Brexit has created chaos in Britain – nobody voted for this

[vogie]

17 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

Here is a report from the BBC News website.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-44589464

 

It does not mention the numbers at this rally but it did mention that there was also anothe pro Brexit rally in the same area at the same time with though smaller numbers.

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-march/eu-supporters-march-in-london-to-call-for-brexit-deal-referendum-idUSKBN1JJ0BG

 

The Reuters report failed to mention this.

 

 

The ones I saw on the news were all chanting "Oh Jeremy Corbyn," the man that wanted out of the EU in 1975, the hypocrite.

[bristolboy]

4 minutes ago, The Renegade said:

Bill

 

You have to laugh. Everyday this pops into my head

 

Poor wee timorous beastie's

Ohhh what a panic is in thy remainer breasties.

 

16 million voted to remain, according to remainers, another 14 million who did not vote, were closet remainers.

 

Yet less than 100,000 turn up for a rally, despite being bussed in from all over the Country.

 

Yesterday somebody wrote this:

"Reality, the numbers will be 30,000 tops."

 

I guess technically you could claim that since 30,000 is less than 100,000, you're not contradicting yourself. Let's see if you actually go there.

[transam]

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Yesterday somebody wrote this:

"Reality, the numbers will be 30,000 tops."

 

I guess technically you could claim that since 30,000 is less than 100,000, you're not contradicting yourself. Let's see if you actually go there.

How many were their accountants in toe...

[Grouse]

3 hours ago, The Renegade said:

tebee

 

After your performance yesterday over the Airbus headline, I thought I would post this from the FT for you. 

 

Very similar to Financial Services. With friends like that, who needs enemies ?

 

 

https://www.ft.com/content/e4109788-7635-11e8-b326-75a27d27ea5f

 

So to put your mind at rest, Airbus will not be going anywhere in the near future.

 

As we all know, a certain Grouse swears by the FT and is in fact very disparaging against people who do not have an FT subscription. 

 

Therefore, the above article must be nailed on truth.

 

 

I'm sure it is correct

 

As the UK does not have a share in Airbus anymore why would Airbus want to put up with the hassle of having plants not in the CU or SM and on an island? Better for them

to move wing manufacture closer to fuselage manufacture I would have thought.

[Eloquent pilgrim]

13 minutes ago, The Renegade said:

Bill

 

You have to laugh. Everyday this pops into my head

 

Poor wee timorous beastie's

Ohhh what a panic is in thy remainer breasties.

 

16 million voted to remain, according to remainers, another 14 million who did not vote, were closet remainers.

 

Yet less than 100,000 turn up for a rally, despite being bussed in from all over the Country.

 

They were all too busy subjecting themselves to Transactional Analysis

[The Renegade]

4 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

They were all too busy subjecting themselves to Transactional Analysis

Are you sure ? They might have been subjecting themselves to

 

Quote

Just look up Transactionsal Analysis (TA) 

 

??

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, The Renegade said:

Could you cite your sources please.

 

I would hate to think I was reading an 18 month old story ??

 

I am a bit concerned about this part

 

Remainers keep posting this, oblivious to the fact that last year ( 2017 ) the UK economy actually grew by 1.7%

A whole 1.7%!

[Kieran00001]

17 minutes ago, vogie said:

The ones I saw on the news were all chanting "Oh Jeremy Corbyn," the man that wanted out of the EU in 1975, the hypocrite.

 

No, they were chanting, "Where's Jeremy Corbyn", they were criticising him for not attending or even acknowledging the march.

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

So I now have both yourself and Grouse telling me to read up on Transactional Analysis, the implication being that I have no knowledge of it, which is incorrect, as well as being off topic, but I did not instigate the discussion about it.

 

Can you tell me how it might reveal to me why some take the tone with me that they do, which is your second implication, so I hope you can.

