FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Second Referendum
Second Referendum
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When do we get the one after that? " Your right. Where do we draw the line? One year we elect a government and five years later we change our mind. We need to stop this madness and stand by our first decision regardless of the outcome... Why is there a difference to this referendum vote? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What makes anyone think a 2nd referendum would be any less of a clusterfuck than the first one?" The fact that we would know actual facts... and they couldn’t use the project fear they are all scaremongering lines.... If people really want to look over the side of the cliff and still jump... that is on them | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What makes anyone think a 2nd referendum would be any less of a clusterfuck than the first one? The fact that we would know actual facts... and they couldn’t use the project fear they are all scaremongering lines.... If people really want to look over the side of the cliff and still jump... that is on them " We did look over the cliff and jump two years ago. People will do the same again. Ignorance ruled last time. The solution would be that you’re only allowed to vote if you can answer 5 simple questions about the EU. If you get the right, your vote is counted. Remain would have won by a landslide. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What makes anyone think a 2nd referendum would be any less of a clusterfuck than the first one? The fact that we would know actual facts... and they couldn’t use the project fear they are all scaremongering lines.... If people really want to look over the side of the cliff and still jump... that is on them " Facts? Where are they? What information has the Government given this country about the implications of leaving the EU with no alternative arrangement in place? Nothing. At least the EC has informed the EU27 of the various legal implications across different sectors of UK becoming a third country. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What makes anyone think a 2nd referendum would be any less of a clusterfuck than the first one? The fact that we would know actual facts... and they couldn’t use the project fear they are all scaremongering lines.... If people really want to look over the side of the cliff and still jump... that is on them Facts? Where are they? What information has the Government given this country about the implications of leaving the EU with no alternative arrangement in place? Nothing. At least the EC has informed the EU27 of the various legal implications across different sectors of UK becoming a third country. " “Apparently” the government are going to start doing “notices” (basically press releases) this summer relating to what will happen or what people will need to do in the case of a no deal situation .... Whether people will believe the UK version over the Eu technical notes that are being released is another matter... but for brexiteer mps to then shout project fear are going to be doing their constituents a massive disservice | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What makes anyone think a 2nd referendum would be any less of a clusterfuck than the first one? The fact that we would know actual facts... and they couldn’t use the project fear they are all scaremongering lines.... If people really want to look over the side of the cliff and still jump... that is on them Facts? Where are they? What information has the Government given this country about the implications of leaving the EU with no alternative arrangement in place? Nothing. At least the EC has informed the EU27 of the various legal implications across different sectors of UK becoming a third country. “Apparently” the government are going to start doing “notices” (basically press releases) this summer relating to what will happen or what people will need to do in the case of a no deal situation .... Whether people will believe the UK version over the Eu technical notes that are being released is another matter... but for brexiteer mps to then shout project fear are going to be doing their constituents a massive disservice " How long ago was it now that Davis was in front of the select committee and point blank asked if they had done an assessment on the implications of ‘no deal’? When he replied point blank they they had not looked at it at all? And yes, as I recall this was after May had claimed ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’. Despite then showing that they had no idea what ‘no deal’ entailed. I wonder if so many people would have voted to leave if before the vote the government said that there was a chance of ‘no deal’ and they would start stockpiling food and medicine in case that occurred? I guess they probably still would as some leave twat would just yell ‘project fear’ as soon as it was mentioned. The leave campaign’s concotion of ‘project fear’ and the tactic of labelling anything they didn’t like as ‘project fear’. And then the audacity to claim that it was a remain campaign tactic. Oh, and then convincing brain-dead leave voters that it was a remain tactic so they would regurgitate it endlessly was both a masterstroke and also one of the most evil parts of this whole episode. -Matt | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What makes anyone think a 2nd referendum would be any less of a clusterfuck than the first one? The fact that we would know actual facts... and they couldn’t use the project fear they are all scaremongering lines.... If people really want to look over the side of the cliff and still jump... that is on them " Of course they would still use the "project fear" excuse. You cam see it being used virtually everyday on this forum for the last 2 years. The problem is that politics has become completely detached from reality. People are told they have been lied to by the person who lied to them, and they don't believe it. They are told there will be consequences by experts in the field, so they disregard experts. They don't like what they see in the press, so they call it fake news. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the out vote would be greater now ...people can now see the eu as dictators ...." really.... the EU position has not changed once since the day after the referendum result........ the only ones who "could" be scene as trying to "dictate" as they who thought they would get everything they wanted because they need us more that we need them and the german motor industry would be on their knees without us!!!!!! sound familiar? if you overplay your hand... thats no ones fault than yours!!! you are just a "hot take" stream of pish.... so how about, just for once, actually post something of substance rather than the "platitude of the day"...... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the out vote would be greater now ...people can now see the eu as dictators ...." What a load of Bullshit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the out vote would be greater now ...people can now see the eu as dictators .... What a load of Bullshit. " or to use the correct portmanteau .... Brexcrement | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What choices would be the public be given in a 2nd referendum? Offering people the chance to revoke the Article 50 notice and remain a full member of the EU is a non-starter, I think - Parliament would never approve. I can see only two realistic choices: a) to leave the EU completely, i.e. the No Deal exit b) to apply for membership of EFTA or EEA. Mrs May's preferred option of a bespoke agreement between the UK and EU can't be on the ballot paper, otherwise you are asking voters to choose something that is not in the control of the Government to deliver. " I disagree. If another referendum is held then three options should be on the table. A three option referendum is technically possible (a Google shows how it works) so you could ask A) Leave with no deal B) Accept the negotiated deal C) Remain as is The bigger issue is whether this is politically possible. At the moment still likely not, but as the final shape of any negotiated deal becomes clear, or as the likelihood of no deal increases, there will come a time when it's possible or even necessary. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What choices would be the public be given in a 2nd referendum? Offering people the chance to revoke the Article 50 notice and remain a full member of the EU is a non-starter, I think - Parliament would never approve. I can see only two realistic choices: a) to leave the EU completely, i.e. the No Deal exit b) to apply for membership of EFTA or EEA. Mrs May's preferred option of a bespoke agreement between the UK and EU can't be on the ballot paper, otherwise you are asking voters to choose something that is not in the control of the Government to deliver. I disagree. If another referendum is held then three options should be on the table. A three option referendum is technically possible (a Google shows how it works) so you could ask A) Leave with no deal B) Accept the negotiated deal C) Remain as is The bigger issue is whether this is politically possible. At the moment still likely not, but as the final shape of any negotiated deal becomes clear, or as the likelihood of no deal increases, there will come a time when it's possible or even necessary. " That would not be a fair referendum though because you are in effect splitting the leave vote between the A and B options. Remain only has one option. Nice try but no cigar. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What choices would be the public be given in a 2nd referendum? Offering people the chance to revoke the Article 50 notice and remain a full member of the EU is a non-starter, I think - Parliament would never approve. I can see only two realistic choices: a) to leave the EU completely, i.e. the No Deal exit b) to apply for membership of EFTA or EEA. Mrs May's preferred option of a bespoke agreement between the UK and EU can't be on the ballot paper, otherwise you are asking voters to choose something that is not in the control of the Government to deliver. " I don't think there should be a 2nd referendum and I don't think there will be one. However yours seems like the most sensible suggestion on the thread. There can be no option to remain in as it currently stands. The country already made its decision to leave in 2016. The only options would be to leave with no deal or accept a negotiated Brexit deal. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What choices would be the public be given in a 2nd referendum? Offering people the chance to revoke the Article 50 notice and remain a full member of the EU is a non-starter, I think - Parliament would never approve. I can see only two realistic choices: a) to leave the EU completely, i.e. the No Deal exit b) to apply for membership of EFTA or EEA. Mrs May's preferred option of a bespoke agreement between the UK and EU can't be on the ballot paper, otherwise you are asking voters to choose something that is not in the control of the Government to deliver. I disagree. If another referendum is held then three options should be on the table. A three option referendum is technically possible (a Google shows how it works) so you could ask A) Leave with no deal B) Accept the negotiated deal C) Remain as is The bigger issue is whether this is politically possible. At the moment still likely not, but as the final shape of any negotiated deal becomes clear, or as the likelihood of no deal increases, there will come a time when it's possible or even necessary. That would not be a fair referendum though because you are in effect splitting the leave vote between the A and B options. Remain only has one option. Nice try but no cigar. " Yes, of course. It wouldn't be fair to *actually* work out what the leaver voters wanted. The only reason leave won was that leave was sold to everyone as whatever they wanted it to be. Now reality is setting in that they've been sold a bunch of bollocks. That is the real reason why leave voters as so scared of democracy, because they managed to fudge it once, and don't think they could do so again. -Matt | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What choices would be the public be given in a 2nd referendum? Offering people the chance to revoke the Article 50 notice and remain a full member of the EU is a non-starter, I think - Parliament would never approve. I can see only two realistic choices: a) to leave the EU completely, i.e. the No Deal exit b) to apply for membership of EFTA or EEA. Mrs May's preferred option of a bespoke agreement between the UK and EU can't be on the ballot paper, otherwise you are asking voters to choose something that is not in the control of the Government to deliver. I don't think there should be a 2nd referendum and I don't think there will be one. However yours seems like the most sensible suggestion on the thread. There can be no option to remain in as it currently stands. The country already made its decision to leave in 2016. The only options would be to leave with no deal or accept a negotiated Brexit deal. " There is no such thing though as 'no deal'. It is s fantasy. We've been through this before, Centy. Look at the example we went through on driving licenses alone. -Matt | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What choices would be the public be given in a 2nd referendum? Offering people the chance to revoke the Article 50 notice and remain a full member of the EU is a non-starter, I think - Parliament would never approve. I can see only two realistic choices: a) to leave the EU completely, i.e. the No Deal exit b) to apply for membership of EFTA or EEA. Mrs May's preferred option of a bespoke agreement between the UK and EU can't be on the ballot paper, otherwise you are asking voters to choose something that is not in the control of the Government to deliver. I don't think there should be a 2nd referendum and I don't think there will be one. However yours seems like the most sensible suggestion on the thread. There can be no option to remain in as it currently stands. The country already made its decision to leave in 2016. The only options would be to leave with no deal or accept a negotiated Brexit deal. There is no such thing though as 'no deal'. It is s fantasy. We've been through this before, Centy. Look at the example we went through on driving licenses alone. -Matt" Of course no deal is an option. As an example the Bank of England did stress tests on UK banks for a no deal scenario. All the banks passed the tests. Many countries all around the world trade on WTO rules and get by just fine and dandy. As for driving licenses it was established that an international driving permit takes about 5 minutes to fill out the form, you've probably spent longer making posts on this thread.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What choices would be the public be given in a 2nd referendum? Offering people the chance to revoke the Article 50 notice and remain a full member of the EU is a non-starter, I think - Parliament would never approve. I can see only two realistic choices: a) to leave the EU completely, i.e. the No Deal exit b) to apply for membership of EFTA or EEA. Mrs May's preferred option of a bespoke agreement between the UK and EU can't be on the ballot paper, otherwise you are asking voters to choose something that is not in the control of the Government to deliver. I don't think there should be a 2nd referendum and I don't think there will be one. However yours seems like the most sensible suggestion on the thread. There can be no option to remain in as it currently stands. The country already made its decision to leave in 2016. The only options would be to leave with no deal or accept a negotiated Brexit deal. There is no such thing though as 'no deal'. It is s fantasy. We've been through this before, Centy. Look at the example we went through on driving licenses alone. -Matt Of course no deal is an option. As an example the Bank of England did stress tests on UK banks for a no deal scenario. All the banks passed the tests. Many countries all around the world trade on WTO rules and get by just fine and dandy. As for driving licenses it was established that an international driving permit takes about 5 minutes to fill out the form, you've probably spent longer making posts on this thread. "Mauritania is the only country in the world that trades solely under WTO rules. Just for your information. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What choices would be the public be given in a 2nd referendum? Offering people the chance to revoke the Article 50 notice and remain a full member of the EU is a non-starter, I think - Parliament would never approve. I can see only two realistic choices: a) to leave the EU completely, i.e. the No Deal exit b) to apply for membership of EFTA or EEA. Mrs May's preferred option of a bespoke agreement between the UK and EU can't be on the ballot paper, otherwise you are asking voters to choose something that is not in the control of the Government to deliver. I don't think there should be a 2nd referendum and I don't think there will be one. However yours seems like the most sensible suggestion on the thread. There can be no option to remain in as it currently stands. The country already made its decision to leave in 2016. The only options would be to leave with no deal or accept a negotiated Brexit deal. There is no such thing though as 'no deal'. It is s fantasy. We've been through this before, Centy. Look at the example we went through on driving licenses alone. -Matt Of course no deal is an option. As an example the Bank of England did stress tests on UK banks for a no deal scenario. All the banks passed the tests. Many countries all around the world trade on WTO rules and get by just fine and dandy. As for driving licenses it was established that an international driving permit takes about 5 minutes to fill out the form, you've probably spent longer making posts on this thread. "To pass the stress test financial institutions have to have to hold a greater proportion of liquid assets. That money cannot be invested in the economy to do something useful. (Not that this is necessarily what banks do). The point is, there is a cost to being able to pass the stricter stress test that the dangers of Brexit raise. Just for your information. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Independent is starting a petition. The Independent: Final Say: Sign our petition calling for a referendum on the Brexit deal. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/independent-sign-petition-final-say-brexit-deal-referendum-a8463961.html Good or bad? After the inevitable early general election though." It is pathetic | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don’t trust the public to make a good choice. Look what happened last time, leave won and we are fucked. There should never have been a referendum in the first place. Having another one only risks even further damage. All options at this point are bad, asking people to chose the least worst option for the country is insane." Look what happened the first time.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What makes anyone think a 2nd referendum would be any less of a clusterfuck than the first one? The fact that we would know actual facts... and they couldn’t use the project fear they are all scaremongering lines.... If people really want to look over the side of the cliff and still jump... that is on them Facts? Where are they? What information has the Government given this country about the implications of leaving the EU with no alternative arrangement in place? Nothing. At least the EC has informed the EU27 of the various legal implications across different sectors of UK becoming a third country. “Apparently” the government are going to start doing “notices” (basically press releases) this summer relating to what will happen or what people will need to do in the case of a no deal situation .... Whether people will believe the UK version over the Eu technical notes that are being released is another matter... but for brexiteer mps to then shout project fear are going to be doing their constituents a massive disservice " So, they're going to provide 'forecasts' of what 'will' happen... That sounds a bit like the project fear forecasts during the referendum campaign. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What makes anyone think a 2nd referendum would be any less of a clusterfuck than the first one? The fact that we would know actual facts... and they couldn’t use the project fear they are all scaremongering lines.... If people really want to look over the side of the cliff and still jump... that is on them Facts? Where are they? What information has the Government given this country about the implications of leaving the EU with no alternative arrangement in place? Nothing. At least the EC has informed the EU27 of the various legal implications across different sectors of UK becoming a third country. “Apparently” the government are going to start doing “notices” (basically press releases) this summer relating to what will happen or what people will need to do in the case of a no deal situation .... Whether people will believe the UK version over the Eu technical notes that are being released is another matter... but for brexiteer mps to then shout project fear are going to be doing their constituents a massive disservice So, they're going to provide 'forecasts' of what 'will' happen... That sounds a bit like the project fear forecasts during the referendum campaign." So who would you listen to if they said Brexit was going to be bad? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What makes anyone think a 2nd referendum would be any less of a clusterfuck than the first one? The fact that we would know actual facts... and they couldn’t use the project fear they are all scaremongering lines.... If people really want to look over the side of the cliff and still jump... that is on them Facts? Where are they? What information has the Government given this country about the implications of leaving the EU with no alternative arrangement in place? Nothing. At least the EC has informed the EU27 of the various legal implications across different sectors of UK becoming a third country. “Apparently” the government are going to start doing “notices” (basically press releases) this summer relating to what will happen or what people will need to do in the case of a no deal situation .... Whether people will believe the UK version over the Eu technical notes that are being released is another matter... but for brexiteer mps to then shout project fear are going to be doing their constituents a massive disservice So, they're going to provide 'forecasts' of what 'will' happen... That sounds a bit like the project fear forecasts during the referendum campaign. So who would you listen to if they said Brexit was going to be bad? " I listened to all views during the referendum campaign, and came to my own conclusions. I looked at all the people and organisations making predictions and forecasts, and investigated how accurate they'd been with previous forecasts and predictions. I do so now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What makes anyone think a 2nd referendum would be any less of a clusterfuck than the first one? The fact that we would know actual facts... and they couldn’t use the project fear they are all scaremongering lines.... If people really want to look over the side of the cliff and still jump... that is on them Facts? Where are they? What information has the Government given this country about the implications of leaving the EU with no alternative arrangement in place? Nothing. At least the EC has informed the EU27 of the various legal implications across different sectors of UK becoming a third country. “Apparently” the government are going to start doing “notices” (basically press releases) this summer relating to what will happen or what people will need to do in the case of a no deal situation .... Whether people will believe the UK version over the Eu technical notes that are being released is another matter... but for brexiteer mps to then shout project fear are going to be doing their constituents a massive disservice So, they're going to provide 'forecasts' of what 'will' happen... That sounds a bit like the project fear forecasts during the referendum campaign. So who would you listen to if they said Brexit was going to be bad? I listened to all views during the referendum campaign, and came to my own conclusions. I looked at all the people and organisations making predictions and forecasts, and investigated how accurate they'd been with previous forecasts and predictions. I do so now." Right, so who would you listen to? Who do you think has been accurate in their predictions, and if they now said "Brexit is going to be a very bad idea" would you listen to and think, "well if they are saying it, I'm going to believe it and change my mind on brexit"? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What makes anyone think a 2nd referendum would be any less of a clusterfuck than the first one? The fact that we would know actual facts... and they couldn’t use the project fear they are all scaremongering lines.... If people really want to look over the side of the cliff and still jump... that is on them Facts? Where are they? What information has the Government given this country about the implications of leaving the EU with no alternative arrangement in place? Nothing. At least the EC has informed the EU27 of the various legal implications across different sectors of UK becoming a third country. “Apparently” the government are going to start doing “notices” (basically press releases) this summer relating to what will happen or what people will need to do in the case of a no deal situation .... Whether people will believe the UK version over the Eu technical notes that are being released is another matter... but for brexiteer mps to then shout project fear are going to be doing their constituents a massive disservice So, they're going to provide 'forecasts' of what 'will' happen... That sounds a bit like the project fear forecasts during the referendum campaign. So who would you listen to if they said Brexit was going to be bad? I listened to all views during the referendum campaign, and came to my own conclusions. I looked at all the people and organisations making predictions and forecasts, and investigated how accurate they'd been with previous forecasts and predictions. I do so now. Right, so who would you listen to? Who do you think has been accurate in their predictions, and if they now said "Brexit is going to be a very bad idea" would you listen to and think, "well if they are saying it, I'm going to believe it and change my mind on brexit"?" What part of "I listen to all views" don't you understand? What part of "I come to my own conclusions" don't you understand? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What makes anyone think a 2nd referendum would be any less of a clusterfuck than the first one? The fact that we would know actual facts... and they couldn’t use the project fear they are all scaremongering lines.... If people really want to look over the side of the cliff and still jump... that is on them Facts? Where are they? What information has the Government given this country about the implications of leaving the EU with no alternative arrangement in place? Nothing. At least the EC has informed the EU27 of the various legal implications across different sectors of UK becoming a third country. “Apparently” the government are going to start doing “notices” (basically press releases) this summer relating to what will happen or what people will need to do in the case of a no deal situation .... Whether people will believe the UK version over the Eu technical notes that are being released is another matter... but for brexiteer mps to then shout project fear are going to be doing their constituents a massive disservice So, they're going to provide 'forecasts' of what 'will' happen... That sounds a bit like the project fear forecasts during the referendum campaign. So who would you listen to if they said Brexit was going to be bad? I listened to all views during the referendum campaign, and came to my own conclusions. I looked at all the people and organisations making predictions and forecasts, and investigated how accurate they'd been with previous forecasts and predictions. I do so now. Right, so who would you listen to? Who do you think has been accurate in their predictions, and if they now said "Brexit is going to be a very bad idea" would you listen to and think, "well if they are saying it, I'm going to believe it and change my mind on brexit"? What part of "I listen to all views" don't you understand? What part of "I come to my own conclusions" don't you understand? " So what would it take for you to change your mind? To come to a different conclusion? Is the question really too hard for you to comprehend? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What makes anyone think a 2nd referendum would be any less of a clusterfuck than the first one? The fact that we would know actual facts... and they couldn’t use the project fear they are all scaremongering lines.... If people really want to look over the side of the cliff and still jump... that is on them Facts? Where are they? What information has the Government given this country about the implications of leaving the EU with no alternative arrangement in place? Nothing. At least the EC has informed the EU27 of the various legal implications across different sectors of UK becoming a third country. “Apparently” the government are going to start doing “notices” (basically press releases) this summer relating to what will happen or what people will need to do in the case of a no deal situation .... Whether people will believe the UK version over the Eu technical notes that are being released is another matter... but for brexiteer mps to then shout project fear are going to be doing their constituents a massive disservice So, they're going to provide 'forecasts' of what 'will' happen... That sounds a bit like the project fear forecasts during the referendum campaign. So who would you listen to if they said Brexit was going to be bad? I listened to all views during the referendum campaign, and came to my own conclusions. I looked at all the people and organisations making predictions and forecasts, and investigated how accurate they'd been with previous forecasts and predictions. I do so now. Right, so who would you listen to? Who do you think has been accurate in their predictions, and if they now said "Brexit is going to be a very bad idea" would you listen to and think, "well if they are saying it, I'm going to believe it and change my mind on brexit"? What part of "I listen to all views" don't you understand? What part of "I come to my own conclusions" don't you understand? So what would it take for you to change your mind? To come to a different conclusion? Is the question really too hard for you to comprehend? " Well, that's a different question to the one you asked. So to answer the question that you're now asking... I've not seen anything yet to make me change my mind. What I do see is an announcement saying that while parliament is in recess a series of 'consequence papers' will be published on a regular basis. No doubt these will be along the lines of more scaremongering as per project fear. And I look at the people making these predictions, and they are the same people that told us how economically catastrophic it would be if we did not join the Euro, and did not see the global crash coming (although you once quoted the economist Steve Keen as having predicted it, and I agreed that indeed he did, but had to point out to you that he was a staunch supporter of Brexit), among other things. What would it take for you to change your mind? Because all bar one of the remain predictions and forecasts have not happened. The forecast that has happened is the drop in value of sterling; although, just months before the referendum the very same people that forecast the drop in sterling were saying that sterling was overvalued by up to 20% anyway. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"While I think some of the forecasts were over egged and the sensationalised I think there were some truths in there (low relative gdp growth, pressure on house prices etc) although the job losses were crazy wrong. I work with forecasts so know their limitations BUT I would rather have a forecast with assumptions than no forecasts. Did you have much more luck in getting credible brexit forecasts than I did? As I felt Castigating remain for project fear only really holds sway if you provide an alternative view. " The truth is nobody knows! It's never happened before! It was GUESSWORK from both sides! Remain exaggerated the immediate impact and we're wrong - but not totally wrong. The pound dropped and the economy has gone from the best to the worst in the G7. We are ALL now waiting to see if Leave over exaggerated their claims - time will tell and until 30/3/19 who knows. They did say a trade deal with the EU would be the easiest ever to do - well they were wrong on that! They said trading with the rest of the world will be easy. We will know shortly on our WTO trading as that's coming up soon. We have to please not 27 - but 163! Let's see who is going to object to our proposals? Then the sheer logistics of doing trade deals - how many can we handle at the same time? How many negotiators will we need? Let's hope Liam Fox does a better job than what he did when he was a minister the last time he held office! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Independent is starting a petition. The Independent: Final Say: Sign our petition calling for a referendum on the Brexit deal. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/independent-sign-petition-final-say-brexit-deal-referendum-a8463961.html Good or bad? After the inevitable early general election though.It is pathetic" Why is "it pathetic"? Why is a general election not pathetic? Why is a 14 day cooling of period after making a major financial decision not pathetic? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What makes anyone think a 2nd referendum would be any less of a clusterfuck than the first one? The fact that we would know actual facts... and they couldn’t use the project fear they are all scaremongering lines.... If people really want to look over the side of the cliff and still jump... that is on them Facts? Where are they? What information has the Government given this country about the implications of leaving the EU with no alternative arrangement in place? Nothing. At least the EC has informed the EU27 of the various legal implications across different sectors of UK becoming a third country. “Apparently” the government are going to start doing “notices” (basically press releases) this summer relating to what will happen or what people will need to do in the case of a no deal situation .... Whether people will believe the UK version over the Eu technical notes that are being released is another matter... but for brexiteer mps to then shout project fear are going to be doing their constituents a massive disservice So, they're going to provide 'forecasts' of what 'will' happen... That sounds a bit like the project fear forecasts during the referendum campaign. So who would you listen to if they said Brexit was going to be bad? I listened to all views during the referendum campaign, and came to my own conclusions. I looked at all the people and organisations making predictions and forecasts, and investigated how accurate they'd been with previous forecasts and predictions. I do so now. Right, so who would you listen to? Who do you think has been accurate in their predictions, and if they now said "Brexit is going to be a very bad idea" would you listen to and think, "well if they are saying it, I'm going to believe it and change my mind on brexit"? What part of "I listen to all views" don't you understand? What part of "I come to my own conclusions" don't you understand? So what would it take for you to change your mind? To come to a different conclusion? Is the question really too hard for you to comprehend? Well, that's a different question to the one you asked. So to answer the question that you're now asking... I've not seen anything yet to make me change my mind. What I do see is an announcement saying that while parliament is in recess a series of 'consequence papers' will be published on a regular basis. No doubt these will be along the lines of more scaremongering as per project fear. And I look at the people making these predictions, and they are the same people that told us how economically catastrophic it would be if we did not join the Euro, and did not see the global crash coming (although you once quoted the economist Steve Keen as having predicted it, and I agreed that indeed he did, but had to point out to you that he was a staunch supporter of Brexit), among other things. What would it take for you to change your mind? Because all bar one of the remain predictions and forecasts have not happened. The forecast that has happened is the drop in value of sterling; although, just months before the referendum the very same people that forecast the drop in sterling were saying that sterling was overvalued by up to 20% anyway." Do you accept that there is a possibility that Brexit is a bad idea? Many will not even entertain the possibility. Many cannot see a single problem with Brexit. I would contend that there are pros and cons of both arguments and you tip one way or the other. However if someone can only see one as wholly positive and one entirely negative then they are not making an informed choice. They are, by definition, being irrational. Has what you have seen mean that things will have to actually go disastrously wrong before you do? That's not a criticism, but I sense that is how many people feel, which means that they are not persuadable and any referendum will flip flop by one or two percent until either everything turns out fine or there really is an economic and geopolitical penalty to pay. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What makes anyone think a 2nd referendum would be any less of a clusterfuck than the first one? The fact that we would know actual facts... and they couldn’t use the project fear they are all scaremongering lines.... If people really want to look over the side of the cliff and still jump... that is on them Facts? Where are they? What information has the Government given this country about the implications of leaving the EU with no alternative arrangement in place? Nothing. At least the EC has informed the EU27 of the various legal implications across different sectors of UK becoming a third country. “Apparently” the government are going to start doing “notices” (basically press releases) this summer relating to what will happen or what people will need to do in the case of a no deal situation .... Whether people will believe the UK version over the Eu technical notes that are being released is another matter... but for brexiteer mps to then shout project fear are going to be doing their constituents a massive disservice So, they're going to provide 'forecasts' of what 'will' happen... That sounds a bit like the project fear forecasts during the referendum campaign. So who would you listen to if they said Brexit was going to be bad? I listened to all views during the referendum campaign, and came to my own conclusions. I looked at all the people and organisations making predictions and forecasts, and investigated how accurate they'd been with previous forecasts and predictions. I do so now. Right, so who would you listen to? Who do you think has been accurate in their predictions, and if they now said "Brexit is going to be a very bad idea" would you listen to and think, "well if they are saying it, I'm going to believe it and change my mind on brexit"? What part of "I listen to all views" don't you understand? What part of "I come to my own conclusions" don't you understand? So what would it take for you to change your mind? To come to a different conclusion? Is the question really too hard for you to comprehend? Well, that's a different question to the one you asked. So to answer the question that you're now asking... I've not seen anything yet to make me change my mind. What I do see is an announcement saying that while parliament is in recess a series of 'consequence papers' will be published on a regular basis. No doubt these will be along the lines of more scaremongering as per project fear. And I look at the people making these predictions, and they are the same people that told us how economically catastrophic it would be if we did not join the Euro, and did not see the global crash coming (although you once quoted the economist Steve Keen as having predicted it, and I agreed that indeed he did, but had to point out to you that he was a staunch supporter of Brexit), among other things. What would it take for you to change your mind? Because all bar one of the remain predictions and forecasts have not happened. The forecast that has happened is the drop in value of sterling; although, just months before the referendum the very same people that forecast the drop in sterling were saying that sterling was overvalued by up to 20% anyway. Do you accept that there is a possibility that Brexit is a bad idea? Many will not even entertain the possibility. Many cannot see a single problem with Brexit. I would contend that there are pros and cons of both arguments and you tip one way or the other. However if someone can only see one as wholly positive and one entirely negative then they are not making an informed choice. They are, by definition, being irrational. Has what you have seen mean that things will have to actually go disastrously wrong before you do? That's not a criticism, but I sense that is how many people feel, which means that they are not persuadable and any referendum will flip flop by one or two percent until either everything turns out fine or there really is an economic and geopolitical penalty to pay." As I said before, when making my decision about how to vote, I listened to all the arguments, watched all of the debates, did my own research, and made my decision accordingly. Are there negatives amd positives on both sides? Yes. Could Brexit be a bad idea? Possibly. But I concluded it to be a better idea in the long run than staying in the EU. I also, at the time, and ever since, have been of the opinion that were there to be a vote to leave, then the powers that be would do everything they could to reverse that decision, that we would not leave. Everything that has happened since has only served to reinforce that opinion. From putting a remainer as the Prime Minister through to Chequers and then on to the summer of consequence papers....and beyond. One thing I would ask, and I have asked before in this forum without any remainers responding, is this; If there is another referendum, or indeed if the government decides, and the vote is to stay, then how would remainers feel if the EU said we could stay, but on the following terms; We join Schengen There is no rebate We get rid of sterling and take the Euro We additionally contribute to the ECB ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What makes anyone think a 2nd referendum would be any less of a clusterfuck than the first one? The fact that we would know actual facts... and they couldn’t use the project fear they are all scaremongering lines.... If people really want to look over the side of the cliff and still jump... that is on them Facts? Where are they? What information has the Government given this country about the implications of leaving the EU with no alternative arrangement in place? Nothing. At least the EC has informed the EU27 of the various legal implications across different sectors of UK becoming a third country. “Apparently” the government are going to start doing “notices” (basically press releases) this summer relating to what will happen or what people will need to do in the case of a no deal situation .... Whether people will believe the UK version over the Eu technical notes that are being released is another matter... but for brexiteer mps to then shout project fear are going to be doing their constituents a massive disservice So, they're going to provide 'forecasts' of what 'will' happen... That sounds a bit like the project fear forecasts during the referendum campaign. So who would you listen to if they said Brexit was going to be bad? I listened to all views during the referendum campaign, and came to my own conclusions. I looked at all the people and organisations making predictions and forecasts, and investigated how accurate they'd been with previous forecasts and predictions. I do so now. Right, so who would you listen to? Who do you think has been accurate in their predictions, and if they now said "Brexit is going to be a very bad idea" would you listen to and think, "well if they are saying it, I'm going to believe it and change my mind on brexit"? What part of "I listen to all views" don't you understand? What part of "I come to my own conclusions" don't you understand? So what would it take for you to change your mind? To come to a different conclusion? Is the question really too hard for you to comprehend? Well, that's a different question to the one you asked. So to answer the question that you're now asking... I've not seen anything yet to make me change my mind. What I do see is an announcement saying that while parliament is in recess a series of 'consequence papers' will be published on a regular basis. No doubt these will be along the lines of more scaremongering as per project fear. And I look at the people making these predictions, and they are the same people that told us how economically catastrophic it would be if we did not join the Euro, and did not see the global crash coming (although you once quoted the economist Steve Keen as having predicted it, and I agreed that indeed he did, but had to point out to you that he was a staunch supporter of Brexit), among other things. What would it take for you to change your mind? Because all bar one of the remain predictions and forecasts have not happened. The forecast that has happened is the drop in value of sterling; although, just months before the referendum the very same people that forecast the drop in sterling were saying that sterling was overvalued by up to 20% anyway." Please try to answer a quite simple question. What would it take for you to change your mind? Who would you listen to? