felt they were tricked into agreeing to join the EU on the back of it being a common trading market. Those people held a grudge and the media/politicians played on it for decades, thus the later generations also felt resentment. Having the Eupopean court of justice etc stopping us extraditing criminals and the other madness( in my eyes)of some laws also made you throw your arms up in disgust.

As I have stated many times that I voted to stay in, not because I love the EU but it was the best of a bad lot, as well as the financial risks we were taking. Once we lost I felt that as a democracy we should follow it through, and like when we first joined the EU, the politicians said 'well it was all there in the Treaty of Rome you should read it, the same can be said of us leaving. The info was all there but most of the population just scratched the surface and took a judgement.

[buctootim]

I totally understand your concerns but Iam sure that there will be emergency measure. The RAF will be on standby and the pharm companies will be delighted to sell the product.

 

Same old blithe “it’ll be fine” based on no knowledge at all. Cytoxic chemotherapy drugs typically have a shelf life of 24-48 hours. Nearly all radioactive isotopes used in scanning are imported from the Eu and have shelf lives of a few weeks. There are only a small number of drivers licensed to carry them. A dry run of fall back emergency procedure was a disaster.

[shurlock]

But it has been released and used in the same way has it not? IMO as it is the worst case scenario ,it is indeed containing the same damage. If the government of any colour published the set of measures that weren't showing the worst case even improbable case, the opponents would be on them like a pack of wolves. As we are in a blame society they will go out of their way to go to absolute worst case nightmare. Of course you know this, but will use it for the case of your side of argument.

I notice that the pack has bullied Wes away, no doubt some of his thoughts on this are incorrect but the worst of political extremes shout any opposition down. No doubt they will move onto others using personal insults and bringing innocent family members into play. Something UJ started sometime ago doing and now it seems the fashion has spread.

A shame on some on here

 

Not really. There's a big difference between producing a document for analytical purposes and an advocacy document that was always meant for public consumption. That yellowhammer was released in the end is immaterial.

[OldNick]

Same old blithe “it’ll be fine” based on no knowledge at all. Cytoxic chemotherapy drugs typically have a shelf life of 24-48 hours. Nearly all radioactive isotopes used in scanning are imported from the Eu and have shelf lives of a few weeks. There are only a small number of drivers licensed to carry them. A dry run of fall back emergency procedure was a disaster.

OK, but do you believe that these products will not arrive?

[mrfahaji]

Totally agree, why are we here? Well mainly as a lot of the older generation felt they were tricked into agreeing to join the EU on the back of it being a common trading market. Those people held a grudge and the media/politicians played on it for decades, thus the later generations also felt resentment. Having the Eupopean court of justice etc stopping us extraditing criminals and the other madness( in my eyes)of some laws also made you throw your arms up in disgust.

As I have stated many times that I voted to stay in, not because I love the EU but it was the best of a bad lot, as well as the financial risks we were taking. Once we lost I felt that as a democracy we should follow it through, and like when we first joined the EU, the politicians said 'well it was all there in the Treaty of Rome you should read it, the same can be said of us leaving. The info was all there but most of the population just scratched the surface and took a judgement.

 

Thanks. Interesting about the first sentence, it would certainly tie up with what Wes said about having to endure the EU for 40 years. That doesn't sound like a good reason to me, since really we should be judging whether our EU membership is currently a good thing rather than whether it was what we signed up for initially (presumably lots of things evolve over time). A lot of the EU laws seem outrageous at first glance but on closer inspection or from a different angle make more sense. The classic is the 'bendy bananas', but also things like light bulb wattage and fishing quotas have their merits. It's also often the case that the UK supports the more controversial-sounding legislation!

 

You're exactly right with your last sentence, and given the magnitude of the decision it's pretty obvious now that we either shouldn't have had a referendum or been a bit clearer as to what exactly we were voting on. Cameron took for granted that it wouldn't matter anyway and now look at us! Although I do understand the argument that we should honour the vote, ultimately I think it's more important to do what's best for the country. At the moment it might feel like there are winners and losers but if we make the wrong decision we all lose really (which I know is still open to debate, but it is increasingly looking like we're not going to get a better outcome from leaving).

[shurlock]

Totally agree, why are we here? Well mainly as a lot of the older generation felt they were tricked into agreeing to join the EU on the back of it being a common trading market. Those people held a grudge and the media/politicians played on it for decades, thus the later generations also felt resentment. Having the Eupopean court of justice etc stopping us extraditing criminals and the other madness( in my eyes)of some laws also made you throw your arms up in disgust.

As I have stated many times that I voted to stay in, not because I love the EU but it was the best of a bad lot, as well as the financial risks we were taking. Once we lost I felt that as a democracy we should follow it through, and like when we first joined the EU, the politicians said 'well it was all there in the Treaty of Rome you should read it, the same can be said of us leaving. The info was all there but most of the population just scratched the surface and took a judgement.

