Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

CelticRambler · 06-12-2018 02:18PM

funkey_monkey wrote: »

Does this not prove to a certain extent the Brexiteers point about the EU? The deal being offered is so bad that remaining is a better option.

Nope. There were several other deals on offer (cf the "Barnier Staircase") but Theresa May drew so many red lines to appease the Brexiteers she painted herself into a corner where a bad deal does almost look worse than no deal.

josip · 06-12-2018 02:30PM

John Calm Ballerina wrote: »

Yep, I'll be switching to Amazon.es, .fr, .de .it.... 😁

Amazon is a good example. They obviously do a huge amount of business in Ireland, I wonder what plans they have for Irish customers?

It might be a huge amount of business from our perspective, but I doubt if Amazon will lose much sleep about the impact of Brexit on Ireland.
They probably have much bigger concerns just on the UK impacts of Brexit.

CelticRambler · 06-12-2018 02:35PM

Looking beyond Brexit-day, I came across a NYT article discussing why Trump's MAGA strategy is fatally flawed, and there are parallels for the UK, specifically this:

as overall spending grows, an increasing share goes to services, not goods. Consumption of manufactured goods keeps rising, but technological progress lets us produce those goods with ever fewer workers; so the economy shifts toward services.

By the way, if you want to know what “services” means: Of the four occupations the Department of Labor expects to add the most jobs over the next decade, three are some kind of nursing (food workers are the fourth). And if you can’t imagine how a prosperous economy can be built on services, bear in mind that health care is a large source of middle-class jobs, and could provide even more with the right policies.

My own dealings with the employment services in France have highlighted the same trend: young people are being trained for non-existent jobs that they dream about when the real-world demand lies increasingly in providing geriatric care. Similarly,it was shown in that Stephen Fry Brexit video posted a few days ago, half of government spending goes on education, healthcare (which is dominated by costs for keeping people alive beyond their best-before date) and pensions.

We've seen that the British workforce to date has been unable fulfill the demand for workers in education and healthcare, with the shortfall being made up of EU migrants firstly, and mostly Asian/Middle-Eastern immigrants afterwards. If Britain follows where America leads, and becomes ever more dependent on the healthcare industry to keep the economy afloat, who's going to keep it running - more immigrants?

seamus · 06-12-2018 02:38PM

Brexit is a big issue for Amazon. They have 49 distribution warehouses in the EU and 16 of these are in the UK, more than any other individual state.

While it's likely a reflection of the size of the UK market, there's no doubt they rely quite heavily on the UK centres to distribute into the EU. Amazon would never talk about it though.

There are also legal issues for AWS data centres, and accounting issues for their software development offices in the UK.

demfad · 06-12-2018 02:38PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=n_wPxAd41js&app=desktop

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-46460194

Good BBC Video and article (Finally) on the search for the source of Aaron Banks £8 million funding of Brexit: £2 Million to 'Better for the Country limited' and £6 million to LeaveEU.

The ICO referred the matter of the sources of Banks Referendum Funding to the UK National Crime Agency saying they suspected crimes had taken place.
Money for British elections must transparently come from the UK. Banks money allegedly came from a company called Rock Services of London but may have come from Rock Services in the Isle of Man. As the accounts for these companies are not transparent and the money is not coming from the company Banks says it was: crimes have been committed by providing False information to the Electoral Commission in order to use illegitimate funding.
The £8 million spent by Banks was not legitimate. To understand how serious this is this amounts to more than the ENTIRE official Remain campaign allowance.
The Russian ambassador to the UK who Mueller described as a central figure in Trump-Russia had met with banks and Wigmore several times at key points leading up to the Referendum. Other Russian officials met with them including a Russian spy deported after the Skripal poisoning. These meetings continued after the referendum at key points in Trump campaion (Day Bannon was appointed Campaign Manager, they met Ambassador in London day after "Bad Boys" Trump tower photo).
They were offerred Gold mining deals backed by Sberbank. Banks runs diamond mines in SA which are perfect for laundering money.

