[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I think most of us remember the chaos caused by the remoaners and you do yourself no credit by denying it. It was touch and go whether we would leave with a deal, without a deal, a deal with conditions attached, etc, etc. How do you make a plan when you don't know what will be agreed and with a reluctant Civil Service?

The chaos? Aside a Westminster pantomime life continued as normal for almost everyone OB.

You are right it was touch and go whether we would leave with/without a deal, with/without conditions. But that only evidences my point about the failure of political leadership not counters it.

That’s quite a slur on the Civil Service to call them “reluctant”. I’m sure there are processes for insubordination, but any long term career Civil Servants will have served Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, May and Johnson Governments.

The idea that they diligently carried out these tasks for decades and then conspired to scupper Brexit is laughable. And another pathetic attempt at deflection.

As for Labour - er - they opposed Brexit as well, actually. Don't try changing history, we were all there at the time, remember? Corbyn didn't know which side he was on half the time, incidentally.

Maybe he was considering the subject impartially, rather than being a dogmatic ideologue. There’s many on the Labour left who are no friends of the EU - and Corbyn wasn’t committed to a second referendum until dragged to it by the centrists.

---------- Post added at 11:39 ---------- Previous post was at 11:31 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The remoaners (and by that I mean remainers who doggedly refused to accept the democratic preference of the electorate) disrupted negotiations to such an extent that planning was almost impossible until we knew which way we were going.

Article 50 was triggered to get things moving and the extension of the period would only have allowed the government's detractors to cause even more mayhem.

Is there any evidence for this - Boris has the clear parliamentary mandate. How could they possibly cause more chaos than having business completely ill-prepared for what you acknowledge had a range of outcomes until the very end of negotiations?

Clearly, the government will be held accountable for the success or otherwise of Brexit, but if you ever really thought that everything should be sorted and working perfectly in the first year beyond the transition period, you're living in fairy land.

When? Or will their acolytes simply blame those pesky remoaners for decades to come. “It’d have been great if only we’d got the deal we wanted” might wash for some but at some point preparation (or lack thereof) will severely impact the ability of our economy to rebound.

How long, you ask, before the government should be held accountable? Well, that's a very simplistic question, because it depends what happens. If we manage to get EU co-operation, things should have settled within five years, but if we cannot get agreement we will probably end upmgiving notice of termination of the deal. Clearly, that would lead to some further disruption, and stabilisation should come within a year or two of that.

So we’re on a wing and a prayer and you’re giving them a free decade essentially.

I am very clear that Brexit is good for the long term future of the UK. Short term problems are the price we pay.

You can be as clear as you wish but your hopes and aspirations count for nothing in the absence of a clear economic strategy to respond to any shocks that can clearly be anticipated.

By the way, I have confused nothing.

You have.

I refer you to the earlier posts where Andrew refers to being a Third Country - this is a country outside the EU/Single Market.

Your response refers to Andrew hoping we become a third world country. Clearly in a rush to defend the Government at all costs you failed to make the distinction.