Re: Brexit
 

Anybody who thought that the UK would be more coherent than the EU needs to give their head a shake

Re: Brexit
 

Andrew Neil for one, who on the night of the referendum told us how Europe has never been more divided between north and south, east and west.

Re: Brexit
 

The non-binding one, because of the sovereignty of Parliament, referendums cannot be legally binding in the UK, and are therefore advisory*?

*from the European Union Referendum Act 2015

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

the law that will change soon as parliament will vote down a no deal Brexit

Re: Brexit
 

And a hell of a lot of leavers hung their hats on the advisory nature of a certain bus adverts claims, that was pretty dishonourable to

Re: Brexit
 

In my circle of acquaintances, I don't actually know of any who believed that stuff. I have read stories on various internet platforms about some who did though . . I've also read about people who believe the Earth is flat, believe those from Norfolk have 6 fingers, and those who are absolutely 100% convinced that Aliens move among us :p:

Re: Brexit
 

The only people I ever hear complaining about the bus are people who voted remain anyway. :scratch:

Re: Brexit
 

The person that paid for the advert said it made the difference and 2 out of 3 doctors and nurses believed it, how nice it must be to hang out in such high brow company where you're smarter than most doctors

Re: Brexit
 

I predict trouble outside parliment the the trecherous MPs trying to block the legal will of the people, manage to block Brexit.

I the predict the end of Labour anf the Tories in their current form, and loads of MPs out of work.

I for one will spoil every vote after, and it will be a meaning less vote.

Please don't give me any it was only advisary crap (I wish I could say stronger)

Re: Brexit
 

You're lucky it was advisory or else it would have gone to court and been dismissed, you might think it okay for the liars, charlatans and snake oil salesmen to get away with it because it suits your position but I don't regardless of who won, I think it's outrageous they've got away with it, I said the night before the referendum it was a scandal and my opinion has only got worse, if one good thing comes out of this it'll be campaigning is a lot more scrutinised and proper accountability put in place

Re: Brexit
 

All the signs indicate that the ERG party-within-a-party are coming round to Theresa May's deal as they know that no-deal will be blocked, so Theresa May's withdrawal agreement will be voted for in Parliament. This will be aided by a £1.5bn hand-out to Brexit-voting impoverished areas of England to get their Labour MPs on side.
The subsequent negotiations will be the hardest the country has seen and people will come to accept that the UK will be the weaker party and a lot of the promises in areas like fishing won't happen.

Re: Brexit
 

The polls showed at times a majority for Brexit LONG BEFORE any ad campaigns.


The 1975 referendum was based upon the lie that it was the European Economic Community that was being voted upon and not the European Union.
1975 referendum question.

Re: Brexit
 

Until political advertising is regulated by the Advertising Standards Authority in the way that Virgin Media, British Airways, Kellog's all are then I can't see much motivation to be honest as that puts you at a disadvantage to your opponents.

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

My statement was political party and movement agnostic. :)

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

see Teressa May trying the bribe tactic again to try get her deal through like she did to stay in power

https://news.sky.com/story/theresa-m...-fund-11654666

Re: Brexit
 

Political advertising is done by many parties and movements. It's a weakness that political parties can make claims that wouldn't be accepted if those same claims were made by companies. But the politicians made themselves exempt from such rules and it's led to a lack of trust in them and helped the "Westminster" elite label take root.

Re: Brexit
 

You say it as if it's okay because them other lot lied as well, I say it isn't okay, it's very far from okay, if I had my way there would be big consequences for trying to hoodwink the electorate. I'd have thought all the true defenders of democracy, the will of the people types would agree or is it more a case of my voice must be heard and hang the rationale behind it, which imo makes them less of a democracy champion and more of a spoilt brat and anyone thinking this is just about brexit is mistaken to again imo, this whole country is paralysed by it, nothing is being done whilst the place crumbles around us, the law of unintended consequences personified, who voted for that?

Re: Brexit
 

David Cameron promised us that the result of the referendum would be implemented, so let's not get involved in pulling hairs.

---------- Post added at 07:25 ---------- Previous post was at 07:20 ----------

I don't know where that statistic came from, but the point is that all the indications suggest that the vote would be roughly the same if it was re-run.