Potential Illegal spending by Leave campaigns to date:

Vote Leave to BeLeave: £1m Crime + Fine
LeaveEU/BFTCL : £8m Highly likely illegal source and Crime committed (regardless of Russian connection or not)

=£9 million.

This doesn't include undeclared benefits in kind by Cambridge Analytica to LeaveEU, or payments by DUP/VeteransForLeave to AIQ or DUP dark £1/2m

In a high Court case, This Oxford Professor alleges that the Vote Leave/AIQ illegal overspend alone was enough to swing the Vote to Leave. Thats just a million. We are looking at probably £9m. There is no way in hell that Leaves would have won without cheating and committing crimes.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/vote-leave-referendum-overspending-high-court-brexit-legal-challenge-void-oxford-professor-a8668771.html

RobMc59 · 06-12-2018 03:05PM

demfad wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=n_wPxAd41js&app=desktop

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-46460194

Good BBC Video and article (Finally) on the search for the source of Aaron Banks £8 million funding of Brexit: £2 Million to 'Better for the Country limited' and £6 million to LeaveEU.

The ICO referred the matter of the sources of Banks Referendum Funding to the UK National Crime Agency saying they suspected crimes had taken place.
Money for British elections must transparently come from the UK. Banks money allegedly came from a company called Rock Services of London but may have come from Rock Services in the Isle of Man. As the accounts for these companies are not transparent and the money is not coming from the company Banks says it was: crimes have been committed by providing False information to the Electoral Commission in order to use illegitimate funding.
The £8 million spent by Banks was not legitimate. To understand how serious this is this amounts to more than the entire official Leave campaign allowance.
The Russian ambassador to the UK who Mueller described as a central figure in Trump-Russia had met with banks and Wigmore several times at key points leading up to the Referendum. Other Russian officials met with them including a Russian spy deported after the Skripal poisoning. These meetings continued after the referendum at key points in Trump campaion (Day Bannon was appointed Campaign Manager, they met Ambassador in London day after "Bad Boys" Trump tower photo).
They were offerred Gold mining deals backed by Sberbank. Banks runs diamond mines in SA which are perfect for laundering money.

Potential Illegal spending by Leave campaigns to date:
Vote Leave to BeLeave: £1m Crime + Fine

LeaveEU/BFTCL : £8m Highly likely illegal source and Crime committed (regardless of Russian connection or not)

=£9 million.

This doesn't include undeclared benefits in kind by Cambridge Analytica to LeaveEU, or payments by DUP/VeteransForLeave to AIQ or DUP dark £1/2m

In a high Court case, This Oxford Professor alleges that the Vote Leave/AIQ illegal overspend alone was enough to swing the Vote to Leave. Thats just a million. We are looking at probably £9m. There is no way in hell that Leaves would have won without cheating and committing crimes.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/vote-leave-referendum-overspending-high-court-brexit-legal-challenge-void-oxford-professor-a8668771.html

In that case getting the public to buy into such a well funded, organised brexit campaign was like shooting fish in a barrel for the cheating brexiteers-perhaps the British public should be cut some slack?

BonnieSituation · 06-12-2018 03:13PM

Nah. Thr wilful ignorance of the British public enabled this to be like shooting fish in the barrel.

Sympathy is in short supply.

Leroy42 · 06-12-2018 03:16PM

RobMc59 wrote: »

In that case getting the public to buy into such a well funded, organised brexit campaign was like shooting fish in a barrel for the cheating brexiteers-perhaps the British public should be cut some slack?

There is truth in that, except that this info has been out in the open for ages and yet a very large portion of the British public seem totally unconcerned and just want them to "get on with it" in terms of Brexit and the very notion of a second vote is seen as an affront to democracy.

kalych · 06-12-2018 03:28PM

funkey_monkey wrote: »

Does this not prove to a certain extent the Brexiteers point about the EU? The deal being offered is so bad that remaining is a better option.

