Brexit #2

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 03:52 PM

Latest government backed figures indicate that in 15 years our economy will be nearly 4% poorer if we adopt the latest deal as against staying in the EU. No deal is even worse with a predicted 9% shrinkage. This is not a pro Europe lobby nor project fear but official research by the people best placed to understand the full implications.

At least they appear to have learnt their lesson after getting their prophesies so wrong over the economic outcomes of if we voted for brexit.
This time they are making (very long-range) forecasts which can never be either verified, or proved false. Either we will remain in the EU, or we will leave with some sort of deal, or we will leave with no deal. Under any of those three possibilities, in fifteen years time they will be able to say "We were right in our forecasts", but unable to prove it as they will have no baseline figures to compare the actual outcome with.

If we leave with no deal, and the UK economy suffers serious problems they can claim that we would not have suffered, or not suffered so badly, if we'd remained in EU.
If we leave with no deal, and the UK economy does well they can claim that we would have done even better if we'd stayed in.
Similar responses can be made for the other two possibilities.

Can none of the remainers here see through this 'smoke and mirrors' act?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 04:06 PM

It will at least be possible to compare UK growth against other EU and non-EU countries which will go some way towards validating the forecasts.

So on the assumption you think Brexit will be an economic success, how do you propose demonstrating it?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 04:12 PM

I refer back to my post of 28 Nov 18 - 06:12 AM once again. This latest piece is just one of a myriad of similar works by different bodies working independently yet all drawing the same conclusions.

On the one hand we have a vast body of economic and business expertise telling us one thing and on the other there is you, Iains, a convicted criminal and one of two others telling us the opposite.

Give me a good reason to believe you. Show me the research that matches the body of evidence against you. I hope you can and reassure me with something other than blind faith but as there has not been one scrap of any such in the last 30 months I suspect I will be disappointed.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 04:51 PM

No Brexiter has responded to my question would people have voted to leave the EU if they had known that they would be worse off.

17.4 million people voted to leave. If the reality of the effects of leaving had been known to them would they have still voted that way?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 05:09 PM

Chuffing marvelous news today.

The warnings from the Bank of England suggest that the government warnings are the tip of the Brexit Iceberg.

Bad news again

Now who should we listen to, our two resident Brexiteers or the Bank of England?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 05:16 PM

17.4 million people voted to leave. If the reality of the effects of leaving had been known to them would they have still voted that way?

They were told that there was no downside to leaving by the leave campaign. Had the leave campaign admitted there would be short term disruption but insisted it would be sorted quickly it is not impossible the 700,000 necessary to alter the result would have voted differently: it does not need all 17.4 million to reconsider.

(I am still waiting for any Leaver to clarify how long short term might be. I.e. how many weeks or months before the disruption is sorted. Silence reigns)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 06:22 PM

There was a guy on Newsnight in Derby questioned about another referendum who said that he voted remain before but would definitely vote leave if there was such a referendum 'because of the way the EU has walked all over us." While that is a purely emotional response that does not have any bearing on our long term future, I suspect it could be common enough to result in another Leave vote. It would be very unwise of anyone to make assumptions about how th2 voting would go.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 06:54 PM

Well, Nigel, you leavers absolutely can't see through the smoke and mirrors. Polish the mirror and blow away the smoke. No-one in a position to know is telling us that the country wouldn't be worse off if we leave the EU. Of course, by some miracle we just might be better off but forgive the one or two of us who doubt that just a little. And, of course, you and Iains may well know something that the rest of us don't know. But the omens are closing in on you. Of course, there are still people who think that Brussels dictates our laws (which it doesn't) and that we will get £350 million back every week (which we won't) and that we can stop nasty foreigners coming in (including doctors and nurses, etc., who are already being severely put off, the kind of people we don't train ourselves). You forgot to tell those people that the EU is tied up with just one percent of our GDP, that we wholeheartedly agree with almost all EU laws and regulations (all of which, without exception, are democratically arrived at) and that the EU is very likely to be, in future years, the only major democratic bulwark on the planet against increasing far-right populism (well, unless you think that Donald is a rabid socialist). Enjoy your ideology, Nigel. Some of us prefer pragmatism, principle, and, above all, reality.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Nov 18 - 02:56 AM

