Guest pelmetman Posted June 30, 2018 Share Posted June 30, 2018 Brian Kirby - 2018-06-29 12:32 PM pelmetman - 2018-06-27 10:12 PM Brian Kirby - 2018-06-27 3:21 PM pelmetman - 2018-06-27 9:55 AM.....................….How funny you should call us Brexiteers protectionists........ it not us Brexiteers that are trying to make life difficult for those foreign owned businesses is it? ;-) ............ It's the EU trying to make an example of us to "PROTECT" their empire *-) ......... But I didn't, Dave, did I? I don't know what you think the EU should do. It has evolved a set of rules that govern access to its markets. We seem to want to leave the EU, choose which ruled we'd like to comply with, disregard those that we don't like, and retain full access to the market nevertheless. So, if we swapped places with, say, Germany, and they were leaving while we remain in, you'd have no objection to Germany saying "we're leaving, and we still want access to your market as before, but we're going to reject the rules we don't like, and only accept those we like? That would be OK? You forget Brian we're not Germany *-) ......... Didn't you do history at school? 8-) .......... Eh? Which bit of history would that be? I would have thought mistaking the UK for Germany would relate to geography, not history, but I still don't see the relevance of either to whether or not you'd be happy if Germany was trying to leave the EU on the same one sided terms we are seeking. Obviously you missed that bit in history where Germany demonstrated a rather cavalier attitude to the rules on a couple of occasions? >:-) ........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryd999 Posted June 30, 2018 Share Posted June 30, 2018 pelmetman - 2018-06-30 9:10 AM Barryd999 - 2018-06-29 10:54 AM Ive noticed this trend recently where Brexiteers and even the Pollys are preparing themselves to deflect the blame of a Brexit failure onto those that voted remain. Support Brexit if you like, that is your democratic right but when it all goes tits up dont start trying to blame those of us who never wanted a referendum in the first place and voted remain. The buck stops with those that took us here I am afraid. How many times was it said two years ago that it wasnt enough of a majority to make it work? Too many if you care to look back. Au contraire ;-) ...........The trend is deffo on the Remoaners foot :D ........... Now that you've realised all your whinging will achieve is nowt but a big bill which you'll have to help pay >:-) .......... You maybe lucky though.......as we could still just crash out without any deal B-) .......... No chance of that now. We have to have a deal. "No Deal" is no longer possible as the government would be in breach of its own EU Withdrawal Act which is now law. It specifically states that there can be nothing changed at the Irish border when compared to today. No deal means a fully enforced border so that’s off the table. You got want you wanted. Parliamentary Sovereignty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted June 30, 2018 Share Posted June 30, 2018 pelmetman - 2018-06-30 9:22 AM Brian Kirby - 2018-06-29 12:32 PM pelmetman - 2018-06-27 10:12 PM Brian Kirby - 2018-06-27 3:21 PM pelmetman - 2018-06-27 9:55 AM.....................….How funny you should call us Brexiteers protectionists........ it not us Brexiteers that are trying to make life difficult for those foreign owned businesses is it? ;-) ............ It's the EU trying to make an example of us to "PROTECT" their empire *-) ......... But I didn't, Dave, did I? I don't know what you think the EU should do. It has evolved a set of rules that govern access to its markets. We seem to want to leave the EU, choose which ruled we'd like to comply with, disregard those that we don't like, and retain full access to the market nevertheless. So, if we swapped places with, say, Germany, and they were leaving while we remain in, you'd have no objection to Germany saying "we're leaving, and we still want access to your market as before, but we're going to reject the rules we don't like, and only accept those we like? That would be OK? You forget Brian we're not Germany *-) ......... Didn't you do history at school? 8-) .......... Eh? Which bit of history would that be? I would have thought mistaking the UK for Germany would relate to geography, not history, but I still don't see the relevance of either to whether or not you'd be happy if Germany was trying to leave the EU on the same one sided terms we are seeking. Obviously you missed that bit in history where Germany demonstrated a rather cavalier attitude to the rules on a couple of occasions? >:-) ........... I assume from your desire for countries to stick to the rules that you'd be unhappy if it was Germany trying to leave the EU on the same rule breaking terms the UK appears (occasionally, only half apparent, as through a mist) to be seeking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted June 30, 2018 Share Posted June 30, 2018 Brian Kirby - 2018-06-30 10:51 AM I assume from your desire for countries to stick to the rules that you'd be unhappy if it was Germany trying to leave the EU on the same rule breaking terms the UK appears (occasionally, only half apparent, as through a mist) to be seeking? What rules were broken?.........We held a referendum according to the rules.......We triggered article 50 according to the rules..........It's you Remoaners that seem to have issue with rules >:-) ........ As apparently you Remoaners seem to think a minority can overrule the majority when it comes to Brexit *-) ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryd999 Posted June 30, 2018 Share Posted June 30, 2018 W3526602 - 2018-06-30 9:10 AM Hi, We vote for our MPs, who in turn vote for the Party Leader (not sure about Labour) who chooses his Foriegn Secretary, who does all the negotiating with all the other Foreign Secretaries in the world. That is effectively "ONE NATION, ONE VOTE" My mate reckons the EU is the most democratic system in the world ... everybody gets one vote. But their votes are not equal. The Big Six ... Germany, France, UK, Poland, Italy and Spain have about a couple of hundred MEPs (more than the rest of the other 22 member states put together). Malta has 5 MEPs ... how much influence can they have? What benefit can they derive from being members of the EU ... unless they can trade their votes, in return for bigger states returning the favour. Just because a State is small does not make it unimportant to it's citizens. But obviously the Big Six reckon they are important, just because they are big, and have clout. At the other end of the scale ... what's the economic term for "cannon fodder"? Question ... how did our politicians get this great nation into a position that we cannot (some say) get out of. Does/did Parliament have the authority to put us in that position? Question ... if the EU are so reluctant for us to leave, why haven't they offered us some incentive to stay? They demand that we tell them what we want ... just so that they can smile when they tell us we can't have it. But when they tell us what they want, they throw a hissy fit even if we let them have it. One soon learns not to ask for anything, if you know that it will result in a clip round the ear. Three twos is worth more than a pair of aces. I'm guessing that there have been occasions when a pair of twos have taken the kitty. The Negotiators are playing poker, knowing some of the cards each is holding ... but only a guestimate of how much is in the kitty. But the player with the weakest hand can take the pot, by raising the stakes higher than the other player can afford to match. The UK can throw NO DEAL into the kitty. Can the EU risk having to match that? They need us more than we need them? If the UK starts to put a tarrif on EU goods, they will sell less in the UK, but the demand will remain, leaving the opportunity for UK entreprenuers to fill it. Vice Versa will apply. But the UK will be able to seek new markets, while the EU will have to continue with one hand tied behind their back. The EU do not like the British, although they may like us individually. We are political trouble makers ... but they will accept that ... while we keep giving them our money. They are puzzled by our reluctance to give them more. In order to justify asking us for more, they have to keep introducing more laws for us to obey ... and stay in charge of administering those laws. I recently mentioned a hospital being delayed due to an EU builder not sticking to specification. Will that be settled in a UK court ... or in the EU? We all have a vote to elect our MPs. Business does not have a vote. Who has the most clout? Bigger businesses have more clout? ... like Carrilion, and the banks, and the railway franchises, etc? 602 The UK cannot throw no deal into the Kitty for the reasons I explained to Dave above unless it dumps Northern Ireland. We can have as much as we like from the EU such as full Single Market and Customs Union access, they have been clear on that, no problem. We just have to accept the four freedoms. Thems the rules and we knew that when we said we were leaving. Trouble was Brexiteers assumed those rules wouldnt apply to us as we were Great Britain and promised the voters the earth just to get their votes. Now of course the truth is out and they have to fit round pegs into square holes which of course is impossible. No amount of foot stamping, blaming the remainers who warned you all that this would happen or blaming the EU will get around the fact that this cluster fcuk is down to those that brought Brexit upon us and those who voted for it despite the warnings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted June 30, 2018 Share Posted June 30, 2018 pelmetman - 2018-06-30 10:57 AM Brian Kirby - 2018-06-30 10:51 AM I assume from your desire for countries to stick to the rules that you'd be unhappy if it was Germany trying to leave the EU on the same rule breaking terms the UK appears (occasionally, only half apparent, as through a mist) to be seeking? What rules were broken?.........We held a referendum according to the rules.......We triggered article 50 according to the rules..........It's you Remoaners that seem to have issue with rules >:-) ........ As apparently you Remoaners seem to think a minority can overrule the majority when it comes to Brexit *-) ......... Wrong tense Dave. I referred to the rules we are seeking to break. No allegations that rules have yet been broken. You know, all those "special deals" we are trying to negotiate, like restricting movement of people while retaining free movement of goods. That seeks to drive a coach and horses through the main principles of the EU - that the freedoms are an inseparable part of the package. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryd999 Posted June 30, 2018 Share Posted June 30, 2018 I don't know why people are so hung up on free movement anyway. It's pretty much been exposed since Brexit that it was mainly down to the government that so many Eastern Europeans came here when they could had opted out of that and they had an option for to apply an emergency brake as other countries have and now the EU has reformed the free movement rules. If you voted out on immigration then it was a wasted vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted June 30, 2018 Share Posted June 30, 2018 W3526602 - 2018-06-30 9:10 AM Hi, We vote for our MPs, who in turn vote for the Party Leader (not sure about Labour) who chooses his Foriegn Secretary, who does all the negotiating with all the other Foreign Secretaries in the world. That is effectively "ONE NATION, ONE VOTE" Depends on where you think that vote is being exercised. One nation, one voice, would perhaps be more accurate. In practise, we usually act in concert with other countries, so our vote, or voice, is part of a negotiating bloc. If we act alone, without the support of other nations, we are liable to lose. My mate reckons the EU is the most democratic system in the world ... everybody gets one vote. But their votes are not equal. The Big Six ... Germany, France, UK, Poland, Italy and Spain have about a couple of hundred MEPs (more than the rest of the other 22 member states put together). Malta has 5 MEPs ... how much influence can they have? What benefit can they derive from being members of the EU ... unless they can trade their votes, in return for bigger states returning the favour. Just because a State is small does not make it unimportant to it's citizens. But obviously the Big Six reckon they are important, just because they are big, and have clout. At the other end of the scale ... what's the economic term for "cannon fodder"? He is right and wrong. The MEPs vote in the European parliament. However, the European parliament does not make the rules. The rules are made by the Commission (the civil servants), the Council, and the parliament. The Council has 28 members, who are the ministers of the 28 member countries relevant to the issue under consideration. So, in the Council, each state has one, equal, vote. For an proposal to be adopted by the EU, two of those three institutions must support it. So it is not just the parliament that must accept. It must also have support from the Commission or the Council. If the smaller states were continually dissatisfied with the results of their representations - treated, as you say, as cannon fodder - they have the same rights to object as any other state, and to leave if they so choose. Yet, they do not. It is the UK, one of your "big six" that has decided to leave. QED? But, I don't agree with your big six, as they are only big in terms of population. Influence is determined more by economic factors, and there are 10 EU states that are net contributors, i.e. those that pay the bills. These are, in order of net contribution per capita (i.e. how much each individual resident contributes to the EU), the Netherlands, Sweden, Germany, Denmark, Finland, Austria, France, UK, Italy, and Ireland. All the others get more out than they pay in. Question 1)... how did our politicians get this great nation into a position that we cannot (some say) get out of. 2) Does/did Parliament have the authority to put us in that position? 1) By putting their party interests before those of the country. 2) Parliament has that authority, but the decision was not made by parliament. The government handed the issue to the people, who voted to leave, but had no authority to do so. The government than decided they had to do as the people decided (they did not but, having decided on a referendum, were then too fearful of their position to reject the referendum outcome). Parliament has not yet voted on whether the UK should leave the EU. It may get that vote if/when the terms for leaving are a) clarified and b) agreed by the government as acceptable to put to a parliamentary vote. This may take some time! :-) Question ... if the EU are so reluctant for us to leave, why haven't they offered us some incentive to stay? They demand that we tell them what we want ... just so that they can smile when they tell us we can't have it. But when they tell us what they want, they throw a hissy fit even if we let them have it. One soon learns not to ask for anything, if you know that it will result