Isn't that an argument against virtually anything?
"Screw my bank for keeping me on the hook by giving me the best rate in the market for mortgages. They are just trying to tie me down."
"I have to stay alive because the alternative of committing suicide is not great either, even though I hate my life?"

You can twist anything positive this way.

Leroy42 · 06-12-2018 03:43PM

funkey_monkey wrote: »

Does this not prove to a certain extent the Brexiteers point about the EU? The deal being offered is so bad that remaining is a better option.

it doesn't prove anything. There is nothing stopping the Uk from leaving the EU. The problem is that the UK know that simply leaving without any deal is madness and thus they need to get some deal. Now why is that? Is that because there is actual value in being in the EU?

I know if I am stuck in a job I hate, or a mobile contract etc that as soon as I get a way out I take that option. What I have done though is considered the alternatives before I hand in my notice. The UK haven't done of that, or indeed even understood what they were getting in the first place.

The EU have considered the options presented by the UK and have come to a negotiated position. The UK is still free to opt for any of three choices

Leave with no Deal
Accept the deal and leave on that basis
Remain.

The point that the offer is worse than the position they currently simply shows the Brexiteers to be the liars they are. They made the EU out to be the worst thing to ever happen to the UK, and now are saving that actually they have could have been much worse!

Leroy42 · 06-12-2018 03:49PM

funkey_monkey wrote: »

TM's deal is a bad for remainers and brexiteers. The majority of MP's are against it.
EU states the deal is what it is - you can change the font or the colour of the paper.

Canada does not resolve the border problem to their liking as NI remains in CU and in their eyes is tantamount to breaking up of the union.

Everyone agrees No Deal would be catastrophic and must be avoided.

That only leaves remain option.

I'm pro remain, but I feel like there is not enough spread of opinions in here.

But what options do you want there to be? It is pretty clear now that the promises of easy trade deals, money for the NHS, only positive impacts on the economy as portrayed by the Brexiteers were never a possibility.

That doesn't mean the EU is not being fair. I would actually be of the view that they have been too accommodating, but that is very much open to argument.

That the deal is not everything they wanted does not make it a bad deal. It is a bad deal in terms of what they currently have. So that is why there is now talk of Remain even from the likes of Johnson, with the caveat that its all the fault of TM and not simply the reality of the siutation.

ArmaniJeanss · 06-12-2018 03:51PM

funkey_monkey wrote: »

I'm pro remain, but I feel like there is not enough spread of opinions in here.

It sounds like you are looking for a pro-Brexit opinion that stands up to scrutiny, and someone to come up with a fair deal that simultaneously satisfies the EUs four freedoms, TMPMs red lines, and the UKs obligations under the GFA.

There are some good posters here but...……..

demfad · 06-12-2018 03:54PM

RobMc59 wrote: »

In that case getting the public to buy into such a well funded, organised brexit campaign was like shooting fish in a barrel for the cheating brexiteers-perhaps the British public should be cut some slack?

I would think your point is fair. The BBC carries massive weight among the middle of the road voters and the BBC has been massively biased. I'm not talking about towards Brexit: I am talking about allowing the gaslighting and untruths to go unchallenged and the choices of who they interviewed. So no-deal was better than a bad-deal till all of a sudden its not anymore. Constantly interviewing people from RW dark money groups like the Tax-Payers alliance. The dozens of Farage interviews. We could go on. Neill their main political presenter is a member of one of these dodgy RW groups.
Apparently Cameron stacked the rules in the Beeb during his tenure and they have gone downhill.

The International propaganda axis responsible for Trump delivered Brexit.
They were able to pile masses of illegal money into Brexit and had the most advanced and powerful propaganda machines known to man to convince the public. As far as I can see this machine has still being in operation to keep the public split static, to deliver Brexit, protect those who committed crimes.

There are deep issues in British society of inequality and xenophobia but the Brexit result was not an organic reflection of this.
I would cut them some slack.

I always thought that something like a Farage indictment by Mueller would shatter Brexit. The Banks situation may yet do, but the powers that be have worked hard to delay this investitaion and protect Banks (Brexit).