"forecasts which can never be either verified, or proved false"
As has been pointed out, these predictions have been verified by The Bank of England
Economies work on being able to plan based on such predictions as these - you are dismissing them as you would a horse race result - "better luck next time"
It may be ok from the safety of a discussion group - doesn't work for running a country
What serious investor is going to invest in a lame-duck country where economists are making such serious predictions?
You have been asked over and over again to produce benefits of leaving Europe - you take a vow of silence, Iains scurries behind Staines the Sihtbag Blogger
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 29 Nov 18 - 04:14 AM

"As has been pointed out, these predictions have been verified by The Bank of England"
you are 'aving a laugh. Erroneous predictions backed up by further erroneous predictions

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/05/chief-economist-of-bank-of-england-admits-errors

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/984559/brexit-news-mark-carney-bank-of-england-uk-economy-mistake-latest

The simple remainiacs cannot recognize project fear round two and believe everything fed to them. Baaaaaaaah humbug!

If you read guido's links it may perhaps cure your sheep like behaviour

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 29 Nov 18 - 04:16 AM

"Iains, a convicted criminal"

care to esplain yourself gnome? Or are you just being your usual insulting piece of shit?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Nov 18 - 04:25 AM

If you do not understand a comma separated list yet I am not going to bother explaining it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Nov 18 - 04:41 AM

"...Iains, a convicted criminal and one of two others telling us the opposite."

Good English, perfectly clear in its meaning (bar the typo "of", barely noticeable in the flow of the sentence). Perhaps you thought he meant "Iains (a convicted criminal) and one or two others telling us the opposite" or "Iains, a convicted criminal, and one or two others telling us the opposite." I recommend a strong coffee and the donning of reading glasses, along with resort to a tome on English grammar and punctuation!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Nov 18 - 05:34 AM

"care to explain yourself gnome? Or are you just being your usual insulting piece of shit?"
An oxymoron, if ever there was one
Are you really unable to recognise your own permanently abusive attitude ?

Bank of England and Government appointed enquiry versus Guido - what a quandary eh - how ridiculous can you get ?
Not very good at this, are you ?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Nov 18 - 05:37 AM

Thanks, Stove. I don't usually make typos.

:D tG

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Nov 18 - 06:10 AM

WE really don't have to respond to this moronic behaviour
Like paying attention to the behaviour of dysfunctional children, the longer we do the more it encourages them - and the closer we get to having this otherwise interesting thread closed
Memo - must stop feeding the trolls - after all, we'll hardly miss the thoughts (sic) of Chairman Guido
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 29 Nov 18 - 07:33 AM

From: Raggytash
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 05:09 PM
Chuffing marvelous news today.
The warnings from the Bank of England suggest that the government warnings are the tip of the Brexit Iceberg.
Bad news again
Now who should we listen to, our two resident Brexiteers or the Bank of England?

Read the article again. The headline (for once) seems clear: Bank warns no-deal could see UK sink into recession
The report itself makes clear:
These are scenarios not forecasts. They illustrate what could happen not necessarily what is most likely to happen.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Nov 18 - 07:39 AM

"These are scenarios not forecasts. "
Both are based on what is on the table Nigel - they are forecasts of what would happen in Brexit goes ahead on the present agreement and wout could happen with no deal
It is sheer stupidity to write them off a "scenarios" if there is no alternative on offer - you have never offered one
This has moved from a leap in the dark to a plunge into the abyss
Had any of this ben predicted no sane politician would have allowed it to happen, nor would any self-respecting economist
The public would certainly have never voted for it, which is why a re-vote is vital
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Nov 18 - 07:40 AM

So, Nigel. You tell us what is most likely to happen. Preferably with some research to back it up. Has anything changed in the last two and half years to make us believe your scenarios are more likely to happen than those of the experts?

I do not usually defer to experts so strongly but when they all seem to agree I think I still believe them above a few posters to a folk music web site and a right wing loudmouth. Unless of course you can demonstrate why I should not.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 29 Nov 18 - 07:51 AM

Nigel was the Bank of England has said when taken in conjuction with what the Chancellor had said earlier in the day paints a very bleak picture.

Yesterday I asked do you really believe that 17.4 million people voted to leave fully accepting that they would be worse of after Brexit?

