No deal Brexit it is then

“the question was in leave or remain,it could not have been any simpler,there was no where on the ballot sheet that asked us to select what kind of deal we got” We had this earlier in the thread when talking about lies, The lying leave campaign said we would leave with a deal,

 

It didn’t say what sort of deal because the terms and conditions were already drawn up in the EUs manifesto for countries leaving .
Terms and conditions we are advocating reneging on which in turn puts us in contempt and liable .

 

to be fair the leave campaign was about trying to strike fear in people and discredit remain.

At no point did I feel leave ever put forward a genuine credible action plan of what they wanted. It was all nebulous obfuscation and painting the widest picture possible.

The way the referendum was put together was unbelievably woeful.

It should always have been the case that a leave result should trigger a second referendum to define terms for leaving.

when you look at the frequency and grown up approach Switzerland take to referendums and genuinely placing decisions in the hands of its people we should be ashamed.

Its also disingenuous of anyone who voted leave to say they knew what they were voting for. That was impossible given the way the non binding referendum was conducted.

 

All well and good saying that things were okay back in the day, business has moved on and is far more reliant on inter-related global supply chains. Things are relatively cheaper these days in large part because of those very efficient supply chains.
They are very only as efficient as the least efficient part. Once you add barriers to those chains thing start to unravel. A result of which will be increased costs, not just down to tariffs, but also efficiencies (e.g. lorries taking longer to reach their destination).
Suggesting that it will all sort itself out is probably correct, business will eventually find a way. But I'm still waiting to hear the benefits we will receive for all this upheaval?

 

The non binding Scottish Indepence referendum is out on that reckoning?

 

its only stupid because people like yourself are unable to stomach the outcome of the referendum

in 1997 mr blair campaigned on the back of a promise of a referendum on our continued membership..it never happened but i cannot recall anyone harping on about the campaign being a pack of lies

no deal,austrailian type deal,WTO terms,canada type deal etc etc were all spoken about by both sides during the campaign,,so,to say 'leave' was based on a 'deal' is also incredibly stupid,

 

come on dek you are better than “we won get over it”

the type of deal wasn’t discussed, it was too much for the leave party to talk about without splitting the vote. Leave means leave... that will do, that’s enough for the plebs to repeat don’t tell them what as they might start asking questions.

Those of you clever enough to understand what was going on are now repeating those tales to suit an argument. You are better than that.

 

rubbish

 

Translation.

We won you lost lol.

Ok Dek - crack on.

 

a well reasoned response. That probably says everything.

 

The only thing which is incredibly stupid Dek was working-class people listening to the bullshyte spild out by the right-wing gutter press, Farage, Gove, Johnson and the likes nothing as or will come to pass what these ***** hawks promised I only wish the leave voters and I assume you are one just look at the realities and come to there sensors and admit they were duped but alas most people will not admit to being wrong.

 

Gove when presented with his lies on Marr including the “we hold all the cards” one was asked was he embarrassed. Of course he wasn’t but I am for people who believed them.

Can’t say I’m massively keen on the EU but you just look at the people who promoted leaving it and if you think they have the best interests of normal people at heart then I guess you deserve all you get.

 

Were left wing supporters of the Leave case being influenced by the same bull....or was it just lower echelons of the working class?

 

As someone who voted for brexit, and knows much more about the subject than I, (My position leading up to the vote was that even though I'm reasonably intelligent and take a limited but active interest in current affairs, I'm nowhere near qualified enough to make this kind of choice) what do you think about what we're going to get? Is it what you voted for? Do you believe, in the next 10 years, we will see any benefits from leaving the EU?

 

Jay...if you don't mind me saying the question you've asked is not necessarily relevant to my post, although it is valid in the wider perspective, and I'll give it a fair answer.
The first thing I would say is that many Remainers claim that this is all a right wing idea....I am not right wing, Jeremy Corbyn and Len McCluskey are not right wing...Tony Benn still maintained an anti EU stance up to his death...Owen Jones was always in favour of leaving the EU until push came to shove and he (allegedly) deleted much of his anti EU social media.
There are many reasons for my wanting out, but the economic case is not necessarily the most important. The EU is corrupt, not necessarily in a brown envelope sense, although many EU notaries have been guilty of that.... but I would say the Remain campaign leaned heavily on opinions from a variety of institutions to back their case, one example being Christine Lagarde, now head of The European Central Bank... "
"Following Strauss-Kahn’s resignation, Christine Lagarde was appointed managing director of the IMF, a position she has held for the past seven years. However, Lagarde also has blemishes on her record.
In 2016, the IMF managing director was found guilty of negligence in the so-called ‘Tapie case’. Lagarde wrongly approved a millionaire compensation for a disputed sale of a firm to a state-owned bank when she was France’s finance minister.
The Court, however, decided not to punish the former minister who avoided a €15,000 fine and a one-year sentence."
Ms Lagarde is only one of many EU notaries to push the case against Brexit....the remain case leaned heavily on predictions of doom from the OECD,...at the time the boss was Yves Leterme, ....Yves was a party member and close confidante of both Guy Verhofstadt and Hermann von Rompuy, Belgian politicos at the heart of the EU.
Angel Gurria of the OECD was scathing on Brexit prior to the referendum....a few months ago he said...."
Sky News
Angel Gurria, secretary general of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), said that even the worst case scenario in Brexit would nonetheless prove manageable.
A no-deal Brexit refers to a situation where the UK will leave the EU with no agreements in place for what the future relationship will look like. It means the UK will fall back to World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules on global trade.
Talking to Sky News at the World Economic Forum meetings at Davos, Mr Gurria said: "A no-deal, WTO rules…the whole world is running by WTO rules these days.

