Re: Brexit
 

You can watch him not saying it here - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-pol...-eu-membership

Re: Brexit
 

fake news oh wait

Re: Brexit
 

Come on Mick, I believe you weren't one of the people who were fooled by the Brexit elite. So don't be fooled this late in the game! Watch the video and make up your own mind.

Re: Brexit
 

Of course May's "deal" is worse than being in the EU. I don't think that's in doubt. What he really means is that properly leaving is a better deal than either of those. He's maintained that throughout. It's only by willful misinterpretation that could he mean remaining was the best option. ;)

Re: Brexit
 

No one has accused Raab of saying that remaining was the best option. ;)

Re: Brexit
 

Thanks and it just confirms that he DID not say it FFS.

---------- Post added at 14:44 ---------- Previous post was at 14:44 ----------

Good - Time to move on now.

Re: Brexit
 

To avoid any doubt, here's the transcript of him not saying that TMs deal is worse than staying in the EU;

Re: Brexit
 

oh come on, that's like offering a bloke the choice between a broken kneecap or a broken elbow . . both are as bad
Where was the 3rd choice of smiling and walking away?

Re: Brexit
 

There is still no doubt - he did not say it-end of discussion.

Re: Brexit
 

Fair enough. Damn good CGI though wasn’t it? It really looked like him in that video...

Re: Brexit
 

Don't take the piss - Time to move on and stop being bloody petty - you have totally misinterpreted/taken out of context what has been said.

Re: Brexit
 

He didn’t advocate staying the EU. He simply states the the deal offered by May, is even “worse” than staying in the EU - which is bad enough.

It’s like saying Dominic Raab was offered the choice of amputating one leg or both legs, he then says given the choice he’d prefer to only lose one leg.

Headline “Raab says losing one leg is great deal”

Give over. No move on with a decent point.

Re: Brexit
 

Mrs May keeps banging on about this/our United Kingdom... Sorry to say Mrs May we have a Disunited Kingdom.... FAIL.

Re: Brexit
 

Yes, exactly what the Russians wanted both here and in the US. Divide and conquer.....

Re: Brexit
 

Bollocks - it's what 17.4 Million people wanted - to be rid and out of the corrupted EU.

---------- Post added at 19:13 ---------- Previous post was at 19:12 ----------

:clap:

Re: Brexit
 

They are the only 2 realistic choices available now though. He's admitted Remain is better than TM's masterplan. (which he, hilariously, negotiated anyway!)

Re: Brexit
 

I can think of a 3rd option that quite a few of us may applaud :Yes:

Re: Brexit
 

No, your forgetting either renegotiate May’s deal or No Deal.

If parliament vote down May’s deal then No Deal is a real option. Faced with that the EU may consider tweaking May’s deal.

Re: Brexit
 

In amongst all the excitement of the last few days I missed the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Liz Truss, using the line "we are in serious danger of not leaving at all".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p06sffw4

These aren't accidents. This is co-ordinated.

Of the 25 members of the Cabinet (plus 4 who attend Cabinet) only eight campaigned to leave in 2016. And one of those is Gove ffs, if he could be the hero post-remain to unite the party and become PM he'd support remain in a heartbeat.

Prime Minister Theresa May MP REMAIN
Chairman of the Conservative Party Brandon Lewis MP REMAIN
Leader of the House of Lords Baroness Evans of Bowes Park PC LEAVE
Leader of the House of Commons Andrea Leadsom MP LEAVE
Attorney General Geoffrey Cox QC MP LEAVE
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster David Lidington CBE MP REMAIN
Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond MP REMAIN
Secretary of State for the Home Department Sajid Javid MP REMAIN
Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Jeremy Hunt MP REMAIN
Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union Stephen Barclay MP LEAVE
Secretary of State for Defence Gavin Williamson CBE MP REMAIN
Secretary of State for Justice David Gauke MP REMAIN
Secretary of State for Health and Social Care Matthew Hancock MP REMAIN
Secretary of State for Education Damian Hinds MP REMAIN
Secretary of State for International Trade Liam Fox MP LEAVE
Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Greg Clark MP REMAIN
Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Michael Gove MP LEAVE
Secretary of State for Transport Chris Grayling MP LEAVE
Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government James Brokenshire MP REMAIN
Secretary of State for International Development Penny Mordaunt MP LEAVE
Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport Jeremy Wright QC MP REMAIN
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Amber Rudd MP REMAIN
Secretary of State for Scotland David Mundell MP REMAIN
Secretary of State for Wales Alun Cairns MP REMAIN
Secretary of State for Northern Ireland Karen Bradley MP REMAIN
Also attending cabinet meetings
Chief Secretary to the Treasury Elizabeth Truss MP REMAIN
Chief Whip Julian Smith MP REMAIN
Minister of State for Immigration Caroline Nokes MP REMAIN
Minister of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Claire Perry MP REMAIN