PS To understand how deep this goes: Just before the referendum, as Home secretary Theresa May killed an investigation into Banks. She had MI5 she would have known. She knows now.

PS2 Just to add. None of teh interference I mentioned includes a monetarization of actual Russian direct influence (Trolls etc) on Brexit.
Here is a quick example of how that influence was present:
(That DavidJo Twiiter account the bigegst account covering Brexit is a paid troll working out of St Petersburg).

https://twitter.com/conspirator0/status/967624215187869697

Econ__ · 06-12-2018 04:06PM

funkey_monkey wrote: »

TM's deal is a bad for remainers and brexiteers. The majority of MP's are against it.
EU states the deal is what it is - you can change the font or the colour of the paper.

Canada does not resolve the border problem to their liking as NI remains in CU and in their eyes is tantamount to breaking up of the union.

Everyone agrees No Deal would be catastrophic and must be avoided.

That only leaves remain option.

I'm pro remain, but I feel like there is not enough spread of opinions in here.

There are two parts to the 'deal'. The Withdrawal Agreement and the political declaration.

Unfortunately most people still don't seem to understand the distinction between the two. The WA is a legally binding agreement over the terms of separation: financial settlement, citizens rights and a guarantee to keep the Irish border open. When the EU says the 'deal' cannot be changed, they are referring to this - the Withdrawal Agreement.

The political declaration is a non binding document that spells out both sides aspirations for the future relationship. At the moment this is vague - it basically allows for UK to choose during the transition as to whether they want to have a close or distant future relationship with the EU. There are many in parliament who do not like this lack of clarity and do not wish to kick the can down the road any further, only to continue the argument post 2019.

Many of these MPs would like it inserted into the PD that the UK will choose to have a close relationship with the EU and specify that they'd like to negotiate a Norway + style deal. This would allow them to vote for the deal because they have clarity as to what will happen after the transition period. The EU would agree to alter the PD to clarify this as it would actually be helpful to them too if they had more clarity on the nature of their future relationship with the EU.

So the Political Declaration part of the 'deal' can be changed and is an alternative to either no deal, no Brexit and TM's current 'deal'.

Leroy42 · 06-12-2018 04:25PM

One simple area that the UK have so far failed to offer any insight in is how they are going to deal with the people in NI post Brexit. Currently, under GFA, a person from NI can be GB, ROI or both. But if they claim ROI then they can legitimately continue to have FoM. Why would people in NI be allowed to retain this when someone from Manchester is not?

LuckyLloyd · 06-12-2018 04:31PM

funkey_monkey wrote: »

TM's deal is a bad for remainers and brexiteers. The majority of MP's are against it.
EU states the deal is what it is - you can change the font or the colour of the paper.

Canada does not resolve the border problem to their liking as NI remains in CU and in their eyes is tantamount to breaking up of the union.

Everyone agrees No Deal would be catastrophic and must be avoided.

That only leaves remain option.

I'm pro remain, but I feel like there is not enough spread of opinions in here.

So Remain was the best option? It's completely logical and expected that remaining in the EU offers a much better outcome than leaving the EU and trying to get all the benefits of EU membership without any of the responsibilities. What spread of opinion do you require?

The official arguments for Brexit are:

Emotional / Philosophical: 'take back control' / 'go our own way as an independent nation'
Speculative: 'better trade deals with developing world / 'money from EU to NHS'
Anti - Intellectual: 'the BOE doesn't know what it's talking about' / 'people are sick of experts'
Racist / Fearful: 'end free movement'

And - due to a pretty decent EU compromise - the WA agreement as negotiated will actually achieve the last point in totality!

But of course these arguments are rejected. That is one of the big things that Brexity types don't like about this thread - the emotional / speculative / anti - intellectual components of the Brexit "dream" have been long dismissed. And the thread focuses on the economic and legalistic realities - realities codified in the WA agreement on the table.