Another little snippet for you to consider below.

London to lose £700 Billion

I first mentioned this as a distinct possible 2 1/2 years ago. I was told I was talking nonsense.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 29 Nov 18 - 07:58 AM

Raggytash wrote: Yesterday I asked do you really believe that 17.4 million people voted to leave fully accepting that they would be worse of after Brexit?

I'm currently watching Politics Live where one panel member pointed out that despite the 'Project Fear' predictions of financial disaster, massive loss of jobs and all the rest, the vote was to leave. It WAS actually a vote for all the 'worse' stuff the Leave campaign predicted.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 29 Nov 18 - 08:01 AM

Arrant nonsense Stanron, and more to the point you know it is.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 29 Nov 18 - 08:10 AM

"It WAS actually a vote for all the 'worse' stuff the Leave campaign predicted."

The standard Stanron horse-shit. Never let us down, do you?
It was actually a vote despite 'all the worse stuff the Leave campaign predicted' - you lot were the Village-idiots who declared you were 'fed up with experts' weren't you?

A liar as well as a buffoon.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Nov 18 - 08:47 AM

"It WAS actually a vote for all the 'worse' stuff the Leave campaign predicted."
As far as the effect on race relations, that immediately happened
Nobody discussed the economic effects that have now been suggested
Nobody even considered the effects that leaving would have on Northern Ireland and the possible repercussions on the peace process

This is what I predicted earlier - the supporters of the Government are now blaming "the people" for what is likely to go wrong
The incredibly stupid irresponsibility of allowing a referendum without planning for such a momentous move for Britain is beyond belief
The British people entered into this with no information as to what might happen - Farage's racist poster won the day, not common sense based on real information
Now, it transpires, there was not even a 'plan B'
I've never been a great fan of Murdoch's 'Times', but today's leader seems to lay out everything the voters should have known about leaving Europe before they were asked to vote.
That was not thw case, so people need to be given the right to make a decision based on what is now known
Jim Carroll

Today's 'Times' leader
Brexit’s Costs
The UK will not have a cost-free or jobs-first exit from the EU
Brexit will make Britain worse off than it would be remaining within the European Union. That is not a partisan claim. It is the stated position of the government that is intent on executing the policy, as set out in an 83-page cross-departmental study published yesterday. The projections are inherently uncertain but the only credible position is for policymakers to be upfront. Brexit has inherent economic risks and trade-offs. Politicians and voters need to be clear what these are.

Forecasts have admittedly been wrong before. In the 2016 referendum campaign the British Treasury estimated that there would be an “immediate and profound" economic shock in the event of a Brexit vote. George Osborne, then chancellor, said it would tip the economy into a re¬cession and cost up to 820,000 jobs within two years. The outcome was very different. Economic growth has decelerated but continued Employment has continued at record levels. The hit to consumption that economists generally expected did not happen, as households drew down savings.
That is the necessary caution when considering the new study. It sets out 15-year projections of the economic impact of four scenarios for Brexit. These are: Theresa May’s scheme of exit from the customs union and single market, with frictionless trade, a negotiated UK-EU free-trade agreement; a Nor- way-type arrangement, under which the UK remains within the single market and retains freedom of movement; and a no-deal Brexit.

All of these, according to the study, are economically damaging for Britain to varying degrees. And the first (the Chequers plan) is not even on offer. The impact of Brexit on GDP in the first 15 years is estimated to be a hit of 2.5 per cent under Mrs May’s preferred scheme, up to a decline of 9.3 per cent under a no-deal scenario. The Bank of England has warned that a no-deal scenario might cause greater damage than the financial crash.
The long-term nature of these projections and their specificity are bound to elicit scepticism. Economists cannot see the future but they do know the impact on growth of cross-border flows of goods, services, capital and labour. Brexit is set to constrain these flows. Hence the British government concludes that a negotiated deal would reduce GDP by between 2 and 4 per cent compared with staying within the EU. Leaving without a deal would be considerably worse.