What do you think the consensus is among them in a choice between leaving with no deal or remain when they sit round a table?

Re: Brexit
 

Theresa says renegotiation isn't possible. The EU have given as good as we'll get which is a lot worse than the status quo. No deal isn't and never has been a realistic option, parliament wouldn't allow it and we've made no proper preparations.

Welcome to Planet Reality, the Brexit fairy tale is over.

Re: Brexit
 

Nothing is impossible, we haven’t tried yet.

The EU have not been backed into a corner yet during these last two years, they have not been put under any pressure by our weak negotiating. I want to see what happens when they squeak.


Well unless parliament pull their finger out, if nothing is sorted by March next year that’s what will happen.

There is no fairy tale, but Brexit will happen, I just don’t know what it will look like.

Re: Brexit
 

You seem to be under the false impression we have the skill, ability or economic strength to back them into a corner. Do you think if we had that capability we'd have achieved that at some point in the last two years?

If you think that £39bn, our financial commitment for years to come, is going to make or break the EU (annual budget €145bn in 2015) you are simply ignoring the reality. The financial institutions can cover that with lending and spread it across a long enough period for minimal reductions in the EU budget.

Re: Brexit
 

For the avoidance of doubt, only 14% of the electorate want no deal.

Re: Brexit
 

What the heck have we been doing for 2 years then!

We're the ones that are squeaking, desperate and on our own. The other 27 countries have each other.

So you voted for something, but you don't know what it is or what it will entail or result in ? :rolleyes:

Re: Brexit
 

But if every deal we put to the EU is rejected, by those or ours, what would happen in March?


. . . and which (independent) poll of 1250 people was that one Andrew?

:D :p:

Re: Brexit
 

If we’d had anyone with any backbone we may have.

Cameron went there fawning and tipping his cap and got sod all. May, for all her steadfastness, has always been from a position of weakness because although her mantra of “no deal is better than a bad deal” she never believed it, they never believed or for one minute felt threatened by it because they knew she wouldn’t do it. They haven’t been tested by anyone that would look them in the eyes an press the button. Or that they would believe would press the button.

.
Well there you go.....again.....arguing with yourself and using others as proxy. I didn’t say or imply that. You have done this countless times. Made a point, argued against the point and tried to pass it off as somebody else’s point. Please stop it.

whatever you’re talking to yourself again.

Re: Brexit
 

Probably we/the EU agree to extend/delay. Legislation can be changed. Ways and means if both parties want, which they would.

Re: Brexit
 

Been negotiating from the angle that we don’t really want to leave the EU, so how can we fudge it so it looks like we leave but don’t.

There has been no hard negotiating. The have never felt threatened that we would walk.

---------- Post added at 20:58 ---------- Previous post was at 20:56 ----------

I’ve stated many times that I voted remain. I lost.

However, i’m All in or. All out.

Or negotiation has been weak, we should walk and show some backbone.

Re: Brexit
 

We're not going to 'walk' as it would damage us a lot more than them (and both parties know it hence our weak negotiating position).

Re: Brexit
 

:clap::clap::clap:

and they're so subtle about it, they don't think anyone has noticed :D:D

Re: Brexit
 

How do you know this? Davis was very much someone who believed in Leave. Did he just go to Brussels and become soft? Or was the reality of Brexit too much for him?