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The BBC is telling you, you will run out of fillings for your sandwiches if the result is a no deal Based on the idea that if it's on the BBC, then it must be gospel (snigger) Would the threat of not having a slice of cucumber between your bread for a few days, make you change your vote? Im only asking on behalf of a friend who is thinking of growing some cucumbers " Enjoy your mockery - your not living in the UK and have no chance of being effected - if this happens! I can only assume as you live in 3 countries your a "wanderer"? But the BBC is generally a decent source of information - on both sides of the argument. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The BBC is telling you, you will run out of fillings for your sandwiches if the result is a no deal Based on the idea that if it's on the BBC, then it must be gospel (snigger) Would the threat of not having a slice of cucumber between your bread for a few days, make you change your vote? Im only asking on behalf of a friend who is thinking of growing some cucumbers Enjoy your mockery - your not living in the UK and have no chance of being effected - if this happens! I can only assume as you live in 3 countries your a "wanderer"? But the BBC is generally a decent source of information - on both sides of the argument. " Yes the BBC has quite a reputation! It also makes you pay a license fee to support it, I believe? At least in North Korea they get their propaganda for free | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The BBC is telling you, you will run out of fillings for your sandwiches if the result is a no deal Based on the idea that if it's on the BBC, then it must be gospel (snigger) Would the threat of not having a slice of cucumber between your bread for a few days, make you change your vote? Im only asking on behalf of a friend who is thinking of growing some cucumbers Enjoy your mockery - your not living in the UK and have no chance of being effected - if this happens! I can only assume as you live in 3 countries your a "wanderer"? But the BBC is generally a decent source of information - on both sides of the argument. Yes the BBC has quite a reputation! It also makes you pay a license fee to support it, I believe? At least in North Korea they get their propaganda for free " The licence fee also supports Channel 4, and covers infrastructure such as rolling out of digital radio. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The BBC is telling you, you will run out of fillings for your sandwiches if the result is a no deal Based on the idea that if it's on the BBC, then it must be gospel (snigger) Would the threat of not having a slice of cucumber between your bread for a few days, make you change your vote? Im only asking on behalf of a friend who is thinking of growing some cucumbers Enjoy your mockery - your not living in the UK and have no chance of being effected - if this happens! I can only assume as you live in 3 countries your a "wanderer"? But the BBC is generally a decent source of information - on both sides of the argument. Yes the BBC has quite a reputation! It also makes you pay a license fee to support it, I believe? At least in North Korea they get their propaganda for free The licence fee also supports Channel 4, and covers infrastructure such as rolling out of digital radio." The license fee also supported people like Jimmy Saville and the illegal coverage of a raid on Cliff Richard's house....just saying. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What makes anyone think a 2nd referendum would be any less of a clusterfuck than the first one? The fact that we would know actual facts... and they couldn’t use the project fear they are all scaremongering lines.... If people really want to look over the side of the cliff and still jump... that is on them Facts? Where are they? What information has the Government given this country about the implications of leaving the EU with no alternative arrangement in place? Nothing. At least the EC has informed the EU27 of the various legal implications across different sectors of UK becoming a third country. “Apparently” the government are going to start doing “notices” (basically press releases) this summer relating to what will happen or what people will need to do in the case of a no deal situation .... Whether people will believe the UK version over the Eu technical notes that are being released is another matter... but for brexiteer mps to then shout project fear are going to be doing their constituents a massive disservice So, they're going to provide 'forecasts' of what 'will' happen... That sounds a bit like the project fear forecasts during the referendum campaign. So who would you listen to if they said Brexit was going to be bad? I listened to all views during the referendum campaign, and came to my own conclusions. I looked at all the people and organisations making predictions and forecasts, and investigated how accurate they'd been with previous forecasts and predictions. I do so now. Right, so who would you listen to? Who do you think has been accurate in their predictions, and if they now said "Brexit is going to be a very bad idea" would you listen to and think, "well if they are saying it, I'm going to believe it and change my mind on brexit"? What part of "I listen to all views" don't you understand? What part of "I come to my own conclusions" don't you understand? So what would it take for you to change your mind? To come to a different conclusion? Is the question really too hard for you to comprehend? Well, that's a different question to the one you asked. So to answer the question that you're now asking... I've not seen anything yet to make me change my mind. What I do see is an announcement saying that while parliament is in recess a series of 'consequence papers' will be published on a regular basis. No doubt these will be along the lines of more scaremongering as per project fear. And I look at the people making these predictions, and they are the same people that told us how economically catastrophic it would be if we did not join the Euro, and did not see the global crash coming (although you once quoted the economist Steve Keen as having predicted it, and I agreed that indeed he did, but had to point out to you that he was a staunch supporter of Brexit), among other things. What would it take for you to change your mind? Because all bar one of the remain predictions and forecasts have not happened. The forecast that has happened is the drop in value of sterling; although, just months before the referendum the very same people that forecast the drop in sterling were saying that sterling was overvalued by up to 20% anyway. Please try to answer a quite simple question. What would it take for you to change your mind? Who would you listen to? " Firstly, you can't count. Secondly, what part of 'I listen to everyone, and make up my own mind', can't you understand? I haven't seen or heard anything yet that has made me change my mind..... But why don't you answer my questions? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The BBC is telling you, you will run out of fillings for your sandwiches if the result is a no deal Based on the idea that if it's on the BBC, then it must be gospel (snigger) Would the threat of not having a slice of cucumber between your bread for a few days, make you change your vote? Im only asking on behalf of a friend who is thinking of growing some cucumbers " Well ex Man Utd player Roy Keane once poked fun at the filthy rich in the executive boxes at Old Trafford having prawn sandwiches and such at half time. Roy said "these people are not real football fans". Maybe removing their sandwich fillings for a while would be a good thing.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What makes anyone think a 2nd referendum would be any less of a clusterfuck than the first one? The fact that we would know actual facts... and they couldn’t use the project fear they are all scaremongering lines.... If people really want to look over the side of the cliff and still jump... that is on them Facts? Where are they? What information has the Government given this country about the implications of leaving the EU with no alternative arrangement in place? Nothing. At least the EC has informed the EU27 of the various legal implications across different sectors of UK becoming a third country. “Apparently” the government are going to start doing “notices” (basically press releases) this summer relating to what will happen or what people will need to do in the case of a no deal situation .... Whether people will believe the UK version over the Eu technical notes that are being released is another matter... but for brexiteer mps to then shout project fear are going to be doing their constituents a massive disservice So, they're going to provide 'forecasts' of what 'will' happen... That sounds a bit like the project fear forecasts during the referendum campaign. So who would you listen to if they said Brexit was going to be bad? I listened to all views during the referendum campaign, and came to my own conclusions. I looked at all the people and organisations making predictions and forecasts, and investigated how accurate they'd been with previous forecasts and predictions. I do so now. Right, so who would you listen to? Who do you think has been accurate in their predictions, and if they now said "Brexit is going to be a very bad idea" would you listen to and think, "well if they are saying it, I'm going to believe it and change my mind on brexit"? What part of "I listen to all views" don't you understand? What part of "I come to my own conclusions" don't you understand? So what would it take for you to change your mind? To come to a different conclusion? Is the question really too hard for you to comprehend? Well, that's a different question to the one you asked. So to answer the question that you're now asking... I've not seen anything yet to make me change my mind. What I do see is an announcement saying that while parliament is in recess a series of 'consequence papers' will be published on a regular basis. No doubt these will be along the lines of more scaremongering as per project fear. And I look at the people making these predictions, and they are the same people that told us how economically catastrophic it would be if we did not join the Euro, and did not see the global crash coming (although you once quoted the economist Steve Keen as having predicted it, and I agreed that indeed he did, but had to point out to you that he was a staunch supporter of Brexit), among other things. What would it take for you to change your mind? Because all bar one of the remain predictions and forecasts have not happened. The forecast that has happened is the drop in value of sterling; although, just months before the referendum the very same people that forecast the drop in sterling were saying that sterling was overvalued by up to 20% anyway. Do you accept that there is a possibility that Brexit is a bad idea? Many will not even entertain the possibility. Many cannot see a single problem with Brexit. I would contend that there are pros and cons of both arguments and you tip one way or the other. However if someone can only see one as wholly positive and one entirely negative then they are not making an informed choice. They are, by definition, being irrational. Has what you have seen mean that things will have to actually go disastrously wrong before you do? That's not a criticism, but I sense that is how many people feel, which means that they are not persuadable and any referendum will flip flop by one or two percent until either everything turns out fine or there really is an economic and geopolitical penalty to pay. As I said before, when making my decision about how to vote, I listened to all the arguments, watched all of the debates, did my own research, and made my decision accordingly. Are there negatives amd positives on both sides? Yes. Could Brexit be a bad idea? Possibly. But I concluded it to be a better idea in the long run than staying in the EU. I also, at the time, and ever since, have been of the opinion that were there to be a vote to leave, then the powers that be would do everything they could to reverse that decision, that we would not leave. Everything that has happened since has only served to reinforce that opinion. From putting a remainer as the Prime Minister through to Chequers and then on to the summer of consequence papers....and beyond. One thing I would ask, and I have asked before in this forum without any remainers responding, is this; If there is another referendum, or indeed if the government decides, and the vote is to stay, then how would remainers feel if the EU said we could stay, but on the following terms; We join Schengen There is no rebate We get rid of sterling and take the Euro We additionally contribute to the ECB ? " the euro is my sticking point. Only because I struggle to see how a currency can work when there is not one single approach to finance. However I would expect the choice of euro or Brexit will be signposted and we would be able to make clear our voice. So didn’t vote out on the fear of this what if. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What makes anyone think a 2nd referendum would be any less of a clusterfuck than the first one? The fact that we would know actual facts... and they couldn’t use the project fear they are all scaremongering lines.... If people really want to look over the side of the cliff and still jump... that is on them Facts? Where are they? What information has the Government given this country about the implications of leaving the EU with no alternative arrangement in place? Nothing. At least the EC has informed the EU27 of the various legal implications across different sectors of UK becoming a third country. “Apparently” the government are going to start doing “notices” (basically press releases) this summer relating to what will happen or what people will need to do in the case of a no deal situation .... Whether people will believe the UK version over the Eu technical notes that are being released is another matter... but for brexiteer mps to then shout project fear are going to be doing their constituents a massive disservice So, they're going to provide 'forecasts' of what 'will' happen... That sounds a bit like the project fear forecasts during the referendum campaign. So who would you listen to if they said Brexit was going to be bad? I listened to all views during the referendum campaign, and came to my own conclusions. I looked at all the people and organisations making predictions and forecasts, and investigated how accurate they'd been with previous forecasts and predictions. I do so now. Right, so who would you listen to? Who do you think has been accurate in their predictions, and if they now said "Brexit is going to be a very bad idea" would you listen to and think, "well if they are saying it, I'm going to believe it and change my mind on brexit"? What part of "I listen to all views" don't you understand? What part of "I come to my own conclusions" don't you understand? So what would it take for you to change your mind? To come to a different conclusion? Is the question really too hard for you to comprehend? Well, that's a different question to the one you asked. So to answer the question that you're now asking... I've not seen anything yet to make me change my mind. What I do see is an announcement saying that while parliament is in recess a series of 'consequence papers' will be published on a regular basis. No doubt these will be along the lines of more scaremongering as per project fear. And I look at the people making these predictions, and they are the same people that told us how economically catastrophic it would be if we did not join the Euro, and did not see the global crash coming (although you once quoted the economist Steve Keen as having predicted it, and I agreed that indeed he did, but had to point out to you that he was a staunch supporter of Brexit), among other things. What would it take for you to change your mind? Because all bar one of the remain predictions and forecasts have not happened. The forecast that has happened is the drop in value of sterling; although, just months before the referendum the very same people that forecast the drop in sterling were saying that sterling was overvalued by up to 20% anyway. Please try to answer a quite simple question. What would it take for you to change your mind? Who would you listen to? Firstly, you can't count. Secondly, what part of 'I listen to everyone, and make up my own mind', can't you understand? I haven't seen or heard anything yet that has made me change my mind..... But why don't you answer my questions? " The question is what would make you change your mind? Who would you listen to? Who would you believe if they told you Brexit would be bad? You still haven't answered this. Maybe once you get around to answering, I'll answer yours. Just for clarity, the question is NOT "have you changed your mind?" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The BBC is telling you, you will run out of fillings for your sandwiches if the result is a no deal Based on the idea that if it's on the BBC, then it must be gospel (snigger) Would the threat of not having a slice of cucumber between your bread for a few days, make you change your vote? Im only asking on behalf of a friend who is thinking of growing some cucumbers Enjoy your mockery - your not living in the UK and have no chance of being effected - if this happens! I can only assume as you live in 3 countries your a "wanderer"? But the BBC is generally a decent source of information - on both sides of the argument. Yes the BBC has quite a reputation! It also makes you pay a license fee to support it, I believe? At least in North Korea they get their propaganda for free The licence fee also supports Channel 4, and covers infrastructure such as rolling out of digital radio. The license fee also supported people like Jimmy Saville and the illegal coverage of a raid on Cliff Richard's house....just saying. " Just saying what exactly? That because a paedophile worked for the BBC, you can't believe their news coverage? That seems to be what you are saying, but please feel free to explain the connection between the posts quoted above and Jimmy saville. Paedophiles have also worked in schools? Should we take all the kids out and close them down? Paedophiles have worked in hospitals, should we close those down? Hell, there have even been paedophiles in UKIP, should we ban the party? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What makes anyone think a 2nd referendum would be any less of a clusterfuck than the first one? The fact that we would know actual facts... and they couldn’t use the project fear they are all scaremongering lines.... If people really want to look over the side of the cliff and still jump... that is on them Facts? Where are they? What information has the Government given this country about the implications of leaving the EU with no alternative arrangement in place? Nothing. At least the EC has informed the EU27 of the various legal implications across different sectors of UK becoming a third country. “Apparently” the government are going to start doing “notices” (basically press releases) this summer relating to what will happen or what people will need to do in the case of a no deal situation .... Whether people will believe the UK version over the Eu technical notes that are being released is another matter... but for brexiteer mps to then shout project fear are going to be doing their constituents a massive disservice So, they're going to provide 'forecasts' of what 'will' happen... That sounds a bit like the project fear forecasts during the referendum campaign. So who would you listen to if they said Brexit was going to be bad? I listened to all views during the referendum campaign, and came to my own conclusions. I looked at all the people and organisations making predictions and forecasts, and investigated how accurate they'd been with previous forecasts and predictions. I do so now. Right, so who would you listen to? Who do you think has been accurate in their predictions, and if they now said "Brexit is going to be a very bad idea" would you listen to and think, "well if they are saying it, I'm going to believe it and change my mind on brexit"? What part of "I listen to all views" don't you understand? What part of "I come to my own conclusions" don't you understand? So what would it take for you to change your mind? To come to a different conclusion? Is the question really too hard for you to comprehend? Well, that's a different question to the one you asked. So to answer the question that you're now asking... I've not seen anything yet to make me change my mind. What I do see is an announcement saying that while parliament is in recess a series of 'consequence papers' will be published on a regular basis. No doubt these will be along the lines of more scaremongering as per project fear. And I look at the people making these predictions, and they are the same people that told us how economically catastrophic it would be if we did not join the Euro, and did not see the global crash coming (although you once quoted the economist Steve Keen as having predicted it, and I agreed that indeed he did, but had to point out to you that he was a staunch supporter of Brexit), among other things. What would it take for you to change your mind? Because all bar one of the remain predictions and forecasts have not happened. The forecast that has happened is the drop in value of sterling; although, just months before the referendum the very same people that forecast the drop in sterling were saying that sterling was overvalued by up to 20% anyway. Please try to answer a quite simple question. What would it take for you to change your mind? Who would you listen to? Firstly, you can't count. Secondly, what part of 'I listen to everyone, and make up my own mind', can't you understand? I haven't seen or heard anything yet that has made me change my mind..... But why don't you answer my questions? The question is what would make you change your mind? Who would you listen to? Who would you believe if they told you Brexit would be bad? You still haven't answered this. Maybe once you get around to answering, I'll answer yours. Just for clarity, the question is NOT "have you changed your mind?"" 1) I don't know what would make me change my mind. At the moment there is no evidence that I've seen to make me change my mind. 2) No-one in particular. I listen to everyone, and make my own mind up. 3) Me...after I've listened to everyone, analysed and researched everything for myself. You may not be happy with my answers, but I've answered them. Now turn it on its head, and you answer them... What would make you change your mind? Who would you listen to? Who would you believe if they told you remaing would be bad? And then answer the other questions I asked re:if we aked to remain now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What makes anyone think a 2nd referendum would be any less of a clusterfuck than the first one? The fact that we would know actual facts... and they couldn’t use the project fear they are all scaremongering lines.... If people really want to look over the side of the cliff and still jump... that is on them Facts? Where are they? What information has the Government given this country about the implications of leaving the EU with no alternative arrangement in place? Nothing. At least the EC has informed the EU27 of the various legal implications across different sectors of UK becoming a third country. “Apparently” the government are going to start doing “notices” (basically press releases) this summer relating to what will happen or what people will need to do in the case of a no deal situation .... Whether people will believe the UK version over the Eu technical notes that are being released is another matter... but for brexiteer mps to then shout project fear are going to be doing their constituents a massive disservice So, they're going to provide 'forecasts' of what 'will' happen... That sounds a bit like the project fear forecasts during the referendum campaign. So who would you listen to if they said Brexit was going to be bad? I listened to all views during the referendum campaign, and came to my own conclusions. I looked at all the people and organisations making predictions and forecasts, and investigated how accurate they'd been with previous forecasts and predictions. I do so now. Right, so who would you listen to? Who do you think has been accurate in their predictions, and if they now said "Brexit is going to be a very bad idea" would you listen to and think, "well if they are saying it, I'm going to believe it and change my mind on brexit"? What part of "I listen to all views" don't you understand? What part of "I come to my own conclusions" don't you understand? So what would it take for you to change your mind? To come to a different conclusion? Is the question really too hard for you to comprehend? Well, that's a different question to the one you asked. So to answer the question that you're now asking... I've not seen anything yet to make me change my mind. What I do see is an announcement saying that while parliament is in recess a series of 'consequence papers' will be published on a regular basis. No doubt these will be along the lines of more scaremongering as per project fear. And I look at the people making these predictions, and they are the same people that told us how economically catastrophic it would be if we did not join the Euro, and did not see the global crash coming (although you once quoted the economist Steve Keen as having predicted it, and I agreed that indeed he did, but had to point out to you that he was a staunch supporter of Brexit), among other things. What would it take for you to change your mind? Because all bar one of the remain predictions and forecasts have not happened. The forecast that has happened is the drop in value of sterling; although, just months before the referendum the very same people that forecast the drop in sterling were saying that sterling was overvalued by up to 20% anyway. Please try to answer a quite simple question. What would it take for you to change your mind? Who would you listen to? Firstly, you can't count. Secondly, what part of 'I listen to everyone, and make up my own mind', can't you understand? I haven't seen or heard anything yet that has made me change my mind..... But why don't you answer my questions? The question is what would make you change your mind? Who would you listen to? Who would you believe if they told you Brexit would be bad? You still haven't answered this. Maybe once you get around to answering, I'll answer yours. Just for clarity, the question is NOT "have you changed your mind?" 1) I don't know what would make me change my mind. At the moment there is no evidence that I've seen to make me change my mind. 2) No-one in particular. I listen to everyone, and make my own mind up. 3) Me...after I've listened to everyone, analysed and researched everything for myself. You may not be happy with my answers, but I've answered them. Now turn it on its head, and you answer them... What would make you change your mind? Who would you listen to? Who would you believe if they told you remaing would be bad? And then answer the other questions I asked re:if we aked to remain now. " You haven't named a single person or organisation that you would believe. That is very, very sad. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What makes anyone think a 2nd referendum would be any less of a clusterfuck than the first one? The fact that we would know actual facts... and they couldn’t use the project fear they are all scaremongering lines.... If people really want to look over the side of the cliff and still jump... that is on them Facts? Where are they? What information has the Government given this country about the implications of leaving the EU with no alternative arrangement in place? Nothing. At least the EC has informed the EU27 of the various legal implications across different sectors of UK becoming a third country. “Apparently” the government are going to start doing “notices” (basically press releases) this summer relating to what will happen or what people will need to do in the case of a no deal situation .... Whether people will believe the UK version over the Eu technical notes that are being released is another matter... but for brexiteer mps to then shout project fear are going to be doing their constituents a massive disservice So, they're going to provide 'forecasts' of what 'will' happen... That sounds a bit like the project fear forecasts during the referendum campaign. So who would you listen to if they said Brexit was going to be bad? I listened to all views during the referendum campaign, and came to my own conclusions. I looked at all the people and organisations making predictions and forecasts, and investigated how accurate they'd been with previous forecasts and predictions. I do so now. Right, so who would you listen to? Who do you think has been accurate in their predictions, and if they now said "Brexit is going to be a very bad idea" would you listen to and think, "well if they are saying it, I'm going to believe it and change my mind on brexit"? What part of "I listen to all views" don't you understand? What part of "I come to my own conclusions" don't you understand? So what would it take for you to change your mind? To come to a different conclusion? Is the question really too hard for you to comprehend? Well, that's a different question to the one you asked. So to answer the question that you're now asking... I've not seen anything yet to make me change my mind. What I do see is an announcement saying that while parliament is in recess a series of 'consequence papers' will be published on a regular basis. No doubt these will be along the lines of more scaremongering as per project fear. And I look at the people making these predictions, and they are the same people that told us how economically catastrophic it would be if we did not join the Euro, and did not see the global crash coming (although you once quoted the economist Steve Keen as having predicted it, and I agreed that indeed he did, but had to point out to you that he was a staunch supporter of Brexit), among other things. What would it take for you to change your mind? Because all bar one of the remain predictions and forecasts have not happened. The forecast that has happened is the drop in value of sterling; although, just months before the referendum the very same people that forecast the drop in sterling were saying that sterling was overvalued by up to 20% anyway. Do you accept that there is a possibility that Brexit is a bad idea? Many will not even entertain the possibility. Many cannot see a single problem with Brexit. I would contend that there are pros and cons of both arguments and you tip one way or the other. However if someone can only see one as wholly positive and one entirely negative then they are not making an informed choice. They are, by definition, being irrational. Has what you have seen mean that things will have to actually go disastrously wrong before you do? That's not a criticism, but I sense that is how many people feel, which means that they are not persuadable and any referendum will flip flop by one or two percent until either everything turns out fine or there really is an economic and geopolitical penalty to pay. As I said before, when making my decision about how to vote, I listened to all the arguments, watched all of the debates, did my own research, and made my decision accordingly. Are there negatives amd positives on both sides? Yes. Could Brexit be a bad idea? Possibly. But I concluded it to be a better idea in the long run than staying in the EU. I also, at the time, and ever since, have been of the opinion that were there to be a vote to leave, then the powers that be would do everything they could to reverse that decision, that we would not leave. Everything that has happened since has only served to reinforce that opinion. From putting a remainer as the Prime Minister through to Chequers and then on to the summer of consequence papers....and beyond. One thing I would ask, and I have asked before in this forum without any remainers responding, is this; If there is another referendum, or indeed if the government decides, and the vote is to stay, then how would remainers feel if the EU said we could stay, but on the following terms; We join Schengen There is no rebate We get rid of sterling and take the Euro We additionally contribute to the ECB ? " Who "put" a remainer in charge? The Tory party with Brexiteers in every outward facing post and a whole new ministry. What should have May proposed with a split party and split country? I have not seen or heard a coherent Leave alternative other than the "cake and eat it option" or hard Brexit and WTO like Mauritania. It's not actually the conditions being offered either hypothetically or in reality. The only thing that I have heard from any European representatives is that the might be an option to just not leave. Terms unchanged. Assuming that is clear I will happily explore the limits of acceptability. Schengen seems fine to me. We've not tracked numbers at the border in any way even on international travel to date. EU border control has always seemed like a waste of money. No rebate. Again OK. I'd much rather keep it. Everyone loves a bargain, but it would mean we would pay proportionally the same as everyone else. We have been getting a huge discount all if this time and claim the EU is stitching us up. Euro. No. If it was just the Northern European states who are able to maintain some fiscal discipline then it might be a harder decision. It isn't though. It means carrying the risk of p  igate economies. The rules were bent when setting it up because the demands of the individual states were acceded to. The opposite of EU meddling. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What makes anyone think a 2nd referendum would be any less of a clusterfuck than the first one? The fact that we would know actual facts... and they couldn’t use the project fear they are all scaremongering lines.... If people really want to look over the side of the cliff and still jump... that is on them Facts? Where are they? What information has the Government given this country about the implications of leaving the EU with no alternative arrangement in place? Nothing. At least the EC has informed the EU27 of the various legal implications across different sectors of UK becoming a third country. “Apparently” the government are going to start doing “notices” (basically press releases) this summer relating to what will happen or what people will need to do in the case of a no deal situation .... Whether people will believe the UK version over the Eu technical notes that are being released is another matter... but for brexiteer mps to then shout project fear are going to be doing their constituents a massive disservice So, they're going to provide 'forecasts' of what 'will' happen... That sounds a bit like the project fear forecasts during the referendum campaign. So who would you listen to if they said Brexit was going to be bad? I listened to all views during the referendum campaign, and came to my own conclusions. I looked at all the people and organisations making predictions and forecasts, and investigated how accurate they'd been with previous forecasts and predictions. I do so now. Right, so who would you listen to? Who do you think has been accurate in their predictions, and if they now said "Brexit is going to be a very bad idea" would you listen to and think, "well if they are saying it, I'm going to believe it and change my mind on brexit"? What part of "I listen to all views" don't you understand? What part of "I come to my own conclusions" don't you understand? So what would it take for you to change your mind? To come to a different conclusion? Is the question really too hard for you to comprehend? Well, that's a different question to the one you asked. So to answer the question that you're now asking... I've not seen anything yet to make me change my mind. What I do see is an announcement saying that while parliament is in recess a series of 'consequence papers' will be published on a regular basis. No doubt these will be along the lines of more scaremongering as per project fear. And I look at the people making these predictions, and they are the same people that told us how economically catastrophic it would be if we did not join the Euro, and did not see the global crash coming (although you once quoted the economist Steve Keen as having predicted it, and I agreed that indeed he did, but had to point out to you that he was a staunch supporter of Brexit), among other things. What would it take for you to change your mind? Because all bar one of the remain predictions and forecasts have not happened. The forecast that has happened is the drop in value of sterling; although, just months before the referendum the very same people that forecast the drop in sterling were saying that sterling was overvalued by up to 20% anyway. Do you accept that there is a possibility that Brexit is a bad idea? Many will not even entertain the possibility. Many cannot see a single problem with Brexit. I would contend that there are pros and cons of both arguments and you tip one way or the other. However if someone can only see one as wholly positive and one entirely negative then they are not making an informed choice. They are, by definition, being irrational. Has what you have seen mean that things will have to actually go disastrously wrong before you do? That's not a criticism, but I sense that is how many people feel, which means that they are not persuadable and any referendum will flip flop by one or two percent until either everything turns out fine or there really is an economic and geopolitical penalty to pay. As I said before, when making my decision about how to vote, I listened to all the arguments, watched all of the debates, did my own research, and made my decision accordingly. Are there negatives amd positives on both sides? Yes. Could Brexit be a bad idea? Possibly. But I concluded it to be a better idea in the long run than staying in the EU. I also, at the time, and ever since, have been of the opinion that were there to be a vote to leave, then the powers that be would do everything they could to reverse that decision, that we would not leave. Everything that has happened since has only served to reinforce that opinion. From putting a remainer as the Prime Minister through to Chequers and then on to the summer of consequence papers....and beyond. One thing I would ask, and I have asked before in this forum without any remainers responding, is this; If there is another referendum, or indeed if the government decides, and the vote is to stay, then how would remainers feel if the EU said we could stay, but on the following terms; We join Schengen There is no rebate We get rid of sterling and take the Euro We additionally contribute to the ECB ? Who "put" a remainer in charge? The Tory party with Brexiteers in every outward facing post and a whole new ministry. What should have May proposed with a split party and split country? I have not seen or heard a coherent Leave alternative other than the "cake and eat it option" or hard Brexit and WTO like Mauritania. It's not actually the conditions being offered either hypothetically or in reality. The only thing that I have heard from any European representatives is that the might be an option to just not leave. Terms unchanged. Assuming that is clear I will happily explore the limits of acceptability. Schengen seems fine to me. We've not tracked numbers at the border in any way even on international travel to date. EU border control has always seemed like a waste of money. No rebate. Again OK. I'd much rather keep it. Everyone loves a bargain, but it would mean we would pay proportionally the same as everyone else. We have been getting a huge discount all if this time and claim the EU is stitching us up. Euro. No. If it was just the Northern European states who are able to maintain some fiscal discipline then it might be a harder decision. It isn't though. It means carrying the risk of p igate economies. The rules were bent when setting it up because the demands of the individual states were acceded to. The opposite of EU meddling."R o f l became an emoji
Thanks for engaging btw. It makes a nice change for here  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What makes anyone think a 2nd referendum would be any less of a clusterfuck than the first one? The fact that we would know actual facts... and they couldn’t use the project fear they are all scaremongering lines.... If people really want to look over the side of the cliff and still jump... that is on them Facts? Where are they? What information has the Government given this country about the implications of leaving the EU with no alternative arrangement in place? Nothing. At least the EC has informed the EU27 of the various legal implications across different sectors of UK becoming a third country. “Apparently” the government are going to start doing “notices” (basically press releases) this summer relating to what will happen or what people will need to do in the case of a no deal situation .... Whether people will believe the UK version over the Eu technical notes that are being released is another matter... but for brexiteer mps to then shout project fear are going to be doing their constituents a massive disservice So, they're going to provide 'forecasts' of what 'will' happen... That sounds a bit like the project fear forecasts during the referendum campaign. So who would you listen to if they said Brexit was going to be bad? I listened to all views during the referendum campaign, and came to my own conclusions. I looked at all the people and organisations making predictions and forecasts, and investigated how accurate they'd been with previous forecasts and predictions. I do so now. Right, so who would you listen to? Who do you think has been accurate in their predictions, and if they now said "Brexit is going to be a very bad idea" would you listen to and think, "well if they are saying it, I'm going to believe it and change my mind on brexit"? What part of "I listen to all views" don't you understand? What part of "I come to my own conclusions" don't you understand? So what would it take for you to change your mind? To come to a different conclusion? Is the question really too hard for you to comprehend? Well, that's a different question to the one you asked. So to answer the question that you're now asking... I've not seen anything yet to make me change my mind. What I do see is an announcement saying that while parliament is in recess a series of 'consequence papers' will be published on a regular basis. No doubt these will be along the lines of more scaremongering as per project fear. And I look at the people making these predictions, and they are the same people that told us how economically catastrophic it would be if we did not join the Euro, and did not see the global crash coming (although you once quoted the economist Steve Keen as having predicted it, and I agreed that indeed he did, but had to point out to you that he was a staunch supporter of Brexit), among other things. What would it take for you to change your mind? Because all bar one of the remain predictions and forecasts have not happened. The forecast that has happened is the drop in value of sterling; although, just months before the referendum the very same people that forecast the drop in sterling were saying that sterling was overvalued by up to 20% anyway. Do you accept that there is a possibility that Brexit is a bad idea? Many will not even entertain the possibility. Many cannot see a single problem with Brexit. I would contend that there are pros and cons of both arguments and you tip one way or the other. However if someone can only see one as wholly positive and one entirely negative then they are not making an informed choice. They are, by definition, being irrational. Has what you have seen mean that things will have to actually go disastrously wrong before you do? That's not a criticism, but I sense that is how many people feel, which means that they are not persuadable and any referendum will flip flop by one or two percent until either everything turns out fine or there really is an economic and geopolitical penalty to pay. As I said before, when making my decision about how to vote, I listened to all the arguments, watched all of the debates, did my own research, and made my decision accordingly. Are there negatives amd positives on both sides? Yes. Could Brexit be a bad idea? Possibly. But I concluded it to be a better idea in the long run than staying in the EU. I also, at the time, and ever since, have been of the opinion that were there to be a vote to leave, then the powers that be would do everything they could to reverse that decision, that we would not leave. Everything that has happened since has only served to reinforce that opinion. From putting a remainer as the Prime Minister through to Chequers and then on to the summer of consequence papers....and beyond. One thing I would ask, and I have asked before in this forum without any remainers responding, is this; If there is another referendum, or indeed if the government decides, and the vote is to stay, then how would remainers feel if the EU said we could stay, but on the following terms; We join Schengen There is no rebate We get rid of sterling and take the Euro We additionally contribute to the ECB ? Who "put" a remainer in charge? The Tory party with Brexiteers in every outward facing post and a whole new ministry. What should have May proposed with a split party and split country? I have not seen or heard a coherent Leave alternative other than the "cake and eat it option" or hard Brexit and WTO like Mauritania. It's not actually the conditions being offered either hypothetically or in reality. The only thing that I have heard from any European representatives is that the might be an option to just not leave. Terms unchanged. Assuming that is clear I will happily explore the limits of acceptability. Schengen seems fine to me. We've not tracked numbers at the border in any way even on international travel to date. EU border control has always seemed like a waste of money. No rebate. Again OK. I'd much rather keep it. Everyone loves a bargain, but it would mean we would pay proportionally the same as everyone else. We have been getting a huge discount all if this time and claim the EU is stitching us up. Euro. No. If it was just the Northern European states who are able to maintain some fiscal discipline then it might be a harder decision. It isn't though. It means carrying the risk of p igate economies. The rules were bent when setting it up because the demands of the individual states were acceded to. The opposite of EU meddling.
