Jump to content

UK & EU Economies post Brexit


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, alexisj9 said:

You can't make it up, so one of the outers reasons for leaving was red tape, and now rather than less red tape we have even more.

Why didn't Cameron point this out.

If he had - & maybe he did - what effect would it have had? Anything which didn't fit the leave fantasy was dismissed as project fear, as we know here. The troubles are only beginning for the economy and those who may have felt they had nothing to lose, could be about to find out how wrong they were.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 12.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • mike Meehan

    2117

  • scottish skier

    1387

  • General Cluster

    1024

  • Midlands Ice Age

    772

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I do wonder if those attacking the judges in this case (and the Mail headline is particularly ludicrous and borderline dangerous for those judges) realise that had the government legal team, itself ma

Good Morning everyone from a horrible drizzly Essex. Yesterday my elderly uncle came to visit us for dinner and brought with him the Sunday Express. As I read through it I found it farcial in it'

And I am ashamed of how xenophobia and arrogance has developed in our country - what has happened since the days when we could rightfully hold ourselves up as an example to the rest of the world?

Posted Images

1 minute ago, davehsug said:

If he had - & maybe he did - what effect would it have had? Anything which didn't fit the leave fantasy was dismissed as project fear, as we know here. The troubles are only beginning for the economy and those who may have felt they had nothing to lose, could be about to find out how wrong they were.

True, would have been reported as scaremongering for sure, I'm pretty sure I would have found plenty of proof to keep posting though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, alexisj9 said:

True, would have been reported as scaremongering for sure, I'm pretty sure I would have found plenty of proof to keep posting though.

Makes no odds Alexis. In our "post fact" world, you make the truth fit the argument. The days of informed choice are over.

 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, mike Meehan said:

There's more in than that - you are also forgetting that certain factions are going to law in the autumn which could make a further difference and whilst there is still hope we will continue.

At the moment brexit is not a forgone conclusion - many a slip 'tween cup and lip.

Meaning that in the meantime it may appear to the public that brexit was not such a good idea after all and there may be pressure for a reversal - it could be in the form of a further referendum, a general election or parliament deciding what the best course is for the country bearing all the factors in mind.

http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/david-allen-green-brexit-means-brexit-but-in-reality-it-s-a-long-time-away-a3314616.html

What you and many others seem to forget Mike is there are two sides in this and unfortunately the EU leadership were more than happy to see the UK vote for Brexit, some were even delighted given what a pain in the ass we have become to them. Even if HM Government were to commit political suicide in a democratic country and go against the will of it's people by offering a 2nd ref, the EU would not accept any change of heart (assuming that is Remain won) for a number of reasons, not least their clear distaste for the way in which Remain ran it's campaign.

Bottom line here is there is no political will amongst decision makers on either side to overturn this decision, it just ain't going to happen, so it's now down to the negotiators to secure the best deal possible. On that point the PIT is absolute right when he says the current perceived delay is nothing to do with any possible change of mind by HM Govt, it's simply about the logistics of putting together an opening offer to the EU and the anticipation of it's response/counter offer. That is going to take a significant amount of time in itself, primarily because we did not hit the ground running on this due to the misguided notion that we would definately vote to Remain, therefore we are having to go from pretty much a standing start. 

The one thing about May is she is detailed and thorough, there is no way she will kick things off until confident she has as much covered as humanly possible, but anyone who interprets this apparent delay as signs of a potential change of heart is simply deluding themselves imo.    

Edited by coldcomfort
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, davehsug said:

Makes no odds Alexis. In our "post fact" world, you make the truth fit the argument. The days of informed choice are over.

 

Precisely and with all the ramblings going on including "it was a democratic decision get over it" one thing tends to be ignored. In a true democratic process, such as the referendum, the key ingredient, and absolutely essential if the word democracy means anything, is that the citizens are well informed. This patently was not the case so democratic it most certainly was not.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, knocker said:

Precisely and with all the ramblings going on including "it was a democratic decision get over it" one thing tends to be ignored. In a true democratic process, such as the referendum, the key ingredient, and absolutely essential if the word democracy means anything, is that the citizens are well informed. This patently was not the case so democratic it most certainly was not.

Completely agree, but it's not going to change anything.