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...n#post35971309

While Old Boy isn't advocating this as a course of action, it's definitely out there as an idea we can just walk away from the £39bn and it's somehow tied to the deal. Ignoring that is ignoring reality.

So what do we use as our leverage in these discussions, if not the £39bn?

The discussion is much wider than just what you say - it's a far bigger issue than anything that only you or I raise.

Re: Brexit
 

It’s quite clear that no one wants a fudge.

Both sides are as polarised as they have ever been.

It’s becoming evermore clear that a binary hard choice is ahead.

Remain or no deal.

Either could be cataclysmic to the UK. For differing reasons. It entering a very interesting time.

We’ll have to wait for parliament’s vote before speculate further.

---------- Post added at 21:05 ---------- Previous post was at 21:03 ----------

We there you go then, therefore we will never get a good deal. With that approach.

Re: Brexit
 

How would remain, the status quo,be cataclysmic?

Re: Brexit
 

Their minds would explode.

Re: Brexit
 

I don't see why we should be concerned about how much damage it would cause to an institution we are walking away from :eh:

Re: Brexit
 

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

Re: Brexit
 

If we negotiate without considering this then we aren't negotiating at all.

The potential damage (or lack thereof) to the EU should define the extent to which their stance is reasonable or unreasonable to us when weighed against the damage to our economy.

All capitalist transactions are based on the relative needs and value to both parties.

Re: Brexit
 

He had to resign, Raab had to resign. Because the negotiating stance is coming from No.10 and no where else.


Ha.....£39bn is peanuts. We’re talking our future trade relationship with the EU, that is what is up for negotiation

https://researchbriefings.parliament...mmary/CBP-7851

£341 billion a year, is what we buy from the EU. £39bn is all but a 10th of that.

The EU (and it’s members that rely on this trade) will not stand by and see pissed in the wind.

Re: Brexit
 

Who is this aimed at ?

Re: Brexit
 

Because it would potentially be the biggest betrayal of democracy this country, if not the West, has ever seen.

Parliament may struggle to retain it’s authority.

---------- Post added at 21:20 ---------- Previous post was at 21:17 ----------

There is a lot of potential damage to the EU. Although they have’t had To face that down yet because they have never once thought that we would walk away.

Re: Brexit
 

UK exports to the EU: £274bn, 44% of all our exports.

We have a trade surplus due to trade in services which arguably are easier to source from other Member States (or indeed - financial services could move from the UK into EU countries).

We have a trade deficit in goods (as in we rely more on the EU for physical items). Could we easily source these from elsewhere? What increased costs will there be in transport for this? Or will we just end up paying more in tariffs?

The idea that mutual trade which benefits both parties can be used for us to "hold them over a barrel" is ridiculous in the extreme.

Re: Brexit
 

It was 20,000 polled by Survation for Channel 4, Carth.

Re: Brexit
 

You’re doing it again.....


Who are you quoting?

No one has said that, you’ve made up a quote by nobody and are then using it for your argument.

Re: Brexit
 

Nobody specifically.

I was referencing the only cataclysm that would result from the status quo being the reaction of those who feel passionately against it.

I don't believe this reaction would be physical in the form of civil disobedience or protests.

I apologise if anyone interpreted that differently.

---------- Post added at 21:29 ---------- Previous post was at 21:27 ----------

You may not have used the exact words, but your intent is that this gives us strength in the negotiations. I've used a turn of phrase in quotation marks that I wouldn't ordinarily use.

Are you now making the contention that you didn't mean that this gives us a significant negotiating advantage?

Your actual words: "The EU (and it’s members that rely on this trade) will not stand by and see pissed in the wind."

Re: Brexit
 

Well, judging by the last pro-Brexit rally of four people, I don't think the Police will have too many issues on their hands if Brexit doesn't happen.

However, I do think:
1) That the court next Thursday will state that Article 50 can be withdrawn
2) That Theresa May will get her deal through Parliament. If the first event happens as I predict, it could make her position stronger as she can argue my Brexit or no Brexit.