I apologise now for not proving the source, the bookmark died with my old PC...but the previous head of the OECD said that ( I paraphrase) ...years 1 to 3 would be difficult, years 4 to 7 would show improvement...years 10 plus would show the benefit.

The main premise for my opposition is the corruption of the process of the EU...it is an organisation that career politicians use to further their careers at the expense of basic democracy..as an example the EU constitution was rejected by referendums in various EU countries a few years ago, referenda was encouraged at that time because it had almost always provided the 'right' answer...on this occasion referenda provided seriously the wrong answer...the EU then packaged it as the Lisbon Treaty which needed virtually no referenda to be held.
I've heard many people say that they are not the same thing, but I have an article from The Independent ( not the Mail or Express) written by Giscard D'Estaing (the author of the Constitution) who clearly explains that they are the same thing but repackaged to avoid democracy....I can post it if anyone doubts me.
Please don't think I am just pointing the finger of process corruption at Europeans...Ted Heath and others were disingenuous....cabinet papers released a few years ago are clear that "loss of sovereignty" was to be marketed as "sharing of sovereignty"...the change from the 2000 yrs old monetary system of LSD was called modernisation...that appears now to be no more than readying us for the Euro ( Heath knew that undoubtedly...thank God for Gordon Brown).
As it stood we were only one vote amongst 28...we could not veto the political appointments such as Juncker...a man mired in corruption...or the EU Army, Cameron admitted we could veto UK participation, but not formation of the Armed forces themselves.
Our politicians are (in the main) sh**e....but at least we have the ability to remove them all every five years...we only had a 1 in 28 chance of removing the EU movers and shakers.
Referendums were very popular, encouraged by the EU....almost 50 referendums gave the right answer....Brexit really put the cat amongst the pigeons...I doubt you will see a referendum again on an EU issue because they will no longer ask to to be endorsed by the people....they do not trust us to give the 'right' answer....many on here have espoused the view that it's too complicated for us to decide...or that it should need a super-majority to decide...but no one ever joined the EU with a super-majority clause...it's only mooted now because they are frightened of the answer and prefer to maintain the status quo.

 

I'll not quote your whole post as it would clog up the bored, but the "EU Army"? Seriously?

Firstly this doesn't exist. Secondly, there are no plans for it to exist. Thirdly, even if there were plans for it to exist, we have (or had) power of veto.

Incredible.

 

Nice bit of whataboutery, completely irrelevant to the point made.

 

Interesting stuff although two things...
1I am not sure decimalisation was a ruse towards making us joining the Euro. That said some enterprising IT genius could have made a fortune developing a calculator that operated using a 20/12 base ( pounds shillings and pence, not to mention ' guineas'!!) and then converting to decimal. I also doubt many of todays youth would or could get their head around the old monetary system. Enough people had trouble with it when it was the norm.

Referenda would still be possible since they could always do what they have done in the past. e.g. Ireland. If at first you don't get the result you want keep having them until you do.

I too voted leave based on where I believe the EU and the EZ Is going, not where our relationship was at the time of the referendum.

Simply put I preferred to be in a rowing boat even with its lack of comfort rowing away from the ship before it hits the rocks and sinks, dragging me down in the undertow. I never believed in the purported instant benefits, fully expecting initial difficulties (that said nothing on the scale of what has happened thus far) but long term I still believe better out than in.

 

Ursula Von der Leyen is absolutely clear that Europe needs its own forces...she has softened the terminology to call it a Defence Union.
This is what she said recently in a column in the European press.
"
Europe has to build an army," Wolfgang Clement wrote in this space yesterday. He's right! Given the global environment, Europe needs to improve its ability to act on behalf of its own security. But he unfortunately failed to mention the progress we Europeans have made in the last few years. Europe’s army is already taking shape.
Reforms in recent past months and years have brought our armed forces closer together. We're working quickly. But let's not forget that achievements that are now taken for granted, such as the internal EU market or freedom of movement, didn't happen overnight. They came about thanks to careful, measured progress, and member states pursuing clear goals, one step after another."

Guy Verhofstadt...."
The controversial subject of the EU’s future plans for a common army provoked lively exchanges during the second Spitzenkandidaten debate on Thursday (2 May), just three weeks before the European polls.

With security and defence likely to become one of the main priorities for the next European Commission, the most confrontational moment revolved around the question of whether the EU should pool its military resources.

The idea has gained political momentum in recent months, floated by French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

However, the issue exposed a rift along party lines, with both Verhofstadt and Weber speaking out in favour, while Timmermans and Keller voicing their opposition against the plans.

Liberal Verhofstadt called for Europe’s armies to merge within five years.

“The biggest waste of money in the European Union is the military, the way we organise it,” Verhostadt said.

“We spend nearly half of the Americans, we spend three times more than the Russians on the military in Europe, but I am not sure if the Russians come this way that we are capable to stop them. A European army of 20,000 people in 2024 – let’s do it.”

 

Firstly, no.

https://fullfact.org/online/EU-army-conscription/

Secondly, so what if there was an EU Army that we were part of. But then again I suppose you want your country back.