R o f l became an emoji
Thanks for engaging btw. It makes a nice change for here "My pleasure. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What makes anyone think a 2nd referendum would be any less of a clusterfuck than the first one? The fact that we would know actual facts... and they couldn’t use the project fear they are all scaremongering lines.... If people really want to look over the side of the cliff and still jump... that is on them Facts? Where are they? What information has the Government given this country about the implications of leaving the EU with no alternative arrangement in place? Nothing. At least the EC has informed the EU27 of the various legal implications across different sectors of UK becoming a third country. “Apparently” the government are going to start doing “notices” (basically press releases) this summer relating to what will happen or what people will need to do in the case of a no deal situation .... Whether people will believe the UK version over the Eu technical notes that are being released is another matter... but for brexiteer mps to then shout project fear are going to be doing their constituents a massive disservice So, they're going to provide 'forecasts' of what 'will' happen... That sounds a bit like the project fear forecasts during the referendum campaign. So who would you listen to if they said Brexit was going to be bad? I listened to all views during the referendum campaign, and came to my own conclusions. I looked at all the people and organisations making predictions and forecasts, and investigated how accurate they'd been with previous forecasts and predictions. I do so now. Right, so who would you listen to? Who do you think has been accurate in their predictions, and if they now said "Brexit is going to be a very bad idea" would you listen to and think, "well if they are saying it, I'm going to believe it and change my mind on brexit"? What part of "I listen to all views" don't you understand? What part of "I come to my own conclusions" don't you understand? So what would it take for you to change your mind? To come to a different conclusion? Is the question really too hard for you to comprehend? Well, that's a different question to the one you asked. So to answer the question that you're now asking... I've not seen anything yet to make me change my mind. What I do see is an announcement saying that while parliament is in recess a series of 'consequence papers' will be published on a regular basis. No doubt these will be along the lines of more scaremongering as per project fear. And I look at the people making these predictions, and they are the same people that told us how economically catastrophic it would be if we did not join the Euro, and did not see the global crash coming (although you once quoted the economist Steve Keen as having predicted it, and I agreed that indeed he did, but had to point out to you that he was a staunch supporter of Brexit), among other things. What would it take for you to change your mind? Because all bar one of the remain predictions and forecasts have not happened. The forecast that has happened is the drop in value of sterling; although, just months before the referendum the very same people that forecast the drop in sterling were saying that sterling was overvalued by up to 20% anyway. Please try to answer a quite simple question. What would it take for you to change your mind? Who would you listen to? Firstly, you can't count. Secondly, what part of 'I listen to everyone, and make up my own mind', can't you understand? I haven't seen or heard anything yet that has made me change my mind..... But why don't you answer my questions? The question is what would make you change your mind? Who would you listen to? Who would you believe if they told you Brexit would be bad? You still haven't answered this. Maybe once you get around to answering, I'll answer yours. Just for clarity, the question is NOT "have you changed your mind?" 1) I don't know what would make me change my mind. At the moment there is no evidence that I've seen to make me change my mind. 2) No-one in particular. I listen to everyone, and make my own mind up. 3) Me...after I've listened to everyone, analysed and researched everything for myself. You may not be happy with my answers, but I've answered them. Now turn it on its head, and you answer them... What would make you change your mind? Who would you listen to? Who would you believe if they told you remaing would be bad? And then answer the other questions I asked re:if we aked to remain now. You haven't named a single person or organisation that you would believe. That is very, very sad. " And there you go......like I said...You wouldn't accept my answers because you don't like what I said. You may blindly follow someone or some organisation, believing every word they say, but I prefer to have a mind of my own and make my own decisions based upon what I research, analyse, read about, check up on, listen to, and experience. And that's why I can't name any particular person or organisation. It's you that's the sad one thinking that you could. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The BBC is telling you, you will run out of fillings for your sandwiches if the result is a no deal Based on the idea that if it's on the BBC, then it must be gospel (snigger) Would the threat of not having a slice of cucumber between your bread for a few days, make you change your vote? Im only asking on behalf of a friend who is thinking of growing some cucumbers Enjoy your mockery - your not living in the UK and have no chance of being effected - if this happens! I can only assume as you live in 3 countries your a "wanderer"? But the BBC is generally a decent source of information - on both sides of the argument. Yes the BBC has quite a reputation! It also makes you pay a license fee to support it, I believe? At least in North Korea they get their propaganda for free The licence fee also supports Channel 4, and covers infrastructure such as rolling out of digital radio. The license fee also supported people like Jimmy Saville and the illegal coverage of a raid on Cliff Richard's house....just saying. Just saying what exactly? That because a paedophile worked for the BBC, you can't believe their news coverage? That seems to be what you are saying, but please feel free to explain the connection between the posts quoted above and Jimmy saville. Paedophiles have also worked in schools? Should we take all the kids out and close them down? Paedophiles have worked in hospitals, should we close those down? Hell, there have even been paedophiles in UKIP, should we ban the party? " To be fair the BBC along with the rest of the British media, seem reluctant to report the pandemic scale of gang r@pes of children in all your major cities Preferring to deflect attention away from it rather than reporting it Instead, they attempt to alarm the population with ridiculous anti Brexit stories about sandwich shortages or the high risk of catching gonorrhoea post Brexit After a laughable bit of scaremongering they predictably head off on an anti Trump tangent It's not what the media tells us - it's often the stories the media hides, ignores or tries to gloss over which are important | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it not obvious that we won’t get a say in the final deal. Our weak govt has left the ball well and truly in the the EU’s court. The only choice our lot will get is to capitulate to their every whim, or walk away with no deal. We could have ten new referendums and that would not change, it appears to be well and truly out of our hands. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" To be fair the BBC along with the rest of the British media, seem reluctant to report the pandemic scale of gang r@pes of children in all your major cities Preferring to deflect attention away from it rather than reporting it Instead, they attempt to alarm the population with ridiculous anti Brexit stories about sandwich shortages or the high risk of catching gonorrhoea post Brexit After a laughable bit of scaremongering they predictably head off on an anti Trump tangent It's not what the media tells us - it's often the stories the media hides, ignores or tries to gloss over which are important " Are you a Russian bot? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The BBC is telling you, you will run out of fillings for your sandwiches if the result is a no deal Based on the idea that if it's on the BBC, then it must be gospel (snigger) Would the threat of not having a slice of cucumber between your bread for a few days, make you change your vote? Im only asking on behalf of a friend who is thinking of growing some cucumbers Enjoy your mockery - your not living in the UK and have no chance of being effected - if this happens! I can only assume as you live in 3 countries your a "wanderer"? But the BBC is generally a decent source of information - on both sides of the argument. Yes the BBC has quite a reputation! It also makes you pay a license fee to support it, I believe? At least in North Korea they get their propaganda for free The licence fee also supports Channel 4, and covers infrastructure such as rolling out of digital radio. The license fee also supported people like Jimmy Saville and the illegal coverage of a raid on Cliff Richard's house....just saying. Just saying what exactly? That because a paedophile worked for the BBC, you can't believe their news coverage? That seems to be what you are saying, but please feel free to explain the connection between the posts quoted above and Jimmy saville. Paedophiles have also worked in schools? Should we take all the kids out and close them down? Paedophiles have worked in hospitals, should we close those down? Hell, there have even been paedophiles in UKIP, should we ban the party? To be fair the BBC along with the rest of the British media, seem reluctant to report the pandemic scale of gang r@pes of children in all your major cities Preferring to deflect attention away from it rather than reporting it Instead, they attempt to alarm the population with ridiculous anti Brexit stories about sandwich shortages or the high risk of catching gonorrhoea post Brexit After a laughable bit of scaremongering they predictably head off on an anti Trump tangent It's not what the media tells us - it's often the stories the media hides, ignores or tries to gloss over which are important " Interesting. What is your source of information about child gang r!s in our cities? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" To be fair the BBC along with the rest of the British media, seem reluctant to report the pandemic scale of gang r@pes of children in all your major cities Preferring to deflect attention away from it rather than reporting it Instead, they attempt to alarm the population with ridiculous anti Brexit stories about sandwich shortages or the high risk of catching gonorrhoea post Brexit After a laughable bit of scaremongering they predictably head off on an anti Trump tangent It's not what the media tells us - it's often the stories the media hides, ignores or tries to gloss over which are important Are you a Russian bot? " Why would he have to be a Russian bot to hold those opinions? Are you on the payroll of George Soros? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The BBC is telling you, you will run out of fillings for your sandwiches if the result is a no deal Based on the idea that if it's on the BBC, then it must be gospel (snigger) Would the threat of not having a slice of cucumber between your bread for a few days, make you change your vote? Im only asking on behalf of a friend who is thinking of growing some cucumbers Enjoy your mockery - your not living in the UK and have no chance of being effected - if this happens! I can only assume as you live in 3 countries your a "wanderer"? But the BBC is generally a decent source of information - on both sides of the argument. Yes the BBC has quite a reputation! It also makes you pay a license fee to support it, I believe? At least in North Korea they get their propaganda for free The licence fee also supports Channel 4, and covers infrastructure such as rolling out of digital radio. The license fee also supported people like Jimmy Saville and the illegal coverage of a raid on Cliff Richard's house....just saying. Just saying what exactly? That because a paedophile worked for the BBC, you can't believe their news coverage? That seems to be what you are saying, but please feel free to explain the connection between the posts quoted above and Jimmy saville. Paedophiles have also worked in schools? Should we take all the kids out and close them down? Paedophiles have worked in hospitals, should we close those down? Hell, there have even been paedophiles in UKIP, should we ban the party? To be fair the BBC along with the rest of the British media, seem reluctant to report the pandemic scale of gang r@pes of children in all your major cities Preferring to deflect attention away from it rather than reporting it Instead, they attempt to alarm the population with ridiculous anti Brexit stories about sandwich shortages or the high risk of catching gonorrhoea post Brexit After a laughable bit of scaremongering they predictably head off on an anti Trump tangent It's not what the media tells us - it's often the stories the media hides, ignores or tries to gloss over which are important " You should head over to fabgammons the sister site to this one. Where you can all enjoy your ignorance together. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The BBC is telling you, you will run out of fillings for your sandwiches if the result is a no deal Based on the idea that if it's on the BBC, then it must be gospel (snigger) Would the threat of not having a slice of cucumber between your bread for a few days, make you change your vote? Im only asking on behalf of a friend who is thinking of growing some cucumbers Enjoy your mockery - your not living in the UK and have no chance of being effected - if this happens! I can only assume as you live in 3 countries your a "wanderer"? But the BBC is generally a decent source of information - on both sides of the argument. Yes the BBC has quite a reputation! It also makes you pay a license fee to support it, I believe? At least in North Korea they get their propaganda for free The licence fee also supports Channel 4, and covers infrastructure such as rolling out of digital radio. The license fee also supported people like Jimmy Saville and the illegal coverage of a raid on Cliff Richard's house....just saying. Just saying what exactly? That because a paedophile worked for the BBC, you can't believe their news coverage? That seems to be what you are saying, but please feel free to explain the connection between the posts quoted above and Jimmy saville. Paedophiles have also worked in schools? Should we take all the kids out and close them down? Paedophiles have worked in hospitals, should we close those down? Hell, there have even been paedophiles in UKIP, should we ban the party? To be fair the BBC along with the rest of the British media, seem reluctant to report the pandemic scale of gang r@pes of children in all your major cities Preferring to deflect attention away from it rather than reporting it Instead, they attempt to alarm the population with ridiculous anti Brexit stories about sandwich shortages or the high risk of catching gonorrhoea post Brexit After a laughable bit of scaremongering they predictably head off on an anti Trump tangent It's not what the media tells us - it's often the stories the media hides, ignores or tries to gloss over which are important " Ok so prove it then. Find me 1 example of gang child r@pe that was widely reported by other UK media organisations, but was not reported at all by the BBC. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What makes anyone think a 2nd referendum would be any less of a clusterfuck than the first one? The fact that we would know actual facts... and they couldn’t use the project fear they are all scaremongering lines.... If people really want to look over the side of the cliff and still jump... that is on them Facts? Where are they? What information has the Government given this country about the implications of leaving the EU with no alternative arrangement in place? Nothing. At least the EC has informed the EU27 of the various legal implications across different sectors of UK becoming a third country. “Apparently” the government are going to start doing “notices” (basically press releases) this summer relating to what will happen or what people will need to do in the case of a no deal situation .... Whether people will believe the UK version over the Eu technical notes that are being released is another matter... but for brexiteer mps to then shout project fear are going to be doing their constituents a massive disservice So, they're going to provide 'forecasts' of what 'will' happen... That sounds a bit like the project fear forecasts during the referendum campaign. So who would you listen to if they said Brexit was going to be bad? I listened to all views during the referendum campaign, and came to my own conclusions. I looked at all the people and organisations making predictions and forecasts, and investigated how accurate they'd been with previous forecasts and predictions. I do so now. Right, so who would you listen to? Who do you think has been accurate in their predictions, and if they now said "Brexit is going to be a very bad idea" would you listen to and think, "well if they are saying it, I'm going to believe it and change my mind on brexit"? What part of "I listen to all views" don't you understand? What part of "I come to my own conclusions" don't you understand? So what would it take for you to change your mind? To come to a different conclusion? Is the question really too hard for you to comprehend? Well, that's a different question to the one you asked. So to answer the question that you're now asking... I've not seen anything yet to make me change my mind. What I do see is an announcement saying that while parliament is in recess a series of 'consequence papers' will be published on a regular basis. No doubt these will be along the lines of more scaremongering as per project fear. And I look at the people making these predictions, and they are the same people that told us how economically catastrophic it would be if we did not join the Euro, and did not see the global crash coming (although you once quoted the economist Steve Keen as having predicted it, and I agreed that indeed he did, but had to point out to you that he was a staunch supporter of Brexit), among other things. What would it take for you to change your mind? Because all bar one of the remain predictions and forecasts have not happened. The forecast that has happened is the drop in value of sterling; although, just months before the referendum the very same people that forecast the drop in sterling were saying that sterling was overvalued by up to 20% anyway. Please try to answer a quite simple question. What would it take for you to change your mind? Who would you listen to? Firstly, you can't count. Secondly, what part of 'I listen to everyone, and make up my own mind', can't you understand? I haven't seen or heard anything yet that has made me change my mind..... But why don't you answer my questions? The question is what would make you change your mind? Who would you listen to? Who would you believe if they told you Brexit would be bad? You still haven't answered this. Maybe once you get around to answering, I'll answer yours. Just for clarity, the question is NOT "have you changed your mind?" 1) I don't know what would make me change my mind. At the moment there is no evidence that I've seen to make me change my mind. 2) No-one in particular. I listen to everyone, and make my own mind up. 3) Me...after I've listened to everyone, analysed and researched everything for myself. You may not be happy with my answers, but I've answered them. Now turn it on its head, and you answer them... What would make you change your mind? Who would you listen to? Who would you believe if they told you remaing would be bad? And then answer the other questions I asked re:if we aked to remain now. You haven't named a single person or organisation that you would believe. That is very, very sad. And there you go......like I said...You wouldn't accept my answers because you don't like what I said. You may blindly follow someone or some organisation, believing every word they say, but I prefer to have a mind of my own and make my own decisions based upon what I research, analyse, read about, check up on, listen to, and experience. And that's why I can't name any particular person or organisation. It's you that's the sad one thinking that you could." But you are not making your decisions based on research or analysis. If you were, then you would be able to name some people or organisations that you would listen to. You would be able to say "I research what organisation X says, and analyse their data to be well researched, so if they said Brexit was going to be bad, I really would sit up and take notice." But instead you can't name anyone. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What makes anyone think a 2nd referendum would be any less of a clusterfuck than the first one? The fact that we would know actual facts... and they couldn’t use the project fear they are all scaremongering lines.... If people really want to look over the side of the cliff and still jump... that is on them Facts? Where are they? What information has the Government given this country about the implications of leaving the EU with no alternative arrangement in place? Nothing. At least the EC has informed the EU27 of the various legal implications across different sectors of UK becoming a third country. “Apparently” the government are going to start doing “notices” (basically press releases) this summer relating to what will happen or what people will need to do in the case of a no deal situation .... Whether people will believe the UK version over the Eu technical notes that are being released is another matter... but for brexiteer mps to then shout project fear are going to be doing their constituents a massive disservice So, they're going to provide 'forecasts' of what 'will' happen... That sounds a bit like the project fear forecasts during the referendum campaign. So who would you listen to if they said Brexit was going to be bad? I listened to all views during the referendum campaign, and came to my own conclusions. I looked at all the people and organisations making predictions and forecasts, and investigated how accurate they'd been with previous forecasts and predictions. I do so now. Right, so who would you listen to? Who do you think has been accurate in their predictions, and if they now said "Brexit is going to be a very bad idea" would you listen to and think, "well if they are saying it, I'm going to believe it and change my mind on brexit"? What part of "I listen to all views" don't you understand? What part of "I come to my own conclusions" don't you understand? So what would it take for you to change your mind? To come to a different conclusion? Is the question really too hard for you to comprehend? Well, that's a different question to the one you asked. So to answer the question that you're now asking... I've not seen anything yet to make me change my mind. What I do see is an announcement saying that while parliament is in recess a series of 'consequence papers' will be published on a regular basis. No doubt these will be along the lines of more scaremongering as per project fear. And I look at the people making these predictions, and they are the same people that told us how economically catastrophic it would be if we did not join the Euro, and did not see the global crash coming (although you once quoted the economist Steve Keen as having predicted it, and I agreed that indeed he did, but had to point out to you that he was a staunch supporter of Brexit), among other things. What would it take for you to change your mind? Because all bar one of the remain predictions and forecasts have not happened. The forecast that has happened is the drop in value of sterling; although, just months before the referendum the very same people that forecast the drop in sterling were saying that sterling was overvalued by up to 20% anyway. Please try to answer a quite simple question. What would it take for you to change your mind? Who would you listen to? Firstly, you can't count. Secondly, what part of 'I listen to everyone, and make up my own mind', can't you understand? I haven't seen or heard anything yet that has made me change my mind..... But why don't you answer my questions? The question is what would make you change your mind? Who would you listen to? Who would you believe if they told you Brexit would be bad? You still haven't answered this. Maybe once you get around to answering, I'll answer yours. Just for clarity, the question is NOT "have you changed your mind?" 1) I don't know what would make me change my mind. At the moment there is no evidence that I've seen to make me change my mind. 2) No-one in particular. I listen to everyone, and make my own mind up. 3) Me...after I've listened to everyone, analysed and researched everything for myself. You may not be happy with my answers, but I've answered them. Now turn it on its head, and you answer them... What would make you change your mind? Who would you listen to? Who would you believe if they told you remaing would be bad? And then answer the other questions I asked re:if we aked to remain now. You haven't named a single person or organisation that you would believe. That is very, very sad. And there you go......like I said...You wouldn't accept my answers because you don't like what I said. You may blindly follow someone or some organisation, believing every word they say, but I prefer to have a mind of my own and make my own decisions based upon what I research, analyse, read about, check up on, listen to, and experience. And that's why I can't name any particular person or organisation. It's you that's the sad one thinking that you could. But you are not making your decisions based on research or analysis. If you were, then you would be able to name some people or organisations that you would listen to. You would be able to say "I research what organisation X says, and analyse their data to be well researched, so if they said Brexit was going to be bad, I really would sit up and take notice." But instead you can't name anyone. " Really? And yet you can't answer the same questions?!!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The BBC is telling you, you will run out of fillings for your sandwiches if the result is a no deal Based on the idea that if it's on the BBC, then it must be gospel (snigger) Would the threat of not having a slice of cucumber between your bread for a few days, make you change your vote? Im only asking on behalf of a friend who is thinking of growing some cucumbers Enjoy your mockery - your not living in the UK and have no chance of being effected - if this happens! I can only assume as you live in 3 countries your a "wanderer"? But the BBC is generally a decent source of information - on both sides of the argument. Yes the BBC has quite a reputation! It also makes you pay a license fee to support it, I believe? At least in North Korea they get their propaganda for free The licence fee also supports Channel 4, and covers infrastructure such as rolling out of digital radio. The license fee also supported people like Jimmy Saville and the illegal coverage of a raid on Cliff Richard's house....just saying. Just saying what exactly? That because a paedophile worked for the BBC, you can't believe their news coverage? That seems to be what you are saying, but please feel free to explain the connection between the posts quoted above and Jimmy saville. Paedophiles have also worked in schools? Should we take all the kids out and close them down? Paedophiles have worked in hospitals, should we close those down? Hell, there have even been paedophiles in UKIP, should we ban the party? To be fair the BBC along with the rest of the British media, seem reluctant to report the pandemic scale of gang r@pes of children in all your major cities Preferring to deflect attention away from it rather than reporting it Instead, they attempt to alarm the population with ridiculous anti Brexit stories about sandwich shortages or the high risk of catching gonorrhoea post Brexit After a laughable bit of scaremongering they predictably head off on an anti Trump tangent It's not what the media tells us - it's often the stories the media hides, ignores or tries to gloss over which are important Ok so prove it then. Find me 1 example of gang child r@pe that was widely reported by other UK media organisations, but was not reported at all by the BBC. " Hey, a non-UK news source would be fine. It would be interesting to know how this cover-up was being orchestrated in a world of mobile phones? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What makes anyone think a 2nd referendum would be any less of a clusterfuck than the first one? The fact that we would know actual facts... and they couldn’t use the project fear they are all scaremongering lines.... If people really want to look over the side of the cliff and still jump... that is on them Facts? Where are they? What information has the Government given this country about the implications of leaving the EU with no alternative arrangement in place? Nothing. At least the EC has informed the EU27 of the various legal implications across different sectors of UK becoming a third country. “Apparently” the government are going to start doing “notices” (basically press releases) this summer relating to what will happen or what people will need to do in the case of a no deal situation .... Whether people will believe the UK version over the Eu technical notes that are being released is another matter... but for brexiteer mps to then shout project fear are going to be doing their constituents a massive disservice So, they're going to provide 'forecasts' of what 'will' happen... That sounds a bit like the project fear forecasts during the referendum campaign. So who would you listen to if they said Brexit was going to be bad? I listened to all views during the referendum campaign, and came to my own conclusions. I looked at all the people and organisations making predictions and forecasts, and investigated how accurate they'd been with previous forecasts and predictions. I do so now. Right, so who would you listen to? Who do you think has been accurate in their predictions, and if they now said "Brexit is going to be a very bad idea" would you listen to and think, "well if they are saying it, I'm going to believe it and change my mind on brexit"? What part of "I listen to all views" don't you understand? What part of "I come to my own conclusions" don't you understand? So what would it take for you to change your mind? To come to a different conclusion? Is the question really too hard for you to comprehend? Well, that's a different question to the one you asked. So to answer the question that you're now asking... I've not seen anything yet to make me change my mind. What I do see is an announcement saying that while parliament is in recess a series of 'consequence papers' will be published on a regular basis. No doubt these will be along the lines of more scaremongering as per project fear. And I look at the people making these predictions, and they are the same people that told us how economically catastrophic it would be if we did not join the Euro, and did not see the global crash coming (although you once quoted the economist Steve Keen as having predicted it, and I agreed that indeed he did, but had to point out to you that he was a staunch supporter of Brexit), among other things. What would it take for you to change your mind? Because all bar one of the remain predictions and forecasts have not happened. The forecast that has happened is the drop in value of sterling; although, just months before the referendum the very same people that forecast the drop in sterling were saying that sterling was overvalued by up to 20% anyway. Please try to answer a quite simple question. What would it take for you to change your mind? Who would you listen to? Firstly, you can't count. Secondly, what part of 'I listen to everyone, and make up my own mind', can't you understand? I haven't seen or heard anything yet that has made me change my mind..... But why don't you answer my questions? The question is what would make you change your mind? Who would you listen to? Who would you believe if they told you Brexit would be bad? You still haven't answered this. Maybe once you get around to answering, I'll answer yours. Just for clarity, the question is NOT "have you changed your mind?"" how does anyone know brexit is bad .if you don't try it how will anyone ever actually know .the garbage being spouted about by all the cry babies makes me more determined than ever to leave | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What makes anyone think a 2nd referendum would be any less of a clusterfuck than the first one? The fact that we would know actual facts... and they couldn’t use the project fear they are all scaremongering lines.... If people really want to look over the side of the cliff and still jump... that is on them Facts? Where are they? What information has the Government given this country about the implications of leaving the EU with no alternative arrangement in place? Nothing. At least the EC has informed the EU27 of the various legal implications across different sectors of UK becoming a third country. “Apparently” the government are going to start doing “notices” (basically press releases) this summer relating to what will happen or what people will need to do in the case of a no deal situation .... Whether people will believe the UK version over the Eu technical notes that are being released is another matter... but for brexiteer mps to then shout project fear are going to be doing their constituents a massive disservice So, they're going to provide 'forecasts' of what 'will' happen... That sounds a bit like the project fear forecasts during the referendum campaign. So who would you listen to if they said Brexit was going to be bad? I listened to all views during the referendum campaign, and came to my own conclusions. I looked at all the people and organisations making predictions and forecasts, and investigated how accurate they'd been with previous forecasts and predictions. I do so now. Right, so who would you listen to? Who do you think has been accurate in their predictions, and if they now said "Brexit is going to be a very bad idea" would you listen to and think, "well if they are saying it, I'm going to believe it and change my mind on brexit"? What part of "I listen to all views" don't you understand? What part of "I come to my own conclusions" don't you understand? So what would it take for you to change your mind? To come to a different conclusion? Is the question really too hard for you to comprehend? Well, that's a different question to the one you asked. So to answer the question that you're now asking... I've not seen anything yet to make me change my mind. What I do see is an announcement saying that while parliament is in recess a series of 'consequence papers' will be published on a regular basis. No doubt these will be along the lines of more scaremongering as per project fear. And I look at the people making these predictions, and they are the same people that told us how economically catastrophic it would be if we did not join the Euro, and did not see the global crash coming (although you once quoted the economist Steve Keen as having predicted it, and I agreed that indeed he did, but had to point out to you that he was a staunch supporter of Brexit), among other things. What would it take for you to change your mind? Because all bar one of the remain predictions and forecasts have not happened. The forecast that has happened is the drop in value of sterling; although, just months before the referendum the very same people that forecast the drop in sterling were saying that sterling was overvalued by up to 20% anyway. Please try to answer a quite simple question. What would it take for you to change your mind? Who would you listen to? Firstly, you can't count. Secondly, what part of 'I listen to everyone, and make up my own mind', can't you understand? I haven't seen or heard anything yet that has made me change my mind..... But why don't you answer my questions? The question is what would make you change your mind? Who would you listen to? Who would you believe if they told you Brexit would be bad? You still haven't answered this. Maybe once you get around to answering, I'll answer yours. Just for clarity, the question is NOT "have you changed your mind?"how does anyone know brexit is bad .if you don't try it how will anyone ever actually know .the garbage being spouted about by all the cry babies makes me more determined than ever to leave " You use what information you have and some logic. I have still not been provided with with anything to justify the claims of nirvana that leave have provided. I don't think that "trying it out" is a compelling argument to gamble a country on. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What makes anyone think a 2nd referendum would be any less of a clusterfuck than the first one? The fact that we would know actual facts... and they couldn’t use the project fear they are all scaremongering lines.... If people really want to look over the side of the cliff and still jump... that is on them Facts? Where are they? What information has the Government given this country about the implications of leaving the EU with no alternative arrangement in place? Nothing. At least the EC has informed the EU27 of the various legal implications across different sectors of UK becoming a third country. “Apparently” the government are going to start doing “notices” (basically press releases) this summer relating to what will happen or what people will need to do in the case of a no deal situation .... Whether people will believe the UK version over the Eu technical notes that are being released is another matter... but for brexiteer mps to then shout project fear are going to be doing their constituents a massive disservice So, they're going to provide 'forecasts' of what 'will' happen... That sounds a bit like the project fear forecasts during the referendum campaign. So who would you listen to if they said Brexit was going to be bad? I listened to all views during the referendum campaign, and came to my own conclusions. I looked at all the people and organisations making predictions and forecasts, and investigated how accurate they'd been with previous forecasts and predictions. I do so now. Right, so who would you listen to? Who do you think has been accurate in their predictions, and if they now said "Brexit is going to be a very bad idea" would you listen to and think, "well if they are saying it, I'm going to believe it and change my mind on brexit"? What part of "I listen to all views" don't you understand? What part of "I come to my own conclusions" don't you understand? So what would it take for you to change your mind? To come to a different conclusion? Is the question really too hard for you to comprehend? Well, that's a different question to the one you asked. So to answer the question that you're now asking... I've not seen anything yet to make me change my mind. What I do see is an announcement saying that while parliament is in recess a series of 'consequence papers' will be published on a regular basis. No doubt these will be along the lines of more scaremongering as per project fear. And I look at the people making these predictions, and they are the same people that told us how economically catastrophic it would be if we did not join the Euro, and did not see the global crash coming (although you once quoted the economist Steve Keen as having predicted it, and I agreed that indeed he did, but had to point out to you that he was a staunch supporter of Brexit), among other things. What would it take for you to change your mind? Because all bar one of the remain predictions and forecasts have not happened. The forecast that has happened is the drop in value of sterling; although, just months before the referendum the very same people that forecast the drop in sterling were saying that sterling was overvalued by up to 20% anyway. Please try to answer a quite simple question. What would it take for you to change your mind? Who would you listen to? Firstly, you can't count. Secondly, what part of 'I listen to everyone, and make up my own mind', can't you understand? I haven't seen or heard anything yet that has made me change my mind..... But why don't you answer my questions? The question is what would make you change your mind? Who would you listen to? Who would you believe if they told you Brexit would be bad? You still haven't answered this. Maybe once you get around to answering, I'll answer yours. Just for clarity, the question is NOT "have you changed your mind?" 1) I don't know what would make me change my mind. At the moment there is no evidence that I've seen to make me change my mind. 2) No-one in particular. I listen to everyone, and make my own mind up. 3) Me...after I've listened to everyone, analysed and researched everything for myself. You may not be happy with my answers, but I've answered them. Now turn it on its head, and you answer them... What would make you change your mind? Who would you listen to? Who would you believe if they told you remaing would be bad? And then answer the other questions I asked re:if we aked to remain now. You haven't named a single person or organisation that you would believe. That is very, very sad. And there you go......like I said...You wouldn't accept my answers because you don't like what I said. You may blindly follow someone or some organisation, believing every word they say, but I prefer to have a mind of my own and make my own decisions based upon what I research, analyse, read about, check up on, listen to, and experience. And that's why I can't name any particular person or organisation. It's you that's the sad one thinking that you could. But you are not making your decisions based on research or analysis. If you were, then you would be able to name some people or organisations that you would listen to. You would be able to say "I research what organisation X says, and analyse their data to be well researched, so if they said Brexit was going to be bad, I really would sit up and take notice." But instead you can't name anyone. " Just counted.... I've got 5 lever arch files full of papers and documents, from all manner of different organisations...BoE, OECD, Treasury, Government, EU, Voteleave, Best for Britain, SMMT, economistsforremain, economists for free trade...to name a few. I've read, researched, and annotated every single one. Plus I do my own research as well. Plus I've got a variety of books on the EU..both for and against. Plus I use my own experience of working across the EU, and elsewhere in the world. So can I name A person or AN organisation that if they said Brexit was going to be bad it would change my mind? No, I can't, because I look at a whole range of different views and come to my own conclusion. You obviously don't. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What makes anyone think a 2nd referendum would be any less of a clusterfuck than the first one? The fact that we would know actual facts... and they couldn’t use the project fear they are all scaremongering lines.... If people really want to look over the side of the cliff and still jump... that is on them Facts? Where are they? What information has the Government given this country about the implications of leaving the EU with no alternative arrangement in place? Nothing. At least the EC has informed the EU27 of the various legal implications across different sectors of UK becoming a third country. “Apparently” the government are going to start doing “notices” (basically press releases) this summer relating to what will happen or what people will need to do in the case of a no deal situation .... Whether people will believe the UK version over the Eu technical notes that are being released is another matter... but for brexiteer mps to then shout project fear are going to be doing their constituents a massive disservice So, they're going to provide 'forecasts' of what 'will' happen... That sounds a bit like the project fear forecasts during the referendum campaign. So who would you listen to if they said Brexit was going to be bad? I listened to all views during the referendum campaign, and came to my own conclusions. I looked at all the people and organisations making predictions and forecasts, and investigated how accurate they'd been with previous forecasts and predictions. I do so now. Right, so who would you listen to? Who do you think has been accurate in their predictions, and if they now said "Brexit is going to be a very bad idea" would you listen to and think, "well if they are saying it, I'm going to believe it and change my mind on brexit"? What part of "I listen to all views" don't you understand? What part of "I come to my own conclusions" don't you understand? So what would it take for you to change your mind? To come to a different conclusion? Is the question really too hard for you to comprehend? Well, that's a different question to the one you asked. So to answer the question that you're now asking... I've not seen anything yet to make me change my mind. What I do see is an announcement saying that while parliament is in recess a series of 'consequence papers' will be published on a regular basis. No doubt these will be along the lines of more scaremongering as per project fear. And I look at the people making these predictions, and they are the same people that told us how economically catastrophic it would be if we did not join the Euro, and did not see the global crash coming (although you once quoted the economist Steve Keen as having predicted it, and I agreed that indeed he did, but had to point out to you that he was a staunch supporter of Brexit), among other things. What would it take for you to change your mind? Because all bar one of the remain predictions and forecasts have not happened. The forecast that has happened is the drop in value of sterling; although, just months before the referendum the very same people that forecast the drop in sterling were saying that sterling was overvalued by up to 20% anyway. Please try to answer a quite simple question. What would it take for you to change your mind? Who would you listen to? Firstly, you can't count. Secondly, what part of 'I listen to everyone, and make up my own mind', can't you understand? I haven't seen or heard anything yet that has made me change my mind..... But why don't you answer my questions? The question is what would make you change your mind? Who would you listen to? Who would you believe if they told you Brexit would be bad? You still haven't answered this. Maybe once you get around to answering, I'll answer yours. Just for clarity, the question is NOT "have you changed your mind?" 1) I don't know what would make me change my mind. At the moment there is no evidence that I've seen to make me change my mind. 2) No-one in particular. I listen to everyone, and make my own mind up. 3) Me...after I've listened to everyone, analysed and researched everything for myself. You may not be happy with my answers, but I've answered them. Now turn it on its head, and you answer them... What would make you change your mind? Who would you listen to? Who would you believe if they told you remaing would be bad? And then answer the other questions I asked re:if we aked to remain now. You haven't named a single person or organisation that you would believe. That is very, very sad. And there you go......like I said...You wouldn't accept my answers because you don't like what I said. You may blindly follow someone or some organisation, believing every word they say, but I prefer to have a mind of my own and make my own decisions based upon what I research, analyse, read about, check up on, listen to, and experience. And that's why I can't name any particular person or organisation. It's you that's the sad one thinking that you could. But you are not making your decisions based on research or analysis. If you were, then you would be able to name some people or organisations that you would listen to. You would be able to say "I research what organisation X says, and analyse their data to be well researched, so if they said Brexit was going to be bad, I really would sit up and take notice." But instead you can't name anyone. Just counted.... I've got 5 lever arch files full of papers and documents, from all manner of different organisations...BoE, OECD, Treasury, Government, EU, Voteleave, Best for Britain, SMMT, economistsforremain, economists for free trade...to name a few. I've read, researched, and annotated every single one. Plus I do my own research as well. Plus I've got a variety of books on the EU..both for and against. Plus I use my own experience of working across the EU, and elsewhere in the world. So can I name A person or AN organisation that if they said Brexit was going to be bad it would change my mind? No, I can't, because I look at a whole range of different views and come to my own conclusion. You obviously don't." I do, you are free to name multiple people or organisations, but instead, you can't name any. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What makes anyone think a 2nd referendum would be any less of a clusterfuck than the first one? The fact that we would know actual facts... and they couldn’t use the project fear they are all scaremongering lines.... If people really want to look over the side of the cliff and still jump... that is on them Facts? Where are they? What information has the Government given this country about the implications of leaving the EU with no alternative arrangement in place? Nothing. At least the EC has informed the EU27 of the various legal implications across different sectors of UK becoming a third country. “Apparently” the government are going to start doing “notices” (basically press releases) this summer relating to what will happen or what people will need to do in the case of a no deal situation .... Whether people will believe the UK version over the Eu technical notes that are being released is another matter... but for brexiteer mps to then shout project fear are going to be doing their constituents a massive disservice So, they're going to provide 'forecasts' of what 'will' happen... That sounds a bit like the project fear forecasts during the referendum campaign. So who would you listen to if they said Brexit was going to be bad? I listened to all views during the referendum campaign, and came to my own conclusions. I looked at all the people and organisations making predictions and forecasts, and investigated how accurate they'd been with previous forecasts and predictions. I do so now. Right, so who would you listen to? Who do you think has been accurate in their predictions, and if they now said "Brexit is going to be a very bad idea" would you listen to and think, "well if they are saying it, I'm going to believe it and change my mind on brexit"? What part of "I listen to all views" don't you understand? What part of "I come to my own conclusions" don't you understand? So what would it take for you to change your mind? To come to a different conclusion? Is the question really too hard for you to comprehend? Well, that's a different question to the one you asked. So to answer the question that you're now asking... I've not seen anything yet to make me change my mind. What I do see is an announcement saying that while parliament is in recess a series of 'consequence papers' will be published on a regular basis. No doubt these will be along the lines of more scaremongering as per project fear. And I look at the people making these predictions, and they are the same people that told us how economically catastrophic it would be if we did not join the Euro, and did not see the global crash coming (although you once quoted the economist Steve Keen as having predicted it, and I agreed that indeed he did, but had to point out to you that he was a staunch supporter of Brexit), among other things. What would it take for you to change your mind? Because all bar one of the remain predictions and forecasts have not happened. The forecast that has happened is the drop in value of sterling; although, just months before the referendum the very same people that forecast the drop in sterling were saying that sterling was overvalued by up to 20% anyway. Please try to answer a quite simple question. What would it take for you to change your mind? Who would you listen to? Firstly, you can't count. Secondly, what part of 'I listen to everyone, and make up my own mind', can't you understand? I haven't seen or heard anything yet that has made me change my mind..... But why don't you answer my questions? The question is what would make you change your mind? Who would you listen to? Who would you believe if they told you Brexit would be bad? You still haven't answered this. Maybe once you get around to answering, I'll answer yours. Just for clarity, the question is NOT "have you changed your mind?" 1) I don't know what would make me change my mind. At the moment there is no evidence that I've seen to make me change my mind. 2) No-one in particular. I listen to everyone, and make my own mind up. 3) Me...after I've listened to everyone, analysed and researched everything for myself. You may not be happy with my answers, but I've answered them. Now turn it on its head, and you answer them... What would make you change your mind? Who would you listen to? Who would you believe if they told you remaing would be bad? And then answer the other questions I asked re:if we aked to remain now. You haven't named a single person or organisation that you would believe. That is very, very sad. And there you go......like I said...You wouldn't accept my answers because you don't like what I said. You may blindly follow someone or some organisation, believing every word they say, but I prefer to have a mind of my own and make my own decisions based upon what I research, analyse, read about, check up on, listen to, and experience. And that's why I can't name any particular person or organisation. It's you that's the sad one thinking that you could. But you are not making your decisions based on research or analysis. If you were, then you would be able to name some people or organisations that you would listen to. You would be able to say "I research what organisation X says, and analyse their data to be well researched, so if they said Brexit was going to be bad, I really would sit up and take notice." But instead you can't name anyone. Just counted.... I've got 5 lever arch files full of papers and documents, from all manner of different organisations...BoE, OECD, Treasury, Government, EU, Voteleave, Best for Britain, SMMT, economistsforremain, economists for free trade...to name a few. I've read, researched, and annotated every single one. Plus I do my own research as well. Plus I've got a variety of books on the EU..both for and against. Plus I use my own experience of working across the EU, and elsewhere in the world. So can I name A person or AN organisation that if they said Brexit was going to be bad it would change my mind? No, I can't, because I look at a whole range of different views and come to my own conclusion. You obviously don't." Forgive me for involving myself in this ding dong but perhaps trying to win is missing the point. What seems to be the case is that information any credible organisation is considered but nothing has convinced JandS that remain is the better option. That seems fine. With that in mind, what data and from what group has been most influential in voting for leave? Would you say that it is a purely or mainly a logical decision or is the emotional sentiment stronger? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"JandS, good effort. You clearly have put a lot of time into this and see the economy as being a big factor in your decision making I would guess. Where do you see us landing compared to staying in ? I swayed towards a slight fall, with winners and losers. But a period of disruption in the short term which will probably look negative as those who suffer close up, and those who win still being in the early part of a jcurve so less likely to be able to shoulder the burden until their efforts start taking fruit. This plus business cycles mean I’m reluctant to call out much credence on any indicators for the next five years or so. " Very similar to you...I think there will be a period of readjustment...5 years or so seems reasonable. But the longer we prevaricate, the longer and harder this adjustment will be. Undoubtedly there will be winners and losers, but that is life and business....and has always been so. Looking at other things such as JIT, and everybody saying it will be hell and impossible to manage, and they'll have to stockpile in the short/medium term..... I remember when industry was just starting to go down the route of JIT, and have worked at several companies that have put it in place.....and guess what? Every single one of them 'stockpiled' before moving over to JIT because of the disruption it may cause. With what we personally want to do in the future, Brexit may not be beneficial for us, but I voted for what I believed would benefit the UK over the medium/long term. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The BBC is telling you, you will run out of fillings for your sandwiches if the result is a no deal Based on the idea that if it's on the BBC, then it must be gospel (snigger) Would the threat of not having a slice of cucumber between your bread for a few days, make you change your vote? Im only asking on behalf of a friend who is thinking of growing some cucumbers Enjoy your mockery - your not living in the UK and have no chance of being effected - if this happens! I can only assume as you live in 3 countries your a "wanderer"? But the BBC is generally a decent source of information - on both sides of the argument. Yes the BBC has quite a reputation! It also makes you pay a license fee to support it, I believe? At least in North Korea they get their propaganda for free The licence fee also supports Channel 4, and covers infrastructure such as rolling out of digital radio. The license fee also supported people like Jimmy Saville and the illegal coverage of a raid on Cliff Richard's house....just saying. Just saying what exactly? That because a paedophile worked for the BBC, you can't believe their news coverage? That seems to be what you are saying, but please feel free to explain the connection between the posts quoted above and Jimmy saville. Paedophiles have also worked in schools? Should we take all the kids out and close them down? Paedophiles have worked in hospitals, should we close those down? Hell, there have even been paedophiles in UKIP, should we ban the party? To be fair the BBC along with the rest of the British media, seem reluctant to report the pandemic scale of gang r@pes of children in all your major cities Preferring to deflect attention away from it rather than reporting it Instead, they attempt to alarm the population with ridiculous anti Brexit stories about sandwich shortages or the high risk of catching gonorrhoea post Brexit After a laughable bit of scaremongering they predictably head off on an anti Trump tangent It's not what the media tells us - it's often the stories the media hides, ignores or tries to gloss over which are important Ok so prove it then. Find me 1 example of gang child r@pe that was widely reported by other UK media organisations, but was not reported at all by the BBC. " It's not just your Main Stream Media failing to report the truth - the whole British establishment wants to bury it Speak up about it and you are silenced. Just ask Sarah Champion - sacked by the Labour Party and now needing police protection Anyone telling the truth in your country gets treated like a criminal - Julian Assange, yep! He tells the truth - lets get him locked up or deported straight away! But don't worry, just keep reading and believing farcical stories your media feeds you - about running out of sandwiches or catching post Brexit gonorrhoea For dessert they spoon feed you an hourly dose of anti Trump rhetoric, just to see you through the day and to stop you seeking the truth | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The BBC is telling you, you will run out of fillings for your sandwiches if the result is a no deal Based on the idea that if it's on the BBC, then it must be gospel (snigger) Would the threat of not having a slice of cucumber between your bread for a few days, make you change your vote? Im only asking on behalf of a friend who is thinking of growing some cucumbers Enjoy your mockery - your not living in the UK and have no chance of being effected - if this happens! I can only assume as you live in 3 countries your a "wanderer"? But the BBC is generally a decent source of information - on both sides of the argument. Yes the BBC has quite a reputation! It also makes you pay a license fee to support it, I believe? At least in North Korea they get their propaganda for free The licence fee also supports Channel 4, and covers infrastructure such as rolling out of digital radio. The license fee also supported people like Jimmy Saville and the illegal coverage of a raid on Cliff Richard's house....just saying. Just saying what exactly? That because a paedophile worked for the BBC, you can't believe their news coverage? That seems to be what you are saying, but please feel free to explain the connection between the posts quoted above and Jimmy saville. Paedophiles have also worked in schools? Should we take all the kids out and close them down? Paedophiles have worked in hospitals, should we close those down? Hell, there have even been paedophiles in UKIP, should we ban the party? To be fair the BBC along with the rest of the British media, seem reluctant to report the pandemic scale of gang r@pes of children in all your major cities Preferring to deflect attention away from it rather than reporting it Instead, they attempt to alarm the population with ridiculous anti Brexit stories about sandwich shortages or the high risk of catching gonorrhoea post Brexit After a laughable bit of scaremongering they predictably head off on an anti Trump tangent It's not what the media tells us - it's often the stories the media hides, ignores or tries to gloss over which are important Ok so prove it then. Find me 1 example of gang child r@pe that was widely reported by other UK media organisations, but was not reported at all by the BBC. It's not just your Main Stream Media failing to report the truth - the whole British establishment wants to bury it Speak up about it and you are silenced. Just ask Sarah Champion - sacked by the Labour Party and now needing police protection Anyone telling the truth in your country gets treated like a criminal - Julian Assange, yep! He tells the truth - lets get him locked up or deported straight away! But don't worry, just keep reading and believing farcical stories your media feeds you - about running out of sandwiches or catching post Brexit gonorrhoea For dessert they spoon feed you an hourly dose of anti Trump rhetoric, just to see you through the day and to stop you seeking the truth " Any report or study from any organisation anywhere in the world would be fine. Where did you get this suppressed information from? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The BBC is telling you, you will run out of fillings for your sandwiches if the result is a no deal Based on the idea that if it's on the BBC, then it must be gospel (snigger) Would the threat of not having a slice of cucumber between your bread for a few days, make you change your vote? Im only asking on behalf of a friend who is thinking of growing some cucumbers Enjoy your mockery - your not living in the UK and have no chance of being effected - if this happens! I can only assume as you live in 3 countries your a "wanderer"? But the BBC is generally a decent source of information - on both sides of the argument. Yes the BBC has quite a reputation! It also makes you pay a license fee to support it, I believe? At least in North Korea they get their propaganda for free The licence fee also supports Channel 4, and covers infrastructure such as rolling out of digital radio. The license fee also supported people like Jimmy Saville and the illegal coverage of a raid on Cliff Richard's house....just saying. Just saying what exactly? That because a paedophile worked for the BBC, you can't believe their news coverage? That seems to be what you are saying, but please feel free to explain the connection between the posts quoted above and Jimmy saville. Paedophiles have also worked in schools? Should we take all the kids out and close them down? Paedophiles have worked in hospitals, should we close those down? Hell, there have even been paedophiles in UKIP, should we ban the party? To be fair the BBC along with the rest of the British media, seem reluctant to report the pandemic scale of gang r@pes of children in all your major cities Preferring to deflect attention away from it rather than reporting it Instead, they attempt to alarm the population with ridiculous anti Brexit stories about sandwich shortages or the high risk of catching gonorrhoea post Brexit After a laughable bit of scaremongering they predictably head off on an anti Trump tangent It's not what the media tells us - it's often the stories the media hides, ignores or tries to gloss over which are important Ok so prove it then. Find me 1 example of gang child r@pe that was widely reported by other UK media organisations, but was not reported at all by the BBC. It's not just your Main Stream Media failing to report the truth - the whole British establishment wants to bury it Speak up about it and you are silenced. Just ask Sarah Champion - sacked by the Labour Party and now needing police protection Anyone telling the truth in your country gets treated like a criminal - Julian Assange, yep! He tells the truth - lets get him locked up or deported straight away! But don't worry, just keep reading and believing farcical stories your media feeds you - about running out of sandwiches or catching post Brexit gonorrhoea For dessert they spoon feed you an hourly dose of anti Trump rhetoric, just to see you through the day and to stop you seeking the truth Any report or study from any organisation anywhere in the world would be fine. Where did you get this suppressed information from?" Oh! Yes - I forgot you probably won't believe anything unless an organisation is telling you what to think Have you tried opening your eyes and ears and forming your own opinions, observations and views? Or would you need permission from an organisation for that? You could always listen to the BBC and see what they have to say | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What makes anyone think a 2nd referendum would be any less of a clusterfuck than the first one? The fact that we would know actual facts... and they couldn’t use the project fear they are all scaremongering lines.... If people really want to look over the side of the cliff and still jump... that is on them Facts? Where are they? What information has the Government given this country about the implications of leaving the EU with no alternative arrangement in place? Nothing. At least the EC has informed the EU27 of the various legal implications across different sectors of UK becoming a third country. “Apparently” the government are going to start doing “notices” (basically press releases) this summer relating to what will happen or what people will need to do in the case of a no deal situation .... Whether people will believe the UK version over the Eu technical notes that are being released is another matter... but for brexiteer mps to then shout project fear are going to be doing their constituents a massive disservice So, they're going to provide 'forecasts' of what 'will' happen... That sounds a bit like the project fear forecasts during the referendum campaign. So who would you listen to if they said Brexit was going to be bad? I listened to all views during the referendum campaign, and came to my own conclusions. I looked at all the people and organisations making predictions and forecasts, and investigated how accurate they'd been with previous forecasts and predictions. I do so now. Right, so who would you listen to? Who do you think has been accurate in their predictions, and if they now said "Brexit is going to be a very bad idea" would you listen to and think, "well if they are saying it, I'm going to believe it and change my mind on brexit"? What part of "I listen to all views" don't you understand? What part of "I come to my own conclusions" don't you understand? So what would it take for you to change your mind? To come to a different conclusion? Is the question really too hard for you to comprehend? Well, that's a different question to the one you asked. So to answer the question that you're now asking... I've not seen anything yet to make me change my mind. What I do see is an announcement saying that while parliament is in recess a series of 'consequence papers' will be published on a regular basis. No doubt these will be along the lines of more scaremongering as per project fear. And I look at the people making these predictions, and they are the same people that told us how economically catastrophic it would be if we did not join the Euro, and did not see the global crash coming (although you once quoted the economist Steve Keen as having predicted it, and I agreed that indeed he did, but had to point out to you that he was a staunch supporter of Brexit), among other things. What would it take for you to change your mind? Because all bar one of the remain predictions and forecasts have not happened. The forecast that has happened is the drop in value of sterling; although, just months before the referendum the very same people that forecast the drop in sterling were saying that sterling was overvalued by up to 20% anyway. Please try to answer a quite simple question. What would it take for you to change your mind? Who would you listen to? Firstly, you can't count. Secondly, what part of 'I listen to everyone, and make up my own mind', can't you understand? I haven't seen or heard anything yet that has made me change my mind..... But why don't you answer my questions? The question is what would make you change your mind? Who would you listen to? Who would you believe if they told you Brexit would be bad? You still haven't answered this. Maybe once you get around to answering, I'll answer yours. Just for clarity, the question is NOT "have you changed your mind?" 1) I don't know what would make me change my mind. At the moment there is no evidence that I've seen to make me change my mind. 2) No-one in particular. I listen to everyone, and make my own mind up. 3) Me...after I've listened to everyone, analysed and researched everything for myself. You may not be happy with my answers, but I've answered them. Now turn it on its head, and you answer them... What would make you change your mind? Who would you listen to? Who would you believe if they told you remaing would be bad? And then answer the other questions I asked re:if we aked to remain now. You haven't named a single person or organisation that you would believe. That is very, very sad. And there you go......like I said...You wouldn't accept my answers because you don't like what I said. You may blindly follow someone or some organisation, believing every word they say, but I prefer to have a mind of my own and make my own decisions based upon what I research, analyse, read about, check up on, listen to, and experience. And that's why I can't name any particular person or organisation. It's you that's the sad one thinking that you could. But you are not making your decisions based on research or analysis. If you were, then you would be able to name some people or organisations that you would listen to. You would be able to say "I research what organisation X says, and analyse their data to be well researched, so if they said Brexit was going to be bad, I really would sit up and take notice." But instead you can't name anyone. Just counted.... I've got 5 lever arch files full of papers and documents, from all manner of different organisations...BoE, OECD, Treasury, Government, EU, Voteleave, Best for Britain, SMMT, economistsforremain, economists for free trade...to name a few. I've read, researched, and annotated every single one. Plus I do my own research as well. Plus I've got a variety of books on the EU..both for and against. Plus I use my own experience of working across the EU, and elsewhere in the world. So can I name A person or AN organisation that if they said Brexit was going to be bad it would change my mind? No, I can't, because I look at a whole range of different views and come to my own conclusion. You obviously don't. Forgive me for involving myself in this ding dong but perhaps trying to win is missing the point. What seems to be the case is that information any credible organisation is considered but nothing has convinced JandS that remain is the better option. That seems fine. With that in mind, what data and from what group has been most influential in voting for leave? Would you say that it is a purely or mainly a logical decision or is the emotional sentiment stronger?" Most influential, probably the remain campaign's forecasts, funnily enough...almost every forecast I researched, and was able to pick apart. 800,000 job losses by now? Not happened. There's actually 500,000 more people employed since Brexit. An immediate, deep and profound recession? Not happened. House prices dropping by 18%? They've risen by about 10%...although a slowdown in house prices would not be unwelcome to help people get on the ladder. In fact, the only prediction that seems to have been right was the fall in sterling - but then again the IMF,the OECD and the BoE just months before the referendum were saying that sterling was up to 20% overvalued, and was damaging the economy. With regard to inflation, the BoE in November 2015 wrote to the Chancellor predicting that inflation would be above the target of 2% within 2 years... On 100,000 job losses in the city? The FT (staunchly pro-remain) carried out a major survey and report in November 2017, which concluded 4,600 jobs would be lost. The BoE Deputy Governor Sam Woods confirmed that figure to the HoC Exiting the EU Select Committee on 19th April this year. Since the referendum the city has taken on 30,000 extra jobs. So a balance of 25,000 extra people employed... Btw...I took no notice of the £350 Billion on the side of the bus.. On the emotional level? Not sure, my career has been spent mainly in justifying (or not) change through facts, and analysis of data. And I guess I'm used to looking at things that way now. Although I was a bit perturbed when David Cameron went to renegotiate with the EU before the referendum and came back with the promise of not much more than an extra cup of tea and a digestive biscuit at future meetings, and then claimed it to be a great success. Likewise with having to go to the EU and ask permission to reduce the 'tampon tax'. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What makes anyone think a 2nd referendum would be any less of a clusterfuck than the first one? The fact that we would know actual facts... and they couldn’t use the project fear they are all scaremongering lines.... If people really want to look over the side of the cliff and still jump... that is on them Facts? Where are they? What information has the Government given this country about the implications of leaving the EU with no alternative arrangement in place? Nothing. At least the EC has informed the EU27 of the various legal implications across different sectors of UK becoming a third country. “Apparently” the government are going to start doing “notices” (basically press releases) this summer relating to what will happen or what people will need to do in the case of a no deal situation .... Whether people will believe the UK version over the Eu technical notes that are being released is another matter... but for brexiteer mps to then shout project fear are going to be doing their constituents a massive disservice So, they're going to provide 'forecasts' of what 'will' happen... That sounds a bit like the project fear forecasts during the referendum campaign. So who would you listen to if they said Brexit was going to be bad? I listened to all views during the referendum campaign, and came to my own conclusions. I looked at all the people and organisations making predictions and forecasts, and investigated how accurate they'd been with previous forecasts and predictions. I do so now. Right, so who would you listen to? Who do you think has been accurate in their predictions, and if they now said "Brexit is going to be a very bad idea" would you listen to and think, "well if they are saying it, I'm going to believe it and change my mind on brexit"? What part of "I listen to all views" don't you understand? What part of "I come to my own conclusions" don't you understand? So what would it take for you to change your mind? To come to a different conclusion? Is the question really too hard for you to comprehend? Well, that's a different question to the one you asked. So to answer the question that you're now asking... I've not seen anything yet to make me change my mind. What I do see is an announcement saying that while parliament is in recess a series of 'consequence papers' will be published on a regular basis. No doubt these will be along the lines of more scaremongering as per project fear. And I look at the people making these predictions, and they are the same people that told us how economically catastrophic it would be if we did not join the Euro, and did not see the global crash coming (although you once quoted the economist Steve Keen as having predicted it, and I agreed that indeed he did, but had to point out to you that he was a staunch supporter of Brexit), among other things. What would it take for you to change your mind? Because all bar one of the remain predictions and forecasts have not happened. The forecast that has happened is the drop in value of sterling; although, just months before the referendum the very same people that forecast the drop in sterling were saying that sterling was overvalued by up to 20% anyway. Please try to answer a quite simple question. What would it take for you to change your mind? Who would you listen to? Firstly, you can't count. Secondly, what part of 'I listen to everyone, and make up my own mind', can't you understand? I haven't seen or heard anything yet that has made me change my mind..... But why don't you answer my questions? The question is what would make you change your mind? Who would you listen to? Who would you believe if they told you Brexit would be bad? You still haven't answered this. Maybe once you get around to answering, I'll answer yours. Just for clarity, the question is NOT "have you changed your mind?" 1) I don't know what would make me change my mind. At the moment there is no evidence that I've seen to make me change my mind. 2) No-one in particular. I listen to everyone, and make my own mind up. 3) Me...after I've listened to everyone, analysed and researched everything for myself. You may not be happy with my answers, but I've answered them. Now turn it on its head, and you answer them... What would make you change your mind? Who would you listen to? Who would you believe if they told you remaing would be bad? And then answer the other questions I asked re:if we aked to remain now. You haven't named a single person or organisation that you would believe. That is very, very sad. And there you go......like I said...You wouldn't accept my answers because you don't like what I said. You may blindly follow someone or some organisation, believing every word they say, but I prefer to have a mind of my own and make my own decisions based upon what I research, analyse, read about, check up on, listen to, and experience. And that's why I can't name any particular person or organisation. It's you that's the sad one thinking that you could. But you are not making your decisions based on research or analysis. If you were, then you would be able to name some people or organisations that you would listen to. You would be able to say "I research what organisation X says, and analyse their data to be well researched, so if they said Brexit was going to be bad, I really would sit up and take notice." But instead you can't name anyone. Just counted.... I've got 5 lever arch files full of papers and documents, from all manner of different organisations...BoE, OECD, Treasury, Government, EU, Voteleave, Best for Britain, SMMT, economistsforremain, economists for free trade...to name a few. I've read, researched, and annotated every single one. Plus I do my own research as well. Plus I've got a variety of books on the EU..both for and against. Plus I use my own experience of working across the EU, and elsewhere in the world. So can I name A person or AN organisation that if they said Brexit was going to be bad it would change my mind? No, I can't, because I look at a whole range of different views and come to my own conclusion. You obviously don't. Forgive me for involving myself in this ding dong but perhaps trying to win is missing the point. What seems to be the case is that information any credible organisation is considered but nothing has convinced JandS that remain is the better option. That seems fine. With that in mind, what data and from what group has been most influential in voting for leave? Would you say that it is a purely or mainly a logical decision or is the emotional sentiment stronger? Most influential, probably the remain campaign's forecasts, funnily enough...almost every forecast I researched, and was able to pick apart. 800,000 job losses by now? Not happened. There's actually 500,000 more people employed since Brexit. An immediate, deep and profound recession? Not happened. House prices dropping by 18%? They've risen by about 10%...although a slowdown in house prices would not be unwelcome to help people get on the ladder. In fact, the only prediction that seems to have been right was the fall in sterling - but then again the IMF,the OECD and the BoE just months before the referendum were saying that sterling was up to 20% overvalued, and was damaging the economy. With regard to inflation, the BoE in November 2015 wrote to the Chancellor predicting that inflation would be above the target of 2% within 2 years... On 100,000 job losses in the city? The FT (staunchly pro-remain) carried out a major survey and report in November 2017, which concluded 4,600 jobs would be lost. The BoE Deputy Governor Sam Woods confirmed that figure to the HoC Exiting the EU Select Committee on 19th April this year. Since the referendum the city has taken on 30,000 extra jobs. So a balance of 25,000 extra people employed... Btw...I took no notice of the £350 Billion on the side of the bus.. On the emotional level? Not sure, my career has been spent mainly in justifying (or not) change through facts, and analysis of data. And I guess I'm used to looking at things that way now. Although I was a bit perturbed when David Cameron went to renegotiate with the EU before the referendum and came back with the promise of not much more than an extra cup of tea and a digestive biscuit at future meetings, and then claimed it to be a great success. Likewise with having to go to the EU and ask permission to reduce the 'tampon tax'. " This is post-referendum data. In the same way you ignored the bus I ignored Armageddon because that was the standard Tory playbook. However, are you saying that you voted to leave only because the remain information was not credible to you? That does not seem a strong enough reason to leave does it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The BBC is telling you, you will run out of fillings for your sandwiches if the result is a no deal Based on the idea that if it's on the BBC, then it must be gospel (snigger) Would the threat of not having a slice of cucumber between your bread for a few days, make you change your vote? Im only asking on behalf of a friend who is thinking of growing some cucumbers Enjoy your mockery - your not living in the UK and have no chance of being effected - if this happens! I can only assume as you live in 3 countries your a "wanderer"? But the BBC is generally a decent source of information - on both sides of the argument. Yes the BBC has quite a reputation! It also makes you pay a license fee to support it, I believe? At least in North Korea they get their propaganda for free The licence fee also supports Channel 4, and covers infrastructure such as rolling out of digital radio. The license fee also supported people like Jimmy Saville and the illegal coverage of a raid on Cliff Richard's house....just saying. Just saying what exactly? That because a paedophile worked for the BBC, you can't believe their news coverage? That seems to be what you are saying, but please feel free to explain the connection between the posts quoted above and Jimmy saville. Paedophiles have also worked in schools? Should we take all the kids out and close them down? Paedophiles have worked in hospitals, should we close those down? Hell, there have even been paedophiles in UKIP, should we ban the party? To be fair the BBC along with the rest of the British media, seem reluctant to report the pandemic scale of gang r@pes of children in all your major cities Preferring to deflect attention away from it rather than reporting it Instead, they attempt to alarm the population with ridiculous anti Brexit stories about sandwich shortages or the high risk of catching gonorrhoea post Brexit After a laughable bit of scaremongering they predictably head off on an anti Trump tangent It's not what the media tells us - it's often the stories the media hides, ignores or tries to gloss over which are important Ok so prove it then. Find me 1 example of gang child r@pe that was widely reported by other UK media organisations, but was not reported at all by the BBC. It's not just your Main Stream Media failing to report the truth - the whole British establishment wants to bury it Speak up about it and you are silenced. Just ask Sarah Champion - sacked by the Labour Party and now needing police protection Anyone telling the truth in your country gets treated like a criminal - Julian Assange, yep! He tells the truth - lets get him locked up or deported straight away! But don't worry, just keep reading and believing farcical stories your media feeds you - about running out of sandwiches or catching post Brexit gonorrhoea For dessert they spoon feed you an hourly dose of anti Trump rhetoric, just to see you through the day and to stop you seeking the truth " Right, fine, if the whole of the British media and establishment is now terrible, find me one case of child gang r@pe that was widely reported outside of the UK, but was not picked up by any UK media organisations. I'm willing to bet that you won't be able to. You originally said it was just the BBC not reporting these gang sexual crimes against children, but when asked to prove it, you couldn't substantiate your claim. Instead you tried to blame the entirety of the British media instead. Now let's see if you can prove these claims. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The BBC is telling you, you will run out of fillings for your sandwiches if the result is a no deal Based on the idea that if it's on the BBC, then it must be gospel (snigger) Would the threat of not having a slice of cucumber between your bread for a few days, make you change your vote? Im only asking on behalf of a friend who is thinking of growing some cucumbers Enjoy your mockery - your not living in the UK and have no chance of being effected - if this happens! I can only assume as you live in 3 countries your a "wanderer"? But the BBC is generally a decent source of information - on both sides of the argument. Yes the BBC has quite a reputation! It also makes you pay a license fee to support it, I believe? At least in North Korea they get their propaganda for free The licence fee also supports Channel 4, and covers infrastructure such as rolling out of digital radio. The license fee also supported people like Jimmy Saville and the illegal coverage of a raid on Cliff Richard's house....just saying. Just saying what exactly? That because a paedophile worked for the BBC, you can't believe their news coverage? That seems to be what you are saying, but please feel free to explain the connection between the posts quoted above and Jimmy saville. Paedophiles have also worked in schools? Should we take all the kids out and close them down? Paedophiles have worked in hospitals, should we close those down? Hell, there have even been paedophiles in UKIP, should we ban the party? To be fair the BBC along with the rest of the British media, seem reluctant to report the pandemic scale of gang r@pes of children in all your major cities Preferring to deflect attention away from it rather than reporting it Instead, they attempt to alarm the population with ridiculous anti Brexit stories about sandwich shortages or the high risk of catching gonorrhoea post Brexit After a laughable bit of scaremongering they predictably head off on an anti Trump tangent It's not what the media tells us - it's often the stories the media hides, ignores or tries to gloss over which are important Ok so prove it then. Find me 1 example of gang child r@pe that was widely reported by other UK media organisations, but was not reported at all by the BBC. It's not just your Main Stream Media failing to report the truth - the whole British establishment wants to bury it Speak up about it and you are silenced. Just ask Sarah Champion - sacked by the Labour Party and now needing police protection Anyone telling the truth in your country gets treated like a criminal - Julian Assange, yep! He tells the truth - lets get him locked up or deported straight away! But don't worry, just keep reading and believing farcical stories your media feeds you - about running out of sandwiches or catching post Brexit gonorrhoea For dessert they spoon feed you an hourly dose of anti Trump rhetoric, just to see you through the day and to stop you seeking the truth Any report or study from any organisation anywhere in the world would be fine. Where did you get this suppressed information from? Oh! Yes - I forgot you probably won't believe anything unless an organisation is telling you what to think Have you tried opening your eyes and ears and forming your own opinions, observations and views? Or would you need permission from an organisation for that? You could always listen to the BBC and see what they have to say " Nobody I have ever mer has experienced or knows anybody who has experienced what claim. I've certainly never witnessed it! As I live in this country and you apparently don't then where have you got your information? Can you provide any source at all? It doesn't have to be an organisation. Anyone anywhere? Verifiable or not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The BBC is telling you, you will run out of fillings for your sandwiches if the result is a no deal Based on the idea that if it's on the BBC, then it must be gospel (snigger) Would the threat of not having a slice of cucumber between your bread for a few days, make you change your vote? Im only asking on behalf of a friend who is thinking of growing some cucumbers Enjoy your mockery - your not living in the UK and have no chance of being effected - if this happens! I can only assume as you live in 3 countries your a "wanderer"? But the BBC is generally a decent source of information - on both sides of the argument. Yes the BBC has quite a reputation! It also makes you pay a license fee to support it, I believe? At least in North Korea they get their propaganda for free The licence fee also supports Channel 4, and covers infrastructure such as rolling out of digital radio. The license fee also supported people like Jimmy Saville and the illegal coverage of a raid on Cliff Richard's house....just saying. Just saying what exactly? That because a paedophile worked for the BBC, you can't believe their news coverage? That seems to be what you are saying, but please feel free to explain the connection between the posts quoted above and Jimmy saville. Paedophiles have also worked in schools? Should we take all the kids out and close them down? Paedophiles have worked in hospitals, should we close those down? Hell, there have even been paedophiles in UKIP, should we ban the party? To be fair the BBC along with the rest of the British media, seem reluctant to report the pandemic scale of gang r@pes of children in all your major cities Preferring to deflect attention away from it rather than reporting it Instead, they attempt to alarm the population with ridiculous anti Brexit stories about sandwich shortages or the high risk of catching gonorrhoea post Brexit After a laughable bit of scaremongering they predictably head off on an anti Trump tangent It's not what the media tells us - it's often the stories the media hides, ignores or tries to gloss over which are important Ok so prove it then. Find me 1 example of gang child r@pe that was widely reported by other UK media organisations, but was not reported at all by the BBC. It's not just your Main Stream Media failing to report the truth - the whole British establishment wants to bury it Speak up about it and you are silenced. Just ask Sarah Champion - sacked by the Labour Party and now needing police protection Anyone telling the truth in your country gets treated like a criminal - Julian Assange, yep! He tells the truth - lets get him locked up or deported straight away! But don't worry, just keep reading and believing farcical stories your media feeds you - about running out of sandwiches or catching post Brexit gonorrhoea For dessert they spoon feed you an hourly dose of anti Trump rhetoric, just to see you through the day and to stop you seeking the truth Right, fine, if the whole of the British media and establishment is now terrible, find me one case of child gang r@pe that was widely reported outside of the UK, but was not picked up by any UK media organisations. I'm willing to bet that you won't be able to. You originally said it was just the BBC not reporting these gang sexual crimes against children, but when asked to prove it, you couldn't substantiate your claim. Instead you tried to blame the entirety of the British media instead. Now let's see if you can prove these claims." Where did I say it was just the BBC? What I said was ..... "To be fair the BBC along with the rest of the British media, seem reluctant to report the pandemic scale of gang r@pes of children in all your major cities" The fact that you are prepared to defend the failings of the media but not defend or show concern for the child victims, would suggest the media have successfully done their job | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The BBC is telling you, you will run out of fillings for your sandwiches if the result is a no deal Based on the idea that if it's on the BBC, then it must be gospel (snigger) Would the threat of not having a slice of cucumber between your bread for a few days, make you change your vote? Im only asking on behalf of a friend who is thinking of growing some cucumbers Enjoy your mockery - your not living in the UK and have no chance of being effected - if this happens! I can only assume as you live in 3 countries your a "wanderer"? But the BBC is generally a decent source of information - on both sides of the argument. Yes the BBC has quite a reputation! It also makes you pay a license fee to support it, I believe? At least in North Korea they get their propaganda for free The licence fee also supports Channel 4, and covers infrastructure such as rolling out of digital radio. The license fee also supported people like Jimmy Saville and the illegal coverage of a raid on Cliff Richard's house....just saying. Just saying what exactly? That because a paedophile worked for the BBC, you can't believe their news coverage? That seems to be what you are saying, but please feel free to explain the connection between the posts quoted above and Jimmy saville. Paedophiles have also worked in schools? Should we take all the kids out and close them down? Paedophiles have worked in hospitals, should we close those down? Hell, there have even been paedophiles in UKIP, should we ban the party? To be fair the BBC along with the rest of the British media, seem reluctant to report the pandemic scale of gang r@pes of children in all your major cities Preferring to deflect attention away from it rather than reporting it Instead, they attempt to alarm the population with ridiculous anti Brexit stories about sandwich shortages or the high risk of catching gonorrhoea post Brexit After a laughable bit of scaremongering they predictably head off on an anti Trump tangent It's not what the media tells us - it's often the stories the media hides, ignores or tries to gloss over which are important Ok so prove it then. Find me 1 example of gang child r@pe that was widely reported by other UK media organisations, but was not reported at all by the BBC. It's not just your Main Stream Media failing to report the truth - the whole British establishment wants to bury it Speak up about it and you are silenced. Just ask Sarah Champion - sacked by the Labour Party and now needing police protection Anyone telling the truth in your country gets treated like a criminal - Julian Assange, yep! He tells the truth - lets get him locked up or deported straight away! But don't worry, just keep reading and believing farcical stories your media feeds you - about running out of sandwiches or catching post Brexit gonorrhoea For dessert they spoon feed you an hourly dose of anti Trump rhetoric, just to see you through the day and to stop you seeking the truth Right, fine, if the whole of the British media and establishment is now terrible, find me one case of child gang r@pe that was widely reported outside of the UK, but was not picked up by any UK media organisations. I'm willing to bet that you won't be able to. You originally said it was just the BBC not reporting these gang sexual crimes against children, but when asked to prove it, you couldn't substantiate your claim. Instead you tried to blame the entirety of the British media instead. Now let's see if you can prove these claims. Where did I say it was just the BBC? What I said was ..... "To be fair the BBC along with the rest of the British media, seem reluctant to report the pandemic scale of gang r@pes of children in all your major cities" The fact that you are prepared to defend the failings of the media but not defend or show concern for the child victims, would suggest the media have successfully done their job " You haven't been able to provide any proof of their failings. Where is the proof that the things you say aren't being reported are happening in the first place? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What makes anyone think a 2nd referendum would be any less of a clusterfuck than the first one? The fact that we would know actual facts... and they couldn’t use the project fear they are all scaremongering lines.... If people really want to look over the side of the cliff and still jump... that is on them Facts? Where are they? What information has the Government given this country about the implications of leaving the EU with no alternative arrangement in place? Nothing. At least the EC has informed the EU27 of the various legal implications across different sectors of UK becoming a third country. “Apparently” the government are going to start doing “notices” (basically press releases) this summer relating to what will happen or what people will need to do in the case of a no deal situation .... Whether people will believe the UK version over the Eu technical notes that are being released is another matter... but for brexiteer mps to then shout project fear are going to be doing their constituents a massive disservice So, they're going to provide 'forecasts' of what 'will' happen... That sounds a bit like the project fear forecasts during the referendum campaign. So who would you listen to if they said Brexit was going to be bad? I listened to all views during the referendum campaign, and came to my own conclusions. I looked at all the people and organisations making predictions and forecasts, and investigated how accurate they'd been with previous forecasts and predictions. I do so now. Right, so who would you listen to? Who do you think has been accurate in their predictions, and if they now said "Brexit is going to be a very bad idea" would you listen to and think, "well if they are saying it, I'm going to believe it and change my mind on brexit"? What part of "I listen to all views" don't you understand? What part of "I come to my own conclusions" don't you understand? So what would it take for you to change your mind? To come to a different conclusion? Is the question really too hard for you to comprehend? Well, that's a different question to the one you asked. So to answer the question that you're now asking... I've not seen anything yet to make me change my mind. What I do see is an announcement saying that while parliament is in recess a series of 'consequence papers' will be published on a regular basis. No doubt these will be along the lines of more scaremongering as per project fear. And I look at the people making these predictions, and they are the same people that told us how economically catastrophic it would be if we did not join the Euro, and did not see the global crash coming (although you once quoted the economist Steve Keen as having predicted it, and I agreed that indeed he did, but had to point out to you that he was a staunch supporter of Brexit), among other things. What would it take for you to change your mind? Because all bar one of the remain predictions and forecasts have not happened. The forecast that has happened is the drop in value of sterling; although, just months before the referendum the very same people that forecast the drop in sterling were saying that sterling was overvalued by up to 20% anyway. Please try to answer a quite simple question. What would it take for you to change your mind? Who would you listen to? Firstly, you can't count. Secondly, what part of 'I listen to everyone, and make up my own mind', can't you understand? I haven't seen or heard anything yet that has made me change my mind..... But why don't you answer my questions? The question is what would make you change your mind? Who would you listen to? Who would you believe if they told you Brexit would be bad? You still haven't answered this. Maybe once you get around to answering, I'll answer yours. Just for clarity, the question is NOT "have you changed your mind?" 1) I don't know what would make me change my mind. At the moment there is no evidence that I've seen to make me change my mind. 2) No-one in particular. I listen to everyone, and make my own mind up. 3) Me...after I've listened to everyone, analysed and researched everything for myself. You may not be happy with my answers, but I've answered them. Now turn it on its head, and you answer them... What would make you change your mind? Who would you listen to? Who would you believe if they told you remaing would be bad? And then answer the other questions I asked re:if we aked to remain now. You haven't named a single person or organisation that you would believe. That is very, very sad. And there you go......like I said...You wouldn't accept my answers because you don't like what I said. You may blindly follow someone or some organisation, believing every word they say, but I prefer to have a mind of my own and make my own decisions based upon what I research, analyse, read about, check up on, listen to, and experience. And that's why I can't name any particular person or organisation. It's you that's the sad one thinking that you could. But you are not making your decisions based on research or analysis. If you were, then you would be able to name some people or organisations that you would listen to. You would be able to say "I research what organisation X says, and analyse their data to be well researched, so if they said Brexit was going to be bad, I really would sit up and take notice." But instead you can't name anyone. Just counted.... I've got 5 lever arch files full of papers and documents, from all manner of different organisations...BoE, OECD, Treasury, Government, EU, Voteleave, Best for Britain, SMMT, economistsforremain, economists for free trade...to name a few. I've read, researched, and annotated every single one. Plus I do my own research as well. Plus I've got a variety of books on the EU..both for and against. Plus I use my own experience of working across the EU, and elsewhere in the world. So can I name A person or AN organisation that if they said Brexit was going to be bad it would change my mind? No, I can't, because I look at a whole range of different views and come to my own conclusion. You obviously don't. Forgive me for involving myself in this ding dong but perhaps trying to win is missing the point. What seems to be the case is that information any credible organisation is considered but nothing has convinced JandS that remain is the better option. That seems fine. With that in mind, what data and from what group has been most influential in voting for leave? Would you say that it is a purely or mainly a logical decision or is the emotional sentiment stronger? Most influential, probably the remain campaign's forecasts, funnily enough...almost every forecast I researched, and was able to pick apart. 800,000 job losses by now? Not happened. There's actually 500,000 more people employed since Brexit. An immediate, deep and profound recession? Not happened. House prices dropping by 18%? They've risen by about 10%...although a slowdown in house prices would not be unwelcome to help people get on the ladder. In fact, the only prediction that seems to have been right was the fall in sterling - but then again the IMF,the OECD and the BoE just months before the referendum were saying that sterling was up to 20% overvalued, and was damaging the economy. With regard to inflation, the BoE in November 2015 wrote to the Chancellor predicting that inflation would be above the target of 2% within 2 years... On 100,000 job losses in the city? The FT (staunchly pro-remain) carried out a major survey and report in November 2017, which concluded 4,600 jobs would be lost. The BoE Deputy Governor Sam Woods confirmed that figure to the HoC Exiting the EU Select Committee on 19th April this year. Since the referendum the city has taken on 30,000 extra jobs. So a balance of 25,000 extra people employed... Btw...I took no notice of the £350 Billion on the side of the bus.. On the emotional level? Not sure, my career has been spent mainly in justifying (or not) change through facts, and analysis of data. And I guess I'm used to looking at things that way now. Although I was a bit perturbed when David Cameron went to renegotiate with the EU before the referendum and came back with the promise of not much more than an extra cup of tea and a digestive biscuit at future meetings, and then claimed it to be a great success. Likewise with having to go to the EU and ask permission to reduce the 'tampon tax'. This is post-referendum data. In the same way you ignored the bus I ignored Armageddon because that was the standard Tory playbook. However, are you saying that you voted to leave only because the remain information was not credible to you? That does not seem a strong enough reason to leave does it?" No, I voted to leave because After having researched everything myself, I believe that leaving is the best for the country. You asked me what was the most influential....which was the remain campaign's forecasts....because that led me to researching what they were predicting, and in doing so I came to the conclusion that none of what they were predicting would happen. That in fact more jobs would be created, house prices would not fall, a hundred thousand jobs would not be lost in the city, there was no reason for a deep and profound recession....I spoke to many senior people in different types of industries (even directors of a couple of major financial organisations). What I'm saying is that what has happened to the economy since the referendum has proven my research and conclusions from before the referendum. And in that nothing has persuaded me to change the way I voted. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The BBC is telling you, you will run out of fillings for your sandwiches if the result is a no deal Based on the idea that if it's on the BBC, then it must be gospel (snigger) Would the threat of not having a slice of cucumber between your bread for a few days, make you change your vote? Im only asking on behalf of a friend who is thinking of growing some cucumbers Enjoy your mockery - your not living in the UK and have no chance of being effected - if this happens! I can only assume as you live in 3 countries your a "wanderer"? But the BBC is generally a decent source of information - on both sides of the argument. Yes the BBC has quite a reputation! It also makes you pay a license fee to support it, I believe? At least in North Korea they get their propaganda for free The licence fee also supports Channel 4, and covers infrastructure such as rolling out of digital radio. The license fee also supported people like Jimmy Saville and the illegal coverage of a raid on Cliff Richard's house....just saying. Just saying what exactly? That because a paedophile worked for the BBC, you can't believe their news coverage? That seems to be what you are saying, but please feel free to explain the connection between the posts quoted above and Jimmy saville. Paedophiles have also worked in schools? Should we take all the kids out and close them down? Paedophiles have worked in hospitals, should we close those down? Hell, there have even been paedophiles in UKIP, should we ban the party? To be fair the BBC along with the rest of the British media, seem reluctant to report the pandemic scale of gang r@pes of children in all your major cities Preferring to deflect attention away from it rather than reporting it Instead, they attempt to alarm the population with ridiculous anti Brexit stories about sandwich shortages or the high risk of catching gonorrhoea post Brexit After a laughable bit of scaremongering they predictably head off on an anti Trump tangent It's not what the media tells us - it's often the stories the media hides, ignores or tries to gloss over which are important Ok so prove it then. Find me 1 example of gang child r@pe that was widely reported by other UK media organisations, but was not reported at all by the BBC. It's not just your Main Stream Media failing to report the truth - the whole British establishment wants to bury it Speak up about it and you are silenced. Just ask Sarah Champion - sacked by the Labour Party and now needing police protection Anyone telling the truth in your country gets treated like a criminal - Julian Assange, yep! He tells the truth - lets get him locked up or deported straight away! But don't worry, just keep reading and believing farcical stories your media feeds you - about running out of sandwiches or catching post Brexit gonorrhoea For dessert they spoon feed you an hourly dose of anti Trump rhetoric, just to see you through the day and to stop you seeking the truth Right, fine, if the whole of the British media and establishment is now terrible, find me one case of child gang r@pe that was widely reported outside of the UK, but was not picked up by any UK media organisations. I'm willing to bet that you won't be able to. You originally said it was just the BBC not reporting these gang sexual crimes against children, but when asked to prove it, you couldn't substantiate your claim. Instead you tried to blame the entirety of the British media instead. Now let's see if you can prove these claims. Where did I say it was just the BBC? What I said was ..... "To be fair the BBC along with the rest of the British media, seem reluctant to report the pandemic scale of gang r@pes of children in all your major cities" The fact that you are prepared to defend the failings of the media but not defend or show concern for the child victims, would suggest the media have successfully done their job " Nothing whatsoever to support your assertion? Then it's a conspiracy theory with even less "evidence" than usual. Alternatively an odd attempt to sidetrack the thread. Time to stop feeding the troll. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The BBC is telling you, you will run out of fillings for your sandwiches if the result is a no deal Based on the idea that if it's on the BBC, then it must be gospel (snigger) Would the threat of not having a slice of cucumber between your bread for a few days, make you change your vote? Im only asking on behalf of a friend who is thinking of growing some cucumbers Enjoy your mockery - your not living in the UK and have no chance of being effected - if this happens! I can only assume as you live in 3 countries your a "wanderer"? But the BBC is generally a decent source of information - on both sides of the argument. Yes the BBC has quite a reputation! It also makes you pay a license fee to support it, I believe? At least in North Korea they get their propaganda for free The licence fee also supports Channel 4, and covers infrastructure such as rolling out of digital radio. The license fee also supported people like Jimmy Saville and the illegal coverage of a raid on Cliff Richard's house....just saying. Just saying what exactly? That because a paedophile worked for the BBC, you can't believe their news coverage? That seems to be what you are saying, but please feel free to explain the connection between the posts quoted above and Jimmy saville. Paedophiles have also worked in schools? Should we take all the kids out and close them down? Paedophiles have worked in hospitals, should we close those down? Hell, there have even been paedophiles in UKIP, should we ban the party? To be fair the BBC along with the rest of the British media, seem reluctant to report the pandemic scale of gang r@pes of children in all your major cities Preferring to deflect attention away from it rather than reporting it Instead, they attempt to alarm the population with ridiculous anti Brexit stories about sandwich shortages or the high risk of catching gonorrhoea post Brexit After a laughable bit of scaremongering they predictably head off on an anti Trump tangent It's not what the media tells us - it's often the stories the media hides, ignores or tries to gloss over which are important Ok so prove it then. Find me 1 example of gang child r@pe that was widely reported by other UK media organisations, but was not reported at all by the BBC. It's not just your Main Stream Media failing to report the truth - the whole British establishment wants to bury it Speak up about it and you are silenced. Just ask Sarah Champion - sacked by the Labour Party and now needing police protection Anyone telling the truth in your country gets treated like a criminal - Julian Assange, yep! He tells the truth - lets get him locked up or deported straight away! But don't worry, just keep reading and believing farcical stories your media feeds you - about running out of sandwiches or catching post Brexit gonorrhoea For dessert they spoon feed you an hourly dose of anti Trump rhetoric, just to see you through the day and to stop you seeking the truth Right, fine, if the whole of the British media and establishment is now terrible, find me one case of child gang r@pe that was widely reported outside of the UK, but was not picked up by any UK media organisations. I'm willing to bet that you won't be able to. You originally said it was just the BBC not reporting these gang sexual crimes against children, but when asked to prove it, you couldn't substantiate your claim. Instead you tried to blame the entirety of the British media instead. Now let's see if you can prove these claims. Where did I say it was just the BBC? What I said was ..... "To be fair the BBC along with the rest of the British media, seem reluctant to report the pandemic scale of gang r@pes of children in all your major cities" The fact that you are prepared to defend the failings of the media but not defend or show concern for the child victims, would suggest the media have successfully done their job You haven't been able to provide any proof of their failings. Where is the proof that the things you say aren't being reported are happening in the first place?" So are you claiming it didn't happen or just denying the size of the problem or are you saying the establishment and media didn't fail thousands of children? It's a shame the BBC couldn't put the same effort into investigating, reporting and covering the Rotherham r@pes as it did reporting Cliff Richard isn't it? It's also a shame they failed to pick up on Jimmy Saville, after all, they all knew what he was doing, instead they hid the truth Just goes to show I guess | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What makes anyone think a 2nd referendum would be any less of a clusterfuck than the first one? The fact that we would know actual facts... and they couldn’t use the project fear they are all scaremongering lines.... If people really want to look over the side of the cliff and still jump... that is on them Facts? Where are they? What information has the Government given this country about the implications of leaving the EU with no alternative arrangement in place? Nothing. At least the EC has informed the EU27 of the various legal implications across different sectors of UK becoming a third country. “Apparently” the government are going to start doing “notices” (basically press releases) this summer relating to what will happen or what people will need to do in the case of a no deal situation .... Whether people will believe the UK version over the Eu technical notes that are being released is another matter... but for brexiteer mps to then shout project fear are going to be doing their constituents a massive disservice So, they're going to provide 'forecasts' of what 'will' happen... That sounds a bit like the project fear forecasts during the referendum campaign. So who would you listen to if they said Brexit was going to be bad? I listened to all views during the referendum campaign, and came to my own conclusions. I looked at all the people and organisations making predictions and forecasts, and investigated how accurate they'd been with previous forecasts and predictions. I do so now. Right, so who would you listen to? Who do you think has been accurate in their predictions, and if they now said "Brexit is going to be a very bad idea" would you listen to and think, "well if they are saying it, I'm going to believe it and change my mind on brexit"? What part of "I listen to all views" don't you understand? What part of "I come to my own conclusions" don't you understand? So what would it take for you to change your mind? To come to a different conclusion? Is the question really too hard for you to comprehend? Well, that's a different question to the one you asked. So to answer the question that you're now asking... I've not seen anything yet to make me change my mind. What I do see is an announcement saying that while parliament is in recess a series of 'consequence papers' will be published on a regular basis. No doubt these will be along the lines of more scaremongering as per project fear. And I look at the people making these predictions, and they are the same people that told us how economically catastrophic it would be if we did not join the Euro, and did not see the global crash coming (although you once quoted the economist Steve Keen as having predicted it, and I agreed that indeed he did, but had to point out to you that he was a staunch supporter of Brexit), among other things. What would it take for you to change your mind? Because all bar one of the remain predictions and forecasts have not happened. The forecast that has happened is the drop in value of sterling; although, just months before the referendum the very same people that forecast the drop in sterling were saying that sterling was overvalued by up to 20% anyway. Please try to answer a quite simple question. What would it take for you to change your mind? Who would you listen to? Firstly, you can't count. Secondly, what part of 'I listen to everyone, and make up my own mind', can't you understand? I haven't seen or heard anything yet that has made me change my mind..... But why don't you answer my questions? The question is what would make you change your mind? Who would you listen to? Who would you believe if they told you Brexit would be bad? You still haven't answered this. Maybe once you get around to answering, I'll answer yours. Just for clarity, the question is NOT "have you changed your mind?" 1) I don't know what would make me change my mind. At the moment there is no evidence that I've seen to make me change my mind. 2) No-one in particular. I listen to everyone, and make my own mind up. 3) Me...after I've listened to everyone, analysed and researched everything for myself. You may not be happy with my answers, but I've answered them. Now turn it on its head, and you answer them... What would make you change your mind? Who would you listen to? Who would you believe if they told you remaing would be bad? And then answer the other questions I asked re:if we aked to remain now. You haven't named a single person or organisation that you would believe. That is very, very sad. And there you go......like I said...You wouldn't accept my answers because you don't like what I said. You may blindly follow someone or some organisation, believing every word they say, but I prefer to have a mind of my own and make my own decisions based upon what I research, analyse, read about, check up on, listen to, and experience. And that's why I can't name any particular person or organisation. It's you that's the sad one thinking that you could. But you are not making your decisions based on research or analysis. If you were, then you would be able to name some people or organisations that you would listen to. You would be able to say "I research what organisation X says, and analyse their data to be well researched, so if they said Brexit was going to be bad, I really would sit up and take notice." But instead you can't name anyone. Just counted.... I've got 5 lever arch files full of papers and documents, from all manner of different organisations...BoE, OECD, Treasury, Government, EU, Voteleave, Best for Britain, SMMT, economistsforremain, economists for free trade...to name a few. I've read, researched, and annotated every single one. Plus I do my own research as well. Plus I've got a variety of books on the EU..both for and against. Plus I use my own experience of working across the EU, and elsewhere in the world. So can I name A person or AN organisation that if they said Brexit was going to be bad it would change my mind? No, I can't, because I look at a whole range of different views and come to my own conclusion. You obviously don't. Forgive me for involving myself in this ding dong but perhaps trying to win is missing the point. What seems to be the case is that information any credible organisation is considered but nothing has convinced JandS that remain is the better option. That seems fine. With that in mind, what data and from what group has been most influential in voting for leave? Would you say that it is a purely or mainly a logical decision or is the emotional sentiment stronger? Most influential, probably the remain campaign's forecasts, funnily enough...almost every forecast I researched, and was able to pick apart. 800,000 job losses by now? Not happened. There's actually 500,000 more people employed since Brexit. An immediate, deep and profound recession? Not happened. House prices dropping by 18%? They've risen by about 10%...although a slowdown in house prices would not be unwelcome to help people get on the ladder. In fact, the only prediction that seems to have been right was the fall in sterling - but then again the IMF,the OECD and the BoE just months before the referendum were saying that sterling was up to 20% overvalued, and was damaging the economy. With regard to inflation, the BoE in November 2015 wrote to the Chancellor predicting that inflation would be above the target of 2% within 2 years... On 100,000 job losses in the city? The FT (staunchly pro-remain) carried out a major survey and report in November 2017, which concluded 4,600 jobs would be lost. The BoE Deputy Governor Sam Woods confirmed that figure to the HoC Exiting the EU Select Committee on 19th April this year. Since the referendum the city has taken on 30,000 extra jobs. So a balance of 25,000 extra people employed... Btw...I took no notice of the £350 Billion on the side of the bus.. On the emotional level? Not sure, my career has been spent mainly in justifying (or not) change through facts, and analysis of data. And I guess I'm used to looking at things that way now. Although I was a bit perturbed when David Cameron went to renegotiate with the EU before the referendum and came back with the promise of not much more than an extra cup of tea and a digestive biscuit at future meetings, and then claimed it to be a great success. Likewise with having to go to the EU and ask permission to reduce the 'tampon tax'. This is post-referendum data. In the same way you ignored the bus I ignored Armageddon because that was the standard Tory playbook. However, are you saying that you voted to leave only because the remain information was not credible to you? That does not seem a strong enough reason to leave does it? No, I voted to leave because After having researched everything myself, I believe that leaving is the best for the country. You asked me what was the most influential....which was the remain campaign's forecasts....because that led me to researching what they were predicting, and in doing so I came to the conclusion that none of what they were predicting would happen. That in fact more jobs would be created, house prices would not fall, a hundred thousand jobs would not be lost in the city, there was no reason for a deep and profound recession....I spoke to many senior people in different types of industries (even directors of a couple of major financial organisations). What I'm saying is that what has happened to the economy since the referendum has proven my research and conclusions from before the referendum. And in that nothing has persuaded me to change the way I voted." Sorry to press you, but I still do not know why you actively want to leave the EU. It not being a complete disaster if we leave is only half the story. Is there a source of data that shows verifiable benefits of leaving? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What makes anyone think a 2nd referendum would be any less of a clusterfuck than the first one? The fact that we would know actual facts... and they couldn’t use the project fear they are all scaremongering lines.... If people really want to look over the side of the cliff and still jump... that is on them Facts? Where are they? What information has the Government given this country about the implications of leaving the EU with no alternative arrangement in place? Nothing. At least the EC has informed the EU27 of the various legal implications across different sectors of UK becoming a third country. “Apparently” the government are going to start doing “notices” (basically press releases) this summer relating to what will happen or what people will need to do in the case of a no deal situation .... Whether people will believe the UK version over the Eu technical notes that are being released is another matter... but for brexiteer mps to then shout project fear are going to be doing their constituents a massive disservice So, they're going to provide 'forecasts' of what 'will' happen... That sounds a bit like the project fear forecasts during the referendum campaign. So who would you listen to if they said Brexit was going to be bad? I listened to all views during the referendum campaign, and came to my own conclusions. I looked at all the people and organisations making predictions and forecasts, and investigated how accurate they'd been with previous forecasts and predictions. I do so now. Right, so who would you listen to? Who do you think has been accurate in their predictions, and if they now said "Brexit is going to be a very bad idea" would you listen to and think, "well if they are saying it, I'm going to believe it and change my mind on brexit"? What part of "I listen to all views" don't you understand? What part of "I come to my own conclusions" don't you understand? So what would it take for you to change your mind? To come to a different conclusion? Is the question really too hard for you to comprehend? Well, that's a different question to the one you asked. So to answer the question that you're now asking... I've not seen anything yet to make me change my mind. What I do see is an announcement saying that while parliament is in recess a series of 'consequence papers' will be published on a regular basis. No doubt these will be along the lines of more scaremongering as per project fear. And I look at the people making these predictions, and they are the same people that told us how economically catastrophic it would be if we did not join the Euro, and did not see the global crash coming (although you once quoted the economist Steve Keen as having predicted it, and I agreed that indeed he did, but had to point out to you that he was a staunch supporter of Brexit), among other things. What would it take for you to change your mind? Because all bar one of the remain predictions and forecasts have not happened. The forecast that has happened is the drop in value of sterling; although, just months before the referendum the very same people that forecast the drop in sterling were saying that sterling was overvalued by up to 20% anyway. Please try to answer a quite simple question. What would it take for you to change your mind? Who would you listen to? Firstly, you can't count. Secondly, what part of 'I listen to everyone, and make up my own mind', can't you understand? I haven't seen or heard anything yet that has made me change my mind..... But why don't you answer my questions? The question is what would make you change your mind? Who would you listen to? Who would you believe if they told you Brexit would be bad? You still haven't answered this. Maybe once you get around to answering, I'll answer yours. Just for clarity, the question is NOT "have you changed your mind?" 1) I don't know what would make me change my mind. At the moment there is no evidence that I've seen to make me change my mind. 2) No-one in particular. I listen to everyone, and make my own mind up. 3) Me...after I've listened to everyone, analysed and researched everything for myself. You may not be happy with my answers, but I've answered them. Now turn it on its head, and you answer them... What would make you change your mind? Who would you listen to? Who would you believe if they told you remaing would be bad? And then answer the other questions I asked re:if we aked to remain now. You haven't named a single person or organisation that you would believe. That is very, very sad. And there you go......like I said...You wouldn't accept my answers because you don't like what I said. You may blindly follow someone or some organisation, believing every word they say, but I prefer to have a mind of my own and make my own decisions based upon what I research, analyse, read about, check up on, listen to, and experience. And that's why I can't name any particular person or organisation. It's you that's the sad one thinking that you could. But you are not making your decisions based on research or analysis. If you were, then you would be able to name some people or organisations that you would listen to. You would be able to say "I research what organisation X says, and analyse their data to be well researched, so if they said Brexit was going to be bad, I really would sit up and take notice." But instead you can't name anyone. Just counted.... I've got 5 lever arch files full of papers and documents, from all manner of different organisations...BoE, OECD, Treasury, Government, EU, Voteleave, Best for Britain, SMMT, economistsforremain, economists for free trade...to name a few. I've read, researched, and annotated every single one. Plus I do my own research as well. Plus I've got a variety of books on the EU..both for and against. Plus I use my own experience of working across the EU, and elsewhere in the world. So can I name A person or AN organisation that if they said Brexit was going to be bad it would change my mind? No, I can't, because I look at a whole range of different views and come to my own conclusion. You obviously don't. Forgive me for involving myself in this ding dong but perhaps trying to win is missing the point. What seems to be the case is that information any credible organisation is considered but nothing has convinced JandS that remain is the better option. That seems fine. With that in mind, what data and from what group has been most influential in voting for leave? Would you say that it is a purely or mainly a logical decision or is the emotional sentiment stronger? Most influential, probably the remain campaign's forecasts, funnily enough...almost every forecast I researched, and was able to pick apart. 800,000 job losses by now? Not happened. There's actually 500,000 more people employed since Brexit. An immediate, deep and profound recession? Not happened. House prices dropping by 18%? They've risen by about 10%...although a slowdown in house prices would not be unwelcome to help people get on the ladder. In fact, the only prediction that seems to have been right was the fall in sterling - but then again the IMF,the OECD and the BoE just months before the referendum were saying that sterling was up to 20% overvalued, and was damaging the economy. With regard to inflation, the BoE in November 2015 wrote to the Chancellor predicting that inflation would be above the target of 2% within 2 years... On 100,000 job losses in the city? The FT (staunchly pro-remain) carried out a major survey and report in November 2017, which concluded 4,600 jobs would be lost. The BoE Deputy Governor Sam Woods confirmed that figure to the HoC Exiting the EU Select Committee on 19th April this year. Since the referendum the city has taken on 30,000 extra jobs. So a balance of 25,000 extra people employed... Btw...I took no notice of the £350 Billion on the side of the bus.. On the emotional level? Not sure, my career has been spent mainly in justifying (or not) change through facts, and analysis of data. And I guess I'm used to looking at things that way now. Although I was a bit perturbed when David Cameron went to renegotiate with the EU before the referendum and came back with the promise of not much more than an extra cup of tea and a digestive biscuit at future meetings, and then claimed it to be a great success. Likewise with having to go to the EU and ask permission to reduce the 'tampon tax'. This is post-referendum data. In the same way you ignored the bus I ignored Armageddon because that was the standard Tory playbook. However, are you saying that you voted to leave only because the remain information was not credible to you? That does not seem a strong enough reason to leave does it? No, I voted to leave because After having researched everything myself, I believe that leaving is the best for the country. You asked me what was the most influential....which was the remain campaign's forecasts....because that led me to researching what they were predicting, and in doing so I came to the conclusion that none of what they were predicting would happen. That in fact more jobs would be created, house prices would not fall, a hundred thousand jobs would not be lost in the city, there was no reason for a deep and profound recession....I spoke to many senior people in different types of industries (even directors of a couple of major financial organisations). What I'm saying is that what has happened to the economy since the referendum has proven my research and conclusions from before the referendum. And in that nothing has persuaded me to change the way I voted. Sorry to press you, but I still do not know why you actively want to leave the EU. It not being a complete disaster if we leave is only half the story. Is there a source of data that shows verifiable benefits of leaving?" If we leave, The ECJ will not be supreme over our courts We will be able to trade with whoever we want to on terms that we agree We will be able to make our own laws in their entirety We will be be able to set and control our own regulations We will be able to set our own taxation system and levels in their entirety We would save £8-10 Billion a year in membership fees We will regain control over our fishing rights. We would be able to make our immigration system fairer for all, and based upon skills that we need. Accountability for all decisions would rest with parliament - they would no longer be able to 'hide behind' the EU. All of the above can be verified easily enough by simple searches and come from a variety of sources. Once again, I voted leave because I believe that the UK will be better off in the future....and I have seen no evidemce to say otherwise. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What choices would be the public be given in a 2nd referendum? Offering people the chance to revoke the Article 50 notice and remain a full member of the EU is a non-starter, I think - Parliament would never approve. I can see only two realistic choices: a) to leave the EU completely, i.e. the No Deal exit b) to apply for membership of EFTA or EEA. Mrs May's preferred option of a bespoke agreement between the UK and EU can't be on the ballot paper, otherwise you are asking voters to choose something that is not in the control of the Government to deliver. I disagree. If another referendum is held then three options should be on the table. A three option referendum is technically possible (a Google shows how it works) so you could ask A) Leave with no deal B) Accept the negotiated deal C) Remain as is The bigger issue is whether this is politically possible. At the moment still likely not, but as the final shape of any negotiated deal becomes clear, or as the likelihood of no deal increases, there will come a time when it's possible or even necessary. That would not be a fair referendum though because you are in effect splitting the leave vote between the A and B options. Remain only has one option. Nice try but no cigar. " Yes, you'd split the leave vote by giving two leave options. What's the issue with that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What makes anyone think a 2nd referendum would be any less of a clusterfuck than the first one? The fact that we would know actual facts... and they couldn’t use the project fear they are all scaremongering lines.... If people really want to look over the side of the cliff and still jump... that is on them Facts? Where are they? What information has the Government given this country about the implications of leaving the EU with no alternative arrangement in place? Nothing. At least the EC has informed the EU27 of the various legal implications across different sectors of UK becoming a third country. “Apparently” the government are going to start doing “notices” (basically press releases) this summer relating to what will happen or what people will need to do in the case of a no deal situation .... Whether people will believe the UK version over the Eu technical notes that are being released is another matter... but for brexiteer mps to then shout project fear are going to be doing their constituents a massive disservice So, they're going to provide 'forecasts' of what 'will' happen... That sounds a bit like the project fear forecasts during the referendum campaign. So who would you listen to if they said Brexit was going to be bad? I listened to all views during the referendum campaign, and came to my own conclusions. I looked at all the people and organisations making predictions and forecasts, and investigated how accurate they'd been with previous forecasts and predictions. I do so now. Right, so who would you listen to? Who do you think has been accurate in their predictions, and if they now said "Brexit is going to be a very bad idea" would you listen to and think, "well if they are saying it, I'm going to believe it and change my mind on brexit"? What part of "I listen to all views" don't you understand? What part of "I come to my own conclusions" don't you understand? So what would it take for you to change your mind? To come to a different conclusion? Is the question really too hard for you to comprehend? Well, that's a different question to the one you asked. So to answer the question that you're now asking... I've not seen anything yet to make me change my mind. What I do see is an announcement saying that while parliament is in recess a series of 'consequence papers' will be published on a regular basis. No doubt these will be along the lines of more scaremongering as per project fear. And I look at the people making these predictions, and they are the same people that told us how economically catastrophic it would be if we did not join the Euro, and did not see the global crash coming (although you once quoted the economist Steve Keen as having predicted it, and I agreed that indeed he did, but had to point out to you that he was a staunch supporter of Brexit), among other things. What would it take for you to change your mind? Because all bar one of the remain predictions and forecasts have not happened. The forecast that has happened is the drop in value of sterling; although, just months before the referendum the very same people that forecast the drop in sterling were saying that sterling was overvalued by up to 20% anyway. Please try to answer a quite simple question. What would it take for you to change your mind? Who would you listen to? Firstly, you can't count. Secondly, what part of 'I listen to everyone, and make up my own mind', can't you understand? I haven't seen or heard anything yet that has made me change my mind..... But why don't you answer my questions? The question is what would make you change your mind? Who would you listen to? Who would you believe if they told you Brexit would be bad? You still haven't answered this. Maybe once you get around to answering, I'll answer yours. Just for clarity, the question is NOT "have you changed your mind?" 1) I don't know what would make me change my mind. At the moment there is no evidence that I've seen to make me change my mind. 2) No-one in particular. I listen to everyone, and make my own mind up. 3) Me...after I've listened to everyone, analysed and researched everything for myself. You may not be happy with my answers, but I've answered them. Now turn it on its head, and you answer them... What would make you change your mind? Who would you listen to? Who would you believe if they told you remaing would be bad? And then answer the other questions I asked re:if we aked to remain now. You haven't named a single person or organisation that you would believe. That is very, very sad. And there you go......like I said...You wouldn't accept my answers because you don't like what I said. You may blindly follow someone or some organisation, believing every word they say, but I prefer to have a mind of my own and make my own decisions based upon what I research, analyse, read about, check up on, listen to, and experience. And that's why I can't name any particular person or organisation. It's you that's the sad one thinking that you could. But you are not making your decisions based on research or analysis. If you were, then you would be able to name some people or organisations that you would listen to. You would be able to say "I research what organisation X says, and analyse their data to be well researched, so if they said Brexit was going to be bad, I really would sit up and take notice." But instead you can't name anyone. Just counted.... I've got 5 lever arch files full of papers and documents, from all manner of different organisations...BoE, OECD, Treasury, Government, EU, Voteleave, Best for Britain, SMMT, economistsforremain, economists for free trade...to name a few. I've read, researched, and annotated every single one. Plus I do my own research as well. Plus I've got a variety of books on the EU..both for and against. Plus I use my own experience of working across the EU, and elsewhere in the world. So can I name A person or AN organisation that if they said Brexit was going to be bad it would change my mind? No, I can't, because I look at a whole range of different views and come to my own conclusion. You obviously don't. Forgive me for involving myself in this ding dong but perhaps trying to win is missing the point. What seems to be the case is that information any credible organisation is considered but nothing has convinced JandS that remain is the better option. That seems fine. With that in mind, what data and from what group has been most influential in voting for leave? Would you say that it is a purely or mainly a logical decision or is the emotional sentiment stronger? Most influential, probably the remain campaign's forecasts, funnily enough...almost every forecast I researched, and was able to pick apart. 