I said this at the time and I still believe it to be correct, HM Government and in particular Cameron should not as been so heavily involved in the case for Remain. Yes it could have made it clear that it supported Remaining in the EU as a straight choice, but beyond that both sides should have put their respective cases across the official campaign, with HM Government simply there to ensure any claims made had to be verifiable and factual. Not saying this system would have been perfect, far from it, but based on what we actually saw unfold it would have been 100 x better. For instance the hugely controversial claim on the side of the bus would probably not have even existed under this kind of setup and on the other side completely unsubstantiated and unfounded claims like every family will be £4.3k worse off come 2020 if we Brexit would never have been made.  In short it would have kept politicians more honest, new ground indeed!

Edited by coldcomfort
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, coldcomfort said:

Completely agree, but it's not going to change anything.

I said this at the time and I still believe it to be correct, HM Government and in particular Cameron should not as been so heavily involved in the case for Remain. Yes it could have made it clear that it supported Remaining in the EU as a straight choice, but beyond that both sides should have put their respective cases across the official campaign, with HM Government simply there to ensure any claims made had to be verifiable and factual. Not saying this system would have been perfect, far from it, but based on what we actually saw unfold it would have been 100 x better. For instance the hugely controversial claim on the side of the bus would probably not have even existed under this kind of setup and on the other side complete unsubstantiated and unfounded claims like every family will be £4.3k worse off come 2020 if we Brexit would never have been made.  

SS is already £250 worse off, most other are also but just don't see it yet, the prices will go up soon. We are all worse off, that amount to some will be an underestimation.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, alexisj9 said:

SS is already £250 worse off, most other are also but just don't see it yet, the prices will go up soon. We are all worse off, that amount to some will be an underestimation.

Not sure I understand what this has to do with my post.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, coldcomfort said:

What you and many others seem to forget Mike is there are two sides in this and unfortunately the EU leadership were more than happy to see the UK vote for Brexit, some were even delighted given what a pain in the ass we have become to them. Even if HM Government were to commit political suicide in a democratic country and go against the will of it's people by offering a 2nd ref, the EU would not accept any change of heart (assuming that is Remain won) for a number of reasons, not least their clear distaste for the way in which Remain ran it's campaign.

Bottom line here is there is no political will amongst decision makers on either side to overturn this decision, it just ain't going to happen, so it's now down to the negotiators to secure the best deal possible. On that point the PIT is absolute right when he says the current perceived delay is nothing to do with any possible change of mind by HM Govt, it's simply about the logistics of putting together an opening offer to the EU and the anticipation of it's response/counter offer. That is going to take a significant amount of time in itself, primarily because we did not hit the ground running on this due to the misguided notion that we would definately vote to Remain, therefore we are having to go from pretty much a standing start. 

The one thing about May is she is detailed and thorough, there is no way she will kick things off until confident she has as much covered as humanly possible, but anyone who interprets this apparent delay as signs of a potential change of heart is simply deluding themselves imo.    

CC - I think what appears to be escaping your attention is the fact that until article 50 is triggered we remain officially a member of the EU and that we finally leave once the two year negotiating period, or longer, if it is mutually agreed, is over.

As far as the referendum was concerned, the result was advisory both to our own government and the leaders of the EU. That means that if for whatever reason our government decides that it does not wish to trigger article 50 at all and remain a member there is little the EU leaders could do about it.

I am sure that the EU leaders realised that the result was a close call and that there was a large minority of the British electorate who wished to remain.

I am also sure that privately, a goodly number of the EU leadership would regard Cameron as a plonker for calling for the referendum in the first place. There is little doubt that they like the rest of us were unimpressed with the remain campaign but more to the point many of them and us were disgusted with the cynical manner in which the remain campaign ran theirs and Nigel Farage was told this on his final day in the EU parliament in no uncertain terms. I believe are likely to see the change of leadership in the UK in a different light and likely to have more respect for her and more than happy to see the back of Nigel who has been disruptive for the past 20 years or so.

As it was I do not recall any of the EU leadership advocating leave during the campaign, though I do recall a number advocating remain. Although the UK has been a thorn in the side of the EU at times with our demands for special treatment the overall impression is that they did not wish us to leave.

The EU leadership is concerned about keeping the EU together and are reluctant to see any member leave and is worried that any such leaving could cause a precedent where others may follow the same path.

There may be an outside chance that if the EU really did get totally p'd off with the UK there is a possibility that it could expel us from the union but I strongly suspect that a unanimous agreement to take this action would be needed from the commission, the council and the EU parliament would be needed to take this action and believe that would be extremely unlikely, so the bottom line is that until article 50 is triggered we remain members and if we never trigger it we still remain members.