 

Dr. Eric Berne who developed transactional analysis made special note of the complexities of human communication, highlighting the fact that facial expressions, gestures, tone of voice and body language are regarded as more important than the actual words spoken or written. He also said that external influences particularly from parents or other adults in parent-like roles, can be a great influence in early childhood.

 

So, considering that you know absolutely nothing about me, and cannot see any of my facial expressions or body language, I am genuinely interested to know how you feel you can use this extremely complex and interesting subject to make a judgement on me.

 

I won’t bother asking Grouse, because he just uses this type of ploy to try and insult or bait people, whilst staying under the radar of the moderators. I hope you are not stooping to the same dark arts, still at least you managed to spell Transactional correctly, which is more than our resident expert on the subject could do.   

Well done Pilgrim! You spotted another typo! You are becoming the new SgtRock!

 

TA would be good for YOU. Maybe help keep your Id under control.

[Kieran00001]

13 minutes ago, Grouse said:

I'm sure it is correct

 

As the UK does not have a share in Airbus anymore why would Airbus want to put up with the hassle of having plants not in the CU or SM and on an island? Better for them

to move wing manufacture closer to fuselage manufacture I would have thought.

 

They sold their share before they invested a further 37 million in a new research facility at the Filton site, so obviously their current talk of pulling out of the UK is not because of that sale.

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, tebee said:

This rings so true to me about the state of current negotiations. 

 

"A weak and deeply divided government is now embroiled in negotiations with the EU with little sign that it understands the complexities involved, or even the most basic realities. Effectively, it is trying to operationalise the central lie of the Leave campaign: that it is possible to leave without consequences. Meanwhile, the economic damage is growing and Britain is experiencing a bitterly divisive cultural war."

Did you dig this up by the dunny?

[evadgib]

36 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Standard media remainer reporting that we have been reading for a long time now....  It started a few months before the referendum.

 

Admittedly, I didn't read the entire article as the 'headline points' made it very clear that it was entirely biased.  Edit - So why bother to read further?

It's getting up my nose too...

 

[nauseus]

52 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

Yup ..... or Tonto from Bristol

Hi Ho Spellchecker!

[Grouse]

58 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

Well as our self proclaimed expert on the subject, perhaps you should learn how to spell Transactional.

 

After you have accomplished that, you could look up Oedipus Complex, you could learn something. Very adult, don’t you know

Look at your keyboard. a and s are adjacent. Don't you think a typo is more likely? Do read up on TA, the word adult in this context will take on a different meaning. I appreciate that you think I am expert. Thank you. However I am a mere practitioner.

[bristolboy]

25 minutes ago, transam said:

How many were their accountants in toe...

Not surprised that you see no significance in the difference between 30,000 and 100,000. Given that Brexiters see no significant difference between 350,000,000 per week and 0.

[Eloquent pilgrim]

9 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Well done Pilgrim! You spotted another typo! You are becoming the new SgtRock!

 

TA would be good for YOU. Maybe help keep your Id under control.

You brought up the subject of Transactional Analysis, not me; but now that I question the validity of using the subject to analyse somebody that you know nothing about, you don't want to discuss it anymore, and go into your usual default deflection mode.

[HAKAPALITA]

The Law of Diminishing Returns seems to sum up the EUs eventual collapse.

[transam]

5 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Not surprised that you see no significance in the difference between 30,000 and 100,000. Given that Brexiters see no significant difference between 350,000,000 per week and 0.

Wow, that many accountants...I didn't know....?

[Grouse]

28 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

They were all too busy subjecting themselves to Transactional Analysis

Ignorant comment. Literally 

[nauseus]

28 minutes ago, Grouse said:

I'm sure it is correct

 

As the UK does not have a share in Airbus anymore why would Airbus want to put up with the hassle of having plants not in the CU or SM and on an island? Better for them

to move wing manufacture closer to fuselage manufacture I would have thought.