 

I want to take you seriously Nick (and Brexiters) but its really hard when your grasp of basic facts is so weak. I assume you're referring to the extradition of hate preacher Abu Qatada but that had nothing to do with the ECJ or EU. That was the ECHR which is a completely separate body of law. The UK will still be signed up to the ECHR when it leaves the EU.

[Guided Missile]

OK, but do you believe that these products will not arrive?

The shortage of medicines is due to a host of causes and is nothing new, nor due to Brexit. Despite more than a decade of efforts to address the problem, cancer patients across Europe and the US still cannot rely on essential drugs being available when they need them. Headline stories about problems accessing cancer drugs have focused almost exclusively on novel ‘targeted’ treatments. Less publicised is the story of growing problems accessing traditional cytotoxics and other oncology medicines that are no longer on patent, but remain the real workhorses of oncology care across most cancer types. Health services have traditionally relied on the generics market to provide affordable copies of brand-name drugs once the patent that gives market exclusivity has expired. But a persistent problem of re-occurring shortages across a wide range of generics is damaging patient outcomes, adding to the workloads of hospital pharmacists and others in the care team, and raising questions about how to balance the need for competition against the requirement of a guaranteed supply line. Due to the supply problems, the European Medicines Shortages Research Network was set up. Those who want the facts, not the hysteria, should take a look at the web site for the organisation here. The countries involved in this initiative are from inside and outside the EU and the supply problems predate the referendum.

[ecuk268]

Just out of interest, what will be the positive things about us leaving the EU without a deal?

 

According to Rees-Mogg, cheaper shoes.

[OldNick]

I want to take you seriously Nick (and Brexiters) but its really hard when your grasp of basic facts is so weak. I assume you're referring to the extradition of hate preacher Abu Qatada but that had nothing to do with the ECJ or EU. That was the ECHR which is a completely separate body of law. The UK will still be signed up to the ECHR when it leaves the EU.

Shurlock, I do not try to pretend that Iam an expert, in fact im not an expert in anything as those who believe they are normally have a big fall. In my profession I have a deep knowledge but still most weeks I learn or see something new, even after 40 + years of trading.

Funnily enough my post highlights why we voted out, much like myself the EU laws seemed to be part of the reason such people were hard to extradite. People like yourself who either work in it or it is part of their life knew this wasnt the case.

As for the ECHR Im not always a fan of it. Too many people at the trough and taking advantage for financial gain IMO, but Im sure you will come back and slash me down on that as well. I notice you were a Bellemoor boy one time, it seems it was a higher standard than when I was there lol

[Unbelievable Jeff]

OK, but do you believe that these products will not arrive?

 

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

[Unbelievable Jeff]

I want to take you seriously Nick (and Brexiters) but its really hard when your grasp of basic facts is so weak. I assume you're referring to the extradition of hate preacher Abu Qatada but that had nothing to do with the ECJ or EU. That was the ECHR which is a completely separate body of law. The UK will still be signed up to the ECHR when it leaves the EU.

 

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.

Edited 12 September, 2019 by Unbelievable Jeff

[scally]

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

 

Do we not get huge cargo ships come into Southampton every day with thousands of containers from all over the world that get taken off and sent on their way with out being opened and searched with no delay. Where will these delays be and who will impose them?

[mrfahaji]

Shurlock, I do not try to pretend that Iam an expert, in fact im not an expert in anything as those who believe they are normally have a big fall. In my profession I have a deep knowledge but still most weeks I learn or see something new, even after 40 + years of trading.

Funnily enough my post highlights why we voted out, much like myself the EU laws seemed to be part of the reason such people were hard to extradite. People like yourself who either work in it or it is part of their life knew this wasnt the case.

As for the ECHR Im not always a fan of it. Too many people at the trough and taking advantage for financial gain IMO, but Im sure you will come back and slash me down on that as well. I notice you were a Bellemoor boy one time, it seems it was a higher standard than when I was there lol

 

Quite - unfortunately it's very easy to print (or speak) a headline or snippet and make it seem outlandish - either in a way that plays to the already baying crowd or one that unsettles people who are well meaning but ultimately uninformed. It's not so easy to dissect a law and look at pros and cons in a short space of time and without boring people!

 

(also maybe shurlock does work in that area, who knows, but seems a bit of a stretch to assume that just because someone is informed on something means that it's their job - maybe he's just read stuff about it, which we could all do!)

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Do we not get huge cargo ships come into Southampton every day with thousands of containers from all over the world that get taken off and sent on their way with out being opened and searched with no delay. Where will these delays be and who will impose them?

 

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.

Edited 12 September, 2019 by Unbelievable Jeff

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Quite - unfortunately it's very easy to print (or speak) a headline or snippet and make it seem outlandish - either in a way that plays to the already baying crowd or one that unsettles people who are well meaning but ultimately uninformed. It's not so easy to dissect a law and look at pros and cons in a short space of time and without boring people!