in a clip round the ear. Mainly, because we have yet to tell them, in adequate detail to form the basis of a legally binding agreement, what post Brexit relationship we want with the EU. This has so far proved impossible, as the cabinet cannot agree among themselves what those terms should be. This has so far proved impossible because members of the cabinet are taking their cues from the conservative party, which cannot agree among itself what those terms should be. As above, this may take some time! :-D Three twos is worth more than a pair of aces. I'm guessing that there have been occasions when a pair of twos have taken the kitty. The Negotiators are playing poker, knowing some of the cards each is holding ... but only a guestimate of how much is in the kitty. But the player with the weakest hand can take the pot, by raising the stakes higher than the other player can afford to match. The UK can throw NO DEAL into the kitty. Can the EU risk having to match that? Yes, but it would prefer not to do so, which is why it is trying to negotiate a better outcome (for the EU as a whole) with the UK. The UK cannot, as you put it, throw no deal into the kitty without suffering significant economic damage. If someone's negotiating stance is, "this will hurt me more than it hurts you", what do you say? They need us more than we need them? If the UK starts to put a tarrif on EU goods, they will sell less in the UK, but the demand will remain, leaving the opportunity for UK entreprenuers to fill it. Vice Versa will apply. But the UK will be able to seek new markets, while the EU will have to continue with one hand tied behind their back. The EU already has, or is negotiating, free trade deals with the other major world economies. As a member, the UK can already, or will be able to, take advantage of those deals to trade tariff free with those countries. Where are these other countries that offer advantageous trade prospects that will equal, or better, those we already have? For example, the majority of our motor vehicles come from Europe, or are made in the UK by foreign owned companies with much of their output destined for Europe. How will that work post Brexit? Where is the UK entrepreneur who manufactures cars, who will be able to gear up his production to replace what will be lost through Brexit? Then, do the same calculation for the other market sectors. The EU do not like the British, although they may like us individually. We are political trouble makers ... but they will accept that ... while we keep giving them our money. They are puzzled by our reluctance to give them more. In order to justify asking us for more, they have to keep introducing more laws for us to obey ... and stay in charge of administering those laws. I recently mentioned a hospital being delayed due to an EU builder not sticking to specification. Will that be settled in a UK court ... or in the EU? It was originally only the French who didn't want the UK in the EEC, because De Gaulle was suspicious that we would merely act as an American pawn. The other members were favourable to our membership which is why, once De Gaulle went, we were able to join. They are not puzzled that we are reluctant to pay in more, they understand, because they are reluctant to pay in more - even those that are het beneficiaries! They do not introduce rules to induce us to pay in more, they introduce rules to regulate the single market. But who, if not the EU, should administer those rules? You did mention that hospital, and I asked if you could say which one you were referring to, but you didn't respond. You seemed to think that the hospital trust had employed an EU state to build their hospital, which plainly could not be the case. If the contractor has deviated from his specification, he will be in breach of contract. His contract will be under UK law, and he will be liable in the UK civil courts for whatever compensation and costs the court imposes. We all have a vote to elect our MPs. Business does not have a vote. Who has the most clout? Bigger businesses have more clout? ... like Carrilion, and the banks, and the railway franchises, etc? 602 Being a pedant, we do not all have a vote, only the electorate has a vote. They elect MPs. The party with the most MPs forms a government. Business has influence, because it has the means to access ministers that the individual voter lacks. However, every £ that the government raises, and spends, comes ultimately from business, so why would their influence come as a surprise. Sorry it's so long, but you did ask! :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted June 30, 2018 Share Posted June 30, 2018 Brian Kirby - 2018-06-30 11:07 AM pelmetman - 2018-06-30 10:57 AM Brian Kirby - 2018-06-30 10:51 AM I assume from your desire for countries to stick to the rules that you'd be unhappy if it was Germany trying to leave the EU on the same rule breaking terms the UK appears (occasionally, only half apparent, as through a mist) to be seeking? What rules were broken?.........We held a referendum according to the rules.......We triggered article 50 according to the rules..........It's you Remoaners that seem to have issue with rules >:-) ........ As apparently you Remoaners seem to think a minority can overrule the majority when it comes to Brexit *-) ......... Wrong tense Dave. I referred to the rules we are seeking to break. No allegations that rules have yet been broken. You know, all those "special deals" we are trying to negotiate, like restricting movement of people while retaining free movement of goods. That seeks to drive a coach and horses through the main principles of the EU - that the freedoms are an inseparable part of the package. So no rules have been broken *-) .......... Yet you flag up restricting movement of people ;-) .......haven't you been watching the news lately ? (lol) (lol) (lol) ......... BTW its not the UK who are trying to restrict the movements of goods........Unlike your Bum Chum Barnier >:-) ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted June 30, 2018 Share Posted June 30, 2018 Barryd999 - 2018-06-30 1:03 PM I don't know why people are so hung up on free movement anyway. It's pretty much been exposed since Brexit that it was mainly down to the government that so many Eastern Europeans came here when they could had opted out of that and they had an option for to apply an emergency brake as other countries have and now the EU has reformed the free movement rules. If you voted out on immigration then it was a wasted vote. So if we stay will things improve? ;-) ........... Yeah........ in your WET dreams sunshine (lol) (lol) (lol) .......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryd999 Posted July 1, 2018 Share Posted July 1, 2018 pelmetman - 2018-06-30 11:03 PM Barryd999 - 2018-06-30 1:03 PM I don't know why people are so hung up on free movement anyway. It's pretty much been exposed since Brexit that it was mainly down to the government that so many Eastern Europeans came here when they could had opted out of that and they had an option for to apply an emergency brake as other countries have and now the EU has reformed the free movement rules. If you voted out on immigration then it was a wasted vote. So if we stay will things improve? ;-) ........... Yeah........ in your WET dreams sunshine (lol) (lol) (lol) .......... If they dont improve as regards immigration then thats down to our Government, not the EU. Why did they allow Eastern Europeans in when they didnt have to? Why did they not use the emergency brake option that other countries have used? Why did everyone think the EU were forcing all these funny foreigners upon us? Because the Daily Mail told them so thats why. Whichever way you look at it Dave the EU has reformed its rules on free movement in May this year after you Brexiteers said it was incapable of reform. The biggest reason people voted out was uncontrolled immigration. We are in this mess because of something we could have better controlled ourselves years ago. Not only that, we know that immigration wont really change, we will just be swapping one set of immigrants for another set from outside of Europe. Its happening already in the NHS. Fail! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted July 1, 2018 Share Posted July 1, 2018 Barryd999 - 2018-07-01 9:01 AM Whichever way you look at it Dave the EU has reformed its rules on free movement in May this year after you Brexiteers said it was incapable of reform. Haven't seen any migrants deported from the EU.......have you? :D .......... All Mrs Merkel said is they're going to set up processing centres *-) ......... Where Germany will tell the EU which countries WILL take them, and fine them if they don't >:-) ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted July 1, 2018 Share Posted July 1, 2018 pelmetman - 2018-06-30 9:15 AM...…………………. 1) So you Remoaners haven't been stabbing Mrs May in the back at every opportunity? *-) .......... 2) BTW its curious that you Remoaners never talk about the cost of staying in the EU? ;-) ........ 1) Speaking only for myself, no. Arguing for a better outcome than Brexit can hardly be described as stabbing anyone in the back, it is an act of support for the UK. 2) Only curious to those who see only costs to themselves, while failing to recognise the benefits to the country as a whole, and who fails to understand how the UK government transfers money from wealthier areas to those that are less wealthy. It is the same principle, with the same aim. To help the less wealthy areas prosper, to the future benefit of all. It is an investment, with a future benefit to those involved. As the saying goes, "if you don't speculate, you can't accumulate". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted July 1, 2018 Share Posted July 1, 2018 pelmetman - 2018-06-30 10:55 PM Brian Kirby - 2018-06-30 11:07 AM pelmetman - 2018-06-30 10:57 AM Brian Kirby - 2018-06-30 10:51 AM I assume from your desire for countries to stick to the rules that you'd be unhappy if it was Germany trying to leave the EU on the same rule breaking terms the UK appears (occasionally, only half apparent, as through a mist) to be seeking? What rules were broken?.........We held a referendum according to the rules.......We triggered article 50 according to the rules..........It's you Remoaners that seem to have issue with rules >:-) ........ As apparently you Remoaners seem to think a minority can overrule the majority when it comes to Brexit *-) ......... Wrong tense Dave. I referred to the rules we are seeking to break. No allegations that rules have yet been broken. You know, all those "special deals" we are trying to negotiate, like restricting movement of people while retaining free movement of goods. That seeks to drive a coach and horses through the main principles of the EU - that the freedoms are an inseparable part of the package. 1) So no rules have been broken *-) .......... 2) Yet you flag up restricting movement of people ;-) .......haven't you been watching the news lately ? (lol) (lol) (lol) ......... 3) BTW its not the UK who are trying to restrict the movements of goods........Unlike your Bum Chum Barnier >:-) ......... 1) As I said. 2) Yes, which bit of the news are you referring to? 3) Which goods are Barnier trying to restrict? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowie Posted July 1, 2018 Share Posted July 1, 2018 Brian Kirby - 2018-06-27 3:21 PM [ It's the EU trying to make an example of us to "PROTECT" their empire *-) ......... But I didn't, Dave, did I? I don't know what you think the EU should do. It has evolved a set of rules that govern access to its markets. We seem to want to leave the EU, choose which ruled we'd like to comply with, disregard those that we don't like, and retain full access to the market nevertheless. So, if we swapped places with, say, Germany, and they were leaving while we remain in, you'd have no objection to Germany saying "we're leaving, and we still want access to your market as before, but we're going to reject the rules we don't like, and only accept those we like? That would be OK? And we should not forget that when this silly exercise is completed, we will (eventually) make no membership sub’s payments, and receive no payments for regional development etc. By my reckoning that’s a pretty substantial set of changes, and many parts of UK will be worse off on balance. Sorting out a new trading access arrangement should be straightforward. Regards, Snowie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted July 1, 2018 Share Posted July 1, 2018 snowie - 2018-07-01 2:12 PM And we should not forget that when this silly exercise is completed, we will (eventually) make no membership sub’s payments, and receive no payments for regional development etc. By my reckoning that’s a pretty substantial set of changes, and many parts of UK will be worse off on balance. Sorting out a new trading access arrangement should be straightforward. Regards, Snowie You mean the EU won't be giving us some of "OUR" money back and telling us where to spend it *-) ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowie Posted July 1, 2018 Share Posted July 1, 2018 pelmetman - 2018-07-01 2:21 PM snowie - 2018-07-01 2:12 PM And we should not forget that when this silly exercise is completed, we will (eventually) make no membership sub’s payments, and receive no payments for regional development etc. By my reckoning that’s a pretty substantial set of changes, and many parts of UK will be worse off on balance. Sorting out a new trading access arrangement should be straightforward. Regards, Snowie You mean the EU won't be giving us some of "OUR" money back and telling us where to spend it *-) ......... What does it matter if we are nett neutral or even nett beneficiaries? Even nett contributors have to asses the value of the whole package; and some of us did that, Regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted July 1, 2018 Share Posted July 1, 2018 Brian Kirby - 2018-07-01 11:29 AM pelmetman - 2018-06-30 9:15 AM...…………………. 1) So you Remoaners haven't been stabbing Mrs May in the back at every opportunity? *-) .......... 2) BTW its curious that you Remoaners never talk about the cost of staying in the EU? ;-) ........ 1) Speaking only for myself, no. Arguing for a better outcome than Brexit can hardly be described as stabbing anyone in the back, it is an act of support for the UK. 2) Only curious to those who see only costs to themselves, while failing to recognise the benefits to the country as a whole, and who fails to understand how the UK government transfers money from wealthier areas to those that are less wealthy. It is the same principle, with the same aim. To help the less wealthy areas prosper, to the future benefit of all. It is an investment, with a future benefit to those involved. As the saying goes, "if you don't speculate, you can't accumulate". 1) It's pretty obvious that the Remoaner propganda strategy has been to make Brexit so toxic that Joe Public would change their mind.........fortunately Joe Public appears not to be falling for it B-) ........ 2) If the EU has proved to be such a Utopian dream.........Why did 17,410,742 vote to leave Utopia? >:-) ..... Oh I forgot...... we're all thick right wing racists *-) .......