Blaming the ad on the side of the bus for the referendum outcome tbzt remainers didn't want is simply clutching at straws.

---------- Post added at 07:31 ---------- Previous post was at 07:25 ----------

Nobody was 'hoodwinked'! The word 'let's' indicated it was a suggestion and you know very well where that figure came from.

Given that all the main political parties were involved in the leave campaign, any suggestion about what could be done with the savings could only be that - a suggestion.

Let's stop going round in circles with these silly arguments. We are where we are and now we just need to get on with it.

Re: Brexit
 

And where's Dave now? Getting on with implementing it? Or did he run away to foreign holidays and his country mansion?

Re: Brexit
 

What happens when the vote goes against your wishes, I'm sure you'll be happy not to hold the liars to account won't you, say Corbyn tells a load more whoppers and gets the top job, that'll be fine with you and you'll just get on with it, we really do get the politicians we deserve. Oh and for the record for me it's not about leaving or staying it's about someone trying to make a mug out of me, I don't like it and won't shut up about it or let those concerned forget it


and in the spirit of our current brand of politician I may have "misremembered" the doctors figure, tbf though I am doing this from memory, think it was 10% of doctors that believed it true and 2 out of 3 that thought it was a deliberate lie, not a misinterpreted suggestion

Re: Brexit
 

AKA, throwing your toys out the pram. Brexit is huge, it's not just as simple as leave or remain. If we are to leave it needs to be done properly.

Re: Brexit
 

£1.6bn isn't small change but it is worth noting that this is on top of the €17.2bn of structural investment we are getting from the EU for the 2014-2020 budget cycle.

Interesting to see where the EU ESI money goes in the UK - file:///C:/Users/100018459/Downloads/CBP-7847.pdf

Re: Brexit
 

We are not getting anything from the EU - that is OUR money they are giving back, minus their cut. :rolleyes:

Re: Brexit
 

The same could be said for all forms of taxation. Scotland’s oil etc.

Re: Brexit
 

He ran away and he's history.

Re: Brexit
 

Bollocks to that.

Inland Revenue is our place to pay Tax in to UK Coffers not the corrupted EU as well.

When will some of you Remainers get it in to your heads, that the UK is a NET Contributing Member of the Corrupted EU (Hopefully not for much longer). ???

In laymen's terms, if I was to take £5,000 from you and then I gave you back £3,250 and ALSO tell you what to spend it on, I am not investing in you, I am just giving back SOME of what you give me and I am taking a cut for doing bugger all (Except the dictating part)!!! :rolleyes:

Re: Brexit
 

I don't know why you are being so naive. Politics and lies have always gone together.

Re: Brexit
 

A complete dereliction of duty...

Re: Brexit
 

It is that simple, actually. Leave means leave. A concept that so many remainers don't seem to be able to get their heads around.

Re: Brexit
 

Err, no - the UK is a unitary nation state. The money is paid by every citizen to a government which is exclusively accountable at the ballot box to the entire British electorate and then is distributed as required, again by the government which is accountable to us, and only to us. Despite loud protestations from Scottish nationalists, theirs is a minority view and most people in Scotland are comfortable that this is the case and should remain so.

The European Union, despite its ambitions, is not a unitary nation state and once we have paid our contribution we have extremely limited control over the institutions that spend it.

The two situations are as different as chalk and cheese and nobody with any kind of grasp of the reality here could possibly equate them.

Re: Brexit
 

Calling someone out as naive just because you don't agree with their views is rather silly OB.

Re: Brexit
 

Maybe so, but it doesn't take away from the fact that the electorate was assured their decision would be implemented. Why are we still talking about this? We need to look forward, not back.

Re: Brexit
 

Nothing like generalising again as its a minority who have not accepted the result nothing more nothing less.

Re: Brexit
 

I'm sorry, but it is simply naive not to appreciate that politicians have a tendency to lie. I thought everyone knew that.

Re: Brexit
 

If one calls something as significant as a in/out EU referendum then they should have the courage to see it through end of..

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

Clearly it doesn't though does it. This isn't about leavers or remainers, it's about protecting the country.