As far as the future prospects for the conservative party are concerned from the figures it appears that close to 40% of their supporters voted 'remain' and it is reasonable to assume that a large proportion of these could change their voting allegiance in the event of a future general election which could cost them their majority in any case. In any case it is likely she will not have the support of some 16 million potential voters, who may well vote for more EU friendly parties, including the lib dems who could be set for a come back.

Any electorate anywhere is quite fickle and easily influenced by events and just because the 'leave' side had the majority on 23.06.2016 it does not mean that they will maintain it.

It must be remembered that a fairly large proportion of the electorate who voted in this referendum did not know exactly what they were voting for anyway but voted more out of sentiment rather than clear cut ideas and as events unfold there will be those, as there already have been to date, who realise and will realise that a brexit is not such a good idea after all.

So as I said before there could be many things which could affect the final result - Theresa May was a 'remainer' during the campaign and I suspect that was a result of her looking at the nuts and bolts of both sides rather than a decision of sentiment and that during the next few months or even years she will keep all her options open which would include an option not to trigger article 50 should it become clear that public sentiment is no longer in support of this, or it becomes clear that such a  triggering would not be in the best interests of the future of the country and indeed the future of the United Kingdom. Since I would imagine that no leader of the Conservative and Unionist party would wish to preside over the break of the United Kingdom this part of the equation would be likely to weigh heavily. A lot could happen in the intervening time and as time passes the enormity of task grows and I foresee a veritable can of worms opening up and it will not be anything like as simple as what it originally appeared.

Politicians often adapt to changing circumstances, that is their nature.

In the meantime whilst there is a ray of hope we on our side will we will continue our fight and as I and many more like me see it we have every reason to do so.

Edited by mike Meehan
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is an article in the Times today, A guiding principle for Brexit talks: lose trade and you hurt Britain, by Richard Barwell who is senior economist at BNP Paribas Investment Partners; and Tony Yates iwho s professor of economics at the University of Birmingham

One needs to read the whole article of course but just a snippet which I think quite pertinent.

Quote

We are sceptical about the idea that we can seamlessly substitute more trade with the rest of the world for the trade we will lose with Europe. It is much easier to trade with economies that are closer to you and we lack the expertise and economic leverage to negotiate great trade deals with the emerging Asian powerhouses. In any case, it does not make sense simultaneously to advocate introducing barriers on the inflow of low-skill migrants and removing barriers to trade with low-cost economies. Both potentially hurt low-skill workers here. Logic dictates that Brexiteers should be erecting barriers to trade with China and India, not doing deals with them.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/a-guiding-principle-for-brexit-talks-lose-trade-and-you-hurt-britain-79qfkfdjg

Oh and en passant

Quote

The value of the pound fell to its lowest level in a month yesterday after the UK’s trade deficit widened to a seven-month high and a Bank of England policymaker revealed that further quantitative easing may be needed in the UK.

Ian McCafferty, a member of the interest-rate setting monetary policy committee, said more easing could be delivered “easily”, adding that the bank rate could also be cut further from 0.25 per cent and “closer to zero”.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/double-blow-sends-pound-tumbling-to-below-1-30-gj6z7qctz

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, knocker said:

There is an article in the Times today, A guiding principle for Brexit talks: lose trade and you hurt Britain, by Richard Barwell who is senior economist at BNP Paribas Investment Partners; and Tony Yates iwho s professor of economics at the University of Birmingham

Aye, brexiters realise that 'free trade with china and india' means bringing British wages / worker rights etc into line with these economies right? 

The reason we apply tariffs on goods from these countries is they can make stuff really cheaply due to sweat shop conditions, poverty wages etc.

If you are worried about cheap labour undercutting British workers, the last thing you want is a free trade agreement with such economies.

This is of course why the right of the Tory party - the ones now in charge - favoured brexit. It wasn't to give 'British jobs to British workers'; far from it.

Edited by scottish skier
  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, mike Meehan said:

CC - I think what appears to be escaping your attention is the fact that until article 50 is triggered we remain officially a member of the EU and that we finally leave once the two year negotiating period, or longer, if it is mutually agreed, is over.