Re: Brexit
 

On the contrary - I believe they've done something truly audacious and actually planned for the fact we may walk away.

Ironically, something we clearly have not fully risk assessed and made preparations for which is why our Chancellor is openly saying if we don't back the deal it will be chaos and no deal will cost our economy tens of billions.

On your first point Parliament will always retain it's authority. What are you proposing? Revolution? Armed struggle?

Re: Brexit
 

well don’t use it now then.

I didn’t say advantage.

You proposed what would we use, if not the £39bn, as leverage in our negotiation.

I simply advised that £39bn is but our annual trade with the EU, and some countries more than others rely on this. EU negotiators would be wise to factor this in, if it was threatened due to political point scoring rather than sensible decisions.

---------- Post added at 21:43 ---------- Previous post was at 21:40 ----------

It’s always the great unwashed that take to the streets.

The silent majority always do their talking at the ballot box.
I don’t see any of that happening......at the moment.

---------- Post added at 21:45 ---------- Previous post was at 21:43 ----------

How so?

Fair enough, badly worded.

Replace parliament with establishment.

Re: Brexit
 

Did you not say advantage because we don't have one?

I'm convinced the EU will have factored this in, and the extent we rely on the EU for our imports.

We cannot readily import such a significant amount from non-EU territories, there's no guarantees alternative suppliers would exist and if they did that they would have the capacity to deliver for our manufacturing industries that rely on 'just in time' methods. There's no guarantee all such items from out with the EU would meet UK regulatory standards.

---------- Post added at 21:57 ---------- Previous post was at 21:46 ----------

The decision to leave the EU isn't grounded in any economic reality. It isn't a massive leap to decide that the same electorate who chose this, and the MPs guiding it, may decide to just leave without any kind of trade deal in a belief we can go back to the days of Rule Britannia. To not prepare for that eventuality would be reckless by the EU, and making such preparations would give them huge leverage in late stage negotiations (like now).

I've got bad news the Britannia is a clapped out old boat in the port of Leith attached to a shopping centre for down and outs.

How does the "Establishment" loses it's authority? The who idea of an "Establishment" is that they influence both sides of a debate and both main political parties. Who replaces them under a FPTP electoral system?

Re: Brexit
 

but don’t actually know so it’s just your opinion and pretty meaningless.... but carry on. I’m not that sure, they may have, but in their smug little castle they may have only given it a cursory glance........lidl and Aldi would be screwed I know that much!

once again I don’t see a link to your stress test so can only assume that’s what you may think but you have no evidence to back it up.

Re: Brexit
 

So the people of Britain will stop going to budget supermarkets and that'll crush the German economy? That's even better than the German cars line.

Can you prove that the EU are in a "little castle" or that they have only given a "cursory glance" at their trading arrangements with the UK?

You are guessing even more than I am, however in the absence of any meaningful responses to anything I put to you have decided to "play the man" instead of playing the ball. (Note: I've put quotation marks there because it's a footballing expression).

I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that non-EU countries don't ordinarily have £300bn of capacity in their manufacturing processes/service capacity readily available in the expectation that another may ditch it's most significant trading partners and urgently need a replacement. It'd be a highly inefficient way to operate.

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

Economics was but one factor.

I’m not sure that WTO was around during Rule Britannia, but that where we would go.

The Westminster centric metro MPs that believe country consists of the Home Counties.

The country being ignored by these gave rise to the BNP, this evolved into support for UKIP. Support for UKIP forced the issue of the referendum......and here we are.

The referendum was supposed to halt the rise of this parties, and beacon the last election it did. But that before the establishment yet again told the North, that they were stupid..........

Re: Brexit
 

Well, with every poll now predicting that a better-informed electorate would majority back remain, Brexiters have been looking around for someone who disagrees with such polls.
I've always thought that you'd need the computational skills of Diane Abbott to think that the electorate would now majority back leave. And it appears I'm right. Diane Abbott has got her magic calculator out and believes that the British public would majority back leave!
No further questions m'lord! :D
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8649256.html

Re: Brexit
 

Sense of humour bypass award goes to......