Re: Brexit
 

It does, the ballot should have been explicit in detail.

If a DIY store offers you the choice of a copper or a plastic pipe. you then select one

You don't then get to kick off if it's the wrong size or fitment, you should have asked and made sure at the time of purchase.

---------- Post added at 10:26 ---------- Previous post was at 10:19 ----------


Well, apart from, freedom of movement, right to reside, protection of food standards, collaboration on scientific research, cheaper travel. workers rights. too name but a few.


Yup, we are not getting anything from the romans , sorry, the EU

It's not always about a fiscal benefit.

Re: Brexit
 

Any money the the EU "gives"(ie returns) to us is taken off the rebate. The rebate is 66% off the difference between what we're expected to pay(£350m+/week) and what we get back. Two-thirds of the EU project funding has come straight off the top of our rebate, then add in our net contributions and instances where the nation state is expected to match funding, and it must be well over 75% of the EU money has come from us in the first place.
Eg Expected to pay out £300m,due £200m rebate, then get £30m EU funding and the rebate drops to £180m. We have to pay an extra £20m to get £30m back. Not saying we should get everything back, but it means the EU funding figures are very misleading. It also means the UK pays a lot more for it's EU funded projects than other EU countries, including Germany.


In other words, even if the referendum had decided "remain", we would end up losing the rebate and the £350m/week figure would be TRUE.

---------- Post added at 10:48 ---------- Previous post was at 10:33 ----------

On balance freedom of movement and right to reside do not benefit us since the Eastern European countries joined.
Travel is more expensive because of EU regulations. The extra costs imposed have to come from somewhere.
We could've decided our own food standards which at times are higher than EU standards, yet we have to accept the "sub-standard" EU products.
The UK has scientific collaborations with countries all around the world.



We could legislatively be very lazy and simply match EU regulations, but allow our own minor differences.


Basically your list is negative impacts, or things we could and did have our own rules, or things that will continue to happen anyway.

Re: Brexit
 

try telling expats in France/Spain/Italy it's a negative impact, and the brits who travel quite freely for work currently.

travel state your sources please
Food standards, you completely ignore the recent American trade deal

What EU products are substandard ?

Right to reside/freedom to work is not a negative. the you've failed to present any tangible evidence that we would of had them.

Re: Brexit
 

Thank God for that! I thought that Mrs May was telling us the truth. I knew there was something fishy going on :) Argghhh!!! I mentioned Fish .. damnit.

---------- Post added at 11:21 ---------- Previous post was at 11:17 ----------

Ah the smell of taking back control.

Fears Britain will be flooded with chlorinated chicken and hormone-boosted beef as US demands UK DROPS 'barriers' to low-quality food imports in a post-Brexit trade deal

In the land of the free market, weakness is exploited and the world is sharpening its knives ..

Re: Brexit
 

You’ve literally described all forms of taxation.

Re: Brexit
 

I said "On balance". Expats in Spain etc are a benefit to those countries, not the UK. They go there with money to spend, whereas others come here with nothing and spend OUR money. They are not all living on the streets, so where did all the houses they are living in, come from. Who didn't get a home because somebody from Romania turned up and was given one instead?

Are you saying that the compensation schemes that the EU has suddenly dreamed up, doesn't add to costs?


We now(if it happens) get to choose the food standards. The EU has insisted on setting the UK's food standards, but one example(that I can remember) from the past is an issue with French UHT milk. It was ruled that we have to accept a standard lower than we insisted from UK farmers.

There is no US trade deal in place.
Are "welfare standards and environmental protection standards" any better in Romania etc? Eg Horsemeat scandal.
Sounds like EU(including the UK) farmers also don't have to have windows.
So the EU admits it's own abattoirs were not "up to scratch" and that chlorine washes are BETTER than cold air and water. What matters is the safety of the end result. What's the betting that the "welfare standards and environmental protection standards" came long after 1997? It's just a ruse to block imports.

How come in 2017 the US exported more than $3bn worth of chicken, and Brazil more than twice that. Not sure Brazil's standards are going to be that high.