There is no doubt that both sides in the referendum campaign made flawed claims and that economists did not in the main expect growth to re¬main as robust after the vote. Yet the effects of Brexit are now more visible, as measured in an enduringly lower level for sterling, weaker investment intentions and emerging labour shortages.
Philip Hammond, the British chancellor, acknowledged that a deal would make Britain's economy smaller than if it were inside the EU but argued there were countervailing political benefits. That is a plausible case, as it sets out trade-offs between sovereignty and economic growth. It is not the case made by Brexiteers during the referendum campaign, who argued that Britain outside the EU would benefit from access to faster-growing markets while retaining access to Europe s single market. So long as the costs are widely understood and acknowledged by policymakers and voters then Brexit is a democratic course. But there is no cost-free or jobs-first Brexit to be had. Britain must face and make its choice.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Nov 18 - 03:28 PM

According to the ONS net migration from the EU has plummeted and has now actually turned negative. At the same time net migration from non-EU countries has reached its highest level since 2004. So now the government is going to relax restrictions on non-EU doctors wanting to come here. So we piss off EU citizens to such an extent that we're being forced to increase the raid on non-EU doctors (that we didn't train).

As I said, this "controlling-our-borders" malarkey doesn't work for people leaving or for valuable skills choosing to come here. All it does is stop whichever EU citizens we select from coming here, and it makes EU citizens, either here or on the continent, see this country as an unwelcoming and undesirable place to be. It doesn't even stop non-EU citizens coming here, something that we presumably could control but don't. You really couldn't make this stuff up. One of the main reasons, if not THE main reason, for people voting leave turns out to be the con of the century.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Nov 18 - 03:29 PM

people with valuable skills

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Nov 18 - 04:52 PM

Luckily most of knew it was a con and those that did not are now begining to see it, Steve. At least immigrants were not turned into the type of scapegoats that were created in 1930's Germany. Although Farage and his hateful crew tried there best to emulate that. Very sadly, they nearly pulled it off :-(

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 29 Nov 18 - 10:24 PM

Raggytash wrote: Arrant nonsense Stanron, and more to the point you know it is.

Backwoodsman wrote: "It WAS actually a vote for all the 'worse' stuff the Leave campaign predicted."

The standard Stanron horse-shit. Never let us down, do you?
It was actually a vote despite 'all the worse stuff the Leave campaign predicted' - you lot were the Village-idiots who declared you were 'fed up with experts' weren't you?

Denials are not arguments, Abuse and insults likewise.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 01:55 AM

The argument is clear enough. The Remain campaign said 'A' would happen if the leave side won. The Leave side said 'stuff and nonsense, 'A' will never happen so go ahead and vote leave."

The absurdity is a claim that those who voted leave were therefore voting for 'A' to happen.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 03:26 AM

"Denials are not arguments, Abuse and insults likewise."
You have been given arguments by the score
Ignoring them is not argument - it's ignoring them
You coose to ignore the most prolific and abusive insulter on this forum because he is on your side
That is hypocrisy, impure and simple
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 03:36 AM

"Denials are not arguments, Abuse and insults likewise."

Hilarious, coming as it does from a crony of Iains - the most abusive and insulting poster on this thread or, for that matter, any thread he infects.

BrexShitters, Know Thyselves.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 04:35 AM

Watch the respones Backie
Billy Coonolly used to claim that if you wanted to confuse a policeman - ask him a question
Seems to be the case here
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 07:54 AM

I find it strange that people believe that the deal the May has cobbled together represents the EU treating treating the UK unfavourably.

It seems to me that the EU negotiators have bent over backwards to accommodate unreasonable demands made by the UK. Right from the start that said that clearly leaving the EU must mean losing the privileges provided to member states.

As for the £39 billion being paraded as being some kind of fine for leaving, it's nothing of the sort. It's money which we owe because of existing commitments we made before there was any prospect of leaving, and it's a figure that represents only a part payment, because the EU negotiators were able to fiddle the real debt down to make it easier for Theresa May.