As far as the referendum was concerned, the result was advisory both to our own government and the leaders of the EU. That means that if for whatever reason our government decides that it does not wish to trigger article 50 at all and remain a member there is little the EU leaders could do about it.

I am sure that the EU leaders realised that the result was a close call and that there was a large minority of the British electorate who wished to remain.

I am also sure that privately, a goodly number of the EU leadership would regard Cameron as a plonker for calling for the referendum in the first place. There is little doubt that they like the rest of us were unimpressed with the remain campaign but more to the point many of them and us were disgusted with the cynical manner in which the remain campaign ran theirs and Nigel Farage was told this on his final day in the EU parliament in no uncertain terms. I believe are likely to see the change of leadership in the UK in a different light and likely to have more respect for her and more than happy to see the back of Nigel who has been disruptive for the past 20 years or so.

As it was I do not recall any of the EU leadership advocating leave during the campaign, though I do recall a number advocating remain. Although the UK has been a thorn in the side of the EU at times with our demands for special treatment the overall impression is that they did not wish us to leave.

The EU leadership is concerned about keeping the EU together and are reluctant to see any member leave and is worried that any such leaving could cause a precedent where others may follow the same path.

There may be an outside chance that if the EU really did get totally p'd off with the UK there is a possibility that it could expel us from the union but I strongly suspect that a unanimous agreement to take this action would be needed from the commission, the council and the EU parliament would be needed to take this action and believe that would be extremely unlikely, so the bottom line is that until article 50 is triggered we remain members and if we never trigger it we still remain members.

As far as the future prospects for the conservative party are concerned from the figures it appears that close to 40% of their supporters voted 'remain' and it is reasonable to assume that a large proportion of these could change their voting allegiance in the event of a future general election which could cost them their majority in any case. In any case it is likely she will not have the support of some 16 million potential voters, who may well vote for more EU friendly parties, including the lib dems who could be set for a come back.

Any electorate anywhere is quite fickle and easily influenced by events and just because the 'leave' side had the majority on 23.06.2016 it does not mean that they will maintain it.

It must be remembered that a fairly large proportion of the electorate who voted in this referendum did not know exactly what they were voting for anyway but voted more out of sentiment rather than clear cut ideas and as events unfold there will be those, as there already have been to date, who realise and will realise that a brexit is not such a good idea after all.

So as I said before there could be many things which could affect the final result - Theresa May was a 'remainer' during the campaign and I suspect that was a result of her looking at the nuts and bolts of both sides rather than a decision of sentiment and that during the next few months or even years she will keep all her options open which would include an option not to trigger article 50 should it become clear that public sentiment is no longer in support of this, or it becomes clear that such a  triggering would not be in the best interests of the future of the country and indeed the future of the United Kingdom. Since I would imagine that no leader of the Conservative and Unionist party would wish to preside over the break of the United Kingdom this part of the equation would be likely to weigh heavily. A lot could happen in the intervening time and as time passes the enormity of task grows and I foresee a veritable can of worms opening up and it will not be anything like as simple as what it originally appeared.

Politicians often adapt to changing circumstances, that is their nature.

In the meantime whilst there is a ray of hope we on our side will we will continue our fight and as I and many more like me see it we have every reason to do so.

The highlighted point is utterly and completely irrelevant, no democratic government would ignore the will of it's citizens, even if the literal framewoking of the law permits it. Frankly this is nothing but hot air, but no doubt some will continue to cling as desperately to this notion until the i's are dotted and the t's crossed. No problem with that persay, but all you are doing is building false hope and delaying acceptance of what is as inevitable as night following day.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, coldcomfort said:

The highlighted point is utterly and completely irrelevant, no democratic government would ignore the will of it's citizens, even if the literal framewoking of the law permits it. 

In the 1979 devolution referendum in Scotland, the result was 52% Yes.

Westminster ignored that happily enough.

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, coldcomfort said:

The highlighted point is utterly and completely irrelevant, no democratic government would ignore the will of it's citizens, even if the literal framewoking of the law permits it. Frankly this is nothing but hot air, but no doubt some will continue to cling as desperately to this notion until the i's are dotted and the t's crossed. No problem with that persay, but all you are doing is building false hope and delaying acceptance of what is as inevitable as night following day.  