Re: Brexit
 

Yet again, you've failed to accept that EU migration to the UK provides a NET benefit. so your first paragraph is rubbish.

Sorry for the lapse on the US trade deal, was typing in multiple windows. Yes, of course no deal currently in place.

The EU's concern as you probably know regarding chlorine washing is that it allows or could be allowed for shortcuts to be taken in the slaughter process which are not as easily introduced via the cold air and water method. You're right, it's about the end result, so lets use the method that introduces least risk into the slaughter process. which is to still ban the use of chlorine washing.

Again, if you think for one second that a nation such as the UK (should Brexit occur) will have any considerable say in any of the major nation trade deals then you're in denial. We are going to be dictated too and we will have to accept what we're given in the vast majority of instances.

However, you were told that before, you didn't listen and there's evidence already of chickens coming home to roost.

BTW Brazil exports more chicken than the US because it's 5th biggest export (meat as a whole) US's meat exports don't even make the top ten.

Re: Brexit
 

No. Leave means leave. There is no threat to the country. All this nonsense is the confusion deliberately thrown in to try to sabatage Brexit. As the date gets nearer, the voices become more shrill.

It's pathetic, really.

Re: Brexit
 

Where is the evidence that US abattoirs are any less safe than EU ones? The supposed reason that chlorinated washing was banned is that it was BETTER for safety and therefore ALLEGEDLY hid problems. A bit like banning washing hands with soap and allowing jsut the use of water because using soap hides the fact that the hands were dirtier in the first place. The same chicken would be safer with a chlorinated wash than just cold air and water.



The large US and Brazilian chicken exports indicate that other countries are more than happy with their produce.


April 2018
Therefore we could also ban specific problem US suppliers.

Re: Brexit
 

This is one of the more absurd excuses for protectionism dreamed up by the EU.

The fact is, chlorine-washed poultry has less than a tenth of the bacteria on its surface when it leaves the factory than when air and water treated. Chlorine-washed poultry is vastly safer to handle in a domestic kitchen than air and water treated poultry is.

The EU’s reasoning is that forcing poulterers to supply meat that is less safe than it could be, forces them to be more careful. That is about as logical as forcing auto manufacturers to stop fitting seat belts in the name of road safety.

I’m certain that they are well aware of this absurdity in Brussels, but they don’t care because it has nothing whatever to do with ensuring the safest possible chicken arrives in your kitchen. It is all about protecting European producers who don’t have the resources to invest in chlorine washing, allowing them to continue to supply chicken that is more expensive and less safe, without worrying about competition from cleaner, more efficient producers from outside the EU.

Re: Brexit
 

1) Wrong
In 2014, an investigation by the respected independent US non-profit organisation, Consumer Reports, found that 97 per cent of 300 chicken breasts it tested from across America contained harmful bacteria including Salmonella, campylobacter and E.Coli.

A 2013 study by the Centers for Disease Prevention and Control - the US federal health protection agency - analysed outbreaks of foodborne illnesses between 1998 and 2008 and found that “more deaths were attributable to poultry than any other commodity”.

More than half of the samples in the Consumer Reports study contained faecal contaminants and a similar amount harboured at least one bacterium that was resistant to three or more commonly prescribed antibiotics.

A 2016 study by the UK’s Food Standards Agency found comparable levels of contamination in this country - half of chicken samples taken from retailers were infected with multi antibiotic-resistant campylobacter.

It's the same, without the addition of chlorine.

as part of the wider issue ;


Chlorine-washed chickens are symbolic of much wider concerns around animal welfare and environmental standards that could become a crucial negotiating point in any post-Brexit trade deal between the US and the UK. That trade deal itself is seen as of vital importance to the UK’s future outside the EU.

Other practices such as implanting cattle with man-made growth hormones and selling unlabelled genetically modified foods are also allowed in the US but banned in the UK. These problems are also likely to be on the agenda.

Re: Brexit
 

The ballot was explicit. Leave or stay.

Do you really think that Brexiters did not realise that leaving the EU meant coming out of the single market (customs union)? Do you believe that people didn't not realise that controlling immigration worked both ways? Did the supposed lack of information persuade you to vote remain?