Denying us a fresh chance to vote is presented as being democratic. In two countries, Ireland and Denmark, where an initial referendum voted against the EU the people were given a second chance, and voted the other way - and in both cases there is now overwhelming support forEU membership. It's rather as if we were being told that once a government has been elected it is our duty to support that government, and not seek a chance to throw it out. And of course the number of people who have been added to the electoral register since the referendum is significantly higher than the Brexit majority over Remain.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 07:59 AM

Good post, McG, and absolutely spot-on, of course.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 08:15 AM

Interesting interview on the news just now
Teresa May, when questioned, has refused to rule out a second vote on her Brexit proposals if she cannot get Parliamentary acceptance next week
It appears she is prepared to accept for politicians what she is refusing to allow the British people - a chance to reconsider their decision
Some are more equal than others, as the man said !
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 08:29 AM

Equally inconsistent is the way that, while still refusing to entertain the suggestion of asking ordinary people to express their wishes about this deal of hers directly and collectively, she charges around the place calling for the public to put pressure on their MPs to do what she wants.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 10:17 AM

I also think DMG's post of 1.55 am was excellent. I would quite like some intelligent discussion of the options, but it seems clear that we are not going to get that via Ians or Stanron.

The question on the referendum said

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

The papers available to the public at the time stated that there would be a lengthy process of negotiation following a decision to leave, with the UK having lost the right to influence EU decisions. The 'treaties' would cease to apply to us either when withdrawal was agreed or when two years were up.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/503908/54538_EU_Series_No2_Accessible.pdf

It may be the case that people who voted 'leave' did so for various reasons included the spurious arguments about vacuum cleaners I remember hearing discussed even on Radio 4, and Borish Johnson's nonsense about bendy bananas, but we cannot know.

On the topic of EU people coming to live in the UK, EU people from the Irish Republic have rights agreed by early instruments to come and live here and it seems that this will continue. Not sure how many qualified doctors are among them.

Our GP practice cannot recruit enough GPs. This is a scandal. Anybody who imagined that a Tory government, some of whose members are ideologically opposed to the very idea of the NHS, wanting to do trade deals with the USA whose big businesses have been wanting to get their teeth into our health service for a long time, and many of whom are ideologically opposed to national health services (look at how they claimed Obama's health care actually KILLED people) wants their heads looking at. But I met people who thought that government spending on local stuff like street cleaning would improve after Brexit because we would not be sending money to the EU. These clowns had no doubt never heard of 'austerity', or the food banks which are now needed to make up for the total mess of benefit changes. They were no doubt aware of the Tory habit of cutting taxes for the rich and cutting state support for the jobless and the working poor. And the rest of us will be paying the price for their stupidity.


Here endeth the rant.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 10:21 AM

Sorry, I meant to say that people who imagined that the Tory Government would spend any 'profit' from leaving the EU on public services and/or the NHS wanted their heads looking at, but didn't quite manage it.

But a lot of people I spoke to did, and they were not voting for what Stanron claims they were voting for.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 11:53 AM

I have a friend who runs a small haulage company - 5 drivers. She is desperately worried about whether her company will survive a no deal (and a Brexiteer has posted to her Facebook page that she is being selfish!)


In that context here is a clip from the BBC live feeds"

Northern Ireland will be allowed to operate just 60 lorries in the Republic of Ireland in the event of a no-deal Brexit, threatening disaster for businesses on both sides of the Irish border.

In a no-deal scenario, all commercial drivers in the UK would be reclassified as third-country operators requiring special permits to operate in the EU.

This spells chaos for the Dover-Calais route, which 11,000 trucks cross each day, and has special consequences in Ireland, where 13,000 cross-border journeys are made daily, transporting everything from bread to Guinness to cement.

The Department for Transport told the Freight Transport Association (FTA) this week that only 984 annual European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT) permits would be issued for 2019.

It has warned hauliers that if the UK leaves the EU with no deal then they may need these permits to transport goods within the EU or EEA, but the Department for Infrastructure in Belfast has said just 60 permits will be issued in Northern Ireland.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 12:04 PM

A long and barely coherent rant (not my word) which ends by accusing me of making 'claims'. What claims? Read my last post again. I was reporting a comment made on a TV show. If you have access to BBCiPlayer you can watch it for yourself, if you can be bothered to trawl through 45 minutes for a single sentence. Mind you there were quite a few pro remain points of view which you would no doubt enjoy.

I know why I wanted, and still want, to leave. There is more than one reason. I don't know what every one else thought and to claim to know would be stupid.

