Brexit has created chaos in Britain – nobody voted for this

[aright]

1 minute ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

Because it is a fundamental and profound change in the way the Uk is governed and run. You have suggested an extreme outcome that in all likelihood would be much closer.  

Agreed..... a major constitutional change is profound but a 90% to 10% vote is also profound.

As for it being an extreme example if you are going to have a rule it needs to accommodate all scenarios. 

[George FmplesdaCosteedback]

On 5/22/2018 at 7:35 AM, Kieran00001 said:

In what way was the last referendum a greater mandate than the 1975 one?  And obviously it was not a once only vote, it is already the second time we have voted on basically the exact same thing.  

We joined the EEC in '73 under the misapprehension it was a free trade association, not at all what the EU has become, and voted to stay in '75 under the same delusion.

The "small print" in the Treaty of Rome seemed to be completely hidden from the electorate at the time.

 

Your comments about German intentions are laughable, check the history books, or read some!

 

The next expansion of the EU will be of more economically challenged countries from mostly the ex-soviet block, Croatia, Bosnia, Montenegro, Serbia, Macedonia (and maybe trans-Asia Turkey).

 

You have so many holes in your argument it has sunk as far as I am concerned.

 

Have the last word by reply if you wish.

It will not change the fact the EU is not democratic and works more like the House of Lords than The Commons.

Romania or Poland seem to have plenty of houses available if you want to live in the EU.

 

Best of luck.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[tebee]

Latest Brexit news: UK outraged at the EU planning on treating it as a country that has left the EU after it has left the EU.

[tebee]

7 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

If we were dealing with a reasonable organisation it could have been all done and dusted by now.  The problem is that one side (the EU) want to make it as difficult as possible. They are not cooperating or helping us seek solutions like grown ups would.

 

"And why should they?" I hear remainers shout. Because we are always being told what a wonderful organisation the EU is, and how much good they do for us and the region. And because the UK has given the EU a hell of a lot over the past 40+ years.  So why shouldn't we given a bespoke deal and a friendly send off?  Poland could never demand to have the same leaving deal as the UK, so the domino effect is not an excuse.

 

Nobody said it would be easy. What I find surprising is how (mostly remainers) are telling us to concede defeat now, because it's getting too difficult. We knew it would be difficult.

 

For me personally, if it takes more time that's fine.  Just as long as we get out eventually.

All the issues can be resolved over time. Even the EU commissioners are not vindictive enough to force us into walking away. I hope.

 

We should not give up just because the going got tough.

The problem was we charged in and invoked article 50 for domestic  political ends ( loud cheers from all brexiters) before we had any idea what we wanted  or how long it would take to achieve that.

Theresa May then announced her "red lines"  at the Conservative conference, again for the benefit of the domestic audience, without considering what they implied on the international stage. Many possible compromise solutions were ruled out by a wave of the hand .

 

People note, with justice, that neither Norway nor Switzerland took the Customs Union route. Though they say much less – or indeed nothing – about why the Norwegians took an EEA route – which as I say, they think the British political debate grossly distorts – or why the Swiss took the route of voluntary complete regulatory alignment across the full range of industrial goods: thus forfeiting sovereignty completely in that – huge – area, as one senior Swiss negotiator put it to me, when I was examining the Swiss option.

Ruling out these options before truly understanding what either meant, or whether variants on them might be viable, was, in my view, simply an act of folly

 

The EU then offered us the Canada deal - based on her red lines - it was only then that we started to realize how bad this would be for our existing economy.

 

We are  not finding solutions  because still not having an honest debate - there are many factors which interact and we are still talking in religious terms about things like sovereignty without understand what they mean in the real world.

 

 .. beyond tariffs as we have seen, the overwhelming bulk of industrial sectors with any export market interest, want, on standards, to remain convergent on EU ones, and within the EU's regulatory orbit. Indeed, outside both the EU and EEA, they are alarmed at the prospect of being excluded from the key private sector standard setting bodies, which sit outside the EU structures, but only have national members from within the EU and EEA.

This is, quite simply, a loss of control and sovereignty, not a gain. The company CEOs to whom I talk on post Brexit options sometimes wonder which planet Westminster inhabits, as it obsesses about theoretical sovereignty and abandons real sovereignty.

 

We need to somehow step back and think with our heads not our hearts.