And let's not forget the unofficial motivations for Brexit as detailed in every one of demfad's posts or called out explicitly by Daniel Hannan in the Telegraph yesterday:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/12/01/no-deal-now-option-left-must-respond-liberalising-economy/

Will EU leaders frustrate a managed withdrawal for the sake of a backstop that London, Dublin and Brussels all say they never want to see activated anyway? It’s hard to say. Many of the 27 governments, mindful of their own prosperity, would want to respond to an impasse by extending the current technical arrangements pending further talks. But some Eurocrats would rather see everyone suffer than watch a post-EU Britain succeed.

So we need to prepare for the prospect of a disorderly Brexit. There would be costs for both sides. The euro crisis might flare up again, and the states nearest to Britain would take a hit. But there would be also be a heavy blow to the UK, which conducts a higher proportion of its trade across the Channel than anyone else.

How might we soften that blow? Our preparations are in a better place than they were before the summer. The lights won’t fail in Northern Ireland. Planes won’t be denied landing slots. It’s true that, to the frustration of some ministers, the Treasury has refused to invest in new customs infrastructure. Then again, why should Britain want additional customs checks? The obvious response to a no-deal Brexit is to remove all our trade barriers.

That was what turned Singapore from a poor, equatorial island into a gleaming metropolis. Singaporeans went from having half our income per head in the 1950s to nearly twice today. Why? Because in 1965, they responded to an acrimonious split with a larger neighbour (Malaysia) by slashing taxes, creating enterprise zones and opening their economy to the world.

Such things are not easily done in a democracy. But attitudes change when people feel they are being bullied. And, make no mistake, if the EU refused to agree with Britain even the minimal courtesies that democracies take for granted with their neighbours, people would conclude that Britain was, in effect, being blockaded. In such a climate, voters would accept reforms that, in more tranquil times, they might see as too much bother.What reforms? After unilateral free trade, the most important would be tax cuts to stimulate growth and attract investment. Corporation tax should be reduced to the OECD minimum of ten per cent, and other taxes that impair economic activity, such as fuel duty, scrapped.

Where would the money come from? Apart from the extra £39 billion that would be immediately freed up, we could drop HS2 and privatise more government assets, including land owned by the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall.

We should repeal anti-competitive EU regulations: the Temporary Workers Directive, the rules on art sales, the GM ban, the internet restrictions – including GDPR. We should ease planning restrictions. We should also (and this won’t be popular) ensure that the City retains its global re-eminence, abolishing the EU’s MiFID rules on transparency across financial markets, removing bonus caps, giving the FCA the explicit remit of increasing competitiveness. The Bank of England, similarly, should replace its inflation target with a growth target – an apparently minor reform that is critical if we need an emergency boost.

But here’s the thing. We should have already embarked on these changes in anticipation of a possible breakdown. Instead, we are spending more and regulating more. EU negotiators have concluded that Theresa May has no interest in economic liberalisation. That has been the problem from the start.

To buy into Brexit, I would need to see it in a quasi religious context. To get to that space, I would need to have fundamentally poisoned my mind on multiple fronts. I would be nationalistic, I would be unrealistic about economics, I would have no understanding of the EU and the workings of International treaties. Or I would hold a desire for significant chaos and upheaval to the status quo. Either because my life is trending in the wrong direction and I feel failed by politics / society; or I stand to make lots of money from drastic change.

=============

But, again, leaving *all* of that aside why should you be entitled to the rights and benefits offered by a club to its members as a non member? If you can reasonably answer that question then you might have the basis for some better Brexit argument.

briany · 06-12-2018 04:47PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

One simple area that the UK have so far failed to offer any insight in is how they are going to deal with the people in NI post Brexit. Currently, under GFA, a person from NI can be GB, ROI or both. But if they claim ROI then they can legitimately continue to have FoM. Why would people in NI be allowed to retain this when someone from Manchester is not?