I happily embrace the conceit that I am not stupid. Can you?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 12:17 PM

Yes, we know that you want to leave, Stanron. Tell us why. Give us good, quantifiable reasons why you decided to vote leave, against the advice of almost 100% of economists and most business leaders. Now that the body of evidence saying that leaving will be a bad thing is overwhelming do you still think it was the right choice? This is what we are trying to learn. We are hoping for some glimmer of hope amongst the gloom. 'We will be out of the EU' just does not cut it. Iains and Nigel have failed to come with any good justification of how we will be in any way better off. I know I am clutching at straws but maybe you will fare better.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 12:39 PM

I can't answer for Stanron, of course, but one 'reason' I have started hearing more often is that "our parents/grandparents fought to be from of Europe and you dishonour their memory if you do not want to leave."

Pure emotion, of course. No regard for or interest in whether we will be better, worse, or completely collapse. No factual basis at all. Just armchair warriors who somehow think they are doing their bit in the last war.

But I think quite a lot of people could be persuaded by it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 12:40 PM

What I can't understand is why a vote in June 2016 is the fixed and unchangeably valid expression of the will of the people’s of the UK, while a vote in Spring 2018 would be a a mortal blow to democracy and an insult to the people of the UK.

There are two indeed rational bases for opposing such a vote. For committed Brexiters it would entail a risk that this time the vote might go against them. For MPs in constituencies where there was a strong vote for Brexit last time there is a risk that, if they supported a fresh vote, this might entail a risk of losing their seats in the next election, especially if it turned out that the will of the UK as a whole was to remain in the EU. But neither of these reasons are anything at all to do with democratic principles.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 12:42 PM

to be 'free of' or 'free from' Europe ..

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 12:44 PM

Spot on, Kevin, but sadly it seems that a third referendum has been ruled out. Yes, I do mean third. The first was in 1975 when we voted remain.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 12:50 PM

it seems that a third referendum has been ruled out.

I think that is a bit premature. Let's see what happens after around Dec 12th. I agree May is trying to rule it out, but equally there are amendments being proposed that as Laura K puts it:

The BBC's Laura Kuenssberg says it supports what "some in Number 10 suspect - that is vote falls, Parliament essentially takes over from the executive".

And if that happens, any options could arise, whether Mrs May agrees or not.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 12:58 PM

Things are normally ruled out before they are ruled in. Remember May repeatedly saying that there would not be a General Election until 2021. Or Cameron repeatedly saying that if by any possibility there was a vote to leave the EU he would stick around as Prime Minister while the mess was cleared up? Or every single LibDem candidate making an individual pledge to oppose tuition fees irrespective of how the election turned out? Pledges and promises by politicians are almost invariably written in water.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 01:30 PM

Dave the Gnome wrote: Give us good, quantifiable reasons why you decided to vote leave

Again? See post

Date: 20 Aug 18 - 05:49 PM

It's even got a typo.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 02:03 PM

For those who cannot be bothered to look back at Stanron's quoted post, here it is.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron - PM
Date: 20 Aug 18 - 05:49 PM

1. The EU is corrupt, It has failed to produce audited accounts for approximately ever. Good News! we will no longer have to pay for their gravy train.
2. The EU is incompetent. Had the EU offered any kind of effective reform before the referendum we may not have voted to leave. Good News! We will no longer have our common sense subordinated to their doctrinaire incompetencies.
3. The EU is dishonest. It disguised the plan to transform into a United States of Europe because it knew no one would vote for that. Good News! We will no longer be deceived in this particular fashion.
4. The EU is undemocratic. We were never allowed to vote on stuff they reckoned we would reject. We cannot elect any of the people who originate policy. Good News! We will become a Democracy again.
%. The EU is a train wreck in the process of happening. Good News! The light at the end of the tunnel is our escape, not a train coming the other way.

Let's see if this gets deleted.

Well, thing is, Stanron, that does not give anyone any reason to believe that being out of the EU will be any better. In fact, as we still will have to trade with them but have no control over what goes on, it will be decidedly worse. If that was your reason for voting leave, fine. I think you got it wrong, as Steve's post following yours showed, and how do you still justify your vote in the light of what has subsequently transpoired about the dishonesty of the referendum campaign and the obvious damage it is going to do to both the economy and social structure of the UK?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 02:03 PM

Oh, and 1500!