800,000 job losses by now? Not happened. There's actually 500,000 more people employed since Brexit. An immediate, deep and profound recession? Not happened. House prices dropping by 18%? They've risen by about 10%...although a slowdown in house prices would not be unwelcome to help people get on the ladder. In fact, the only prediction that seems to have been right was the fall in sterling - but then again the IMF,the OECD and the BoE just months before the referendum were saying that sterling was up to 20% overvalued, and was damaging the economy. With regard to inflation, the BoE in November 2015 wrote to the Chancellor predicting that inflation would be above the target of 2% within 2 years... On 100,000 job losses in the city? The FT (staunchly pro-remain) carried out a major survey and report in November 2017, which concluded 4,600 jobs would be lost. The BoE Deputy Governor Sam Woods confirmed that figure to the HoC Exiting the EU Select Committee on 19th April this year. Since the referendum the city has taken on 30,000 extra jobs. So a balance of 25,000 extra people employed... Btw...I took no notice of the £350 Billion on the side of the bus.. On the emotional level? Not sure, my career has been spent mainly in justifying (or not) change through facts, and analysis of data. And I guess I'm used to looking at things that way now. Although I was a bit perturbed when David Cameron went to renegotiate with the EU before the referendum and came back with the promise of not much more than an extra cup of tea and a digestive biscuit at future meetings, and then claimed it to be a great success. Likewise with having to go to the EU and ask permission to reduce the 'tampon tax'. This is post-referendum data. In the same way you ignored the bus I ignored Armageddon because that was the standard Tory playbook. However, are you saying that you voted to leave only because the remain information was not credible to you? That does not seem a strong enough reason to leave does it? No, I voted to leave because After having researched everything myself, I believe that leaving is the best for the country. You asked me what was the most influential....which was the remain campaign's forecasts....because that led me to researching what they were predicting, and in doing so I came to the conclusion that none of what they were predicting would happen. That in fact more jobs would be created, house prices would not fall, a hundred thousand jobs would not be lost in the city, there was no reason for a deep and profound recession....I spoke to many senior people in different types of industries (even directors of a couple of major financial organisations). What I'm saying is that what has happened to the economy since the referendum has proven my research and conclusions from before the referendum. And in that nothing has persuaded me to change the way I voted. Sorry to press you, but I still do not know why you actively want to leave the EU. It not being a complete disaster if we leave is only half the story. Is there a source of data that shows verifiable benefits of leaving? If we leave, The ECJ will not be supreme over our courts We will be able to trade with whoever we want to on terms that we agree We will be able to make our own laws in their entirety We will be be able to set and control our own regulations We will be able to set our own taxation system and levels in their entirety We would save £8-10 Billion a year in membership fees We will regain control over our fishing rights. We would be able to make our immigration system fairer for all, and based upon skills that we need. Accountability for all decisions would rest with parliament - they would no longer be able to 'hide behind' the EU. All of the above can be verified easily enough by simple searches and come from a variety of sources. Once again, I voted leave because I believe that the UK will be better off in the future....and I have seen no evidemce to say otherwise. " Fair enough. I see many of those "benefits" as illusory. I would also see many of the "costs" more than balanced by the benefits. Do you see any benefits of EU membership? You haven't had a look at the cognitive bias thread I guess. It is belief I guess as I have seen nothing to indicate that leaving the EU will make anyone's lives better. I see short to medium term pain as a certainty (not of magnitude of the referendum advertising, but significant) and long term benefit as speculation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When do we get the one after that? " Maybe we should have stopped after the first one in 1975, which remain won with 67%, and put all are efforts in to making it work. You can hardly expect the 48% to get behind the decision of the 52% because they won this time when the 32% who lost last time have spent 40+ years undermining the 67% | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bearing in mind there won't be a second referendum. Do remainers wish they had staged a better argument in the first one? " That's an oddly sweeping statement. Certainty in politics is not "a thing". Most of us had nothing to do with the remain campaign. It used the standard Tory fear tactics. Worked in the general election. Failed in the London Mayor election. Failed in the referendum. Rather than repeating here there is a thread on this. "Did the remain campaign or leaders do anything wrong". There are a number of suggestions. The parallel leave thread is rather sparse. If the cognitive bias thread is around that will provide some more information. Same issue with leavers contributing though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the out vote would be greater now ...people can now see the eu as dictators ...." You think? In what way is the EU dictating anything? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bearing in mind there won't be a second referendum. Do remainers wish they had staged a better argument in the first one? " We'll see | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What choices would be the public be given in a 2nd referendum? Offering people the chance to revoke the Article 50 notice and remain a full member of the EU is a non-starter, I think - Parliament would never approve. I can see only two realistic choices: a) to leave the EU completely, i.e. the No Deal exit b) to apply for membership of EFTA or EEA. Mrs May's preferred option of a bespoke agreement between the UK and EU can't be on the ballot paper, otherwise you are asking voters to choose something that is not in the control of the Government to deliver. I disagree. If another referendum is held then three options should be on the table. A three option referendum is technically possible (a Google shows how it works) so you could ask A) Leave with no deal B) Accept the negotiated deal C) Remain as is The bigger issue is whether this is politically possible. At the moment still likely not, but as the final shape of any negotiated deal becomes clear, or as the likelihood of no deal increases, there will come a time when it's possible or even necessary. That would not be a fair referendum though because you are in effect splitting the leave vote between the A and B options. Remain only has one option. Nice try but no cigar. " It may surprise you but I actually agree with you. A three way vote with two leave options and one remain option would never be accepted if remain won. And if couldn't win that vote there really is no hope for remain at all. It might be possible with some sort of AV weighted voting system or a run off of the two options that get the most votes if none gets over 50% in the first round, buy it all seems rather overly complicated. I also can't see why parliament would put a deal to a referendum vote that it doesn't think is good enough. If parliament does think the deal is good enough then it should accept it and be done. If it doesn't think the deal is good enough then we only have two choices. Either stay as we are and remain or leave with no deal. There is no majority in parliament for no deal and, although there probably is a majority in parliament for stay as we are and remain, I don't think our MPs have the balls to do that. Following this through the most likely result is either leave with a deal or another referendum with the choice being leave with no deal or remain. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What choices would be the public be given in a 2nd referendum? Offering people the chance to revoke the Article 50 notice and remain a full member of the EU is a non-starter, I think - Parliament would never approve. I can see only two realistic choices: a) to leave the EU completely, i.e. the No Deal exit b) to apply for membership of EFTA or EEA. Mrs May's preferred option of a bespoke agreement between the UK and EU can't be on the ballot paper, otherwise you are asking voters to choose something that is not in the control of the Government to deliver. I don't think there should be a 2nd referendum and I don't think there will be one. However yours seems like the most sensible suggestion on the thread. There can be no option to remain in as it currently stands. The country already made its decision to leave in 2016. The only options would be to leave with no deal or accept a negotiated Brexit deal. " That's the worst option. The choice is leave or leave. What's the point of that? If there is going to be 3rd referendum then it has to have a clear leave option and a clear remain option. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Only one problem with all this theory , we have signed article 50 and passed the withdrawal act , so leaving is enshrined in law , therefore the third choice would actually be seek to rejoin , " Both can be reversed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Only one problem with all this theory , we have signed article 50 and passed the withdrawal act , so leaving is enshrined in law , therefore the third choice would actually be seek to rejoin , " Whether you can reverese article 50 is up for debate. No act is irreversible (how unsoverign would that be??) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What choices would be the public be given in a 2nd referendum? Offering people the chance to revoke the Article 50 notice and remain a full member of the EU is a non-starter, I think - Parliament would never approve. I can see only two realistic choices: a) to leave the EU completely, i.e. the No Deal exit b) to apply for membership of EFTA or EEA. Mrs May's preferred option of a bespoke agreement between the UK and EU can't be on the ballot paper, otherwise you are asking voters to choose something that is not in the control of the Government to deliver. I don't think there should be a 2nd referendum and I don't think there will be one. However yours seems like the most sensible suggestion on the thread. There can be no option to remain in as it currently stands. The country already made its decision to leave in 2016. The only options would be to leave with no deal or accept a negotiated Brexit deal. There is no such thing though as 'no deal'. It is s fantasy. We've been through this before, Centy. Look at the example we went through on driving licenses alone. -Matt Of course no deal is an option. As an example the Bank of England did stress tests on UK banks for a no deal scenario. All the banks passed the tests. Many countries all around the world trade on WTO rules and get by just fine and dandy. As for driving licenses it was established that an international driving permit takes about 5 minutes to fill out the form, you've probably spent longer making posts on this thread. ""Many countries all around the world trade on WTO rules and get by just fine and dandy" Really? Name me any one country that trades exclusively under WTO terms. There are 169 countries in the WTO so name any single one of them that trades exclusively under WTO terms. Just one will do. The reality is is that NO countries trade just on WTO terms. All belong to least one, and in some cases many, free trade areas (FTAs) or preferential trade areas (PTAs) with others. These FTAs and PTAs reduce trade barriers below the level set in the WTO. If Britain traded solely on WTO terms, it would deprive its exporters of advantages that EVRY foreign competitor enjoys. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bearing in mind there won't be a second referendum. Do remainers wish they had staged a better argument in the first one? " I’m not sure how you define better argument. Some may say it was lost not because of the quality of arguments, but the strategy taken. Others may say it was the quality of argument but the unwillingness of some remainers to show a united front if it meant sharing a platform with an arch rival. Others again may say they lost not because of the quality of their argument but the lack of quality of their missinformation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When do we get the one after that? Maybe we should have stopped after the first one in 1975, which remain won with 67%, and put all are efforts in to making it work. You can hardly expect the 48% to get behind the decision of the 52% because they won this time when the 32% who lost last time have spent 40+ years undermining the 67%" Of course, the other way of looking at it is that, as it was the 'oldies' who this time mostly voted to leave, 40 years ago most of them voted to remain. Perhaps because they were promised a trading bloc only (the common market) and ended up with something completely different (The EU). The over 65s (i.e. those who voted in 1975) voted about 64% to leave, 36% remain... Complete opposite of 1975. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bearing in mind there won't be a second referendum. Do remainers wish they had staged a better argument in the first one? That's an oddly sweeping statement. Certainty in politics is not "a thing". Most of us had nothing to do with the remain campaign. It used the standard Tory fear tactics. Worked in the general election. Failed in the London Mayor election. Failed in the referendum. Rather than repeating here there is a thread on this. "Did the remain campaign or leaders do anything wrong". There are a number of suggestions. The parallel leave thread is rather sparse. If the cognitive bias thread is around that will provide some more information. Same issue with leavers contributing though." It was a genuine question I happened to be in Gibraltar for the lead up and the Brexit referendum The Remain campaign (Gib) was obviously a success as 96% voted to stay The campaign strategy was run on entirely different lines to the UK and was largely run on a positive platform, relying on family members and work colleagues to influence each other and spread the message The Remain campaign (UK) in comparison seemed to rely totally on scaremongering and negativity and chose to patronise and belittle those who might be Leavers I notice very little has changed in two years and Remain have failed to learn by their mistakes and continue to patronise and peddle laughable scare stories which the streetwise Leavers can see through There won't be a second referendum but speaking hypothetically, I would say for a certainty, the result would be the same as the first if there was It all comes down to marketing and selling your product - Remain (UK) were out of touch and sold a stinker and they have failed to learn my their mistakes | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What choices would be the public be given in a 2nd referendum? Offering people the chance to revoke the Article 50 notice and remain a full member of the EU is a non-starter, I think - Parliament would never approve. I can see only two realistic choices: a) to leave the EU completely, i.e. the No Deal exit b) to apply for membership of EFTA or EEA. Mrs May's preferred option of a bespoke agreement between the UK and EU can't be on the ballot paper, otherwise you are asking voters to choose something that is not in the control of the Government to deliver. I don't think there should be a 2nd referendum and I don't think there will be one. However yours seems like the most sensible suggestion on the thread. There can be no option to remain in as it currently stands. The country already made its decision to leave in 2016. The only options would be to leave with no deal or accept a negotiated Brexit deal. That's the worst option. The choice is leave or leave. What's the point of that? If there is going to be 3rd referendum then it has to have a clear leave option and a clear remain option." There was a clear leave option and a clear remain option in 2016...you can't get much clearer than "do you want to stay, or do you want to leave?"! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What choices would be the public be given in a 2nd referendum? Offering people the chance to revoke the Article 50 notice and remain a full member of the EU is a non-starter, I think - Parliament would never approve. I can see only two realistic choices: a) to leave the EU completely, i.e. the No Deal exit b) to apply for membership of EFTA or EEA. Mrs May's preferred option of a bespoke agreement between the UK and EU can't be on the ballot paper, otherwise you are asking voters to choose something that is not in the control of the Government to deliver. I don't think there should be a 2nd referendum and I don't think there will be one. However yours seems like the most sensible suggestion on the thread. There can be no option to remain in as it currently stands. The country already made its decision to leave in 2016. The only options would be to leave with no deal or accept a negotiated Brexit deal. That's the worst option. The choice is leave or leave. What's the point of that? If there is going to be 3rd referendum then it has to have a clear leave option and a clear remain option. There was a clear leave option and a clear remain option in 2016...you can't get much clearer than "do you want to stay, or do you want to leave?"!" Yes, it's clearly that simple based on the fact we had our negotiating position so crystallized from the start. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What makes anyone think a 2nd referendum would be any less of a clusterfuck than the first one? The fact that we would know actual facts... and they couldn’t use the project fear they are all scaremongering lines.... If people really want to look over the side of the cliff and still jump... that is on them Facts? Where are they? What information has the Government given this country about the implications of leaving the EU with no alternative arrangement in place? Nothing. At least the EC has informed the EU27 of the various legal implications across different sectors of UK becoming a third country. “Apparently” the government are going to start doing “notices” (basically press releases) this summer relating to what will happen or what people will need to do in the case of a no deal situation .... Whether people will believe the UK version over the Eu technical notes that are being released is another matter... but for brexiteer mps to then shout project fear are going to be doing their constituents a massive disservice So, they're going to provide 'forecasts' of what 'will' happen... That sounds a bit like the project fear forecasts during the referendum campaign. So who would you listen to if they said Brexit was going to be bad? I listened to all views during the referendum campaign, and came to my own conclusions. I looked at all the people and organisations making predictions and forecasts, and investigated how accurate they'd been with previous forecasts and predictions. I do so now. Right, so who would you listen to? Who do you think has been accurate in their predictions, and if they now said "Brexit is going to be a very bad idea" would you listen to and think, "well if they are saying it, I'm going to believe it and change my mind on brexit"? What part of "I listen to all views" don't you understand? What part of "I come to my own conclusions" don't you understand? So what would it take for you to change your mind? To come to a different conclusion? Is the question really too hard for you to comprehend? Well, that's a different question to the one you asked. So to answer the question that you're now asking... I've not seen anything yet to make me change my mind. What I do see is an announcement saying that while parliament is in recess a series of 'consequence papers' will be published on a regular basis. No doubt these will be along the lines of more scaremongering as per project fear. And I look at the people making these predictions, and they are the same people that told us how economically catastrophic it would be if we did not join the Euro, and did not see the global crash coming (although you once quoted the economist Steve Keen as having predicted it, and I agreed that indeed he did, but had to point out to you that he was a staunch supporter of Brexit), among other things. What would it take for you to change your mind? Because all bar one of the remain predictions and forecasts have not happened. The forecast that has happened is the drop in value of sterling; although, just months before the referendum the very same people that forecast the drop in sterling were saying that sterling was overvalued by up to 20% anyway. Please try to answer a quite simple question. What would it take for you to change your mind? Who would you listen to? Firstly, you can't count. Secondly, what part of 'I listen to everyone, and make up my own mind', can't you understand? I haven't seen or heard anything yet that has made me change my mind..... But why don't you answer my questions? The question is what would make you change your mind? Who would you listen to? Who would you believe if they told you Brexit would be bad? You still haven't answered this. Maybe once you get around to answering, I'll answer yours. Just for clarity, the question is NOT "have you changed your mind?"how does anyone know brexit is bad .if you don't try it how will anyone ever actually know .the garbage being spouted about by all the cry babies makes me more determined than ever to leave " I don't need to stick my hand in a fire to know it's going to be bad and I, even though some say it has some good effects, I don't need to try heroin to know it's going to do me more harm than good. You don't have to try everything to know that some things are not bad and you don't need to try BREXIT, especially a No Deal BREXIT, to know it's going to be bad, you just have to know a little bit about how international trade and law works. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Im prepared to be shot down here because i genuinely dont know ... Is it possible to have a 2 question referendum? 1. Leave or remain 2. If leave vote wins then deal or no deal? That would avoid the splitting the leave vote issue and also give a clear opinion on what the country wants if the majority still want to leave " Technically a 'no deal' is still Brexit as you would still be leaving as voted for A second referendum won't happen - The Tory's don't have the stomach or the cajones or the time scale | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The BBC is telling you, you will run out of fillings for your sandwiches if the result is a no deal Based on the idea that if it's on the BBC, then it must be gospel (snigger) Would the threat of not having a slice of cucumber between your bread for a few days, make you change your vote? Im only asking on behalf of a friend who is thinking of growing some cucumbers Enjoy your mockery - your not living in the UK and have no chance of being effected - if this happens! I can only assume as you live in 3 countries your a "wanderer"? But the BBC is generally a decent source of information - on both sides of the argument. Yes the BBC has quite a reputation! It also makes you pay a license fee to support it, I believe? At least in North Korea they get their propaganda for free The licence fee also supports Channel 4, and covers infrastructure such as rolling out of digital radio. The license fee also supported people like Jimmy Saville and the illegal coverage of a raid on Cliff Richard's house....just saying. Just saying what exactly? That because a paedophile worked for the BBC, you can't believe their news coverage? That seems to be what you are saying, but please feel free to explain the connection between the posts quoted above and Jimmy saville. Paedophiles have also worked in schools? Should we take all the kids out and close them down? Paedophiles have worked in hospitals, should we close those down? Hell, there have even been paedophiles in UKIP, should we ban the party? To be fair the BBC along with the rest of the British media, seem reluctant to report the pandemic scale of gang r@pes of children in all your major cities Preferring to deflect attention away from it rather than reporting it Instead, they attempt to alarm the population with ridiculous anti Brexit stories about sandwich shortages or the high risk of catching gonorrhoea post Brexit After a laughable bit of scaremongering they predictably head off on an anti Trump tangent It's not what the media tells us - it's often the stories the media hides, ignores or tries to gloss over which are important Ok so prove it then. Find me 1 example of gang child r@pe that was widely reported by other UK media organisations, but was not reported at all by the BBC. It's not just your Main Stream Media failing to report the truth - the whole British establishment wants to bury it Speak up about it and you are silenced. Just ask Sarah Champion - sacked by the Labour Party and now needing police protection Anyone telling the truth in your country gets treated like a criminal - Julian Assange, yep! He tells the truth - lets get him locked up or deported straight away! But don't worry, just keep reading and believing farcical stories your media feeds you - about running out of sandwiches or catching post Brexit gonorrhoea For dessert they spoon feed you an hourly dose of anti Trump rhetoric, just to see you through the day and to stop you seeking the truth Right, fine, if the whole of the British media and establishment is now terrible, find me one case of child gang r@pe that was widely reported outside of the UK, but was not picked up by any UK media organisations. I'm willing to bet that you won't be able to. You originally said it was just the BBC not reporting these gang sexual crimes against children, but when asked to prove it, you couldn't substantiate your claim. Instead you tried to blame the entirety of the British media instead. Now let's see if you can prove these claims. Where did I say it was just the BBC? What I said was ..... "To be fair the BBC along with the rest of the British media, seem reluctant to report the pandemic scale of gang r@pes of children in all your major cities" The fact that you are prepared to defend the failings of the media but not defend or show concern for the child victims, would suggest the media have successfully done their job " Or that you, by not providing any source for your claims, have simply failed to convince us that what your saying is true. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What makes anyone think a 2nd referendum would be any less of a clusterfuck than the first one? The fact that we would know actual facts... and they couldn’t use the project fear they are all scaremongering lines.... If people really want to look over the side of the cliff and still jump... that is on them Facts? Where are they? What information has the Government given this country about the implications of leaving the EU with no alternative arrangement in place? Nothing. At least the EC has informed the EU27 of the various legal implications across different sectors of UK becoming a third country. “Apparently” the government are going to start doing “notices” (basically press releases) this summer relating to what will happen or what people will need to do in the case of a no deal situation .... Whether people will believe the UK version over the Eu technical notes that are being released is another matter... but for brexiteer mps to then shout project fear are going to be doing their constituents a massive disservice So, they're going to provide 'forecasts' of what 'will' happen... That sounds a bit like the project fear forecasts during the referendum campaign. So who would you listen to if they said Brexit was going to be bad? I listened to all views during the referendum campaign, and came to my own conclusions. I looked at all the people and organisations making predictions and forecasts, and investigated how accurate they'd been with previous forecasts and predictions. I do so now. Right, so who would you listen to? Who do you think has been accurate in their predictions, and if they now said "Brexit is going to be a very bad idea" would you listen to and think, "well if they are saying it, I'm going to believe it and change my mind on brexit"? What part of "I listen to all views" don't you understand? What part of "I come to my own conclusions" don't you understand? So what would it take for you to change your mind? To come to a different conclusion? Is the question really too hard for you to comprehend? Well, that's a different question to the one you asked. So to answer the question that you're now asking... I've not seen anything yet to make me change my mind. What I do see is an announcement saying that while parliament is in recess a series of 'consequence papers' will be published on a regular basis. No doubt these will be along the lines of more scaremongering as per project fear. And I look at the people making these predictions, and they are the same people that told us how economically catastrophic it would be if we did not join the Euro, and did not see the global crash coming (although you once quoted the economist Steve Keen as having predicted it, and I agreed that indeed he did, but had to point out to you that he was a staunch supporter of Brexit), among other things. What would it take for you to change your mind? Because all bar one of the remain predictions and forecasts have not happened. The forecast that has happened is the drop in value of sterling; although, just months before the referendum the very same people that forecast the drop in sterling were saying that sterling was overvalued by up to 20% anyway. Please try to answer a quite simple question. What would it take for you to change your mind? Who would you listen to? Firstly, you can't count. Secondly, what part of 'I listen to everyone, and make up my own mind', can't you understand? I haven't seen or heard anything yet that has made me change my mind..... But why don't you answer my questions? The question is what would make you change your mind? Who would you listen to? Who would you believe if they told you Brexit would be bad? You still haven't answered this. Maybe once you get around to answering, I'll answer yours. Just for clarity, the question is NOT "have you changed your mind?" 1) I don't know what would make me change my mind. At the moment there is no evidence that I've seen to make me change my mind. 2) No-one in particular. I listen to everyone, and make my own mind up. 3) Me...after I've listened to everyone, analysed and researched everything for myself. You may not be happy with my answers, but I've answered them. Now turn it on its head, and you answer them... What would make you change your mind? Who would you listen to? Who would you believe if they told you remaing would be bad? And then answer the other questions I asked re:if we aked to remain now. You haven't named a single person or organisation that you would believe. That is very, very sad. And there you go......like I said...You wouldn't accept my answers because you don't like what I said. You may blindly follow someone or some organisation, believing every word they say, but I prefer to have a mind of my own and make my own decisions based upon what I research, analyse, read about, check up on, listen to, and experience. And that's why I can't name any particular person or organisation. It's you that's the sad one thinking that you could. But you are not making your decisions based on research or analysis. If you were, then you would be able to name some people or organisations that you would listen to. You would be able to say "I research what organisation X says, and analyse their data to be well researched, so if they said Brexit was going to be bad, I really would sit up and take notice." But instead you can't name anyone. Just counted.... I've got 5 lever arch files full of papers and documents, from all manner of different organisations...BoE, OECD, Treasury, Government, EU, Voteleave, Best for Britain, SMMT, economistsforremain, economists for free trade...to name a few. I've read, researched, and annotated every single one. Plus I do my own research as well. Plus I've got a variety of books on the EU..both for and against. Plus I use my own experience of working across the EU, and elsewhere in the world. So can I name A person or AN organisation that if they said Brexit was going to be bad it would change my mind? No, I can't, because I look at a whole range of different views and come to my own conclusion. You obviously don't. Forgive me for involving myself in this ding dong but perhaps trying to win is missing the point. What seems to be the case is that information any credible organisation is considered but nothing has convinced JandS that remain is the better option. That seems fine. With that in mind, what data and from what group has been most influential in voting for leave? Would you say that it is a purely or mainly a logical decision or is the emotional sentiment stronger? Most influential, probably the remain campaign's forecasts, funnily enough...almost every forecast I researched, and was able to pick apart. 800,000 job losses by now? Not happened. There's actually 500,000 more people employed since Brexit. An immediate, deep and profound recession? Not happened. House prices dropping by 18%? They've risen by about 10%...although a slowdown in house prices would not be unwelcome to help people get on the ladder. In fact, the only prediction that seems to have been right was the fall in sterling - but then again the IMF,the OECD and the BoE just months before the referendum were saying that sterling was up to 20% overvalued, and was damaging the economy. With regard to inflation, the BoE in November 2015 wrote to the Chancellor predicting that inflation would be above the target of 2% within 2 years... On 100,000 job losses in the city? The FT (staunchly pro-remain) carried out a major survey and report in November 2017, which concluded 4,600 jobs would be lost. The BoE Deputy Governor Sam Woods confirmed that figure to the HoC Exiting the EU Select Committee on 19th April this year. Since the referendum the city has taken on 30,000 extra jobs. So a balance of 25,000 extra people employed... Btw...I took no notice of the £350 Billion on the side of the bus.. On the emotional level? Not sure, my career has been spent mainly in justifying (or not) change through facts, and analysis of data. And I guess I'm used to looking at things that way now. Although I was a bit perturbed when David Cameron went to renegotiate with the EU before the referendum and came back with the promise of not much more than an extra cup of tea and a digestive biscuit at future meetings, and then claimed it to be a great success. Likewise with having to go to the EU and ask permission to reduce the 'tampon tax'. This is post-referendum data. In the same way you ignored the bus I ignored Armageddon because that was the standard Tory playbook. However, are you saying that you voted to leave only because the remain information was not credible to you? That does not seem a strong enough reason to leave does it? No, I voted to leave because After having researched everything myself, I believe that leaving is the best for the country. You asked me what was the most influential....which was the remain campaign's forecasts....because that led me to researching what they were predicting, and in doing so I came to the conclusion that none of what they were predicting would happen. That in fact more jobs would be created, house prices would not fall, a hundred thousand jobs would not be lost in the city, there was no reason for a deep and profound recession....I spoke to many senior people in different types of industries (even directors of a couple of major financial organisations). What I'm saying is that what has happened to the economy since the referendum has proven my research and conclusions from before the referendum. And in that nothing has persuaded me to change the way I voted. Sorry to press you, but I still do not know why you actively want to leave the EU. It not being a complete disaster if we leave is only half the story. Is there a source of data that shows verifiable benefits of leaving?" That's what I've been looking for but the more I look the more convinced I am that, even with a plan and a deal it will be bad and, without one, a total disaster. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What choices would be the public be given in a 2nd referendum? Offering people the chance to revoke the Article 50 notice and remain a full member of the EU is a non-starter, I think - Parliament would never approve. I can see only two realistic choices: a) to leave the EU completely, i.e. the No Deal exit b) to apply for membership of EFTA or EEA. Mrs May's preferred option of a bespoke agreement between the UK and EU can't be on the ballot paper, otherwise you are asking voters to choose something that is not in the control of the Government to deliver. I disagree. If another referendum is held then three options should be on the table. A three option referendum is technically possible (a Google shows how it works) so you could ask A) Leave with no deal B) Accept the negotiated deal C) Remain as is The bigger issue is whether this is politically possible. At the moment still likely not, but as the final shape of any negotiated deal becomes clear, or as the likelihood of no deal increases, there will come a time when it's possible or even necessary. That would not be a fair referendum though because you are in effect splitting the leave vote between the A and B options. Remain only has one option. Nice try but no cigar. It may surprise you but I actually agree with you. A three way vote with two leave options and one remain option would never be accepted if remain won. And if couldn't win that vote there really is no hope for remain at all. It might be possible with some sort of AV weighted voting system or a run off of the two options that get the most votes if none gets over 50% in the first round, buy it all seems rather overly complicated. I also can't see why parliament would put a deal to a referendum vote that it doesn't think is good enough. If parliament does think the deal is good enough then it should accept it and be done. If it doesn't think the deal is good enough then we only have two choices. Either stay as we are and remain or leave with no deal. There is no majority in parliament for no deal and, although there probably is a majority in parliament for stay as we are and remain, I don't think our MPs have the balls to do that. Following this through the most likely result is either leave with a deal or another referendum with the choice being leave with no deal or remain." Theresa May's Chequers deal is already dead. It's already been all but rejected by Barnier and the EU. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The BBC is telling you, you will run out of fillings for your sandwiches if the result is a no deal Based on the idea that if it's on the BBC, then it must be gospel (snigger) Would the threat of not having a slice of cucumber between your bread for a few days, make you change your vote? Im only asking on behalf of a friend who is thinking of growing some cucumbers Enjoy your mockery - your not living in the UK and have no chance of being effected - if this happens! I can only assume as you live in 3 countries your a "wanderer"? But the BBC is generally a decent source of information - on both sides of the argument. Yes the BBC has quite a reputation! It also makes you pay a license fee to support it, I believe? At least in North Korea they get their propaganda for free The licence fee also supports Channel 4, and covers infrastructure such as rolling out of digital radio. The license fee also supported people like Jimmy Saville and the illegal coverage of a raid on Cliff Richard's house....just saying. Just saying what exactly? That because a paedophile worked for the BBC, you can't believe their news coverage? That seems to be what you are saying, but please feel free to explain the connection between the posts quoted above and Jimmy saville. Paedophiles have also worked in schools? Should we take all the kids out and close them down? Paedophiles have worked in hospitals, should we close those down? Hell, there have even been paedophiles in UKIP, should we ban the party? To be fair the BBC along with the rest of the British media, seem reluctant to report the pandemic scale of gang r@pes of children in all your major cities Preferring to deflect attention away from it rather than reporting it Instead, they attempt to alarm the population with ridiculous anti Brexit stories about sandwich shortages or the high risk of catching gonorrhoea post Brexit After a laughable bit of scaremongering they predictably head off on an anti Trump tangent It's not what the media tells us - it's often the stories the media hides, ignores or tries to gloss over which are important Ok so prove it then. Find me 1 example of gang child r@pe that was widely reported by other UK media organisations, but was not reported at all by the BBC. It's not just your Main Stream Media failing to report the truth - the whole British establishment wants to bury it Speak up about it and you are silenced. Just ask Sarah Champion - sacked by the Labour Party and now needing police protection Anyone telling the truth in your country gets treated like a criminal - Julian Assange, yep! He tells the truth - lets get him locked up or deported straight away! But don't worry, just keep reading and believing farcical stories your media feeds you - about running out of sandwiches or catching post Brexit gonorrhoea For dessert they spoon feed you an hourly dose of anti Trump rhetoric, just to see you through the day and to stop you seeking the truth Right, fine, if the whole of the British media and establishment is now terrible, find me one case of child gang r@pe that was widely reported outside of the UK, but was not picked up by any UK media organisations. I'm willing to bet that you won't be able to. You originally said it was just the BBC not reporting these gang sexual crimes against children, but when asked to prove it, you couldn't substantiate your claim. Instead you tried to blame the entirety of the British media instead. Now let's see if you can prove these claims. Where did I say it was just the BBC? What I said was ..... "To be fair the BBC along with the rest of the British media, seem reluctant to report the pandemic scale of gang r@pes of children in all your major cities" The fact that you are prepared to defend the failings of the media but not defend or show concern for the child victims, would suggest the media have successfully done their job Or that you, by not providing any source for your claims, have simply failed to convince us that what your saying is true." Why not ask the thousands of child r@pe victims for the truth, perhaps while you are at it, you can explain to them why people like you are part of the problem | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Theresa May's Chequers deal is already dead. It's already been all but rejected by Barnier and the EU. " How can our plan be dead? You've been saying for years now that the UK is in control, that the UK is in charge, that we can dictate terms and the EU will just accept because they need us more than we need them. Who cares if Barnier rejects them, it's just the heads of BMW, Audi, VW and Mercedes-Benz that we need to convince, right? That's what you have been telling us. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What choices would be the public be given in a 2nd referendum? Offering people the chance to revoke the Article 50 notice and remain a full member of the EU is a non-starter, I think - Parliament would never approve. I can see only two realistic choices: a) to leave the EU completely, i.e. the No Deal exit b) to apply for membership of EFTA or EEA. Mrs May's preferred option of a bespoke agreement between the UK and EU can't be on the ballot paper, otherwise you are asking voters to choose something that is not in the control of the Government to deliver. I don't think there should be a 2nd referendum and I don't think there will be one. However yours seems like the most sensible suggestion on the thread. There can be no option to remain in as it currently stands. The country already made its decision to leave in 2016. The only options would be to leave with no deal or accept a negotiated Brexit deal. There is no such thing though as 'no deal'. It is s fantasy. We've been through this before, Centy. Look at the example we went through on driving licenses alone. -Matt Of course no deal is an option. As an example the Bank of England did stress tests on UK banks for a no deal scenario. All the banks passed the tests. Many countries all around the world trade on WTO rules and get by just fine and dandy. As for driving licenses it was established that an international driving permit takes about 5 minutes to fill out the form, you've probably spent longer making posts on this thread.
"Many countries all around the world trade on WTO rules and get by just fine and dandy"
Really? Name me any one country that trades exclusively under WTO terms. There are 169 countries in the WTO so name any single one of them that trades exclusively under WTO terms. Just one will do.