The CTA covers FoM from any part of the UK within Ireland. As far as freedom of citizenship goes, that's another arrangement which all parties have voiced commitment to respecting as part of their overall commitment to the GFA. Everyone understands the deal in NI, and if they don't, they ought to educate themselves on the matter.

cml387 · 06-12-2018 05:00PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

One simple area that the UK have so far failed to offer any insight in is how they are going to deal with the people in NI post Brexit. Currently, under GFA, a person from NI can be GB, ROI or both. But if they claim ROI then they can legitimately continue to have FoM. Why would people in NI be allowed to retain this when someone from Manchester is not?

There's no problem, if you want to ensure freedom of movement in Europe you can get an Irish passport. Simples.

Tell me how · 06-12-2018 05:16PM

funkey_monkey wrote: »

I'm pro remain, but I feel like there is not enough spread of opinions in here.

This is what you end up with when you think that both sides must be represented irrespective of the absence of solid positions from one.
https://twitter.com/CBCPolitics/status/922807122055790593?s=19

If there were good ideas for leaving, they'd be out there by now.

lawred2 · 06-12-2018 05:21PM

lol at both sides of the science

marno21 · 06-12-2018 05:57PM

Tell me how wrote: »

This is what you end up with when you think that both sides must be represented irrespective of the absence of solid positions from one.
https://twitter.com/CBCPolitics/status/922807122055790593?s=19

If there were good ideas for leaving, they'd be out there by now.

From the article:

Craft's husband, billionaire coal-mining magnate Joe Craft, has criticized Obama's climate change policies.

Surprise surprise.

flatty · 06-12-2018 06:37PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

There is truth in that, except that this info has been out in the open for ages and yet a very large portion of the British public seem totally unconcerned and just want them to "get on with it" in terms of Brexit and the very notion of a second vote is seen as an affront to democracy.

A large swathe of the British public are elderly, bitter and a bit dim. This sadly is just a fact. The best of British are a match for anyone, and are wonderful people, but there are huge numbers of people of the type who complain that the Spanish spoil their holidays by not speaking English.
Wrt to teresa may refusing to directly answer a question about delaying the vote, I cannot ever remember her answering a direct question about anything.
If her govt put it to the people that the initial referendum was flawed by illegal Russian finance and interference, she would instantly be given a popular mandate for a rerun of the referendum. She will do absolutely everything in her power to avoid one, as it threatens what she perceives as her place in history. She doesn't give a flying fcuk about anything else. There will be a second referendum over her political corpse. That is all. She is an ardent brexiteer.

rdsopix · 06-12-2018 06:49PM

flatty wrote: »

If her govt put it to the people that the initial referendum was flawed by illegal Russian finance and interference, she would instantly be given a popular mandate for a rerun of the referendum. She will do absolutely everything in her power to avoid one, as it threatens what she perceives as her place in history. She doesn't give a flying fcuk about anything else. There will be a second referendum over her political corpse. That is all. She is an ardent brexiteer.

1.- Doubt that most leave voters would like to hear that their vote was influenced by Russian meddling and lies.

2.- Not sure that Teresa May is just worried about her place in history books as the Brexit PM. Maybe it is her husbands financial interests, just like with Rees-Mogg and many other self-styled anti-establishment figures .

Water John · 06-12-2018 06:52PM

Really hope Ch4 go ahead with an interesting debate. Easy to be better than listening to May and Corbyn bore our lights out. Also, Ch4 more impartial and flying pigs will be shot down.

How could some one like Andrew Neil chair a debate? He took a good swipe at Carole Cadwallader, of Aaron Banks inquiry. Wonder why that was???

Scoondal · 06-12-2018 07:15PM

flatty wrote: »

A large swathe of the British public are elderly, bitter and a bit dim. This sadly is just a fact. The best of British are a match for anyone, and are wonderful people, but there are huge numbers of people of the type who complain that the Spanish spoil their holidays by not speaking English.
Wrt to teresa may refusing to directly answer a question about delaying the vote, I cannot ever remember her answering a direct question about anything.
If her govt put it to the people that the initial referendum was flawed by illegal Russian finance and interference, she would instantly be given a popular mandate for a rerun of the referendum. She will do absolutely everything in her power to avoid one, as it threatens what she perceives as her place in history. She doesn't give a flying fcuk about anything else. There will be a second referendum over her political corpse. That is all. She is an ardent brexiteer.