Of course not. Brexiters knew what they were doing. To hear all this nonsense, it is clear that many remainers remain completely confused.

Re: Brexit
 

If you think you're going to be able to ban IBP and their like then you have another think coming.


US vs EU Food standards as a whole

https://www.ecowatch.com/13-ways-the...881850175.html

Re: Brexit
 

But it doesn't does it as we've found out. If leave meant leave then we wouldn't be having this conversation. There is no nonsense. Get in the real world and realise that things just aren't as simple as you are making out.

Re: Brexit
 

here we go again

At no point, anywhere did it say how the decision to leave the EU should be taken. You're adding after the fact. the same old regurgitated nonsense as per usual.

I'd hazard a guess that maybe 30-40% had an informed idea of what leaving the EU would mean, the rest were swept along in the nonsense promises and delusion of the pro leave group.

I'm not confused, IF we leave the EU I'll be willing to bet we will be back in within the next ten years.

Re: Brexit
 

No. You knew what you were doing. You don't speak for everyone. People from both sides have changed their opinion.

Re: Brexit
 

The country's leading independent fact-checkers disagree with you.https://fullfact.org/europe/what-was...on-referendum/

Re: Brexit
 

How many of the deaths were down to incomplete cooking?

Or just contact with live chickens?
2018

Re: Brexit
 

They all said we'd never get a deal with the EU. Turns out, the EU was the least of our problems. It's the Remain-led House of Commons that is throwing up all the nonsense. The only real issue is the backstop, as raised by the ERG, which has been hyped up out of all proportion in my opinion.

However, even if we can satisfy the objection to the backstop, the remainers will continue to claim that the end of the world is nigh.

You might like to claim that it's all so complicated, but it is not. Listen to Liam Fox on last Sunday's Andrew Marr. That should calm your troubled brow.

Re: Brexit
 

You've missed the point...

If both methods reduce the same results (as above) , let's not add another nasty chemical into the mix.

Re: Brexit
 

No, what I’ve described is what the con job of being a member of the corrupted EU is. Some Remainers talking about the EU investment funds back in to the U.K. It’s our feckin money to start with!

Re: Brexit
 

A minority have changed their minds. So what? People are fickle and change their minds all the time.

However, to suggest that people who wanted to leave did not understand what that meant is so condescending and I'm sick of it. I presume you knew what 'remain' meant.

Re: Brexit
 

We have not got close to negotiating a trade deal with the EU, that will be the interesting bit! We're just sorting out the withdrawal agreement at the moment!

Re: Brexit
 

Raising genuine concern should not be treat as doom mongering.

Liam Fox, the same Liam Fox who can't get the forty deals he promised in time delivered?

the forty deals that nowhere near completion Liam Fox?

---------- Post added at 13:02 ---------- Previous post was at 12:59 ----------


Are you saying everyone fully knew the consequences of voting to leave?

The consequences for the immediate future of remaining in the EU were known.

Re: Brexit
 

No. You said Brexiters knew what they were doing. You don't speak for 17+ million people, you speak for yourself and yourself only. I didn't really know what anything fully meant. I made a decision based on what I thought was better for myself and the country. But I don't pretend to speak for millions of people.

Re: Brexit
 

He speaks for me and everyone else I know who voted to leave the EU - we want to be out totally from that corrupted con job union. That's what leaving meant to me and us. So yes, in essence, he speaks for me and everyone associated to me, who also voted to leave the con job union. He does not just speak for himself.

But surely this logic of yours, also applies to Remainers then, who constantly tell us Brexiteers we got it wrong - that we voted the wrong way, no we did not get it wrong, there is nothing to get wrong, it is called democracy and we voted to leave the EU.

This is a tiresome, old pathetic argument and it needs to be laid to rest.

Re: Brexit
 

Total crap!

You said:

Your best buddy Liam Fox said:

Re: Brexit
 

He speaks for me and every one i know who also voted leave.

---------- Post added at 13:40 ---------- Previous post was at 13:38 ----------

Your the expert :nworthy:

Re: Brexit
 

So, at a very generous MAXIMUM 200 people? that's a massive 0.0014367816091954023% of total leave voters, hardly a large amount.