The continentals cannot make beautiful wings - this idea will never fly! ✈️

[Grouse]

14 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

They sold their share before they invested a further 37 million in a new research facility at the Filton site, so obviously their current talk of pulling out of the UK is not because of that sale.

True but the UK has no leverage on the basis of being a shareholder

[dick dasterdly]

At the end of the day, the OP headline is correct - leavers assumed that having won the vote, it would be enacted by the govt. as per their promise.

 

The remainers are doing everything in their power to stop this, and consequently creating chaos.

 

Unfortunately for remainers, politicians are very aware as to their chances of being re-elected - so they can't obviously go against the wishes of the electorate.....

 

Edit - The next few months/years will be 'interesting' - as in 'May you live in interesting times.'.....

Edited June 24, 2018 by dick dasterdly

[tebee]

1 minute ago, dick dasterdly said:

At the end of the day, the OP headline is correct - leavers assumed that having won the vote, it would be enacted by the govt. as per their promise.

 

The remainers are doing everything in their power to stop this, and consequently creating chaos.

 

Unfortunately for remainers, politicians are very aware as to their chances of being re-elected - so they can't obviously go against the wishes of the electorate.....

There is a significant difference between the world as leavers see it and reality - That is what is causing the chaos 

[The Renegade]

Just now, tebee said:

There is a significant difference between the world as leavers see it and reality - That is what is causing the chaos 

Nope

 

What is causing the chaos is remainers.

 

Referendum - Vote to leave or vote to remain.

 

52 - 48 is not decisive.

 

It was not a legally binding referendum

 

Since then, nothing but a hard or a soft boiled Brexit, which was not on the ballot paper.

 

Staying in the SM / CU was not on the ballot paper, remaining in either is not leaving the EU.

 

The ECJ was not on the ballot paper, now its instrumental to remainers.

 

It woz the Russians that done it. Ohhh no, wait a minute, it might have been Cambridge Analytica that done it.

 

Wah Wah Wah

[Kieran00001]

5 minutes ago, Grouse said:

True but the UK has no leverage on the basis of being a shareholder

 

Airbus have a lot more leverage than the government that is for sure, the UK only have their promise of a future investment of 800 million which will be shared across the whole aerospace sector to bargain with, whereas Airbus have the fact that they bring 7.8 billion to the UK economy with over 5 billion being given directly to British suppliers and employ 14,000 people.

[dick dasterdly]

2 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

At the end of the day, the OP headline is correct - leavers assumed that having won the vote, it would be enacted by the govt. as per their promise.

 

The remainers are doing everything in their power to stop this, and consequently creating chaos.

 

Unfortunately for remainers, politicians are very aware as to their chances of being re-elected - so they can't obviously go against the wishes of the electorate.....

 

Edit - The next few months/years will be 'interesting' - as in 'May you live in interesting times.'.....

 

Just now, tebee said:

There is a significant difference between the world as leavers see it and reality - That is what is causing the chaos 

No, that's your biased OPINION.

 

Do you seriously think the eu would have not bothered with negotiating if the remainers hadn't caused such a fuss - court challenges/protests and the like?

[tebee]

4 minutes ago, The Renegade said:

Nope

 

What is causing the chaos is remainers.

 

Referendum - Vote to leave or vote to remain.

 

52 - 48 is not decisive.

 

It was not a legally binding referendum

 

Since then, nothing but a hard or a soft boiled Brexit, which was not on the ballot paper.

 

Staying in the SM / CU was not on the ballot paper, remaining in either is not leaving the EU.

 

The ECJ was not on the ballot paper, now its instrumental to remainers.

 

It woz the Russians that done it. Ohhh no, wait a minute, it might have been Cambridge Analytica that done it.

 

Wah Wah Wah

The government’s entire position continues to be the wholly illusory fantasy that it is possible to be both outside the EU and yet, in some magical way, to continue to enjoy most of the benefits of being a member.