 

(also maybe shurlock does work in that area, who knows, but seems a bit of a stretch to assume that just because someone is informed on something means that it's their job - maybe he's just read stuff about it, which we could all do!)

 

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).

[scally]

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.[/quote

 

If we're not checking imports how will these delays occur?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-no-deal-ports-eu-goods-customs-checks-calais-dover-hmrc-theresa-may-a8762591.html

[badgerx16]

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.

 

If we're not checking imports how will these delays occur?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-no-deal-ports-eu-goods-customs-checks-calais-dover-hmrc-theresa-may-a8762591.html

Waving through imports from the EU will be a calculated risk, taking post-dated declarations on trust, but this won't cover imports from all the other countries, with whom we will not have trade deals once we walk away from the ones we currently operate under as part of the EU.

[Batman]

Waving through imports from the EU will be a calculated risk, taking post-dated declarations on trust, but this won't cover imports from all the other countries, with whom we will not have trade deals once we walk away from the ones we currently operate under as part of the EU.

 

[scally]

It's a good job it's only the Brexiteers lie

 

 

[Unbelievable Jeff]

It's a good job it's only the Brexiteers lie

 

 

 

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

[hypochondriac]

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

Hold on. You can't have one side lose a referendum and then use their own lies during the campaign as one of the justifications for another referendum. If remain won would you be calling for another referendum on that basis?

[Batman]

Hold on. You can't have one side lose a referendum and then use their own lies during the campaign as one of the justifications for another referendum. If remain won would you be calling for another referendum on that basis?

 

One thing is for sure. In future elections, no one will lie/mislead as a result of the two sides in 2016

[shurlock]

It's a good job it's only the Brexiteers lie

 

 

 

Old news and frankly irrelevant little fella. This has nothing to do with the grandiose claims that Brexiters made about the deal the UK was going to get and the fact that three years on the reality looks very different. That's the crux of the matter and why many remainers are calling for another referendum.

 

Are you related to Nolan by any chance?

[scally]

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

 

You're lied to at every election but we still have to put up with a government that gets elected on a manifesto that it fails to carry out. Nobody could make any guarantees about leaving or remaining all they could do is predict what could happen, the so called experts are still trying to predict what they think will happen, most of them have a vested interest so don't believe a word of it. The one thing we do know is the majority voted to leave so Parliament should allow the government to get on with it and stop trying to stop Brexit

[Unbelievable Jeff]

You're lied to at every election but we still have to put up with a government that gets elected on a manifesto that it fails to carry out. Nobody could make any guarantees about leaving or remaining all they could do is predict what could happen, the so called experts are still trying to predict what they think will happen, most of them have a vested interest so don't believe a word of it. The one thing we do know is the majority voted to leave so Parliament should allow the government to get on with it and stop trying to stop Brexit

 

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.

Edited 13 September, 2019 by Unbelievable Jeff

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Hold on. You can't have one side lose a referendum and then use their own lies during the campaign as one of the justifications for another referendum. If remain won would you be calling for another referendum on that basis?

 

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?

[Unbelievable Jeff]

One thing is for sure. In future elections, no one will lie/mislead as a result of the two sides in 2016

 

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.

[hypochondriac]

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?

We don't get to change our mind about a party and prime minister and then force them out before they have had their term in office. Having another referendum before the original result is implemented is like voting a Labour government in and then barring the door to number 10 and kicking them out on day one.

 

Let's also be honest, there's been loads of people in government and in parliament more widely who have deliberately been manufacturing this exact situation with the expectation that everyone will give up and cancel brexit. Hoards of them have never had any intention of actually leaving the EU. What do you reckon all those clandestine meetings in Brussels have been about?

[hypochondriac]

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?

 

Because in any future referendum, either side could happily tell multiple lies, safe in the knowledge that if they lost they can immediately call for another referendum as the result is invalid due to the lies they were telling. Again I ask, would you be calling for another referendum on this basis had the result been reversed?

[Weston Super Saint]

We don't get to change our mind about a party and prime minister and then force them out before they have had their term in office. Having another referendum before the original result is implemented is like voting a Labour government in and then barring the door to number 10 and kicking them out on day one.

 

Let's also be honest, there's been loads of people in government and in parliament more widely who have deliberately been manufacturing this exact situation with the expectation that everyone will give up and cancel brexit. Hoards of them have never had any intention of actually leaving the EU. What do you reckon all those clandestine meetings in Brussels have been about?

 

Jeff is having an unbelievable mare again today!

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Because in any future referendum, either side could happily tell multiple lies, safe in the knowledge that if they lost they can immediately call for another referendum as the result is invalid due to the lies they were telling. Again I ask, would you be calling for another referendum on this basis had the result been reversed?