The reality is is that NO countries trade just on WTO terms. All belong to least one, and in some cases many, free trade areas (FTAs) or preferential trade areas (PTAs) with others. These FTAs and PTAs reduce trade barriers below the level set in the WTO. If Britain traded solely on WTO terms, it would deprive its exporters of advantages that EVRY foreign competitor enjoys."If you'd bothered to read the whole thread before replying prematurely you'd have already seen that EasyUk pointed out that Mauritania is a country that trades solely on WTO rules. So when you say no country in the world trade's solely on WTO terms you're wrong (if EasyUk is correct). If you have issue with it I suggest you take it up with him. Secondly I never said anywhere the UK would trade solely on WTO rules as many countries have already given notice of their intention to sign free trade deals with us after Brexit. So our trade will be a mix of bilateral free trade deals with some countries and WTO rules with other countries after Brexit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When do we get the one after that? Maybe we should have stopped after the first one in 1975, which remain won with 67%, and put all are efforts in to making it work. You can hardly expect the 48% to get behind the decision of the 52% because they won this time when the 32% who lost last time have spent 40+ years undermining the 67% Of course, the other way of looking at it is that, as it was the 'oldies' who this time mostly voted to leave, 40 years ago most of them voted to remain. Perhaps because they were promised a trading bloc only (the common market) and ended up with something completely different (The EU). The over 65s (i.e. those who voted in 1975) voted about 64% to leave, 36% remain... Complete opposite of 1975." "Perhaps because they were promised a trading bloc only (the common market) and ended up with something completely different (The EU)" Just as I'm starting to pick up a bit of respect for you and starting to believe that maybe you have really done all the research you say you have you com up with that often quoted lie. What we voted for in 1975 was a common market. the WTO definition of a common market is:- An economic market consisting of multiple nations or entities that have adopted common regulations and policies to reduce internal trade barriers. The EU is an economic market consisting of multiple nations or entities that have adopted common regulations and policies to reduce internal trade barriers, just as we voted for. Clearly your extensive research didn't spend much time looking into exactly what a Common Market actually is. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What choices would be the public be given in a 2nd referendum? Offering people the chance to revoke the Article 50 notice and remain a full member of the EU is a non-starter, I think - Parliament would never approve. I can see only two realistic choices: a) to leave the EU completely, i.e. the No Deal exit b) to apply for membership of EFTA or EEA. Mrs May's preferred option of a bespoke agreement between the UK and EU can't be on the ballot paper, otherwise you are asking voters to choose something that is not in the control of the Government to deliver. I don't think there should be a 2nd referendum and I don't think there will be one. However yours seems like the most sensible suggestion on the thread. There can be no option to remain in as it currently stands. The country already made its decision to leave in 2016. The only options would be to leave with no deal or accept a negotiated Brexit deal. That's the worst option. The choice is leave or leave. What's the point of that? If there is going to be 3rd referendum then it has to have a clear leave option and a clear remain option. There was a clear leave option and a clear remain option in 2016...you can't get much clearer than "do you want to stay, or do you want to leave?"!" I agree but:- No one new exactly what leave meant, and we still don't know for sure. When we do people can make a more informed decision. Personally I'd rather the decision was taken by parliament and, if May (or any one else) can get a deal through parliament that satisfies the BREXITers and the rest of parliament it will be. But if the deal that comes back cannot be got through parliament, as most in parliament believe that a no deal BREXIT would be a disaster, I think parliament will go for another referendum and the choice will be between leave with no deal and remain. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What choices would be the public be given in a 2nd referendum? Offering people the chance to revoke the Article 50 notice and remain a full member of the EU is a non-starter, I think - Parliament would never approve. I can see only two realistic choices: a) to leave the EU completely, i.e. the No Deal exit b) to apply for membership of EFTA or EEA. Mrs May's preferred option of a bespoke agreement between the UK and EU can't be on the ballot paper, otherwise you are asking voters to choose something that is not in the control of the Government to deliver. I disagree. If another referendum is held then three options should be on the table. A three option referendum is technically possible (a Google shows how it works) so you could ask A) Leave with no deal B) Accept the negotiated deal C) Remain as is The bigger issue is whether this is politically possible. At the moment still likely not, but as the final shape of any negotiated deal becomes clear, or as the likelihood of no deal increases, there will come a time when it's possible or even necessary. That would not be a fair referendum though because you are in effect splitting the leave vote between the A and B options. Remain only has one option. Nice try but no cigar. It may surprise you but I actually agree with you. A three way vote with two leave options and one remain option would never be accepted if remain won. And if couldn't win that vote there really is no hope for remain at all. It might be possible with some sort of AV weighted voting system or a run off of the two options that get the most votes if none gets over 50% in the first round, buy it all seems rather overly complicated. I also can't see why parliament would put a deal to a referendum vote that it doesn't think is good enough. If parliament does think the deal is good enough then it should accept it and be done. If it doesn't think the deal is good enough then we only have two choices. Either stay as we are and remain or leave with no deal. There is no majority in parliament for no deal and, although there probably is a majority in parliament for stay as we are and remain, I don't think our MPs have the balls to do that. Following this through the most likely result is either leave with a deal or another referendum with the choice being leave with no deal or remain. Theresa May's Chequers deal is already dead. It's already been all but rejected by Barnier and the EU. " It was dead before it was born. I said at the time that it was a bad deal but I also said at the time that, so far, it's the best BREXIT deal anyone has been able to come up with. I think you said that DD had a better one but didn't go into any detail about it, just that it was there somewhere. Nut anyway, whether it's this May's dead bad deal or some other deal it still has to get through parliament and I can't for the life of me think of any deal that will meet both this governments red lines and the EU's. And I also don't believe that parliament will just sit back and let a no deal BREXIT go through. That leaves a 3rd referendum as the only option left open. I may be wrong but that's what I think is most likely to happen now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The BBC is telling you, you will run out of fillings for your sandwiches if the result is a no deal Based on the idea that if it's on the BBC, then it must be gospel (snigger) Would the threat of not having a slice of cucumber between your bread for a few days, make you change your vote? Im only asking on behalf of a friend who is thinking of growing some cucumbers Enjoy your mockery - your not living in the UK and have no chance of being effected - if this happens! I can only assume as you live in 3 countries your a "wanderer"? But the BBC is generally a decent source of information - on both sides of the argument. Yes the BBC has quite a reputation! It also makes you pay a license fee to support it, I believe? At least in North Korea they get their propaganda for free The licence fee also supports Channel 4, and covers infrastructure such as rolling out of digital radio. The license fee also supported people like Jimmy Saville and the illegal coverage of a raid on Cliff Richard's house....just saying. Just saying what exactly? That because a paedophile worked for the BBC, you can't believe their news coverage? That seems to be what you are saying, but please feel free to explain the connection between the posts quoted above and Jimmy saville. Paedophiles have also worked in schools? Should we take all the kids out and close them down? Paedophiles have worked in hospitals, should we close those down? Hell, there have even been paedophiles in UKIP, should we ban the party? To be fair the BBC along with the rest of the British media, seem reluctant to report the pandemic scale of gang r@pes of children in all your major cities Preferring to deflect attention away from it rather than reporting it Instead, they attempt to alarm the population with ridiculous anti Brexit stories about sandwich shortages or the high risk of catching gonorrhoea post Brexit After a laughable bit of scaremongering they predictably head off on an anti Trump tangent It's not what the media tells us - it's often the stories the media hides, ignores or tries to gloss over which are important Ok so prove it then. Find me 1 example of gang child r@pe that was widely reported by other UK media organisations, but was not reported at all by the BBC. It's not just your Main Stream Media failing to report the truth - the whole British establishment wants to bury it Speak up about it and you are silenced. Just ask Sarah Champion - sacked by the Labour Party and now needing police protection Anyone telling the truth in your country gets treated like a criminal - Julian Assange, yep! He tells the truth - lets get him locked up or deported straight away! But don't worry, just keep reading and believing farcical stories your media feeds you - about running out of sandwiches or catching post Brexit gonorrhoea For dessert they spoon feed you an hourly dose of anti Trump rhetoric, just to see you through the day and to stop you seeking the truth Right, fine, if the whole of the British media and establishment is now terrible, find me one case of child gang r@pe that was widely reported outside of the UK, but was not picked up by any UK media organisations. I'm willing to bet that you won't be able to. You originally said it was just the BBC not reporting these gang sexual crimes against children, but when asked to prove it, you couldn't substantiate your claim. Instead you tried to blame the entirety of the British media instead. Now let's see if you can prove these claims. Where did I say it was just the BBC? What I said was ..... "To be fair the BBC along with the rest of the British media, seem reluctant to report the pandemic scale of gang r@pes of children in all your major cities" The fact that you are prepared to defend the failings of the media but not defend or show concern for the child victims, would suggest the media have successfully done their job Or that you, by not providing any source for your claims, have simply failed to convince us that what your saying is true. Why not ask the thousands of child r@pe victims for the truth, perhaps while you are at it, you can explain to them why people like you are part of the problem " The problem is that you are not providing any evidence to back up your claims. The only sites that I've seen that talk about cover ups of elite gangs of child m0lesters are EDL and Britain First, and that only seems to when they're not talking about Muslim r@pe gangs, but show me some reliable proof that this cover up exists and then I can from an opinion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What choices would be the public be given in a 2nd referendum? Offering people the chance to revoke the Article 50 notice and remain a full member of the EU is a non-starter, I think - Parliament would never approve. I can see only two realistic choices: a) to leave the EU completely, i.e. the No Deal exit b) to apply for membership of EFTA or EEA. Mrs May's preferred option of a bespoke agreement between the UK and EU can't be on the ballot paper, otherwise you are asking voters to choose something that is not in the control of the Government to deliver. I don't think there should be a 2nd referendum and I don't think there will be one. However yours seems like the most sensible suggestion on the thread. There can be no option to remain in as it currently stands. The country already made its decision to leave in 2016. The only options would be to leave with no deal or accept a negotiated Brexit deal. That's the worst option. The choice is leave or leave. What's the point of that? If there is going to be 3rd referendum then it has to have a clear leave option and a clear remain option. There was a clear leave option and a clear remain option in 2016...you can't get much clearer than "do you want to stay, or do you want to leave?"! I agree but:- No one new exactly what leave meant, and we still don't know for sure. When we do people can make a more informed decision. Personally I'd rather the decision was taken by parliament and, if May (or any one else) can get a deal through parliament that satisfies the BREXITers and the rest of parliament it will be. But if the deal that comes back cannot be got through parliament, as most in parliament believe that a no deal BREXIT would be a disaster, I think parliament will go for another referendum and the choice will be between leave with no deal and remain." Technically a 'no deal' is still Brexit, which is one of the many reasons you won't get a 2nd ref | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The BBC is telling you, you will run out of fillings for your sandwiches if the result is a no deal Based on the idea that if it's on the BBC, then it must be gospel (snigger) Would the threat of not having a slice of cucumber between your bread for a few days, make you change your vote? Im only asking on behalf of a friend who is thinking of growing some cucumbers Enjoy your mockery - your not living in the UK and have no chance of being effected - if this happens! I can only assume as you live in 3 countries your a "wanderer"? But the BBC is generally a decent source of information - on both sides of the argument. Yes the BBC has quite a reputation! It also makes you pay a license fee to support it, I believe? At least in North Korea they get their propaganda for free The licence fee also supports Channel 4, and covers infrastructure such as rolling out of digital radio. The license fee also supported people like Jimmy Saville and the illegal coverage of a raid on Cliff Richard's house....just saying. Just saying what exactly? That because a paedophile worked for the BBC, you can't believe their news coverage? That seems to be what you are saying, but please feel free to explain the connection between the posts quoted above and Jimmy saville. Paedophiles have also worked in schools? Should we take all the kids out and close them down? Paedophiles have worked in hospitals, should we close those down? Hell, there have even been paedophiles in UKIP, should we ban the party? To be fair the BBC along with the rest of the British media, seem reluctant to report the pandemic scale of gang r@pes of children in all your major cities Preferring to deflect attention away from it rather than reporting it Instead, they attempt to alarm the population with ridiculous anti Brexit stories about sandwich shortages or the high risk of catching gonorrhoea post Brexit After a laughable bit of scaremongering they predictably head off on an anti Trump tangent It's not what the media tells us - it's often the stories the media hides, ignores or tries to gloss over which are important Ok so prove it then. Find me 1 example of gang child r@pe that was widely reported by other UK media organisations, but was not reported at all by the BBC. It's not just your Main Stream Media failing to report the truth - the whole British establishment wants to bury it Speak up about it and you are silenced. Just ask Sarah Champion - sacked by the Labour Party and now needing police protection Anyone telling the truth in your country gets treated like a criminal - Julian Assange, yep! He tells the truth - lets get him locked up or deported straight away! But don't worry, just keep reading and believing farcical stories your media feeds you - about running out of sandwiches or catching post Brexit gonorrhoea For dessert they spoon feed you an hourly dose of anti Trump rhetoric, just to see you through the day and to stop you seeking the truth Right, fine, if the whole of the British media and establishment is now terrible, find me one case of child gang r@pe that was widely reported outside of the UK, but was not picked up by any UK media organisations. I'm willing to bet that you won't be able to. You originally said it was just the BBC not reporting these gang sexual crimes against children, but when asked to prove it, you couldn't substantiate your claim. Instead you tried to blame the entirety of the British media instead. Now let's see if you can prove these claims. Where did I say it was just the BBC? What I said was ..... "To be fair the BBC along with the rest of the British media, seem reluctant to report the pandemic scale of gang r@pes of children in all your major cities" The fact that you are prepared to defend the failings of the media but not defend or show concern for the child victims, would suggest the media have successfully done their job Or that you, by not providing any source for your claims, have simply failed to convince us that what your saying is true. Why not ask the thousands of child r@pe victims for the truth, perhaps while you are at it, you can explain to them why people like you are part of the problem The problem is that you are not providing any evidence to back up your claims. The only sites that I've seen that talk about cover ups of elite gangs of child m0lesters are EDL and Britain First, and that only seems to when they're not talking about Muslim r@pe gangs, but show me some reliable proof that this cover up exists and then I can from an opinion." Perhaps you'd like to explain why you are using multiple accounts to argue your point? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The BBC is telling you, you will run out of fillings for your sandwiches if the result is a no deal Based on the idea that if it's on the BBC, then it must be gospel (snigger) Would the threat of not having a slice of cucumber between your bread for a few days, make you change your vote? Im only asking on behalf of a friend who is thinking of growing some cucumbers Enjoy your mockery - your not living in the UK and have no chance of being effected - if this happens! I can only assume as you live in 3 countries your a "wanderer"? But the BBC is generally a decent source of information - on both sides of the argument. Yes the BBC has quite a reputation! It also makes you pay a license fee to support it, I believe? At least in North Korea they get their propaganda for free The licence fee also supports Channel 4, and covers infrastructure such as rolling out of digital radio. The license fee also supported people like Jimmy Saville and the illegal coverage of a raid on Cliff Richard's house....just saying. Just saying what exactly? That because a paedophile worked for the BBC, you can't believe their news coverage? That seems to be what you are saying, but please feel free to explain the connection between the posts quoted above and Jimmy saville. Paedophiles have also worked in schools? Should we take all the kids out and close them down? Paedophiles have worked in hospitals, should we close those down? Hell, there have even been paedophiles in UKIP, should we ban the party? To be fair the BBC along with the rest of the British media, seem reluctant to report the pandemic scale of gang r@pes of children in all your major cities Preferring to deflect attention away from it rather than reporting it Instead, they attempt to alarm the population with ridiculous anti Brexit stories about sandwich shortages or the high risk of catching gonorrhoea post Brexit After a laughable bit of scaremongering they predictably head off on an anti Trump tangent It's not what the media tells us - it's often the stories the media hides, ignores or tries to gloss over which are important Ok so prove it then. Find me 1 example of gang child r@pe that was widely reported by other UK media organisations, but was not reported at all by the BBC. It's not just your Main Stream Media failing to report the truth - the whole British establishment wants to bury it Speak up about it and you are silenced. Just ask Sarah Champion - sacked by the Labour Party and now needing police protection Anyone telling the truth in your country gets treated like a criminal - Julian Assange, yep! He tells the truth - lets get him locked up or deported straight away! But don't worry, just keep reading and believing farcical stories your media feeds you - about running out of sandwiches or catching post Brexit gonorrhoea For dessert they spoon feed you an hourly dose of anti Trump rhetoric, just to see you through the day and to stop you seeking the truth Right, fine, if the whole of the British media and establishment is now terrible, find me one case of child gang r@pe that was widely reported outside of the UK, but was not picked up by any UK media organisations. I'm willing to bet that you won't be able to. You originally said it was just the BBC not reporting these gang sexual crimes against children, but when asked to prove it, you couldn't substantiate your claim. Instead you tried to blame the entirety of the British media instead. Now let's see if you can prove these claims. Where did I say it was just the BBC? What I said was ..... "To be fair the BBC along with the rest of the British media, seem reluctant to report the pandemic scale of gang r@pes of children in all your major cities" The fact that you are prepared to defend the failings of the media but not defend or show concern for the child victims, would suggest the media have successfully done their job Or that you, by not providing any source for your claims, have simply failed to convince us that what your saying is true. Why not ask the thousands of child r@pe victims for the truth, perhaps while you are at it, you can explain to them why people like you are part of the problem The problem is that you are not providing any evidence to back up your claims. The only sites that I've seen that talk about cover ups of elite gangs of child m0lesters are EDL and Britain First, and that only seems to when they're not talking about Muslim r@pe gangs, but show me some reliable proof that this cover up exists and then I can from an opinion." Perhaps you'd like to explain why you are using multiple accounts to argue your point? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What choices would be the public be given in a 2nd referendum? Offering people the chance to revoke the Article 50 notice and remain a full member of the EU is a non-starter, I think - Parliament would never approve. I can see only two realistic choices: a) to leave the EU completely, i.e. the No Deal exit b) to apply for membership of EFTA or EEA. Mrs May's preferred option of a bespoke agreement between the UK and EU can't be on the ballot paper, otherwise you are asking voters to choose something that is not in the control of the Government to deliver. I don't think there should be a 2nd referendum and I don't think there will be one. However yours seems like the most sensible suggestion on the thread. There can be no option to remain in as it currently stands. The country already made its decision to leave in 2016. The only options would be to leave with no deal or accept a negotiated Brexit deal. There is no such thing though as 'no deal'. It is s fantasy. We've been through this before, Centy. Look at the example we went through on driving licenses alone. -Matt Of course no deal is an option. As an example the Bank of England did stress tests on UK banks for a no deal scenario. All the banks passed the tests. Many countries all around the world trade on WTO rules and get by just fine and dandy. As for driving licenses it was established that an international driving permit takes about 5 minutes to fill out the form, you've probably spent longer making posts on this thread.
"Many countries all around the world trade on WTO rules and get by just fine and dandy"
Really? Name me any one country that trades exclusively under WTO terms. There are 169 countries in the WTO so name any single one of them that trades exclusively under WTO terms. Just one will do.
The reality is is that NO countries trade just on WTO terms. All belong to least one, and in some cases many, free trade areas (FTAs) or preferential trade areas (PTAs) with others. These FTAs and PTAs reduce trade barriers below the level set in the WTO. If Britain traded solely on WTO terms, it would deprive its exporters of advantages that EVRY foreign competitor enjoys.
If you'd bothered to read the whole thread before replying prematurely you'd have already seen that EasyUk pointed out that Mauritania is a country that trades solely on WTO rules. So when you say no country in the world trade's solely on WTO terms you're wrong (if EasyUk is correct). If you have issue with it I suggest you take it up with him.
Secondly I never said anywhere the UK would trade solely on WTO rules as many countries have already given notice of their intention to sign free trade deals with us after Brexit. So our trade will be a mix of bilateral free trade deals with some countries and WTO rules with other countries after Brexit. "What you actually said was "Many countries all around the world trade on WTO rules and get by just fine and dandy" And that is clearly not the case even if EasyUk was correct. But in this case actually he's not totally correct. Mauritania is a member of both The Arab Maghreb Union (AMU) and the Pan Arab Free Trade Area (PAFTA). Although it doesn't take full advantage of its membership of either it is still a member of both so does not trade exclusively on WTO terms. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What choices would be the public be given in a 2nd referendum? Offering people the chance to revoke the Article 50 notice and remain a full member of the EU is a non-starter, I think - Parliament would never approve. I can see only two realistic choices: a) to leave the EU completely, i.e. the No Deal exit b) to apply for membership of EFTA or EEA. Mrs May's preferred option of a bespoke agreement between the UK and EU can't be on the ballot paper, otherwise you are asking voters to choose something that is not in the control of the Government to deliver. I don't think there should be a 2nd referendum and I don't think there will be one. However yours seems like the most sensible suggestion on the thread. There can be no option to remain in as it currently stands. The country already made its decision to leave in 2016. The only options would be to leave with no deal or accept a negotiated Brexit deal. That's the worst option. The choice is leave or leave. What's the point of that? If there is going to be 3rd referendum then it has to have a clear leave option and a clear remain option. There was a clear leave option and a clear remain option in 2016...you can't get much clearer than "do you want to stay, or do you want to leave?"! I agree but:- No one new exactly what leave meant, and we still don't know for sure. When we do people can make a more informed decision. Personally I'd rather the decision was taken by parliament and, if May (or any one else) can get a deal through parliament that satisfies the BREXITers and the rest of parliament it will be. But if the deal that comes back cannot be got through parliament, as most in parliament believe that a no deal BREXIT would be a disaster, I think parliament will go for another referendum and the choice will be between leave with no deal and remain." The EU is not just a common market for trade now though is it. All that changed in the 1990's with the Maastrict treaty and then not only was it a common market but a political union as well. What the British public voted on in the 1970's was a common market, a trade deal with just a handful of countries. Today the EU has 28 member countries and is still looking to add more. The EU had changed wholesale from what the British people voted to join in 1975 and was fundamentally different then, to what we voted on in 2016. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The BBC is telling you, you will run out of fillings for your sandwiches if the result is a no deal Based on the idea that if it's on the BBC, then it must be gospel (snigger) Would the threat of not having a slice of cucumber between your bread for a few days, make you change your vote? Im only asking on behalf of a friend who is thinking of growing some cucumbers Enjoy your mockery - your not living in the UK and have no chance of being effected - if this happens! I can only assume as you live in 3 countries your a "wanderer"? But the BBC is generally a decent source of information - on both sides of the argument. Yes the BBC has quite a reputation! It also makes you pay a license fee to support it, I believe? At least in North Korea they get their propaganda for free The licence fee also supports Channel 4, and covers infrastructure such as rolling out of digital radio. The license fee also supported people like Jimmy Saville and the illegal coverage of a raid on Cliff Richard's house....just saying. Just saying what exactly? That because a paedophile worked for the BBC, you can't believe their news coverage? That seems to be what you are saying, but please feel free to explain the connection between the posts quoted above and Jimmy saville. Paedophiles have also worked in schools? Should we take all the kids out and close them down? Paedophiles have worked in hospitals, should we close those down? Hell, there have even been paedophiles in UKIP, should we ban the party? To be fair the BBC along with the rest of the British media, seem reluctant to report the pandemic scale of gang r@pes of children in all your major cities Preferring to deflect attention away from it rather than reporting it Instead, they attempt to alarm the population with ridiculous anti Brexit stories about sandwich shortages or the high risk of catching gonorrhoea post Brexit After a laughable bit of scaremongering they predictably head off on an anti Trump tangent It's not what the media tells us - it's often the stories the media hides, ignores or tries to gloss over which are important Ok so prove it then. Find me 1 example of gang child r@pe that was widely reported by other UK media organisations, but was not reported at all by the BBC. It's not just your Main Stream Media failing to report the truth - the whole British establishment wants to bury it Speak up about it and you are silenced. Just ask Sarah Champion - sacked by the Labour Party and now needing police protection Anyone telling the truth in your country gets treated like a criminal - Julian Assange, yep! He tells the truth - lets get him locked up or deported straight away! But don't worry, just keep reading and believing farcical stories your media feeds you - about running out of sandwiches or catching post Brexit gonorrhoea For dessert they spoon feed you an hourly dose of anti Trump rhetoric, just to see you through the day and to stop you seeking the truth Right, fine, if the whole of the British media and establishment is now terrible, find me one case of child gang r@pe that was widely reported outside of the UK, but was not picked up by any UK media organisations. I'm willing to bet that you won't be able to. You originally said it was just the BBC not reporting these gang sexual crimes against children, but when asked to prove it, you couldn't substantiate your claim. Instead you tried to blame the entirety of the British media instead. Now let's see if you can prove these claims. Where did I say it was just the BBC? What I said was ..... "To be fair the BBC along with the rest of the British media, seem reluctant to report the pandemic scale of gang r@pes of children in all your major cities" The fact that you are prepared to defend the failings of the media but not defend or show concern for the child victims, would suggest the media have successfully done their job Or that you, by not providing any source for your claims, have simply failed to convince us that what your saying is true. Why not ask the thousands of child r@pe victims for the truth, perhaps while you are at it, you can explain to them why people like you are part of the problem The problem is that you are not providing any evidence to back up your claims. The only sites that I've seen that talk about cover ups of elite gangs of child m0lesters are EDL and Britain First, and that only seems to when they're not talking about Muslim r@pe gangs, but show me some reliable proof that this cover up exists and then I can from an opinion. Perhaps you'd like to explain why you are using multiple accounts to argue your point? " I'm not. I've just joined in the argument you were having on the forum. I only have the one account. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What choices would be the public be given in a 2nd referendum? Offering people the chance to revoke the Article 50 notice and remain a full member of the EU is a non-starter, I think - Parliament would never approve. I can see only two realistic choices: a) to leave the EU completely, i.e. the No Deal exit b) to apply for membership of EFTA or EEA. Mrs May's preferred option of a bespoke agreement between the UK and EU can't be on the ballot paper, otherwise you are asking voters to choose something that is not in the control of the Government to deliver. I don't think there should be a 2nd referendum and I don't think there will be one. However yours seems like the most sensible suggestion on the thread. There can be no option to remain in as it currently stands. The country already made its decision to leave in 2016. The only options would be to leave with no deal or accept a negotiated Brexit deal. That's the worst option. The choice is leave or leave. What's the point of that? If there is going to be 3rd referendum then it has to have a clear leave option and a clear remain option. There was a clear leave option and a clear remain option in 2016...you can't get much clearer than "do you want to stay, or do you want to leave?"! I agree but:- No one new exactly what leave meant, and we still don't know for sure. When we do people can make a more informed decision. Personally I'd rather the decision was taken by parliament and, if May (or any one else) can get a deal through parliament that satisfies the BREXITers and the rest of parliament it will be. But if the deal that comes back cannot be got through parliament, as most in parliament believe that a no deal BREXIT would be a disaster, I think parliament will go for another referendum and the choice will be between leave with no deal and remain. Technically a 'no deal' is still Brexit, which is one of the many reasons you won't get a 2nd ref " I think more and more people are coming to the conclusion that, with the red lines of the BREXITers and the red lines of the EU, 'No Deal' is the only form of BREXIT possible, which is the complete opposite of what they were told in 2016 when BREXIETers said that getting an agreement with the EU 'would be the simplest negotiation ever'. I'm willing to accept that that might not have been a lie, because it was a prediction, but it was clearly wrong and showed a complete lack of competence and understanding of how complicated and difficult trade negations really are. I'm not sure that, if people had known that the only BREXIT possible would be a 'no deal' BREXIT they would have voted the same as they did. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What choices would be the public be given in a 2nd referendum? Offering people the chance to revoke the Article 50 notice and remain a full member of the EU is a non-starter, I think - Parliament would never approve. I can see only two realistic choices: a) to leave the EU completely, i.e. the No Deal exit b) to apply for membership of EFTA or EEA. Mrs May's preferred option of a bespoke agreement between the UK and EU can't be on the ballot paper, otherwise you are asking voters to choose something that is not in the control of the Government to deliver. I don't think there should be a 2nd referendum and I don't think there will be one. However yours seems like the most sensible suggestion on the thread. There can be no option to remain in as it currently stands. The country already made its decision to leave in 2016. The only options would be to leave with no deal or accept a negotiated Brexit deal. There is no such thing though as 'no deal'. It is s fantasy. We've been through this before, Centy. Look at the example we went through on driving licenses alone. -Matt Of course no deal is an option. As an example the Bank of England did stress tests on UK banks for a no deal scenario. All the banks passed the tests. Many countries all around the world trade on WTO rules and get by just fine and dandy. As for driving licenses it was established that an international driving permit takes about 5 minutes to fill out the form, you've probably spent longer making posts on this thread.
"Many countries all around the world trade on WTO rules and get by just fine and dandy"
Really? Name me any one country that trades exclusively under WTO terms. There are 169 countries in the WTO so name any single one of them that trades exclusively under WTO terms. Just one will do.
The reality is is that NO countries trade just on WTO terms. All belong to least one, and in some cases many, free trade areas (FTAs) or preferential trade areas (PTAs) with others. These FTAs and PTAs reduce trade barriers below the level set in the WTO. If Britain traded solely on WTO terms, it would deprive its exporters of advantages that EVRY foreign competitor enjoys.
If you'd bothered to read the whole thread before replying prematurely you'd have already seen that EasyUk pointed out that Mauritania is a country that trades solely on WTO rules. So when you say no country in the world trade's solely on WTO terms you're wrong (if EasyUk is correct). If you have issue with it I suggest you take it up with him.
Secondly I never said anywhere the UK would trade solely on WTO rules as many countries have already given notice of their intention to sign free trade deals with us after Brexit. So our trade will be a mix of bilateral free trade deals with some countries and WTO rules with other countries after Brexit.
What you actually said was "Many countries all around the world trade on WTO rules and get by just fine and dandy"
And that is clearly not the case even if EasyUk was correct. But in this case actually he's not totally correct. Mauritania is a member of both The Arab Maghreb Union (AMU) and the Pan Arab Free Trade Area (PAFTA). Although it doesn't take full advantage of its membership of either it is still a member of both so does not trade exclusively on WTO terms."Yes I did say "many countries all around the world trade on WTO rules and get by just fine and dandy", and that's true. The key word that is missing there which I didn't use is "solely" which both you and EasyUK have added in to try to mislead people. Many countries all around the world do trade with each other on WTO rules but that's not to say they don't trade with other countries on Free trade deals as well, there is a mix. It will be the same for the UK after Brexit, we will have a mix of free trade deals with some countries (who have already given intention to sign those deals) and with other countries we will trade on WTO rules. It's how most of the world operates it's trade policy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Theresa May's Chequers deal is already dead. It's already been all but rejected by Barnier and the EU. How can our plan be dead? You've been saying for years now that the UK is in control, that the UK is in charge, that we can dictate terms and the EU will just accept because they need us more than we need them. Who cares if Barnier rejects them, it's just the heads of BMW, Audi, VW and Mercedes-Benz that we need to convince, right? That's what you have been telling us. " Maybe you've changed your mind? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What choices would be the public be given in a 2nd referendum? Offering people the chance to revoke the Article 50 notice and remain a full member of the EU is a non-starter, I think - Parliament would never approve. I can see only two realistic choices: a) to leave the EU completely, i.e. the No Deal exit b) to apply for membership of EFTA or EEA. Mrs May's preferred option of a bespoke agreement between the UK and EU can't be on the ballot paper, otherwise you are asking voters to choose something that is not in the control of the Government to deliver. I don't think there should be a 2nd referendum and I don't think there will be one. However yours seems like the most sensible suggestion on the thread. There can be no option to remain in as it currently stands. The country already made its decision to leave in 2016. The only options would be to leave with no deal or accept a negotiated Brexit deal. That's the worst option. The choice is leave or leave. What's the point of that? If there is going to be 3rd referendum then it has to have a clear leave option and a clear remain option. There was a clear leave option and a clear remain option in 2016...you can't get much clearer than "do you want to stay, or do you want to leave?"! I agree but:- No one new exactly what leave meant, and we still don't know for sure. When we do people can make a more informed decision. Personally I'd rather the decision was taken by parliament and, if May (or any one else) can get a deal through parliament that satisfies the BREXITers and the rest of parliament it will be. But if the deal that comes back cannot be got through parliament, as most in parliament believe that a no deal BREXIT would be a disaster, I think parliament will go for another referendum and the choice will be between leave with no deal and remain. The EU is not just a common market for trade now though is it. All that changed in the 1990's with the Maastrict treaty and then not only was it a common market but a political union as well. What the British public voted on in the 1970's was a common market, a trade deal with just a handful of countries. Today the EU has 28 member countries and is still looking to add more. The EU had changed wholesale from what the British people voted to join in 1975 and was fundamentally different then, to what we voted on in 2016. " Bloody Deja vu or what. I've just been through this with SandJ and I'm sure I've been through this with you before now also. What we voted for in 1975 was a common market. the WTO definition of a common market is:- An economic market consisting of multiple nations or entities that have adopted common regulations and policies to reduce internal trade barriers. The EU is an economic market consisting of multiple nations or entities that have adopted common regulations and policies to reduce internal trade barriers, just as we voted for. You cannot have a common market with out institutions to ensure that regulations and policies are aligned and that internal trade barriers (both tariff and non tariff) are removed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What choices would be the public be given in a 2nd referendum? Offering people the chance to revoke the Article 50 notice and remain a full member of the EU is a non-starter, I think - Parliament would never approve. I can see only two realistic choices: a) to leave the EU completely, i.e. the No Deal exit b) to apply for membership of EFTA or EEA. Mrs May's preferred option of a bespoke agreement between the UK and EU can't be on the ballot paper, otherwise you are asking voters to choose something that is not in the control of the Government to deliver. I don't think there should be a 2nd referendum and I don't think there will be one. However yours seems like the most sensible suggestion on the thread. There can be no option to remain in as it currently stands. The country already made its decision to leave in 2016. The only options would be to leave with no deal or accept a negotiated Brexit deal. There is no such thing though as 'no deal'. It is s fantasy. We've been through this before, Centy. Look at the example we went through on driving licenses alone. -Matt Of course no deal is an option. As an example the Bank of England did stress tests on UK banks for a no deal scenario. All the banks passed the tests. Many countries all around the world trade on WTO rules and get by just fine and dandy. As for driving licenses it was established that an international driving permit takes about 5 minutes to fill out the form, you've probably spent longer making posts on this thread.
"Many countries all around the world trade on WTO rules and get by just fine and dandy"
Really? Name me any one country that trades exclusively under WTO terms. There are 169 countries in the WTO so name any single one of them that trades exclusively under WTO terms. Just one will do.
The reality is is that NO countries trade just on WTO terms. All belong to least one, and in some cases many, free trade areas (FTAs) or preferential trade areas (PTAs) with others. These FTAs and PTAs reduce trade barriers below the level set in the WTO. If Britain traded solely on WTO terms, it would deprive its exporters of advantages that EVRY foreign competitor enjoys.
If you'd bothered to read the whole thread before replying prematurely you'd have already seen that EasyUk pointed out that Mauritania is a country that trades solely on WTO rules. So when you say no country in the world trade's solely on WTO terms you're wrong (if EasyUk is correct). If you have issue with it I suggest you take it up with him.
Secondly I never said anywhere the UK would trade solely on WTO rules as many countries have already given notice of their intention to sign free trade deals with us after Brexit. So our trade will be a mix of bilateral free trade deals with some countries and WTO rules with other countries after Brexit.
What you actually said was "Many countries all around the world trade on WTO rules and get by just fine and dandy"
And that is clearly not the case even if EasyUk was correct. But in this case actually he's not totally correct. Mauritania is a member of both The Arab Maghreb Union (AMU) and the Pan Arab Free Trade Area (PAFTA). Although it doesn't take full advantage of its membership of either it is still a member of both so does not trade exclusively on WTO terms.
