Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
I make no judgement about whether this government will replace those funds. I will judge the party manifestos on this issue in 2021 (if not sooner), when structural funding will be a British election issue for the first time in a generation. That’s what Brexit is for. That is the point.
Seriously, this again .... we debated a range of outcomes. The leave campaign generally outlined the opportunities while the remain campaign highlighted the risks (occasionally they agreed what would happen but disagreed over whether it was a good thing, e.g. our departure from the customs union).
There is a simple mandate to leave the EU. The referendum question was not qualified or limited in any way, so it is a nonsense to claim that there is no mandate for one consequence or another.
|
It really is disturbing that you are trying to argue the case that a simplistic binary vote from 37% of the electorate underwrites a structural change that will leave the country poorer and less secure when the opposite scenario was "sold" to the country in 2016 by the leave campaign.
What you are willing to accept, on behalf of all of us in the country, to achieve your ideological goals is simply staggering. In spite of your simplistic arguments, there is no mandate for No Deal and the Commons fully realises this.
---------- Post added at 14:17 ---------- Previous post was at 14:14 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf
Ah the good old anti brexit civil service leaked secret document trick  |
Let's put the childish remarks to one side? What is incorrect in this report?
Denial is not a practical solution for facing reality ..