Mrs. May was a remainer.

briany · 06-12-2018 07:19PM

flatty wrote: »

A large swathe of the British public are elderly, bitter and a bit dim. This sadly is just a fact. The best of British are a match for anyone, and are wonderful people, but there are huge numbers of people of the type who complain that the Spanish spoil their holidays by not speaking English.
Wrt to teresa may refusing to directly answer a question about delaying the vote, I cannot ever remember her answering a direct question about anything.
If her govt put it to the people that the initial referendum was flawed by illegal Russian finance and interference, she would instantly be given a popular mandate for a rerun of the referendum. She will do absolutely everything in her power to avoid one, as it threatens what she perceives as her place in history. She doesn't give a flying fcuk about anything else. There will be a second referendum over her political corpse. That is all. She is an ardent brexiteer.

Her place in history is that of a patsy. Somebody allowed to grab the frying pan after the kitchen got too hot. Pushed around by the EU, losing control of her party and choosing sides in Northern Ireland will not stand to her desire to be remembered well. Brexiteers hate her because she's not giving them the Brexit they want, and Remainers hate her because she's facilitating Brexit at all. Her only outspoken allies appear to be a section of moderate Tories and members of the British public who want the whole business to be over with and with as little disruption as possible.

Scoondal · 06-12-2018 07:20PM

flatty wrote: »

A large swathe of the British public are elderly, bitter and a bit dim. This sadly is just a fact. The best of British are a match for anyone, and are wonderful people, but there are huge numbers of people of the type who complain that the Spanish spoil their holidays by not speaking English.
Wrt to teresa may refusing to directly answer a question about delaying the vote, I cannot ever remember her answering a direct question about anything.
If her govt put it to the people that the initial referendum was flawed by illegal Russian finance and interference, she would instantly be given a popular mandate for a rerun of the referendum. She will do absolutely everything in her power to avoid one, as it threatens what she perceives as her place in history. She doesn't give a flying fcuk about anything else. There will be a second referendum over her political corpse. That is all. She is an ardent brexiteer.

The people voted. Result. Do not insult the majority of ordinary people. Even now the people who want to leave EU are more entrenched because of the point of view that the parliament will vote against the agreement.
The people want their voice heard.

Strazdas · 06-12-2018 07:29PM

Water John wrote: »

Really hope Ch4 go ahead with an interesting debate. Easy to be better than listening to May and Corbyn bore our lights out. Also, Ch4 more impartial and flying pigs will be shot down.

How could some one like Andrew Neil chair a debate? He took a good swipe at Carole Cadwallader, of Aaron Banks inquiry. Wonder why that was???

It definitely seems to be going ahead. It's scheduled for 9pm on Sunday evening.

RobMc59 · 06-12-2018 07:29PM

flatty wrote: »

A large swathe of the British public are elderly, bitter and a bit dim. This sadly is just a fact. The best of British are a match for anyone, and are wonderful people, but there are huge numbers of people of the type who complain that the Spanish spoil their holidays by not speaking English.
Wrt to teresa may refusing to directly answer a question about delaying the vote, I cannot ever remember her answering a direct question about anything.
If her govt put it to the people that the initial referendum was flawed by illegal Russian finance and interference, she would instantly be given a popular mandate for a rerun of the referendum. She will do absolutely everything in her power to avoid one, as it threatens what she perceives as her place in history. She doesn't give a flying fcuk about anything else. There will be a second referendum over her political corpse. That is all. She is an ardent brexiteer.

The old classic hurler from the ditch tactic allied to stereotyping..but-hey!whatever rocks your boat!:)

MICKEYG · 06-12-2018 07:31PM

Scoondal wrote: »

The people voted. Result. Do not insult the majority of ordinary people. Even now the people who want to leave EU are more entrenched because of the point of view that the parliament will vote against the agreement.
The people want their voice heard.

What did they vote for?

Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

Comments