Re: Brexit
 

He can only speak for you if you want him to speak for you. But that's you, you're not 17 million people. People have differing opinions even if they voted the same way as you. Stop being entitled and believing 17+ million people all have the same opinion as you.

You're right it is a tiresome and pathetic argument, so stop repeating 17+ million people all voted for the same thing (you haven't here but I'm sure you did before), different people had different opinions of what leave or remain actually meant.

Re: Brexit
 

Ah, here we have it Ladies and Gentlemen. Mick and everyone associated to Mick, speak for the entire 37% of the Electorate who voted Leave.

Good to know. Best tell Mori and YouGov, they are wasting their money. All they need to do is to ring Mick and his mates ask them what everyone thinks. :)

Re: Brexit
 

There you go again with that erroneous figure... :zzz:

Re: Brexit
 

The Attorney General has abandoned attempts to secure a hard time-limit or unilateral exit mechanism from the Irish backstop, The Telegraph has been told.

Ministers briefed on Geoffrey Cox's approach said those aims, which represent the central demands of Eurosceptics, are considered too "blunt" and have been rejected by the European Union.

Some Cabinet ministers are already resigned to the Prime Minister losing a second meaningful vote on her deal amid concerns that changes to the backstop secured by Mr Cox will not be sufficient to win round Brexiteers.

Now what Mrs. May?

Re: Brexit
 

So how many of them are unsafe and only have been implemented in the EU in the previous few years to that report(2014)?


Still doesn't change the fact that chlorinated washing was banned by the EU because it does a BETTER job than their alternative. Chlorinated washing meant that bad abattoirs meant the post-wash chicken met the required standards, whereas better abattoirs didn't need such a good treatment to meet those same standards. If chlorinated washing was allowed, then the post-wash standard of the chickens from the better abattoirs would be BETTER than it is now.


An example of the UK and EU being free and easy with food welfare is in relation to animal slaughter. Kosher and Halal slaughter is held to lesser standards. Although UK law insists the religious slaughter only takes place to provide meat for those religions, how much of that is followed?

Are Muslims consuming 15% of UK meat? I assume the 100% includes Pork, so their non-pork consumption is much higher than 15%.

Re: Brexit
 

I think she'll decide it's too much like hard work and will find a way to stay in. I only hope that if we do end up staying it won't be on terms eye wateringly worse that those we have at the moment.

Re: Brexit
 

"Why the UK cannot see that Brexit is utterly, utterly stupid

The British press helped condone austerity. It's now blinding us to the stupidity of Brexit."


https://www.newstatesman.com/politic...-stupid?fbclid

Re: Brexit
 

Again, random murmurings with no actual documented evidence to support your argument

'It all comes down to money and efficiency of space. The majority of farmers do care about rearing their birds, but as profit margins can be very tight, animal welfare is sidelined to keep costs down. In the EU, cost is also important, but the law means it can’t come at the expense of the birds’ basic welfare. There is a legal minimum amount of space, lighting and ventilation for EU poultry-rearing houses.

The more space the birds have to move around in, the fewer can be housed in a single area, which in turn has an effect on production costs. As there are no laws governing this in the US, the birds can be crammed in tightly so they have limited movement, with little light or ventilation. This reduces production costs but increases the risks of disease and contamination in a flock.

Washing the chickens in a strong chlorine solution (20-50 parts per million of chlorine) provides a brash, cost-effective method of killing any microorganisms on the surface of the bird, particularly bacteria such as species of Salmonella and Campylobacter. This helps prevent the meat being contaminated with microbes during slaughter and evisceration.'


So, a country where there is no minimum standard for poultry welfare, vs the EU which has said standards and you're OK with this? and best of all Chlorine washing as it's a process doesn't have to be included on the packaging....

---------- Post added at 14:25 ---------- Previous post was at 14:14 ----------

Yup, regardless of what happens 17.4 million people in this country have collectively wasted a mountain of money.

---------- Post added at 14:28 ---------- Previous post was at 14:25 ----------

Won't disagree on any of that.

Re: Brexit
 

A lot of people seem to be confusing the withdrawal agreement with the trade deal.