No, but that sentence was obviously my opinion, and I wasn’t trying to pass it off as a factual statement.


You don’t know where shortfalls may be, you don’t know where the slack can be taken up.

You don’t know anything, so any proposition is opinion only.

I’m happy to read facts and links to back up any of your ramblings. You post very little.

Re: Brexit
 

It probably was for the Brexit elite who are unhappy about the increasing restrictions being placed on tax havens.

Re: Brexit
 

You equally can’t prove any of your claims that we can negotiate better than we have by threatening the EU over trade, that anyone is in place to fill the gaps if we didn’t trade with the EU or that the EU couldn’t fill their gaps from us by trading with each other. You are the one trying to claim we could do something we haven’t.

By pointing out the challenges my evidence is that we haven’t managed this in two years. You claim it’s because No. 10 is weak negotiating, but can’t prove this either.

The fact is Brexit is irrational economically, which you concede, and we are negotiating with the political arm of a trading bloc.

Re: Brexit
 

I’ve never said “threaten” that’s just you putting emotive words in mouths as usual.

Do something we haven’t....or do something we couldn’t? What are you saying

I would argue that the fact we have this deal is evidence enough for that argument.

Are you proposing we have arrived at this deal from a strong negotiation????

I concede nothing, my position was that the economy was but one factor in the rationale.

Re: Brexit
 

It’s pointless debating if you insist on selectively quoting my posts and cannot maintain a consistent stance, never mind support one.

---------- Post added at 22:52 ---------- Previous post was at 22:49 ----------

I accept that. If you are Jacob Rees Mogg and move your financial interests to the Irish Republic you can maintain the benefits of being in the EU while making money out of the financial crash here.

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

Where have I been inconsistent?

Re: Brexit
 

£39bn is our legal obligations, and if that’s not accepted as a reason to pay it the alternative is to buy stability.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...domestic-storm

Interesting final paragraph:

A Cabniet Minister implying we need two more years to prepare for no deal and it’d be worth £20bn to obtain it.

Re: Brexit
 

The electorate is not better informed at all - With some Remainers still intent on selling project fear all the time - they are not well informed are they?

And not all polls have said that at all!!!

Re: Brexit
 

I’ll take it that you swerved answering that, that it was a baseless comment.

Re: Brexit
 

No, however as you are being selective you’d just ignore my valid points or deliberately misunderand them.

In the end your opinion over our negotiations are irrelevant, and it’s not an effective use of my time to explain when I’m quoting you, quoting ministers, quoting prominent leavers, quoting other posters, speaking from my own perspective or a general pro Brexit perspective. Others appear able to read the narrative and reach a level of understanding. I’m unsure what your difficulty is.

It’s circular, and a total sideshow as we continue our journey to remain in the EU on the 30th March 2019.

Oh just this once:

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...postcount=3628

You state here the EU haven’t felt threatened. You then object to me stating that your stance is that we threaten them!

Re: Brexit
 

If people aren't better informed after two years of non-stop Brexit news then they are in the slender minority.
Polls for Channel 4 by Survation and for various outlets by YouGov, etc all show a majority for remaining. Which polls support your assertion?

Re: Brexit
 

The problem with all of the polls is they are within the statistical margin of error. On top of this they remove “don’t know”, which isn’t an option on the actual ballot paper so is it reasonable to weight these the same? How do you split them? If the same as the rest of the poll is that reasonable to assume? If not, how?

Re: Brexit
 

That how debates on a discussion site are undertaken. You have citations for your quotes, and back up facts with links. That way we know what is your opinion, someone else’s opinion and what is fact.

It’s circular, and a total sideshow as we continue our journey to remain in the EU on the 30th March 2019.

Now who’s being selective? And misinterpreting.
Feeling threatened and being threatening are two different things.

Re: Brexit
 

Feeling threatened in a two sided negotiation can only result from the actions of the other party. That’s not selective it’s a fact. The dictionary may help you in this regard.