 

But the sooner we realise there are no perfect choices, that there are serious trade-offs between sovereignty and market access interests and that we are best off if we make stone cold sober judgments of where sovereignty at the national level can be real and effective, and where it is purely notional and actually a material loss of control, the better for the UK.

 

 

The leave campaign deliberately sold unachievable fantasies during the reforendum - Dominic Cunnings  said that the "no" campaign "is neither a political party nor a government. It has no locus to negotiate a new deal". Because of the complexity, he argued: "There is much to be gained by swerving the whole issue"

 

We need now  to start explaining what is achievable and what the costs of actions are

 

" if we are to avoid mis-selling the British people on our post Brexit options, we need a far more honest debate based on clear, accurate, realistic accounts of the pros and cons of each of the options. Not on fantasies, or incoherent and muddled thinking". 

 

 

[Kieran00001]

2 hours ago, George FmplesdaCosteedback said:

We joined the EEC in '73 under the misapprehension it was a free trade association, not at all what the EU has become, and voted to stay in '75 under the same delusion.

The "small print" in the Treaty of Rome seemed to be completely hidden from the electorate at the time.

 

Your comments about German intentions are laughable, check the history books, or read some!

 

The next expansion of the EU will be of more economically challenged countries from mostly the ex-soviet block, Croatia, Bosnia, Montenegro, Serbia, Macedonia (and maybe trans-Asia Turkey).

 

You have so many holes in your argument it has sunk as far as I am concerned.

 

Have the last word by reply if you wish.

It will not change the fact the EU is not democratic and works more like the House of Lords than The Commons.

Romania or Poland seem to have plenty of houses available if you want to live in the EU.

 

Best of luck.

 

I posted a pamphlet above that was distributed to every single household in the UK that very clearly stated the intention of the Common Market was to merge Europe into one nation and your reply is a completely unverified claim that it "seemed to be hidden from the electorate at the time", more like you have heard someone say that it was and you believed them without a scrap of evidence and even when faced with overwhelming evidence to the contrary you are still blinded by that lie that you bought.  Time to wake up, the British public were never lied to,  Parliament had just spent the previous four years regularly debating this very topic.  In 1971. the Telegraph reported, “Continuing a trend, MPs turned more and more to talking about the issue of sovereignty and tended to be rather brief on economic topics."

 

I haven't made any comments about Germany's intentions so I don't know what I should be looking for in the history books, I am afraid you have lost me there, we were talking about the EU.

 

Yes, the next expansion will be into more poorer states, the idea of the EU being to level Europe economically, however it is hard to take someone seriously who expresses concern about a country joining which already joined 5 years ago, and especially from someone who has the gall to tell other people to "read some", you really are a funny one!

 

Holes in my argument?  And where exactly is yours?  Just saying that it is so, expressing your concern for Germany and fears for future accession states, that is not an argument, that is just what is bothering you, if you have anything at all that does anything to counter anything I have said then I am all ears, but so far the best you have produced is that you think that the small print of the Treaty of Rome was somehow hidden from the British electorate.  Here it is, there is no small print, and the objective were made crystal clear.

https://ec.europa.eu/romania/sites/romania/files/tratatul_de_la_roma.pdf

 

The EU is the most democratic system the world has ever seen, it is nothing like our House of Lords, clearly you do not understand how it works at all.

[The Renegade]

5 minutes ago, tebee said:

if we are to avoid mis-selling the British people on our post Brexit options, we need a far more honest debate based on clear, accurate, realistic accounts of the pros and cons of each of the options. Not on fantasies, or incoherent and muddled thinking". 

I have no idea how many times I and many others say it. There is only 1 option that is acceptable to the EU and that is for the UK to remain joined at the hip to the EU under the control of Brussels and the ECJ.

 

Ergo, the UK only has 1 option, to leave the EU on the March 29 2019 and immediately go to WTO rules.

 

To try and sell anything else to the UK electorate is mis-selling 

 

Time to give that message to the EU in writing, and sit back and watch the squirming.

[The Renegade]

21 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

I posted a pamphlet above that was distributed to every single household in the UK that very clearly stated the intention of the Common Market was to merge Europe into one nation

No, you didn't.

 

Here is the Governments 1975 official paper

 

http://www.harvard-digital.co.uk/euro/pamphlet.htm

 

Read, digest and take note. At no point does it say that the Common Market will merge Europe into one nation. At no point does it mention subsequent Treaties that would change by stealth, the Common Market into today's EU.