But, even having acknowledged its being 'utterly and completely irrelevant' it is, in stark contrast to the real 'hot air' that's still being excreted by Leave, it also happens to be 100% accurate?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, coldcomfort said:

The highlighted point is utterly and completely irrelevant, no democratic government would ignore the will of it's citizens, even if the literal framewoking of the law permits it. Frankly this is nothing but hot air, but no doubt some will continue to cling as desperately to this notion until the i's are dotted and the t's crossed. No problem with that persay, but all you are doing is building false hope and delaying acceptance of what is as inevitable as night following day.  

There is quite sufficient evidence to indicate that this referendum was fundamentally flawed by virtue of the lies and deceit used particularly in respect of the leave campaign which was not fair by any means - this aspect is being looked into by lawyers and it is expected that there will be cases heard in respect of this. Plus it would be quite reasonable for parliament to take this into account when making deliberations on the subject.

In all fairness we cannot be sure that this really was the free and unfettered will of the people and there is a chance at the end of the day with all this being taken into account that the result could be overridden.

It is not a fait accompli at this stage - I think you may be relying on a false hope to believe that it is - I think part of the problem in the leavers being so uptight about the remainers attitude to the result I that they realise the circumstances in which their votes were obtained, they are anxious to deflect any close scrutiny and a little insecure as to how all this may eventually pan out.

Although some treated this as a game the big difference between a game and this referendum is that in a game there are rules and there are referees.

To allow referendums in this manner where there are no holds barred is a very dangerous concept and I am sure others must be of the same opinion  as evidenced by a number of people in positions to do something about it.

In short the fat lady still hasn't sung - the result of the referendum is advisory and not mandatory and if it is ultimately felt that it would be in the best interests of the nation it can be over ridden.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Afternoon,

Knocker kindly quoted from an extract from an article in the Times  which I have cut and pasted below, rather than repeat the whole posting.

"The value of the pound fell to its lowest level in a month yesterday after the UK’s trade deficit widened to a seven-month high and a Bank of England policymaker revealed that further quantitative easing may be needed in the UK.

Ian McCafferty, a member of the interest-rate setting monetary policy committee, said more easing could be delivered “easily”, adding that the bank rate could also be cut further from 0.25 per cent and “closer to zero”.

This is absolutely correct. as the value of the pound has weakened and there is no guarantee that it will not do so further, this means than imports are more expensive because of the exchange rate being unfavourable for us. As imports cost more then the trade gap will widen even further. 

In the meatime inflation will soon start to become more apparent as existing stocks of imported goods and materials begin to run out and replacements are brought into the country by importers. This will cause considerable hardship and could well result in a recession. 

Unfortunately this is a result of poor judgement by those wishing to leave the EU and we all have to suffer the consequences of this.

As Scottish Skier so eloquently put it we should not be trying to  cosey up to India and China for trade agreements if we do not wish to end up with a workforce working under similar conditions or suffer redundancy as it is almost impossible for us to compete with such low wage economies. Moreover I found China's recent announcement following the Prime Minister's review on the very high cost of Hinckley Point chilling, rather threatening and not a little alarming should we not go ahead with the scheme. If they feel they can blackmail us should it not go ahead what is to stop them doing the same at a later date should we proceed with it.

Kind Regards

Dave

 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, scottish skier said:

In the 1979 devolution referendum in Scotland, the result was 52% Yes.

Westminster ignored that happily enough.

Sorry to allow facts to get in the way of a good Braveheart style story SS, but an amendment to that devolved Assembly Act stipulated that it would be repealed if fewer than 40% of the total electorate voted Yes in the referendum. The result was that 51.6% supported the proposal, but a turnout of only 64% represented just 32.9% of the registered electorate, or put another way 6.9% short of the required number. The Act was subsequently repealed and quite rightly so.

Edited by coldcomfort
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mike Meehan said:

There is quite sufficient evidence to indicate that this referendum was fundamentally flawed by virtue of the lies and deceit used particularly in respect of the leave campaign which was not fair by any means - this aspect is being looked into by lawyers and it is expected that there will be cases heard in respect of this. Plus it would be quite reasonable for parliament to take this into account when making deliberations on the subject.

In all fairness we cannot be sure that this really was the free and unfettered will of the people and there is a chance at the end of the day with all this being taken into account that the result could be overridden.

It is not a fait accompli at this stage - I think you may be relying on a false hope to believe that it is - I think part of the problem in the leavers being so uptight about the remainers attitude to the result I that they realise the circumstances in which their votes were obtained, they are anxious to deflect any close scrutiny and a little insecure as to how all this may eventually pan out.