I believe that once the withdrawal agreement goes through, we will be out of the woods. Leaving the EU is the emotive part of this business.

---------- Post added at 14:49 ---------- Previous post was at 14:47 ----------

I would urge you to watch it. He explains the position on the trade deals.

---------- Post added at 14:56 ---------- Previous post was at 14:49 ----------

What consequences, for heaven's sake?

Dictionary definition of 'leave': depart from; go away from; withdraw from; retire from; take oneself off from; exit from; take one's leave of; pull out of; quit; be gone from; decamp from; disappear from; abandon ; vacate;.......

How many more definitions do we need? We were out of the EU before we joined, so it's not that difficult to envisage!

---------- Post added at 14:59 ---------- Previous post was at 14:56 ----------

And yet, time and time again, you hear leave-voting people on Question Time, in the pubs and just about everywhere insist that they knew exactly what leave meant.

I suppose, as an ardent remainer, you can speak on behalf of the leavers, can you? Like hell!

---------- Post added at 15:00 ---------- Previous post was at 14:59 ----------

Hear, hear! I'm beginning to wonder if the remainers fully understood the consequences of remaining.

---------- Post added at 15:01 ---------- Previous post was at 15:00 ----------

I was talking about the remainers!

The deal with the EU is all but done. Just need to sort out Parliament now!

Re: Brexit
 

People on question time or down pubs still isn't 17 million is it. I'm not speaking on behalf of anyone unlike you. Also have I stated I'm a remainer? And even if I am, I wouldn't call myself ardent. That's just something you've made up to suit your own agenda on the subject. Your original statement was false.

Re: Brexit
 

Get home from work, boot the computer up while making a coffee, sit and read the latest 4 pages of the Great Brexit Debate on here . . much more entertaining than BBC news and a damn sight less adverts than Sky News :D

Anyway, what I've learnt in the last 30 minutes:

1) I didn't know what I was voting for (but believed all the lies)
2) Chlorinated chicken is the same as Cold washed chicken . . but different.
3) The USA are attempting to bully us into buying all their rubbish
4) The EU are cutting back handouts to member states . . probably because they'll miss our £millions
6) Immigrants don't have a negative effect on the UK (housing/health/education/jobs)
7) May still hasn't got a clue what to do . . so let's just wave bye bye :D

. . . who needs a TV? :rofl:

Re: Brexit
 

They DON'T yield the same results. That was the very reason for the ban. The bad abattoirs could reach the final required hygiene standards by using a chlorinated wash. The ban was supposedly intended to make it so that they couldn't reach those standards and would therefore have to clean up their act instead. The safer option would've been to reduce the acceptable post-wash standard so they couldn't meet that. But either the chlorinated wash process is so good that it wasn't possible to reduce the standard or it was aimed at shutting other countries, eg the US, out of the EU.


UK POST-wash
US PRE-wash(of whatever sort)

Re: Brexit
 

So let me get this right. Remaine logic purports that Brexit voters didn't know what they were voting for but remainers did.

Is this the old uneducated voting rearing its head again?

I'm sure you think I and many others enjoy being told we didn't know what we were voting for.

I don't know what you think you are that gives you the right to even suggest that anyone didn't know what they were voting for. I do know what I think you are.

This is not aimed at just you but anyone else on here that puts forward this tired done to death argument.

Re: Brexit
 

Or maybe it's because people have come out and said it themselves.

Re: Brexit
 

How many? 10, 50, 100, 200?

Re: Brexit
 

Doesn't matter if it's only 1. The original statement from old boy is wrong.

Re: Brexit
 

But, Andrew, the Customs Union is essentially the common market. Of course leavers voted to leave that too! I can't believe we are still having this conversation!

---------- Post added at 17:28 ---------- Previous post was at 17:23 ----------

Oh, do pack it in! If you lot think you can speak for all those who voted leave and how they were soooo confused and didn't know that a cross against leave meant leave, then that is true arrogance.

I don't know anyone who voted leave that didn't appreciate what they were voting for. Who are you to know what those who oppose your view were thinking?

---------- Post added at 17:38 ---------- Previous post was at 17:28 ----------

Oh, do give it a rest, Mythica. You are whining now.