 

Main points

 

Quote

The aims of the Common Market are:

• To bring together the peoples of Europe.
   
• To raise living standards and improve working conditions.
   
• To promote growth and boost world trade.
   
• To help the poorest regions of Europe and the rest of the world.
   
• To help maintain peace and freedom.

 

Can you read that ? '' The aims of the Common Market '' Does not mention trickery or deceit. So where is the Common Market ?

[Kieran00001]

13 minutes ago, The Renegade said:

No, you didn't.

 

Here is the Governments 1975 official paper

 

http://www.harvard-digital.co.uk/euro/pamphlet.htm

 

Read, digest and take note. At no point does it say that the Common Market will merge Europe into one nation. At no point does it mention subsequent Treaties that would change by stealth, the Common Market into today's EU.

 

Main points

 

 

Can you read that ? '' The aims of the Common Market '' Does not mention trickery or deceit. So where is the Common Market ?

 

There were three pamphlets delivered to every household before the referendum, you choose the one that does not make it so clear, but you neglect the simple fact that British people were not imbeciles who only read one of the three.

[The Renegade]

Free thrap material for remainers provided by the Guardian.

 

Quote

UK 'chasing a fantasy' in Brexit talks, top EU official warns

The whole approach of the UK government to the discussions was castigated by a senior EU official involved, who further warned that the bloc would not be forced into positions that were against its interests.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/24/uk-chasing-a-fantasy-in-brexit-talks-top-eu-official-warns

 

Is this not exactly what the EU is trying to do to the UK, trying to force the UK into a position that is against the UK's interest ?

[The Renegade]

3 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

There were three pamphlets delivered to every household before the referendum, you choose the one that does not make it so clear, but you neglect the simple fact that British people were not imbeciles who only read one of the three.

Do you understand what ''  The Governments 1975 official paper '' is ?

 

Now I will ask you again, where in the UK Governments official 1975 Referendum leaflet does it mention your statement reproduced below.

 

52 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

distributed to every single household in the UK that very clearly stated the intention of the Common Market was to merge Europe into one nation

Since you are member of the highly intelligent and well educated remainers. As 1975 was a time at the height of the Cold War with Russia, how would it be possible to use the Common Market '' to merge Europe into one nation '' ?

 

 

[Eloquent pilgrim]

12 hours ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

My dear dad is long gone but if he hadn't lost his marbles living to a ripe old age of 99 to vote in the election I know he would have been a remainer. Anyway the choice now at this late juncture in great part down to the ineptitude of May and the oncoming runaway train of reality according to one of the arch Leave architects seems to be remain or chaos....which do you want ? And so the great Leave betrayal begins ....the incandescent with rage comments are a joy to behold....but I can't add to them as I'm banned as a troll...

 

“Yes it’s true that May, Hammond, Heywood and Robbins are Remain and have screwed it up but you’re deluded if you think you’ll be able to blame the debacle just on them. Whitehall is better at the blame game than you are, officials are completely dominant in this government, ministers have chosen to put Heywood/Robbins in charge, and YOU will get most of the blame from the public. The sooner you internalise these facts and face reality, the better for the country and you.”

 

https://order-order.com/2018/05/24/7-cummings-truth-bullets-for-brexiter-tory-mps/

 

 

99 is a good innings, shame he didn't make a century. I just don't find it appropriate to use the emotive issue of the possible opinions of our loved ones that saw service in the wars, and have since passed away, to add weight to either side of this debate. You think it's okay, fine, your call ...........pin a rose on you.

[Kieran00001]

14 minutes ago, The Renegade said:

Do you understand what ''  The Governments 1975 official paper '' is ?

 

Now I will ask you again, where in the UK Governments official 1975 Referendum leaflet does it mention your statement reproduced below.

 

Since you are member of the highly intelligent and well educated remainers. As 1975 was a time at the height of the Cold War with Russia, how would it be possible to use the Common Market '' to merge Europe into one nation '' ?

 

 

 

Not really, do you mean the White Paper or the pamphlet?

 

Anyway, who cares? Your claim was that the intention of the EU was hidden from the public, I have posted a pamphlet that was distributed to every single household in the UK that informed them of the very intentions that you claim were hidden, I have also posted what some of the trade unions informed  their members, and also what parliament were publicly debating and the fact that the papers were discussing it, it was clearly all very much known to the public.

 

Your last pedantic tripe I shall ignore.