 

It’s important to understand this central fact: Brexit is in many people’s view undesirable, but the form in which it is being pursued, even if it were desirable, is impossible.

 

Yet whilst pursuing a course which, to get anywhere near achieving it, would require maximum flexibility from the EU, goodwill has been shredded by bellicose rhetoric, accusations of punishment, and hostility and suspicion about ‘the other side’. Perhaps the most damaging aspect of the British approach has been the way that immediately after have reached the phase 1 agreement senior Brexiters, including David Davis, seemed to imply that they were not bound by it.

 

It is important to keep remembering what happened during the referendum, because the claims made during the campaign, and the claims made about the campaign since then, continue to structure the current debate.

 

It has become fashionable to say that both campaigns were equally dishonest, but that simply is not so. Leave mainlined on what even they admitted was a lie about the EU budget contribution and NHS funding, and another lie about impending Turkish membership of the EU.

 

And these were just the headline lies. Beneath them were a myriad of others, such as that future terms could be sorted out informally before Article 50 was even triggered so there was no danger of a cliff-edge fallout; that the Irish border would be unaffected; or that a good, quick exit deal was assured because ‘German car makers’ would insist on it as endlessly claimed by Brexiters, including businessman Peter Hargreaves who paid for a leaflet to be sent to every UK household at the start of the campaign urging a leave vote.

 

No one has ever been held to account for these and all the other lies told during the campaign. Since then, we’ve also learned enough about the conduct of the Leave campaign and possible Russian interference to, at the very least, place a cloud over the legitimacy of the result.

 

By contrast, Remain was certainly pedestrian and passionless, but its projections (based on assumptions and models, of course, but not lies) of the consequences were not ‘Project Fear’, as repetitively and routinely alleged, but attempts to counter the vague and unsubstantiated claims of Leave that all would be well, or even rosy, if we left. It’s notable that such claims have since been repudiated by many Brexiters, most recently Nigel Farage.

 

There are reams that could, have been, and will be written about all this. The outcome we know: a narrow victory for leave. The narrowness is important as it means there was never the unequivocal result subsequently claimed. That is why the Brexiters constantly talk about it having been the biggest vote in British history – meaning the total number of votes cast was the highest – as if that implied an overwhelming vote for Brexit. In fact, the most accurate way of describing the result would be that the country replied ‘we don’t really know’.

 

Moreover, the combination of Leave’s lies and their failure to specify what leaving meant in terms of the future means that there is not (as many Leavers seem to sense) any real mandate for Brexit, and certainly not hard Brexit. Many leading leavers campaigned on the basis of staying in the single market, for all that they deny it now. Others, like Michael Gove, talked ambiguously of being part of a “free trade zone that extends from Iceland to the Russian border” whilst making no budget payments and having no ECJ jurisdiction. If that meant anything, it meant being, like Iceland, in EFTA/EEA.

 

From these lies, ambiguities and confusions much has flowed. Crucially, the fact that Britain voted against being in the EU but not for anything else. The claims now made by Brexiters that the vote itself mandated hard Brexit (in the sense of leaving the single market and any form of customs union) is very easily disproved. If it were true, it would not have taken seven months of argument and speculation before this meaning was announced by Theresa May in her Lancaster House speech of January 2017.

[dick dasterdly]

Just now, The Renegade said:

Nope

 

What is causing the chaos is remainers.

 

Referendum - Vote to leave or vote to remain.

 

52 - 48 is not decisive.

 

It was not a legally binding referendum

 

Since then, nothing but a hard or a soft boiled Brexit, which was not on the ballot paper.

 

Staying in the SM / CU was not on the ballot paper, remaining in either is not leaving the EU.

 

The ECJ was not on the ballot paper, now its instrumental to remainers.

 

It woz the Russians that done it. Ohhh no, wait a minute, it might have been Cambridge Analytica that done it.

 

Wah Wah Wah

Quite.

 

I'm so tired of the various excuses as to various influences....