 

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.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Jeff is having an unbelievable mare again today!

 

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

 

What a chump

[CB Fry]

....

[Unbelievable Jeff]

We don't get to change our mind about a party and prime minister and then force them out before they have had their term in office. Having another referendum before the original result is implemented is like voting a Labour government in and then barring the door to number 10 and kicking them out on day one.

 

Let's also be honest, there's been loads of people in government and in parliament more widely who have deliberately been manufacturing this exact situation with the expectation that everyone will give up and cancel brexit. Hoards of them have never had any intention of actually leaving the EU. What do you reckon all those clandestine meetings in Brussels have been about?

 

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.

[hypochondriac]

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.

 

But you've had the incompetent Theresa and other remainer types fecking it up for three years. Clearly the tactic of many in Parliament has been to frustrate the entire process and delay any type of leaving. These same people are now the ones saying we should have another referendum or leave because the process has gone on for too long.

[mrfahaji]

Jeff is having an unbelievable mare again today!

 

Except he really isn't. It really shouldn't be hard to understand why people aren't just saying "ok let's see how it goes as we've voted for it". A general election is every 5 years. Donald Trump was only elected for 4 years. Brexit is forever. Once we're out, there's no chance of saying "oops, we won't make that mistake again!"

 

It is quite remarkable that people either can't see the difference, and also why the argument of "we should at least implement the result first before making a judgment" simply doesn't make any sense (Matt Le Tissier I'm looking at you! Sigh...)

[hypochondriac]

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.

 

I compared an election and the referendum because they are both examples of democratic votes we have in this country. The point is that we don't start kicking up a fuss about lying or suggesting we shouldn't have an election simply because a party gets in that we don't like.

 

With regards to the rest of your post, I refer you to my previous answers. Those frustrating the process and those delivering a "deal" that clearly would not pass parliament are now the ones saying we should cancel the whole thing because its taking too long.

[hypochondriac]

Except he really isn't. It really shouldn't be hard to understand why people aren't just saying "ok let's see how it goes as we've voted for it". A general election is every 5 years. Donald Trump was only elected for 4 years. Brexit is forever. Once we're out, there's no chance of saying "oops, we won't make that mistake again!"

 

It is quite remarkable that people either can't see the difference, and also why the argument of "we should at least implement the result first before making a judgment" simply doesn't make any sense (Matt Le Tissier I'm looking at you! Sigh...)

Of course it isn't. We may vote to return to the EU in the future. I hope not but if there were another referendum in a decade or so and rejoin won then I'd accept it. That's democracy.

 

I can't think of a precedent in this country where the public have voted and the decision simply wasn't implemented by those charged with implementing it. Imagine if during the original referendum in the 70s if MPs decided they knew better and decided not to join despite the result.

Edited 13 September, 2019 by hypochondriac

[mrfahaji]

But you've had the incompetent Theresa and other remainer types fecking it up for three years. Clearly the tactic of many in Parliament has been to frustrate the entire process and delay any type of leaving. These same people are now the ones saying we should have another referendum or leave because the process has gone on for too long.

 

I do think that's true actually. It's almost like the politicians were doing everything they could to keep the public onside without actually having to go through with the thing that would screw everything up...

[Unbelievable Jeff]

But you've had the incompetent Theresa and other remainer types fecking it up for three years. Clearly the tactic of many in Parliament has been to frustrate the entire process and delay any type of leaving. These same people are now the ones saying we should have another referendum or leave because the process has gone on for too long.

 

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.

[mrfahaji]

Of course it isn't. We may vote to return to the EU in the future. I hope not but if there were another referendum in a decade or so and rejoin won then I'd accept it. That's democracy.

 

Yes but would the EU allow us back in in 10 years time? After 30 maybe, but I'd be surprised if they got the red carpet out for us to waltz back in.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Of course it isn't. We may vote to return to the EU in the future. I hope not but if there were another referendum in a decade or so and rejoin won then I'd accept it. That's democracy.

 

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

Edited 13 September, 2019 by Unbelievable Jeff

[hypochondriac]

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.

Voting for Theresa's deal that wasn't really brexit isn't frustrating the process, it's rejecting a ridiculous deal whatever side of this you are on. The people who divised it aren't silly- they must have known what the reaction would be when they came up with it. It's not particularly surprising that many people feel that they deliberately came up with something that wouldn't get through parliament in order to frustrate the process and ultimately cancel brexit altogether.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

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.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Voting for Theresa's deal that wasn't really brexit isn't frustrating the process, it's rejecting a ridiculous deal whatever side of this you are on. The people who divised it aren't silly- they must have known what the reaction would be when they came up with it. It's not particularly surprising that many people feel that they deliberately came up with something that wouldn't get through parliament in order to frustrate the process and ultimately cancel brexit altogether.

 

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.