Re: Brexit
 

It’s hardly pure arrogance to say the full consequences of leave weren’t fully quantified. Otherwise we would not have had discussions on Norway model, Canada (and various pluses), EFTA and ultimately WTO terms.

For some people they didn’t consider the consequences beyond reducing immigration and the mythical £350m a week. Which is exactly why we are in the shambles we are in.

One clear agreed vision of Brexit would have been settled 18 months ago.

Re: Brexit
 

If your definition of whining is correcting someone posting something incorrect then I must be whining. I see it as you're just being rude because you realised what you said is incorrect.

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

As a leaver, I have not heard anything since I voted that I did not appreciate and I'm sure that most have the same view. Remainers, however, may have had a different experience. I cannot speak for them.

Much is made of the ridiculous allegation that people failed to appreciate that leaving the EU meant leaving the Customs Union. It may be true that some did not know what the customs union was, even though this was mentioned in the literature, but they would all have appreciated that we would be leaving the common market, which is essentially the same thing. Once again, people are trying to confuse the issue.

You say the full consequences of leave were not fully quantified. Well, what exactly did you think would change the minds of those voting leave? The Norway model won't work for us because that would mean we would be rule takers without having any say. Why would we wish to have a different arrangement such as EFTA if it worsened the situation, allowed the continuation of free movement, etc? Canada +++ is what we want from the trade deal, that has never been in dispute.

I'd really like to know what it is in your delusion that makes you believe that leavers did not know what they voted for. Would you care to tell us what, in your wisdom, we do not understand?

We, the leavers, had a very clear vision when we voted leave. Any lack of clarity has been promulgated by remainers. You are all confusing things so much, I don't think you have any clear vision of what you do want. The EU will only hold us back. We need to forge better links with the rest of the world and remove ourselves from the undemocratic Eurocracy.

Re: Brexit
 

My wisdom tells me it’s impossible for you to speak for 17 million people, and that despite it not being stated on the ballot paper you know exactly what they understood ‘leaving’ to mean.

If ‘leave’ means one thing, and one only, why does the Theresa May deal not fit the bill for some yet it does for others? Why does it not fit Liam Fox’s easiest deal in history? Leave has a very broad range of outcomes that all fall under one umbrella.

You understand what you want from leaving. That’s not the same as everyone understanding, let alone agreeing over it.

Re: Brexit
 

the same Norway model that Nigel Farage supported remind everyone what way he voted for again and he not only one that was supporting that on leave side

Re: Brexit
 

We will also be a rule taker in a trade deal with the USA!

Re: Brexit
 

exactly with no say in it at all as they have all the power in the talks but leavers don't get that in EU we get a say on the rules but we wont have for much longer

Re: Brexit
 

Ha ha! I don't, and you don't speak for them either, so no more talk of leavers not knowing what they voted for!

As for Liam Fox, the withdrawal agreement has been pretty straight forward considering the extent of the voices off from the remainers. Only the backstop is getting in the way, but other than that, the withdrawal agreement is just about there.

The other types of leave you envisage do not actually mean 'leave' - they mean a half way house. This is unacceptable to most leavers.

Can you tell me, with supporting evidence if you like, what it is that leavers did not understand?

---------- Post added at 19:12 ---------- Previous post was at 19:11 ----------

You are such a defeatest in everything you touch! Thank God you are not leading us, old chap.

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

No deal is better than a bad deal, Dave!

Re: Brexit
 

no deal is worst of anything OB and no deal be off the table totally next week by parliament

Re: Brexit
 

During this debate I've said equally that this ill information and bad decision making is applicable at both sides. I'd suggest you go back and read them.

Please do tell me what you think I am? If you actually have the balls too rather than just insinuating as you have done in other posts on this forum.

Re: Brexit
 

But you are.

Just a few posts back you said, "We, the leavers, had a very clear vision when we voted leave."

Re: Brexit
 

If persuasion doesn't work, try a bribe!

Even if this promise is kept after the vote, some areas will have to bid for the money, so aren't guaranteed to get it.

Even if they do, it's a drop in the ocean compared to the massive funding cuts by the Tories in Northern areas.