 

It's not that hard to understand that a majority of the populace were finally given a chance to vote on the eu, and voted against it.

[The Renegade]

1 minute ago, tebee said:

It’s important to understand this central fact:

This is the only FACT you need to concern yourself with is.

 

The UK IS LEAVING the EU.

 

Get used to it, stop your bleating and start making plans for what you need to do when this happens.

[The Renegade]

4 minutes ago, tebee said:

The government’s entire position continues to be the wholly illusory fantasy that it is possible to be both outside the EU and yet, in some magical way, to continue to enjoy most of the benefits of being a member.

 

It’s important to understand this central fact: Brexit is in many people’s view undesirable, but the form in which it is being pursued, even if it were desirable, is impossible.

 

Yet whilst pursuing a course which, to get anywhere near achieving it, would require maximum flexibility from the EU, goodwill has been shredded by bellicose rhetoric, accusations of punishment, and hostility and suspicion about ‘the other side’. Perhaps the most damaging aspect of the British approach has been the way that immediately after have reached the phase 1 agreement senior Brexiters, including David Davis, seemed to imply that they were not bound by it.

 

It is important to keep remembering what happened during the referendum, because the claims made during the campaign, and the claims made about the campaign since then, continue to structure the current debate.

 

It has become fashionable to say that both campaigns were equally dishonest, but that simply is not so. Leave mainlined on what even they admitted was a lie about the EU budget contribution and NHS funding, and another lie about impending Turkish membership of the EU.

 

And these were just the headline lies. Beneath them were a myriad of others, such as that future terms could be sorted out informally before Article 50 was even triggered so there was no danger of a cliff-edge fallout; that the Irish border would be unaffected; or that a good, quick exit deal was assured because ‘German car makers’ would insist on it as endlessly claimed by Brexiters, including businessman Peter Hargreaves who paid for a leaflet to be sent to every UK household at the start of the campaign urging a leave vote.

 

No one has ever been held to account for these and all the other lies told during the campaign. Since then, we’ve also learned enough about the conduct of the Leave campaign and possible Russian interference to, at the very least, place a cloud over the legitimacy of the result.

 

By contrast, Remain was certainly pedestrian and passionless, but its projections (based on assumptions and models, of course, but not lies) of the consequences were not ‘Project Fear’, as repetitively and routinely alleged, but attempts to counter the vague and unsubstantiated claims of Leave that all would be well, or even rosy, if we left. It’s notable that such claims have since been repudiated by many Brexiters, most recently Nigel Farage.

 

There are reams that could, have been, and will be written about all this. The outcome we know: a narrow victory for leave. The narrowness is important as it means there was never the unequivocal result subsequently claimed. That is why the Brexiters constantly talk about it having been the biggest vote in British history – meaning the total number of votes cast was the highest – as if that implied an overwhelming vote for Brexit. In fact, the most accurate way of describing the result would be that the country replied ‘we don’t really know’.

 

Moreover, the combination of Leave’s lies and their failure to specify what leaving meant in terms of the future means that there is not (as many Leavers seem to sense) any real mandate for Brexit, and certainly not hard Brexit. Many leading leavers campaigned on the basis of staying in the single market, for all that they deny it now. Others, like Michael Gove, talked ambiguously of being part of a “free trade zone that extends from Iceland to the Russian border” whilst making no budget payments and having no ECJ jurisdiction. If that meant anything, it meant being, like Iceland, in EFTA/EEA.

 

From these lies, ambiguities and confusions much has flowed. Crucially, the fact that Britain voted against being in the EU but not for anything else. The claims now made by Brexiters that the vote itself mandated hard Brexit (in the sense of leaving the single market and any form of customs union) is very easily disproved. If it were true, it would not have taken seven months of argument and speculation before this meaning was announced by Theresa May in her Lancaster House speech of January 2017.

Nice cut and paste job tebee.

 

There is not a snowballs chance in hell that this came from you.