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

I fail to see how being nice (or otherwise) comes into it.

The UK are proposing to act in a way that harms the economic interests of both the UK and EU, it’s only sensible and appropriate for the EU to mitigate against this.

If, for example, Scotland were to vote for independence do you think they should renege on debts or it’s share of financial commitments to the UK? Should it’s citizens for example be entitled to a UK State Pension (they paid in after all) without Scotland contributing to the cost? Or would you say they should cover that?

Re: Brexit
 

I cannot see why on Earth the EU would agree to that! It is very clear anyway that they are not up for re-negotiation.

Re: Brexit
 

I agree they have no interest in renegotiating, I just find it interesting that there’s a monetary value to our desperation.

Re: Brexit
 

Interesting article here. Despite jfman's well-argued points, there would not be a Parliamentary majority to remain. So, if came to a no-deal and the current deal and the markets were getting jittery, MPs might just support the current plan despite the opposition against it.

Re: Brexit
 

Oh I agree if you got everyone together tomorrow that it wouldn’t happen. As the Chancellor says though who is to predict what may happen in the chaos if this deal doesn’t pass. ;)

My prediction relies upon the late sobering reality of no deal hitting people who campaigned to remain in 2016 but “back” leave post-referendum. Kick the can down the road or second referendum become more realistic to validate no deal, and give the politicians an out at future general elections if the economy plunges.

Re: Brexit
 

It's all a bit of a shambles really isn't it? All to try and keep Cameron his job. It's ended up dividing the country and a causing a potential economic crisis. Dave's doing ok though, talking of a comeback :rolleyes: Remember 'we're 'all in this (mess) together ! '

Re: Brexit
 

Who would have thought that an organisation would try to negotiate the best deal for themselves - what is the world coming to?

And as for the assertion that has been raised that our negotiators "didn’t try hard enough" - I would just point out that the man who also asked for gravity-free areas, telepathy for every citizen and the Beatles to get back together is furious it hasn’t even been attempted.

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

I’d say there’s something nasty around here, and it’s not the EU.

If you remove all the emotionally driven rhetoric, and wartime references, discussions around Brexit would be much shorter.

Re: Brexit
 

Edinburgh voted no. ;)

If you must cheer, wait until it rains on Dundee, or the East End of Glasgow and North Lanarkshire.

Although I'd prefer it if you didn't; these, the only parts of Scotland where there was a majority for separation from the UK, are the poorest and most ill-educated communities in the country and they voted yes because they swallowed the SNP's lies about free oil money for everyone.

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

Holyrood...

Re: Brexit
 

How do you think we’ll do trade deals when other countries will also be ‘mean’ to us?

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

This is magnificent reading.

Everyone else is nasty, I presume England is a beacon of justice and righteousness in the world? Why should the UK remain cohesive, if England doesn't afford the same consideration to our European neighbours?

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

How would you approach the financial settlement with an independent Scotland. E.g. should the UK be liable for accrued State Pensions in an independent Scotland - after all they paid into the system here and other nationals are entitled to a pension in the UK based on the number of years they paid NI contributions.

Re: Brexit
 

It's not about being nasty. This is an asymmetric relationship, the EU is bigger than us in terms of GDP, trade and population. The same will go for the USA who can bet will use the cards they have to get the best deal for the United States. We can't walk away and call them 'nasty', this is not a grown-up way to relate to the rest of the world.

These deals are not amicable accords between friends but transactional relationships in which both sides will try to get the upper hand because they're only concerned with their own growth. A good deal helps both sides, of course, but it's naive to assume that they'll work to help the other side at the expense of their own.

This is just the start. We can't flounce away from our first major negotiation as an Independent country because 'they're mean to us'. It's time for a reality check here because the disappointment amongst some Brexiters that is to come if they thought this would all be a cake walk or imagined the Britain of 100 years ago coming back will be very disappointed.

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

They want us to stay with the same regulatory framework because it's in their interests economically (i.e easier trade) and politically (Ireland). Not because they are nasty.