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryd999 Posted July 1, 2018 Share Posted July 1, 2018 pelmetman - 2018-07-01 2:35 PM Brian Kirby - 2018-07-01 11:29 AM pelmetman - 2018-06-30 9:15 AM...…………………. 1) So you Remoaners haven't been stabbing Mrs May in the back at every opportunity? *-) .......... 2) BTW its curious that you Remoaners never talk about the cost of staying in the EU? ;-) ........ 1) Speaking only for myself, no. Arguing for a better outcome than Brexit can hardly be described as stabbing anyone in the back, it is an act of support for the UK. 2) Only curious to those who see only costs to themselves, while failing to recognise the benefits to the country as a whole, and who fails to understand how the UK government transfers money from wealthier areas to those that are less wealthy. It is the same principle, with the same aim. To help the less wealthy areas prosper, to the future benefit of all. It is an investment, with a future benefit to those involved. As the saying goes, "if you don't speculate, you can't accumulate". 1) It's pretty obvious that the Remoaner propganda strategy has been to make Brexit so toxic that Joe Public would change their mind.........fortunately Joe Public appears not to be falling for it B-) ........ 2) If the EU has proved to be such a Utopian dream.........Why did 17,410,742 vote to leave Utopia? >:-) ..... Oh I forgot...... we're all thick right wing racists *-) .......... But those 17 million voters all voted for different reasons and different types of Brexit. I seem to remember some of the Brexit leaders, even Farage telling them that we could be like Norway or Switzerland back then so perhaps a few million of them voted for that option then. Yet here we are crying and whinging about how we voted to leave the Single Market and Customs Union and Leave means leave etc. Well perhaps we had better find out what kind of Brexit those 17m people voted for because I bet just about all of them will give you different answers based on the crap they were fed at the time. I mention this because you say the public hasn't changed its mind. Well they have, about 53% to 47% in favour of remain now which I grant you is not much but give them another vote or a vote on the final deal and lets see how much they like the idea of the Brexit you and the headbangers in the ERG want. Brexit is a toxic mess because there is no agreement and no plan. The only sensible thing now would be to revoke article 50. Even if I were a Brexiteer I would want that because its going to be a disaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted July 1, 2018 Share Posted July 1, 2018 Barryd999 - 2018-07-01 2:46 PM I mention this because you say the public hasn't changed its mind. Well they have, about 53% to 47% in favour of remain now which I grant you is not much but give them another vote or a vote on the final deal and lets see how much they like the idea of the Brexit you and the headbangers in the ERG want. You mean the polls are back to virtually where they were on the 23rd June 2016 :D ......... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/eu-referendum-how-right-or-wrong-were-the-polls/ When you lost ;-) ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryd999 Posted July 1, 2018 Share Posted July 1, 2018 pelmetman - 2018-07-01 2:57 PM Barryd999 - 2018-07-01 2:46 PM I mention this because you say the public hasn't changed its mind. Well they have, about 53% to 47% in favour of remain now which I grant you is not much but give them another vote or a vote on the final deal and lets see how much they like the idea of the Brexit you and the headbangers in the ERG want. You mean the polls are back to virtually where they were on the 23rd June 2016 :D ......... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/eu-referendum-how-right-or-wrong-were-the-polls/ When you lost ;-) ........ Consistently though this year. They were all over the place pre Referendum. Your right to some extent though. The swing is not much but thats pretty much down to the public not being engaged so they have no idea what is going on. Go to any street right now and ask twenty random people to define the Customs Union and single market and how they think the Irish border problem should be resolved and I guarantee you unless your lucky enough to get someone who is as daft as we are who debates it all day long they wont have a clue. That doesnt mean they are thick, just oblivious. Thats why the Brexiteers are so sh1t scared of any kind of further public vote / referendum as they would get completely hammered. None of the arguments for Brexit stack up anymore. All of them have been completely exposed as either lies or fantasy. Do the public know that though? Do they bollox. They would if there was another vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted July 1, 2018 Share Posted July 1, 2018 Barryd999 - 2018-07-01 6:07 PM pelmetman - 2018-07-01 2:57 PM Barryd999 - 2018-07-01 2:46 PM I mention this because you say the public hasn't changed its mind. Well they have, about 53% to 47% in favour of remain now which I grant you is not much but give them another vote or a vote on the final deal and lets see how much they like the idea of the Brexit you and the headbangers in the ERG want. You mean the polls are back to virtually where they were on the 23rd June 2016 :D ......... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/eu-referendum-how-right-or-wrong-were-the-polls/ When you lost ;-) ........ Consistently though this year. They were all over the place pre Referendum. Your right to some extent though. The swing is not much but thats pretty much down to the public not being engaged so they have no idea what is going on. Go to any street right now and ask twenty random people to define the Customs Union and single market and how they think the Irish border problem should be resolved and I guarantee you unless your lucky enough to get someone who is as daft as we are who debates it all day long they wont have a clue. That doesnt mean they are thick, just oblivious. Thats why the Brexiteers are so sh1t scared of any kind of further public vote / referendum as they would get completely hammered. None of the arguments for Brexit stack up anymore. All of them have been completely exposed as either lies or fantasy. Do the public know that though? Do they bollox. They would if there was another vote. "The public not being engaged so they have no idea what's going on" ... What more needs to be said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted July 1, 2018 Share Posted July 1, 2018 pelmetman - 2018-07-01 2:35 PM Brian Kirby - 2018-07-01 11:29 AM pelmetman - 2018-06-30 9:15 AM...…………………. 1) So you Remoaners haven't been stabbing Mrs May in the back at every opportunity? *-) .......... 2) BTW its curious that you Remoaners never talk about the cost of staying in the EU? ;-) ........ 1) Speaking only for myself, no. Arguing for a better outcome than Brexit can hardly be described as stabbing anyone in the back, it is an act of support for the UK. 2) Only curious to those who see only costs to themselves, while failing to recognise the benefits to the country as a whole, and who fails to understand how the UK government transfers money from wealthier areas to those that are less wealthy. It is the same principle, with the same aim. To help the less wealthy areas prosper, to the future benefit of all. It is an investment, with a future benefit to those involved. As the saying goes, "if you don't speculate, you can't accumulate". 1) It's pretty obvious that the Remoaner propganda strategy has been to make Brexit so toxic that Joe Public would change their mind.........fortunately Joe Public appears not to be falling for it B-) ........ 2) If the EU has proved to be such a Utopian dream.........Why did 17,410,742 vote to leave Utopia? >:-) ..... Oh I forgot...... we're all thick right wing racists *-) .......... 2) If the cap fits Dave. :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted July 1, 2018 Share Posted July 1, 2018 Brian Kirby - 2018-07-01 7:23 PM pelmetman - 2018-07-01 2:35 PM Brian Kirby - 2018-07-01 11:29 AM pelmetman - 2018-06-30 9:15 AM...…………………. 1) So you Remoaners haven't been stabbing Mrs May in the back at every opportunity? *-) .......... 2) BTW its curious that you Remoaners never talk about the cost of staying in the EU? ;-) ........ 1) Speaking only for myself, no. Arguing for a better outcome than Brexit can hardly be described as stabbing anyone in the back, it is an act of support for the UK. 2) Only curious to those who see only costs to themselves, while failing to recognise the benefits to the country as a whole, and who fails to understand how the UK government transfers money from wealthier areas to those that are less wealthy. It is the same principle, with the same aim. To help the less wealthy areas prosper, to the future benefit of all. It is an investment, with a future benefit to those involved. As the saying goes, "if you don't speculate, you can't accumulate". 1) It's pretty obvious that the Remoaner propganda strategy has been to make Brexit so toxic that Joe Public would change their mind.........fortunately Joe Public appears not to be falling for it B-) ........ 2) If the EU has proved to be such a Utopian dream.........Why did 17,410,742 vote to leave Utopia? >:-) ..... Oh I forgot...... we're all thick right wing racists *-) .......... 2) If the cap fits Dave. :-D Trouble is when in the real world like on here in the chatterbox world you've got real wet whingers throwing the word racist about at everything they disagree agree with it dilutes the meaning of the word racist and makes it worth nothing ... A real shame init Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted July 2, 2018 Author Share Posted July 2, 2018 antony1969 - 2018-07-01 8:20 PM Trouble is when in the real world like on here in the chatterbox world you've got real wet whingers throwing the word racist about at everything they disagree agree with it dilutes the meaning of the word racist and makes it worth nothing ... A real shame init Like when they present Corbyn's Anti-Eliteism as Anti-Semitism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.