[tebee]

1 hour ago, The Renegade said:

I have no idea how many times I and many others say it. There is only 1 option that is acceptable to the EU and that is for the UK to remain joined at the hip to the EU under the control of Brussels and the ECJ.

 

Ergo, the UK only has 1 option, to leave the EU on the March 29 2019 and immediately go to WTO rules.

 

To try and sell anything else to the UK electorate is mis-selling 

 

Time to give that message to the EU in writing, and sit back and watch the squirming.

You are guilty of willfully misrepresenting the situating there my good sir. The Eu has already given  the UK the option of a Canada like FTA post Brexit based of TM's red lines. This was unacceptable due to the damage it would  do to the UK's trade.

 

Further progress has been blocked due to the UK being unable to agree with itself what it wants. It's prefered option is still:  all of the benefits of membership without paying for it or having any of the responsibilities. 

[soalbundy]

2 hours ago, The Renegade said:

I have no idea how many times I and many others say it. There is only 1 option that is acceptable to the EU and that is for the UK to remain joined at the hip to the EU under the control of Brussels and the ECJ.

 

Ergo, the UK only has 1 option, to leave the EU on the March 29 2019 and immediately go to WTO rules.

 

To try and sell anything else to the UK electorate is mis-selling 

 

Time to give that message to the EU in writing, and sit back and watch the squirming.

The squirming will go on past 2023 apparently, it seems the UK is the one squirming.

[The Renegade]

2 minutes ago, tebee said:

You are guilty of willfully misrepresenting the situating there my good sir.

I am not guilty of misrepresenting anything.

 

My position now and always has been that Leave means Leave in it's entirety.

 

But your assertion that

 

5 minutes ago, tebee said:

The Eu has already given  the UK the option of a Canada like FTA post Brexit based of TM's red lines.

Is more cow manure.

 

Quote

The European Union's lead negotiator has suggested Britain will be forced to settle for a Canada-style trade deal after Brexit.

Michel Barnier claimed the UK's decision to leave the EU's single market and customs union means any future trade relationship will "have to work on a model that is closer to the agreement signed with Canada".

 

https://news.sky.com/story/brexit-what-is-a-canada-style-trade-deal-11096397

 

Nowhere in the statement above do I read anything that suggests any offer

[Eloquent pilgrim]

10 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

The squirming will go on past 2023 apparently, it seems the UK is the one squirming.

au contraire, that would appear to be you

[tebee]

1 minute ago, The Renegade said:

I am not guilty of misrepresenting anything.

 

My position now and always has been that Leave means Leave in it's entirety.

 

But your assertion that

 

Is more cow manure.

 

https://news.sky.com/story/brexit-what-is-a-canada-style-trade-deal-11096397

 

Nowhere in the statement above do I read anything that suggests any offer

The EU has always stated that, because of art 50 time constraints, any deal would have to be based off an existing treaty - new trading agreements will take 5-10 years to negotiate and ratify. They offered the Canada deal  as a basis to start negotiation. The UK have not accepted this, but have yet to put any alternative deal on the table to talk about - why do you think this is all the EU fault ?

 

[The Renegade]

11 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

The squirming will go on past 2023 apparently, it seems the UK is the one squirming.

You should try and update yourself, this was already debunked yesterday

 

Reuters

 

Quote

Britain will end its implementation period with the European Union after Brexit in December 2020, a government source said on Thursday, denying a media report that Prime Minister Theresa May was seeking a new transition until 2023.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-transition/brexit-transition-will-end-in-dec-2020-uk-source-denies-reports-of-additional-period-idUSKCN1IP18T

[The Renegade]

1 minute ago, tebee said:

The EU has always stated that, because of art 50 time constraints, any deal would have to be based off an existing treaty

What time constraints ?

 

A readymade deal is already waiting, it is called WTO rules.

 

The EU are still refusing to talk about any deals as they are still trying desperately to keep the UK shackled to Brussels and the ECJ.

[Eloquent pilgrim]

12 minutes ago, The Renegade said:

I am not guilty of misrepresenting anything.

 

My position now and always has been that Leave means Leave in it's entirety.

 

But your assertion that

 

Is more cow manure.

 

https://news.sky.com/story/brexit-what-is-a-canada-style-trade-deal-11096397

 

Nowhere in the statement above do I read anything that suggests any offer

The difference between an offer and a threat can be very confusing for some 

[tebee]

1 minute ago, The Renegade said:

What time constraints ?