Yes I did say "many countries all around the world trade on WTO rules and get by just fine and dandy", and that's true. The key word that is missing there which I didn't use is "solely" which both you and EasyUK have added in to try to mislead people. Many countries all around the world do trade with each other on WTO rules but that's not to say they don't trade with other countries on Free trade deals as well, there is a mix. It will be the same for the UK after Brexit, we will have a mix of free trade deals with some countries (who have already given intention to sign those deals) and with other countries we will trade on WTO rules. It's how most of the world operates it's trade policy. "But it's not how most of the world trades at all. Most of the world trades with each other via numerous trade agreements which include sector bilateral trading agreements, Free Trading Areas (FTAs), Preferential Trading Areas (PTAs), customs unions and common markets. For example the EU currently has no FTA with the US but it doesn't do most of its trade with the US on WTO terms. It Does most of its trade with the US Via 15+ bilateral trade agreements (BTW non of which we will be able to use post BREXIT). No one trades solely or even mostly on WTO terms and no one is doing fine and dandy trading on them either. Go fact check yourself. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When do we get the one after that? Maybe we should have stopped after the first one in 1975, which remain won with 67%, and put all are efforts in to making it work. You can hardly expect the 48% to get behind the decision of the 52% because they won this time when the 32% who lost last time have spent 40+ years undermining the 67% Of course, the other way of looking at it is that, as it was the 'oldies' who this time mostly voted to leave, 40 years ago most of them voted to remain. Perhaps because they were promised a trading bloc only (the common market) and ended up with something completely different (The EU). The over 65s (i.e. those who voted in 1975) voted about 64% to leave, 36% remain... Complete opposite of 1975. "Perhaps because they were promised a trading bloc only (the common market) and ended up with something completely different (The EU)" Just as I'm starting to pick up a bit of respect for you and starting to believe that maybe you have really done all the research you say you have you com up with that often quoted lie. What we voted for in 1975 was a common market. the WTO definition of a common market is:- An economic market consisting of multiple nations or entities that have adopted common regulations and policies to reduce internal trade barriers. The EU is an economic market consisting of multiple nations or entities that have adopted common regulations and policies to reduce internal trade barriers, just as we voted for. Clearly your extensive research didn't spend much time looking into exactly what a Common Market actually is. " I know what a common market is thanks. But please tell me - Where does the definition also say 'and a court that rules over domestic courts, a parliament, 5 presidents, a commission that passes down laws to each nation, its own flag and 'national' anthem, its own rules on domestic taxation, political and economic integration, common military planning'? You think these are all part of a common market? Ted Heath, the Prime Minister at the time of the 1975 referendum, was interviewed some years later, and asked about the EU and economic and political integration....he said that if the public had been told it was more than a common market, then they would have voted to leave in 1975. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What choices would be the public be given in a 2nd referendum? Offering people the chance to revoke the Article 50 notice and remain a full member of the EU is a non-starter, I think - Parliament would never approve. I can see only two realistic choices: a) to leave the EU completely, i.e. the No Deal exit b) to apply for membership of EFTA or EEA. Mrs May's preferred option of a bespoke agreement between the UK and EU can't be on the ballot paper, otherwise you are asking voters to choose something that is not in the control of the Government to deliver. I don't think there should be a 2nd referendum and I don't think there will be one. However yours seems like the most sensible suggestion on the thread. There can be no option to remain in as it currently stands. The country already made its decision to leave in 2016. The only options would be to leave with no deal or accept a negotiated Brexit deal. That's the worst option. The choice is leave or leave. What's the point of that? If there is going to be 3rd referendum then it has to have a clear leave option and a clear remain option. There was a clear leave option and a clear remain option in 2016...you can't get much clearer than "do you want to stay, or do you want to leave?"! I agree but:- No one new exactly what leave meant, and we still don't know for sure. When we do people can make a more informed decision. Personally I'd rather the decision was taken by parliament and, if May (or any one else) can get a deal through parliament that satisfies the BREXITers and the rest of parliament it will be. But if the deal that comes back cannot be got through parliament, as most in parliament believe that a no deal BREXIT would be a disaster, I think parliament will go for another referendum and the choice will be between leave with no deal and remain. The EU is not just a common market for trade now though is it. All that changed in the 1990's with the Maastrict treaty and then not only was it a common market but a political union as well. What the British public voted on in the 1970's was a common market, a trade deal with just a handful of countries. Today the EU has 28 member countries and is still looking to add more. The EU had changed wholesale from what the British people voted to join in 1975 and was fundamentally different then, to what we voted on in 2016. Bloody Deja vu or what. I've just been through this with SandJ and I'm sure I've been through this with you before now also. What we voted for in 1975 was a common market. the WTO definition of a common market is:- An economic market consisting of multiple nations or entities that have adopted common regulations and policies to reduce internal trade barriers. The EU is an economic market consisting of multiple nations or entities that have adopted common regulations and policies to reduce internal trade barriers, just as we voted for. You cannot have a common market with out institutions to ensure that regulations and policies are aligned and that internal trade barriers (both tariff and non tariff) are removed. " Can you have a common market without a common parliament? Without a common currency? Without 'deep political integration'? Without common taxation policies? Without freedom of movement of labour? Without a common flag and a national anthem? Without a president? Without 5 presidemts? Without a centralised, supreme court that can rule over domestic law? Or are you saying that every trading bloc in the world has all these things? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Can you have a common market without a common parliament? Without a common currency? Without 'deep political integration'? Without common taxation policies? Without freedom of movement of labour? Without a common flag and a national anthem? Without a president? Without 5 presidemts? Without a centralised, supreme court that can rule over domestic law? Or are you saying that every trading bloc in the world has all these things?" Trading bloc? BRICS is a trading bloc. We're talking the single market. The UK is a single market. The US is a single market. The EU is a single market. All have the features your describe. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When do we get the one after that? Maybe we should have stopped after the first one in 1975, which remain won with 67%, and put all are efforts in to making it work. You can hardly expect the 48% to get behind the decision of the 52% because they won this time when the 32% who lost last time have spent 40+ years undermining the 67% Of course, the other way of looking at it is that, as it was the 'oldies' who this time mostly voted to leave, 40 years ago most of them voted to remain. Perhaps because they were promised a trading bloc only (the common market) and ended up with something completely different (The EU). The over 65s (i.e. those who voted in 1975) voted about 64% to leave, 36% remain... Complete opposite of 1975. "Perhaps because they were promised a trading bloc only (the common market) and ended up with something completely different (The EU)" Just as I'm starting to pick up a bit of respect for you and starting to believe that maybe you have really done all the research you say you have you com up with that often quoted lie. What we voted for in 1975 was a common market. the WTO definition of a common market is:- An economic market consisting of multiple nations or entities that have adopted common regulations and policies to reduce internal trade barriers. The EU is an economic market consisting of multiple nations or entities that have adopted common regulations and policies to reduce internal trade barriers, just as we voted for. Clearly your extensive research didn't spend much time looking into exactly what a Common Market actually is. I know what a common market is thanks. But please tell me - Where does the definition also say 'and a court that rules over domestic courts, a parliament, 5 presidents, a commission that passes down laws to each nation, its own flag and 'national' anthem, its own rules on domestic taxation, political and economic integration, common military planning'? You think these are all part of a common market? Ted Heath, the Prime Minister at the time of the 1975 referendum, was interviewed some years later, and asked about the EU and economic and political integration....he said that if the public had been told it was more than a common market, then they would have voted to leave in 1975. " I've written this multiple times and I'm a little surprise that this is not apparent in your research. The ECJ is a treaty court. It rules on treaty disputes between member states or member states and the EU. It is no more or less impartial than the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. It must also, by necessity, have its judgements recognised in the law of member countries. If there is any trade agreement signed there is either a court or an arbitration body set up who's rulings all parties agree to be bound by. In most bilateral deals these are held in secret. Rulings and costs are never known and action cannot be taken on them in any national court. Are there any specific ECJ rulings you object to? I'm yet to have an answer from anyone. The United Nations has a flag and a General Assembly. The Scouting Movement has a flag and an anthem. These are silly definitions. The Commission does not "pass down laws" either other than physically generating and communicating the documentation. I'm sure you are well aware that the legislative process cannot even start without the approval of national governments through the Council of Ministers and has to end with a vote in the European Parliament. Tax rules are agreed by member states to prevent a way to disguise tariffs. The EU is now more than a purely economic organisation, but that's what gives it its international political influence which as one of its three most influential members gives the UK far more influence than it warrants. We have opted out of most of these non-trade areas. Why are they inherently bad anyway? Why is "sovereignty" inherently good? Would the USA, India or China be better off and more prosperous and influential split into their constituent parts? Our government agreed, and not more than half the population actually thinks all of this is bad on any given day. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When do we get the one after that? Maybe we should have stopped after the first one in 1975, which remain won with 67%, and put all are efforts in to making it work. You can hardly expect the 48% to get behind the decision of the 52% because they won this time when the 32% who lost last time have spent 40+ years undermining the 67% Of course, the other way of looking at it is that, as it was the 'oldies' who this time mostly voted to leave, 40 years ago most of them voted to remain. Perhaps because they were promised a trading bloc only (the common market) and ended up with something completely different (The EU). The over 65s (i.e. those who voted in 1975) voted about 64% to leave, 36% remain... Complete opposite of 1975. "Perhaps because they were promised a trading bloc only (the common market) and ended up with something completely different (The EU)" Just as I'm starting to pick up a bit of respect for you and starting to believe that maybe you have really done all the research you say you have you com up with that often quoted lie. What we voted for in 1975 was a common market. the WTO definition of a common market is:- An economic market consisting of multiple nations or entities that have adopted common regulations and policies to reduce internal trade barriers. The EU is an economic market consisting of multiple nations or entities that have adopted common regulations and policies to reduce internal trade barriers, just as we voted for. Clearly your extensive research didn't spend much time looking into exactly what a Common Market actually is. I know what a common market is thanks. But please tell me - Where does the definition also say 'and a court that rules over domestic courts, a parliament, 5 presidents, a commission that passes down laws to each nation, its own flag and 'national' anthem, its own rules on domestic taxation, political and economic integration, common military planning'? You think these are all part of a common market? Ted Heath, the Prime Minister at the time of the 1975 referendum, was interviewed some years later, and asked about the EU and economic and political integration....he said that if the public had been told it was more than a common market, then they would have voted to leave in 1975. " Again, I assume that in your research there are some positives from membership of the EU to balance this against. What are they? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When do we get the one after that? Maybe we should have stopped after the first one in 1975, which remain won with 67%, and put all are efforts in to making it work. You can hardly expect the 48% to get behind the decision of the 52% because they won this time when the 32% who lost last time have spent 40+ years undermining the 67% Of course, the other way of looking at it is that, as it was the 'oldies' who this time mostly voted to leave, 40 years ago most of them voted to remain. Perhaps because they were promised a trading bloc only (the common market) and ended up with something completely different (The EU). The over 65s (i.e. those who voted in 1975) voted about 64% to leave, 36% remain... Complete opposite of 1975. "Perhaps because they were promised a trading bloc only (the common market) and ended up with something completely different (The EU)" Just as I'm starting to pick up a bit of respect for you and starting to believe that maybe you have really done all the research you say you have you com up with that often quoted lie. What we voted for in 1975 was a common market. the WTO definition of a common market is:- An economic market consisting of multiple nations or entities that have adopted common regulations and policies to reduce internal trade barriers. The EU is an economic market consisting of multiple nations or entities that have adopted common regulations and policies to reduce internal trade barriers, just as we voted for. Clearly your extensive research didn't spend much time looking into exactly what a Common Market actually is. I know what a common market is thanks. But please tell me - Where does the definition also say 'and a court that rules over domestic courts, a parliament, 5 presidents, a commission that passes down laws to each nation, its own flag and 'national' anthem, its own rules on domestic taxation, political and economic integration, common military planning'? You think these are all part of a common market? Ted Heath, the Prime Minister at the time of the 1975 referendum, was interviewed some years later, and asked about the EU and economic and political integration....he said that if the public had been told it was more than a common market, then they would have voted to leave in 1975. " For good measure we surrender our military command structure to NATO (which also has a flag and rules). The "EU army" would be a centralised command structure like NATO not troops loyal to the EU. The EU cannot force any state to commit its troops to conflict. As the USA is proving an unreliable ally I have fewer doubts about this idea than I. once did. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When do we get the one after that? Maybe we should have stopped after the first one in 1975, which remain won with 67%, and put all are efforts in to making it work. You can hardly expect the 48% to get behind the decision of the 52% because they won this time when the 32% who lost last time have spent 40+ years undermining the 67% Of course, the other way of looking at it is that, as it was the 'oldies' who this time mostly voted to leave, 40 years ago most of them voted to remain. Perhaps because they were promised a trading bloc only (the common market) and ended up with something completely different (The EU). The over 65s (i.e. those who voted in 1975) voted about 64% to leave, 36% remain... Complete opposite of 1975. "Perhaps because they were promised a trading bloc only (the common market) and ended up with something completely different (The EU)" Just as I'm starting to pick up a bit of respect for you and starting to believe that maybe you have really done all the research you say you have you com up with that often quoted lie. What we voted for in 1975 was a common market. the WTO definition of a common market is:- An economic market consisting of multiple nations or entities that have adopted common regulations and policies to reduce internal trade barriers. The EU is an economic market consisting of multiple nations or entities that have adopted common regulations and policies to reduce internal trade barriers, just as we voted for. Clearly your extensive research didn't spend much time looking into exactly what a Common Market actually is. I know what a common market is thanks. But please tell me - Where does the definition also say 'and a court that rules over domestic courts, a parliament, 5 presidents, a commission that passes down laws to each nation, its own flag and 'national' anthem, its own rules on domestic taxation, political and economic integration, common military planning'? You think these are all part of a common market? Ted Heath, the Prime Minister at the time of the 1975 referendum, was interviewed some years later, and asked about the EU and economic and political integration....he said that if the public had been told it was more than a common market, then they would have voted to leave in 1975. For good measure we surrender our military command structure to NATO (which also has a flag and rules). The "EU army" would be a centralised command structure like NATO not troops loyal to the EU. The EU cannot force any state to commit its troops to conflict. As the USA is proving an unreliable ally I have fewer doubts about this idea than I. once did." Do we have to have free movement of people with Nato countries? No. Does Nato make trade deals on our behalf? No. To compare membership of Nato to membership of the EU is simply ridiculous. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When do we get the one after that? Maybe we should have stopped after the first one in 1975, which remain won with 67%, and put all are efforts in to making it work. You can hardly expect the 48% to get behind the decision of the 52% because they won this time when the 32% who lost last time have spent 40+ years undermining the 67% Of course, the other way of looking at it is that, as it was the 'oldies' who this time mostly voted to leave, 40 years ago most of them voted to remain. Perhaps because they were promised a trading bloc only (the common market) and ended up with something completely different (The EU). The over 65s (i.e. those who voted in 1975) voted about 64% to leave, 36% remain... Complete opposite of 1975. "Perhaps because they were promised a trading bloc only (the common market) and ended up with something completely different (The EU)" Just as I'm starting to pick up a bit of respect for you and starting to believe that maybe you have really done all the research you say you have you com up with that often quoted lie. What we voted for in 1975 was a common market. the WTO definition of a common market is:- An economic market consisting of multiple nations or entities that have adopted common regulations and policies to reduce internal trade barriers. The EU is an economic market consisting of multiple nations or entities that have adopted common regulations and policies to reduce internal trade barriers, just as we voted for. Clearly your extensive research didn't spend much time looking into exactly what a Common Market actually is. I know what a common market is thanks. But please tell me - Where does the definition also say 'and a court that rules over domestic courts, a parliament, 5 presidents, a commission that passes down laws to each nation, its own flag and 'national' anthem, its own rules on domestic taxation, political and economic integration, common military planning'? You think these are all part of a common market? Ted Heath, the Prime Minister at the time of the 1975 referendum, was interviewed some years later, and asked about the EU and economic and political integration....he said that if the public had been told it was more than a common market, then they would have voted to leave in 1975. " Spot on | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What choices would be the public be given in a 2nd referendum? Offering people the chance to revoke the Article 50 notice and remain a full member of the EU is a non-starter, I think - Parliament would never approve. I can see only two realistic choices: a) to leave the EU completely, i.e. the No Deal exit b) to apply for membership of EFTA or EEA. Mrs May's preferred option of a bespoke agreement between the UK and EU can't be on the ballot paper, otherwise you are asking voters to choose something that is not in the control of the Government to deliver. I disagree. If another referendum is held then three options should be on the table. A three option referendum is technically possible (a Google shows how it works) so you could ask A) Leave with no deal B) Accept the negotiated deal C) Remain as is The bigger issue is whether this is politically possible. At the moment still likely not, but as the final shape of any negotiated deal becomes clear, or as the likelihood of no deal increases, there will come a time when it's possible or even necessary. " Unfortunately the EU won't allow you to remain 'as is' You would have reapply and rejoin on new terms Parliaments traditionally only deal with binary issues and often struggle with that concept as you are finding out Bringing in a 3rd or even a 4th option as some have suggested would complicate things to such a level for voters and politicians alike, it would make it totally unworkable You have already voted to leave, so the only viable binary options on a ballot paper would be 1/ leave on Mrs May's negotiated terms 2/ leave on WTO negotiated terms Of course all options are hypothetical as a 2nd ref can't and won't happen before March 2019 But it's not the end of the World for Remainers - those wishing to rejoin the EU, have the choice to vote for Vince Cable at the next GE, assuming rejoining is part of his manifesto | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When do we get the one after that? Maybe we should have stopped after the first one in 1975, which remain won with 67%, and put all are efforts in to making it work. You can hardly expect the 48% to get behind the decision of the 52% because they won this time when the 32% who lost last time have spent 40+ years undermining the 67% Of course, the other way of looking at it is that, as it was the 'oldies' who this time mostly voted to leave, 40 years ago most of them voted to remain. Perhaps because they were promised a trading bloc only (the common market) and ended up with something completely different (The EU). The over 65s (i.e. those who voted in 1975) voted about 64% to leave, 36% remain... Complete opposite of 1975. "Perhaps because they were promised a trading bloc only (the common market) and ended up with something completely different (The EU)" Just as I'm starting to pick up a bit of respect for you and starting to believe that maybe you have really done all the research you say you have you com up with that often quoted lie. What we voted for in 1975 was a common market. the WTO definition of a common market is:- An economic market consisting of multiple nations or entities that have adopted common regulations and policies to reduce internal trade barriers. The EU is an economic market consisting of multiple nations or entities that have adopted common regulations and policies to reduce internal trade barriers, just as we voted for. Clearly your extensive research didn't spend much time looking into exactly what a Common Market actually is. I know what a common market is thanks. But please tell me - Where does the definition also say 'and a court that rules over domestic courts, a parliament, 5 presidents, a commission that passes down laws to each nation, its own flag and 'national' anthem, its own rules on domestic taxation, political and economic integration, common military planning'? You think these are all part of a common market? Ted Heath, the Prime Minister at the time of the 1975 referendum, was interviewed some years later, and asked about the EU and economic and political integration....he said that if the public had been told it was more than a common market, then they would have voted to leave in 1975. For good measure we surrender our military command structure to NATO (which also has a flag and rules). The "EU army" would be a centralised command structure like NATO not troops loyal to the EU. The EU cannot force any state to commit its troops to conflict. As the USA is proving an unreliable ally I have fewer doubts about this idea than I. once did. Do we have to have free movement of people with Nato countries? No. Does Nato make trade deals on our behalf? No. To compare membership of Nato to membership of the EU is simply ridiculous. "I have very clearly compared NATO to an "EU army". Is that an inappropriate comparison? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What choices would be the public be given in a 2nd referendum? Offering people the chance to revoke the Article 50 notice and remain a full member of the EU is a non-starter, I think - Parliament would never approve. I can see only two realistic choices: a) to leave the EU completely, i.e. the No Deal exit b) to apply for membership of EFTA or EEA. Mrs May's preferred option of a bespoke agreement between the UK and EU can't be on the ballot paper, otherwise you are asking voters to choose something that is not in the control of the Government to deliver. I disagree. If another referendum is held then three options should be on the table. A three option referendum is technically possible (a Google shows how it works) so you could ask A) Leave with no deal B) Accept the negotiated deal C) Remain as is The bigger issue is whether this is politically possible. At the moment still likely not, but as the final shape of any negotiated deal becomes clear, or as the likelihood of no deal increases, there will come a time when it's possible or even necessary. Unfortunately the EU won't allow you to remain 'as is' You would have reapply and rejoin on new terms Parliaments traditionally only deal with binary issues and often struggle with that concept as you are finding out Bringing in a 3rd or even a 4th option as some have suggested would complicate things to such a level for voters and politicians alike, it would make it totally unworkable You have already voted to leave, so the only viable binary options on a ballot paper would be 1/ leave on Mrs May's negotiated terms 2/ leave on WTO negotiated terms Of course all options are hypothetical as a 2nd ref can't and won't happen before March 2019 But it's not the end of the World for Remainers - those wishing to rejoin the EU, have the choice to vote for Vince Cable at the next GE, assuming rejoining is part of his manifesto " Tour ability to back up anything that you claim seems to be very limited. There is absolutely nothing preventing us from remaining in the EU on identical terms to those that we have now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What choices would be the public be given in a 2nd referendum? Offering people the chance to revoke the Article 50 notice and remain a full member of the EU is a non-starter, I think - Parliament would never approve. I can see only two realistic choices: a) to leave the EU completely, i.e. the No Deal exit b) to apply for membership of EFTA or EEA. Mrs May's preferred option of a bespoke agreement between the UK and EU can't be on the ballot paper, otherwise you are asking voters to choose something that is not in the control of the Government to deliver. I don't think there should be a 2nd referendum and I don't think there will be one. However yours seems like the most sensible suggestion on the thread. There can be no option to remain in as it currently stands. The country already made its decision to leave in 2016. The only options would be to leave with no deal or accept a negotiated Brexit deal. There is no such thing though as 'no deal'. It is s fantasy. We've been through this before, Centy. Look at the example we went through on driving licenses alone. -Matt Of course no deal is an option. As an example the Bank of England did stress tests on UK banks for a no deal scenario. All the banks passed the tests. Many countries all around the world trade on WTO rules and get by just fine and dandy. As for driving licenses it was established that an international driving permit takes about 5 minutes to fill out the form, you've probably spent longer making posts on this thread.
"Many countries all around the world trade on WTO rules and get by just fine and dandy"
Really? Name me any one country that trades exclusively under WTO terms. There are 169 countries in the WTO so name any single one of them that trades exclusively under WTO terms. Just one will do.
The reality is is that NO countries trade just on WTO terms. All belong to least one, and in some cases many, free trade areas (FTAs) or preferential trade areas (PTAs) with others. These FTAs and PTAs reduce trade barriers below the level set in the WTO. If Britain traded solely on WTO terms, it would deprive its exporters of advantages that EVRY foreign competitor enjoys.
If you'd bothered to read the whole thread before replying prematurely you'd have already seen that EasyUk pointed out that Mauritania is a country that trades solely on WTO rules. So when you say no country in the world trade's solely on WTO terms you're wrong (if EasyUk is correct). If you have issue with it I suggest you take it up with him.
Secondly I never said anywhere the UK would trade solely on WTO rules as many countries have already given notice of their intention to sign free trade deals with us after Brexit. So our trade will be a mix of bilateral free trade deals with some countries and WTO rules with other countries after Brexit.
What you actually said was "Many countries all around the world trade on WTO rules and get by just fine and dandy"
And that is clearly not the case even if EasyUk was correct. But in this case actually he's not totally correct. Mauritania is a member of both The Arab Maghreb Union (AMU) and the Pan Arab Free Trade Area (PAFTA). Although it doesn't take full advantage of its membership of either it is still a member of both so does not trade exclusively on WTO terms.
Yes I did say "many countries all around the world trade on WTO rules and get by just fine and dandy", and that's true. The key word that is missing there which I didn't use is "solely" which both you and EasyUK have added in to try to mislead people. Many countries all around the world do trade with each other on WTO rules but that's not to say they don't trade with other countries on Free trade deals as well, there is a mix. It will be the same for the UK after Brexit, we will have a mix of free trade deals with some countries (who have already given intention to sign those deals) and with other countries we will trade on WTO rules. It's how most of the world operates it's trade policy. "Centaur, just because you are unable to express what you mean with the words that you use, please to not accuse others of trying to be misleading. Mauritania was the only example of a WTO state. The point being it is not at all economically successful. Nobody wants to trade on WTO terms. You have just made that point yourself but have been proclaiming for months that they are perfectly fine. Everyone would be delighted to enter into a free trade deal with us, on their terms. Particularly China, the USA and India who can far more easily get what they want from us on our own than the EU. Are you really saying that the EU is in a weaker negotiating position than the UK? What makes us stronger alone in this respect? When you use the words "agile" and "flexible" as I'm sure you will please tell me how that differs from in fact being more willing and able to give concessions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What choices would be the public be given in a 2nd referendum? Offering people the chance to revoke the Article 50 notice and remain a full member of the EU is a non-starter, I think - Parliament would never approve. I can see only two realistic choices: a) to leave the EU completely, i.e. the No Deal exit b) to apply for membership of EFTA or EEA. Mrs May's preferred option of a bespoke agreement between the UK and EU can't be on the ballot paper, otherwise you are asking voters to choose something that is not in the control of the Government to deliver. I disagree. If another referendum is held then three options should be on the table. A three option referendum is technically possible (a Google shows how it works) so you could ask A) Leave with no deal B) Accept the negotiated deal C) Remain as is The bigger issue is whether this is politically possible. At the moment still likely not, but as the final shape of any negotiated deal becomes clear, or as the likelihood of no deal increases, there will come a time when it's possible or even necessary. Unfortunately the EU won't allow you to remain 'as is' You would have reapply and rejoin on new terms Parliaments traditionally only deal with binary issues and often struggle with that concept as you are finding out Bringing in a 3rd or even a 4th option as some have suggested would complicate things to such a level for voters and politicians alike, it would make it totally unworkable You have already voted to leave, so the only viable binary options on a ballot paper would be 1/ leave on Mrs May's negotiated terms 2/ leave on WTO negotiated terms Of course all options are hypothetical as a 2nd ref can't and won't happen before March 2019 But it's not the end of the World for Remainers - those wishing to rejoin the EU, have the choice to vote for Vince Cable at the next GE, assuming rejoining is part of his manifesto Tour ability to back up anything that you claim seems to be very limited. There is absolutely nothing preventing us from remaining in the EU on identical terms to those that we have now." Can you back up your statement and show us evidence that the EU will allow you to rejoin under identical terms? Seems a rather rash statements as your application will need to be passed through the EU parliament | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Can you back up your statement and show us evidence that the EU will allow you to rejoin under identical terms? Seems a rather rash statements as your application will need to be passed through the EU parliament " I recall reading an "expert" on this question. Article 50 is very brief. His opinion was the notice submitted on March 29, 2017, could be withdrawn at any time up until March 29, 2019, and the UK would continue on exactly the same terms. After that, we have left. Would an application after March 29, 2019, be fast-tracked? It would be a political judgement for the EU27. I doubt very much the UK would be welcomed back with open arms. We'll be out for a generation at least. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Can you back up your statement and show us evidence that the EU will allow you to rejoin under identical terms? Seems a rather rash statements as your application will need to be passed through the EU parliament I recall reading an "expert" on this question. Article 50 is very brief. His opinion was the notice submitted on March 29, 2017, could be withdrawn at any time up until March 29, 2019, and the UK would continue on exactly the same terms. After that, we have left. Would an application after March 29, 2019, be fast-tracked? It would be a political judgement for the EU27. I doubt very much the UK would be welcomed back with open arms. We'll be out for a generation at least." Agreed - The other 27 countries will be looking for their pound of flesh - In Spain's case it will Gibraltar | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Can you back up your statement and show us evidence that the EU will allow you to rejoin under identical terms? Seems a rather rash statements as your application will need to be passed through the EU parliament I recall reading an "expert" on this question. Article 50 is very brief. His opinion was the notice submitted on March 29, 2017, could be withdrawn at any time up until March 29, 2019, and the UK would continue on exactly the same terms. After that, we have left. Would an application after March 29, 2019, be fast-tracked? It would be a political judgement for the EU27. I doubt very much the UK would be welcomed back with open arms. We'll be out for a generation at least. Agreed - The other 27 countries will be looking for their pound of flesh - In Spain's case it will Gibraltar " Giving up Gibraltar is a small price to pay .Give it to the Spanish. The days of empire are over .Only the flag waving uber nationalists with their nostalgic colonialism harp on about it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Can you back up your statement and show us evidence that the EU will allow you to rejoin under identical terms? Seems a rather rash statements as your application will need to be passed through the EU parliament I recall reading an "expert" on this question. Article 50 is very brief. His opinion was the notice submitted on March 29, 2017, could be withdrawn at any time up until March 29, 2019, and the UK would continue on exactly the same terms. After that, we have left. Would an application after March 29, 2019, be fast-tracked? It would be a political judgement for the EU27. I doubt very much the UK would be welcomed back with open arms. We'll be out for a generation at least. Agreed - The other 27 countries will be looking for their pound of flesh - In Spain's case it will Gibraltar Giving up Gibraltar is a small price to pay .Give it to the Spanish. The days of empire are over .Only the flag waving uber nationalists with their nostalgic colonialism harp on about it. "Of course there is the small matter of considering the wishes of the people of Gibraltar, of which 99% voted to remain British Before you write them off, you should also remember 96% voted to remain in the EU If you were ever to get a 2nd ref (which you won't) they might just tip the scales in your favour - assuming you are a Remainer? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Can you back up your statement and show us evidence that the EU will allow you to rejoin under identical terms? Seems a rather rash statements as your application will need to be passed through the EU parliament I recall reading an "expert" on this question. Article 50 is very brief. His opinion was the notice submitted on March 29, 2017, could be withdrawn at any time up until March 29, 2019, and the UK would continue on exactly the same terms. After that, we have left. Would an application after March 29, 2019, be fast-tracked? It would be a political judgement for the EU27. I doubt very much the UK would be welcomed back with open arms. We'll be out for a generation at least. Agreed - The other 27 countries will be looking for their pound of flesh - In Spain's case it will Gibraltar Giving up Gibraltar is a small price to pay .Give it to the Spanish. The days of empire are over .Only the flag waving uber nationalists with their nostalgic colonialism harp on about it.
Of course there is the small matter of considering the wishes of the people of Gibraltar, of which 99% voted to remain British
Before you write them off, you should also remember 96% voted to remain in the EU
If you were ever to get a 2nd ref (which you won't) they might just tip the scales in your favour - assuming you are a Remainer?
"It's a tiny population of 35,000 or so the size of a small town in the U.K.We should place the same significance as any small town in the U.K.that voted remain or leave . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Can you back up your statement and show us evidence that the EU will allow you to rejoin under identical terms? Seems a rather rash statements as your application will need to be passed through the EU parliament I recall reading an "expert" on this question. Article 50 is very brief. His opinion was the notice submitted on March 29, 2017, could be withdrawn at any time up until March 29, 2019, and the UK would continue on exactly the same terms. After that, we have left. Would an application after March 29, 2019, be fast-tracked? It would be a political judgement for the EU27. I doubt very much the UK would be welcomed back with open arms. We'll be out for a generation at least. Agreed - The other 27 countries will be looking for their pound of flesh - In Spain's case it will Gibraltar Giving up Gibraltar is a small price to pay .Give it to the Spanish. The days of empire are over .Only the flag waving uber nationalists with their nostalgic colonialism harp on about it.
Of course there is the small matter of considering the wishes of the people of Gibraltar, of which 99% voted to remain British
Before you write them off, you should also remember 96% voted to remain in the EU
If you were ever to get a 2nd ref (which you won't) they might just tip the scales in your favour - assuming you are a Remainer?
It's a tiny population of 35,000 or so the size of a small town in the U.K.We should place the same significance as any small town in the U.K.that voted remain or leave ."With those kind of views, it's hardly surprising your side lost | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Can you back up your statement and show us evidence that the EU will allow you to rejoin under identical terms? Seems a rather rash statements as your application will need to be passed through the EU parliament I recall reading an "expert" on this question. Article 50 is very brief. His opinion was the notice submitted on March 29, 2017, could be withdrawn at any time up until March 29, 2019, and the UK would continue on exactly the same terms. After that, we have left. Would an application after March 29, 2019, be fast-tracked? It would be a political judgement for the EU27. I doubt very much the UK would be welcomed back with open arms. We'll be out for a generation at least. Agreed - The other 27 countries will be looking for their pound of flesh - In Spain's case it will Gibraltar Giving up Gibraltar is a small price to pay .Give it to the Spanish. The days of empire are over .Only the flag waving uber nationalists with their nostalgic colonialism harp on about it.
Of course there is the small matter of considering the wishes of the people of Gibraltar, of which 99% voted to remain British
Before you write them off, you should also remember 96% voted to remain in the EU
If you were ever to get a 2nd ref (which you won't) they might just tip the scales in your favour - assuming you are a Remainer?
It's a tiny population of 35,000 or so the size of a small town in the U.K.We should place the same significance as any small town in the U.K.that voted remain or leave .
With those kind of views, it's hardly surprising your side lost "I know pragmatism was never part of the brexiter logic.Im sorry if the logic of "the needs of the many out way the needs of the few ".Is lost on a brexiter .However their selfishness is well known and obvious . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What choices would be the public be given in a 2nd referendum? Offering people the chance to revoke the Article 50 notice and remain a full member of the EU is a non-starter, I think - Parliament would never approve. I can see only two realistic choices: a) to leave the EU completely, i.e. the No Deal exit b) to apply for membership of EFTA or EEA. Mrs May's preferred option of a bespoke agreement between the UK and EU can't be on the ballot paper, otherwise you are asking voters to choose something that is not in the control of the Government to deliver. I disagree. If another referendum is held then three options should be on the table. A three option referendum is technically possible (a Google shows how it works) so you could ask A) Leave with no deal B) Accept the negotiated deal C) Remain as is The bigger issue is whether this is politically possible. At the moment still likely not, but as the final shape of any negotiated deal becomes clear, or as the likelihood of no deal increases, there will come a time when it's possible or even necessary. Unfortunately the EU won't allow you to remain 'as is' You would have reapply and rejoin on new terms Parliaments traditionally only deal with binary issues and often struggle with that concept as you are finding out Bringing in a 3rd or even a 4th option as some have suggested would complicate things to such a level for voters and politicians alike, it would make it totally unworkable You have already voted to leave, so the only viable binary options on a ballot paper would be 1/ leave on Mrs May's negotiated terms 2/ leave on WTO negotiated terms Of course all options are hypothetical as a 2nd ref can't and won't happen before March 2019 But it's not the end of the World for Remainers - those wishing to rejoin the EU, have the choice to vote for Vince Cable at the next GE, assuming rejoining is part of his manifesto Tour ability to back up anything that you claim seems to be very limited. There is absolutely nothing preventing us from remaining in the EU on identical terms to those that we have now. Can you back up your statement and show us evidence that the EU will allow you to rejoin under identical terms? Seems a rather rash statements as your application will need to be passed through the EU parliament " You have a genuinely odd attitude to providing information considering the outrageous and completely unsubstantiated claims you made about what was being done to children in this country and the vast conspiracy of silence from the press. I will indulge you once. If you cannot reciprocate with evidence about your assertions then I will feel quite justified in ignoring you from now on. Another poster has already provided some data. Here's some more. This was, I believe a recorded live interview on Radio 4 but as that is the BBC you will no doubt claim that it was somehow manipulated. Here is a report of it. https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/uk-can-still-dump-brexit-and-remain-a-member-of-the-eu-says-french-minister_uk_5b599634e4b0b15aba9577cb | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What choices would be the public be given in a 2nd referendum? Offering people the chance to revoke the Article 50 notice and remain a full member of the EU is a non-starter, I think - Parliament would never approve. I can see only two realistic choices: a) to leave the EU completely, i.e. the No Deal exit b) to apply for membership of EFTA or EEA. Mrs May's preferred option of a bespoke agreement between the UK and EU can't be on the ballot paper, otherwise you are asking voters to choose something that is not in the control of the Government to deliver. I disagree. If another referendum is held then three options should be on the table. A three option referendum is technically possible (a Google shows how it works) so you could ask A) Leave with no deal B) Accept the negotiated deal C) Remain as is The bigger issue is whether this is politically possible. At the moment still likely not, but as the final shape of any negotiated deal becomes clear, or as the likelihood of no deal increases, there will come a time when it's possible or even necessary. Unfortunately the EU won't allow you to remain 'as is' You would have reapply and rejoin on new terms Parliaments traditionally only deal with binary issues and often struggle with that concept as you are finding out Bringing in a 3rd or even a 4th option as some have suggested would complicate things to such a level for voters and politicians alike, it would make it totally unworkable You have already voted to leave, so the only viable binary options on a ballot paper would be 1/ leave on Mrs May's negotiated terms 2/ leave on WTO negotiated terms Of course all options are hypothetical as a 2nd ref can't and won't happen before March 2019 But it's not the end of the World for Remainers - those wishing to rejoin the EU, have the choice to vote for Vince Cable at the next GE, assuming rejoining is part of his manifesto Tour ability to back up anything that you claim seems to be very limited. There is absolutely nothing preventing us from remaining in the EU on identical terms to those that we have now. Can you back up your statement and show us evidence that the EU will allow you to rejoin under identical terms? Seems a rather rash statements as your application will need to be passed through the EU parliament You have a genuinely odd attitude to providing information considering the outrageous and completely unsubstantiated claims you made about what was being done to children in this country and the vast conspiracy of silence from the press. I will indulge you once. If you cannot reciprocate with evidence about your assertions then I will feel quite justified in ignoring you from now on. Another poster has already provided some data. Here's some more. This was, I believe a recorded live interview on Radio 4 but as that is the BBC you will no doubt claim that it was somehow manipulated. Here is a report of it. https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/uk-can-still-dump-brexit-and-remain-a-member-of-the-eu-says-french-minister_uk_5b599634e4b0b15aba9577cb" Your link leads to a blank page I've given you an example of the BBC hiding the truth - Jimmy Savile - but I guess you will also deny that happened I'm sorry to break it to you but there won't be a U-turn on Brexit before March 2019 nor will there be a 2nd ref You can reapply at some stage in the future of course but that's unlikely to happen for a generation I was going to say - you only have 7 full months to the Brexit deadline but I almost forgot - all your politicians are on the beach until Sept When you consider they have another 2 periods of recess before the end of the year - time is running out fast I don't want to burst your bubble but I'm afraid you will be leaving in one form or another and probably in a chaotic fashion - but leave you will  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"May has done a great job of running the clock down preventing the loony brexiters from taking over the titanic and sinking the ship.We are headed for a very soft brexit and there is nothing the loonies can do about it apart from destroying the Tory party which will never happen .Its all winning from a remain perspective because nobody on the leave side gets what they want and another referendum will be had in time because of the utter disaster this brexit has now become.The brexit debate will never go away. Good times ahead! "I'd like a pint of what you are on! Lol With that kind of thought process you can probably imagination England won the World Cup | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What choices would be the public be given in a 2nd referendum? Offering people the chance to revoke the Article 50 notice and remain a full member of the EU is a non-starter, I think - Parliament would never approve. I can see only two realistic choices: a) to leave the EU completely, i.e. the No Deal exit b) to apply for membership of EFTA or EEA. Mrs May's preferred option of a bespoke agreement between the UK and EU can't be on the ballot paper, otherwise you are asking voters to choose something that is not in the control of the Government to deliver. I disagree. If another referendum is held then three options should be on the table. A three option referendum is technically possible (a Google shows how it works) so you could ask A) Leave with no deal B) Accept the negotiated deal C) Remain as is The bigger issue is whether this is politically possible. At the moment still likely not, but as the final shape of any negotiated deal becomes clear, or as the likelihood of no deal increases, there will come a time when it's possible or even necessary. Unfortunately the EU won't allow you to remain 'as is' You would have reapply and rejoin on new terms Parliaments traditionally only deal with binary issues and often struggle with that concept as you are finding out Bringing in a 3rd or even a 4th option as some have suggested would complicate things to such a level for voters and politicians alike, it would make it totally unworkable You have already voted to leave, so the only viable binary options on a ballot paper would be 1/ leave on Mrs May's negotiated terms 2/ leave on WTO negotiated terms Of course all options are hypothetical as a 2nd ref can't and won't happen before March 2019 But it's not the end of the World for Remainers - those wishing to rejoin the EU, have the choice to vote for Vince Cable at the next GE, assuming rejoining is part of his manifesto Tour ability to back up anything that you claim seems to be very limited. There is absolutely nothing preventing us from remaining in the EU on identical terms to those that we have now." Can you substantiate that claim? Or is your ability to do so very limited? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What choices would be the public be given in a 2nd referendum? Offering people the chance to revoke the Article 50 notice and remain a full member of the EU is a non-starter, I think - Parliament would never approve. I can see only two realistic choices: a) to leave the EU completely, i.e. the No Deal exit b) to apply for membership of EFTA or EEA. Mrs May's preferred option of a bespoke agreement between the UK and EU can't be on the ballot paper, otherwise you are asking voters to choose something that is not in the control of the Government to deliver. I disagree. If another referendum is held then three options should be on the table. A three option referendum is technically possible (a Google shows how it works) so you could ask A) Leave with no deal B) Accept the negotiated deal C) Remain as is The bigger issue is whether this is politically possible. At the moment still likely not, but as the final shape of any negotiated deal becomes clear, or as the likelihood of no deal increases, there will come a time when it's possible or even necessary. Unfortunately the EU won't allow you to remain 'as is' You would have reapply and rejoin on new terms Parliaments traditionally only deal with binary issues and often struggle with that concept as you are finding out Bringing in a 3rd or even a 4th option as some have suggested would complicate things to such a level for voters and politicians alike, it would make it totally unworkable You have already voted to leave, so the only viable binary options on a ballot paper would be 1/ leave on Mrs May's negotiated terms 2/ leave on WTO negotiated terms Of course all options are hypothetical as a 2nd ref can't and won't happen before March 2019 But it's not the end of the World for Remainers - those wishing to rejoin the EU, have the choice to vote for Vince Cable at the next GE, assuming rejoining is part of his manifesto Tour ability to back up anything that you claim seems to be very limited. There is absolutely nothing preventing us from remaining in the EU on identical terms to those that we have now. Can you back up your statement and show us evidence that the EU will allow you to rejoin under identical terms? Seems a rather rash statements as your application will need to be passed through the EU parliament You have a genuinely odd attitude to providing information considering the outrageous and completely unsubstantiated claims you made about what was being done to children in this country and the vast conspiracy of silence from the press. I will indulge you once. If you cannot reciprocate with evidence about your assertions then I will feel quite justified in ignoring you from now on. Another poster has already provided some data. Here's some more. This was, I believe a recorded live interview on Radio 4 but as that is the BBC you will no doubt claim that it was somehow manipulated. Here is a report of it. https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/uk-can-still-dump-brexit-and-remain-a-member-of-the-eu-says-french-minister_uk_5b599634e4b0b15aba9577cb" A French Minister? My Graany's Auntie's third cousin's son's best friend's mother's butcher said the moon was made of cheese. So not even Macron then, and certainly nobody of any significance from within the EU. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