Although some treated this as a game the big difference between a game and this referendum is that in a game there are rules and there are referees.

To allow referendums in this manner where there are no holds barred is a very dangerous concept and I am sure others must be of the same opinion  as evidenced by a number of people in positions to do something about it.

In short the fat lady still hasn't sung - the result of the referendum is advisory and not mandatory and if it is ultimately felt that it would be in the best interests of the nation it can be over ridden.

Yes she has, loudly and clearly, the fact that you are still jn the bar drowning your sorrows over it does not change that fundamental fact. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ed Stone said:

But, even having acknowledged its being 'utterly and completely irrelevant' it is, in stark contrast to the real 'hot air' that's still being excreted by Leave, it also happens to be 100% accurate?

There is no Leave side any more, the campaign is over and Leave won...ergo we are leaving. If you wish to remain in denial and continue to hope against hope then knock yourself out, but it won't change a thing. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mike Meehan said:

In all fairness we cannot be sure that this really was the free and unfettered will of the people and there is a chance at the end of the day with all this being taken into account that the result could be overridden.

I think we can be fairly sure that some saw it as a free and unfettered kick at Dave and his cronies.

It was interesting viewing the documentary on Monday as some of the psychology of voting was being looked at - eg. the big red bus (something older folk would associate with labour) was a point in question - younger folk probably more associate the ubiquitous purple of the Blair era.

One thing being mentioned by the campaigners being interviewed was that some folk who had never before voted were determined to use this as a vote against the Tories. Such a shame that this concept has probably made Tory governance a more certain outcome.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, coldcomfort said:

Sorry to allow facts to get in the way of a good Braveheart style story SS, but an amendment to that devolved Assembly Act stipulated that it would be repealed if fewer than 40% of the total electorate voted Yes in the referendum. The result was that 51.6% supported the proposal, but a turnout of only 64% represented just 32.9% of the registered electorate, or put another way 7.9% short of the required number. The Act was subsequently repealed and quite rightly so.

I wonder how people would have reacted then if a similar 40% clause had been proposed to apply to the EU Leave vote? 

Just because the 79 referendum was blatantly undemocratic doesn't make @scottish skier wrong in pointing out that the UK government have form on ignoring democratic mandates / majorities. 

Edited by Ravelin
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, coldcomfort said:

Yes she has, loudly and clearly, the fact that you are still jn the bar drowning your sorrows over it does not change that fundamental fact. 

Not in the bar drowning my sorrows at all but being positive in looking for a way out of the mess the leavers have put us in - as long as we on our side keep up the pressure the government will have to take note of our view and there is a possibility it could change everything.

You are the ones who keep going on about the will of the people but what happens when this will turns the other way? - I think that is what you are afraid of.  

 

Edited by mike Meehan
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, coldcomfort said:

There is no Leave side any more, the campaign is over and Leave won...ergo we are leaving. If you wish to remain in denial and continue to hope against hope then knock yourself out, but it won't change a thing. 

Substitute 'leave' for 'brexit' and we have the same thing and what is really apparent that you are determined to try and shut us down because it interferes with your vision of the Elysian Fields but it won't work. for one thing the Elysian fields do not exist except in your imagination and for another 'freedom of speech works both ways, as does democracy.

Nobody knows as yet whether it will change anything but the important thing is that it could do.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, coldcomfort said:

There is no Leave side any more, the campaign is over and Leave won...ergo we are leaving. If you wish to remain in denial and continue to hope against hope then knock yourself out, but it won't change a thing. 

My apologies, CC...I really meant TLFNAL, The Liars Formally Known As Leave...And FWIW, you guys will not make all the 'changes' you imagine, either: the Brexitopia you all imagine will never exist.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, coldcomfort said:

Sorry to allow facts to get in the way of a good Braveheart style story SS, but an amendment to that devolved Assembly Act stipulated that it would be repealed if fewer than 40% of the total electorate voted Yes in the referendum. The result was that 51.6% supported the proposal, but a turnout of only 64% represented just 32.9% of the registered electorate, or put another way 6.9% short of the required number. The Act was subsequently repealed and quite rightly so.

Under the 40% rule, the EU ref result would be a 'remain', even in England alone where leave was highest.

Are you sure you want to big up that rule, saying it should apply to UK constitutional referendums?

#Dambusters #DadsArmy

Edited by scottish skier
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...