 

A readymade deal is already waiting, it is called WTO rules.

 

The EU are still refusing to talk about any deals as they are still trying desperately to keep the UK shackled to Brussels and the ECJ.

WTO rules is what we will get in 9 months.

 

The UK government knows that this will be disastrous for the UK which is why they are trying to negotiate for a better deal. Why do you hate the UK so much  that you wish this on them ?

 

no deal = wto rules 

[The Renegade]

1 minute ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

The difference between an offer and a threat can be very confusing for some 

That cannot be correct, I keep hearing that they are all highly educated and highly intelligent ??

[tebee]

1 minute ago, The Renegade said:

4 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

The difference between an offer and a threat can be very confusing for some 

 

Opps quoting seems to be messed up again .

 

Anyway what I was going to say was if we leave without agreement we end up on WTO rules. The Canada option was a better deal than WTO rules. How can this be considered a threat?

[dick dasterdly]

Just now, tebee said:

WTO rules is what we will get in 9 months.

 

The UK government knows that this will be disastrous for the UK which is why they are trying to negotiate for a better deal. Why do you hate the UK so much  that you wish this on them ?

 

no deal = wto rules 

"WTO rules is what we will get in 9 months."

 

If only.... It would at least end the uncertainty that is so damaging.

 

But I'd be genuinely shocked if this happened as the uk govt. as far as I can see, are doing their best to pacify the electorate by pretending that a 'leave in name only' agreement is actually leaving...

[tebee]

10 minutes ago, The Renegade said:

What time constraints ?

 

A readymade deal is already waiting, it is called WTO rules.

 

The EU are still refusing to talk about any deals as they are still trying desperately to keep the UK shackled to Brussels and the ECJ.

There is an illogicality in your arguments here . if we do not strike a deal with the Eu we leave, then WTO rules apply. You seem to want this, but at the same time you are saying that the EU is threatening us with this to keep us shackled to them.

 

You sound just like the UK government.   

[soalbundy]

15 minutes ago, The Renegade said:

You should try and update yourself, this was already debunked yesterday

 

Reuters

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-transition/brexit-transition-will-end-in-dec-2020-uk-source-denies-reports-of-additional-period-idUSKCN1IP18T

Ahhh, the need to deny. What happened to Mogs idea that if there is no deal we could keep trading for 10 more years on the CU system, would seem to be no hurry then, we could be out and still trade with the EU as before, it's all gone quiet.

[dick dasterdly]

Just now, tebee said:

Opps quoting seems to be messed up again .

 

Anyway what I was going to say was if we leave without agreement we end up on WTO rules. The Canada option was a better deal than WTO rules. How can this be considered a threat?

Has this been offered?

 

I agree that the 'Canada option' whilst sounding ridiculous, would be a good start to negotiations.  NO leaving payment to the eu, and uk/eu companies can then work on the politicians involved to improve the deal - to the benefit of both sides who already benefit so much from trading with each other.

[The Renegade]

3 minutes ago, tebee said:

There is an illogicality in your arguments here .

Is there ? The confusion is all yours.

 

4 minutes ago, tebee said:

if we do not strike a deal with the Eu we leave, then WTO rules apply.

Any deal that leaves the UK tied to Brussels and the ECJ is not a deal and WTO Rules here we come.

 

5 minutes ago, tebee said:

 but at the same time you are saying that the EU is threatening us with this to keep us shackled to them.

No I did not say the EU were threating the UK with WTO rules, I said the EU is doing everything in its power to keep the UK shackled to Brussels and the ECJ.

 

Yet again, you destroy the myth that remainers are highly intelligent or highly educated.

[Eloquent pilgrim]

18 minutes ago, tebee said:

WTO rules is what we will get in 9 months.

 

The UK government knows that this will be disastrous for the UK which is why they are trying to negotiate for a better deal. Why do you hate the UK so much  that you wish this on them ?

 

no deal = wto rules 

I think that we all care passionately about our country, so maybe it is time to rein yourself in; when you accuse another poster of hating the UK, just because he sees a brighter future for the UK outside of the EU, you are starting to exhibit a rather nasty and unnecessary trend in your comments.

[HAKAPALITA]

I want to BREXIT. Anyone know how to Exit Notifications for this Yawnfest of a topic, once youve commented.?.I can clear notifications but not one topic only. ?