Walking away from a deal because it's bad is different to walking away because they're being nasty. However I think if you are walking away from a deal you need to have a plan as to how to do better than you would with the deal. It's like threatening to quit your job if you don't get a rise, it might work but you better be prepared to actually quit and have a plan b.

And this is a problem we have since we don't have any other trade deals and when we leave the EU not only do we leave the biggest economic bloc but we also leave the other trade deals we have via them. We become a major economy without a single trade deal. We're in a weak position to walk away from the only path to one we currently have.

Re: Brexit
 

My view isn't really relevant, but to demonstrate my point you have said that even though Scottish citizens have paid into the pot through national insurance contributions you think that they shouldn't automatically be entitled to a pension from the United Kingdom. Yet, for example, a citizen of the Irish Republic who lived and worked in the UK and moved to another country would be entitled based on what they had paid in.

Others may take the view that would be a 'nasty' and 'spiteful' approach to deny taxpayers what they had paid in.

It isn't 'nasty' to require a trading partner to adhere to some kind of framework or rules on the basis of which to trade. It stops the world descending into a free for all and race to the bottom against sweat shops and labour camps in developing countries.

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

I am not 'defending' anything, I am explaining the reality of the situation. I didn't want this entire process to happen in large part because this is what I thought would occur.

Re: Brexit
 

Spain-EU-UK have agreed a deal for Gibraltar.

Re: Brexit
 

That's us sold out the Rock. Northern Ireland next.

---------- Post added at 18:30 ---------- Previous post was at 18:26 ----------

It's unfortunate that those who would have preferred to remain anyway are seen as somehow 'pro-EU' or 'defending' the EU.

I think there's extreme social and economic problems in this country. Extreme poverty is a reality for far too many. However, those in extreme poverty aren't in that situation because of the EU - they are because of failed UK government policies (both colours) since the 1980s. Nor will they be helped out of that situation if the economy takes a hit.

Re: Brexit
 

Need to Sean Connery in and sort the *******s out.

It’s not that, it’s the inability to move on. I voted remain. I knew if we tried to leave we’d end up in this shitstorm half in half out purgatory.

After the referendum, I believe in Democracy, although I didn’t agree with the result, I got fully on board with leaving, because I didn’t want the half in/ half out, if we’re leaving we should bloody well leave, fully and totally. That’s where i’m Coming from.

I’m either 100% in or 100% out. People may think that too binary, but I like to keep it simple.

Well now we have an opportunity to do things differently, may work, may not. Don’t know until you try.

Re: Brexit
 

Like an MOT certificate the referendum as a measure of democracy is a measure on one day and one day only.

It's a betrayal of democracy to deny the public the right to change their mind should they choose to do so.

Can you source any quantitative or qualitative research into how we are could become better off as a result of Brexit? Or is it totally unsourced guesswork? After all it could be "50 years" before we find out. (Jacob Rees-Mogg).

Re: Brexit
 

By that logic we could have General Election every day. But we don’t, we allow the incoming government time to implement their policies. Like wise as with Scottish referendum and this one it should be a once a generation. We don’t know what Brexit will be until we leave. We need to leave see what it’s like. If our kids think we screwed the pooch they can change it.

I don’t need to offer any. Like I say, no one can predict anything. The only way is to let it play out. 50 years may be a stretch, but certainly we should have another referendum,if indeed we needed one, for at least 30.

Re: Brexit
 

We could, but it wouldn't be cost effective so up to every 5 years is deemed as valid.

There are no rules by which EU/Scottish independence or any other referendums could or should take place. We don't have a constitution, or any generally accepted practices, that could not be overcome by the political will of the people however they deem to demonstrate it.

So sources, no facts, nothing. Simple.

Re: Brexit
 

You mean one-upmanship on remain part regarding the EU I haven't seen anything to suggest they aren't 'pro-EU' or 'defending' the EU

Re: Brexit
 

Some worrying analysis from Richard Dearlove, a former head of MI6, on the government's Brexit agreement with the EU.
https://www.ft.com/content/d1e17788-...8-d36339d835c0