Extreme Brexit could be worse than financial crisis for UK: BoE

[bomber]

1 hour ago, Kwasaki said:

Yeah I don't know the future for UK like remainers do, I don't understand them wanting UK to be part of a type of United States, my view has always been it's never gonna work.

From the start I just have looked at the countries in the mafia club, as I have said before look at the state of Greece, Italy's got the hump, Spain, Portugal, and look at the state of France, Hungry and Poland are against grain of EU, the only lot to have benefited is Germany, Austria.

 

I think it was Maggie who said she wanted a deal like Switzerland and " not the UK, being one of the EU's largest economies paying more than most members.

Only Germany and France consistently contribute more funding, while Italy pays about the same amount."

UK will never be a switzerland,wake up and smell the coffee

[bomber]

25 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

Yeah well many want UK to rule itself instead of being in constant arguments concerning other countries.

the UK has argued amongst itself everyday for 2.5 years,where have you been hibernating.

[Kwasaki]

1 minute ago, bomber said:

UK will never be a switzerland, wake up and smell the coffee

Well it was suggested in the beginning and as for American drivel I drink tea.

[Kwasaki]

17 minutes ago, bomber said:

the UK has argued amongst itself everyday for 2.5 years,where have you been hibernating.

Well I just read both sides and with a remainer in the driving seat what else would you expect.

[bomber]

Just now, Kwasaki said:

Well it was suggested in the beginning and as for American drivel I drink tea.

It was a dream made up by farage and bojo,sinpapore was the other place touted around???? deams for dreamers

[Kwasaki]

1 minute ago, bomber said:

It was a dream made up by farage and bojo, Singapore was the other place touted around ???? deams for dreamers

Well we can just agree to disagree I don't know the future for UK I can only speculate like others on boths sides.

I have my future as long as it lasts, don't know when my number will called up either.  

[7by7]

13 hours ago, aright said:

I won't be taking any lectures from Remainers on democracy, you showed your colours after the referendum.

What, like declaring 52/48 was too close to call and another vote would be required?

 

Hang on, that was Farage!

 

14 hours ago, aright said:

Just remind me at what democratic EU election did I vote for Martin Selmayr.

Martin Selmayr is a civil servant. Tell me, when did you vote for Jeremy Heywood, or any other British civil servant?

 

14 hours ago, aright said:

As far as voting is concerned;-

Not voting makes you the problem. (hardly expressing concerns is it?)

Not voting means voting for the candidate you dislike.

Not voting is a pathetic, ineffective form of protest.

Expressing concerns takes many forms; including protest votes and not voting at all. 

 

That you want to remove such protests under the guise of calling voting one of your 4 tenets of citizenship leads me to wonder if you prefer to live in a state where all protest is illegal!

 

Bomber chose not to vote, for his own reasons. You insist that this means he has no right to express his concerns and opinions. Do you also believe that of those expats who regularly and loudly post in favour of Brexit in these threads who also didn't vote, even though many of them would have been eligible to do so had they bothered to register?

 

I know that some ex pat members here did register and did vote in the referendum, whilst others were unable to so do because they were ineligible, e.g. because they had lived out of the UK for too long. I'm asking you about those who were eligible but didn't bother.

[7by7]

13 hours ago, sanemax said:

No, once you have voted , you cannot change your mind .

Well , you can change your mind , but you cannot change your vote .

Once you have voted , then thats your opinion caste .

You cannot go back a few days , weeks, years later and try to change your vote .

As soon as your vote is in the ballot box , thats it  , no going back

No point in holding General Elections, then. 

 

In a democracy people have the right to change their mind; whether it's about the candidate they voted for in the last election or the option they chose in a referendum.

 

The time to make a final decision on something like Brexit is before it becomes irreversible. Once we are out, we are out and if, or more likely when, in a few years time the country realises what a huge mistake Brexit was and wants to rejoin we'd have lost the rebate and like any new member have to join Schengen and commit to joining the Euro.

 

Now that the consequences of each option are much clearer than they were in 2016, the people should be given the final choice in a single transferable vote ballot; May's deal, no deal or cancel Brexit and remain.

 

If, as so many Brexiteers insist, support for Brexit is stronger than ever, why are so many afraid of another referendum?

 

 

[sanemax]

2 hours ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Democracy depends upon laws and rules being followed. Democracy doesn’t work if laws and rules can be ignored and overturned by some abusing their power. If those laws and rules say that I can vote for MPs to represent me and the country, then such vote only works if it’s being followed, rather than a prime minister trying to overturn parliamentary representative democracy and thus my right to vote for someone to represent me. 

 

Democracy also depends upon fair votes. When votes are being manipulated, the purpose of it is being defeated, and the vote is worth nothing and should not be enacted upon. When millions of voters have been lied to, how do you want to know whether the vote they casted is actually what they wanted? The result says nothing, or only that people voted for the many lies being told. As those lies, however, cannot be implemented, the peoples’ votes are not being acted upon as you demand.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What lies were told to the voters Brexiters ?

[rixalex]

4 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

What, like declaring 52/48 was too close to call and another vote would be required?

 

Hang on, that was Farage!

Yes, the man who talks nonsense said something that you now parrot. Should tell you something.

 

[7by7]

11 hours ago, aright said:

Civil Servants are not bureaucrats in the UK. Unlike the EU they don't propose or enact legislation.

Civil servants in the UK are bureaucrats! The definition of bureaucrat is an appointed government official! 

 

The EU commission proposes legislation in exactly the same way as the civil service in the UK does. But just as in the UK only Parliament can enact legislation, in the EU only the European Parliament or the Council of Ministers can enact.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[7by7]

12 minutes ago, rixalex said:

Yes, the man who talks nonsense said something that you now parrot. Should tell you something.

 

Yes, it tells me a lot about Brexiteers who saw him as their champion then and the many who still do.

 

Parrot? Only quote to point out it was an ardent Leaver who said 52/48 was too close to call and so should result in a second referendum. Can you find a similar quote from anyone on the remain side?

 

But myself and others who are calling for a second referendum are not doing so because the last result was close; we are doing so for reasons I've explained many times, the last being above

19 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

In a democracy people have the right to change their mind; whether it's about the candidate they voted for in the last election or the option they chose in a referendum.

 

The time to make a final decision on something like Brexit is before it becomes irreversible. Once we are out, we are out and if, or more likely when, in a few years time the country realises what a huge mistake Brexit was and wants to rejoin we'd have lost the rebate and like any new member have to join Schengen and commit to joining the Euro.

 

Now that the consequences of each option are much clearer than they were in 2016, the people should be given the final choice in a single transferable vote ballot; May's deal, no deal or cancel Brexit and remain.

 

As I have asked many times

20 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

If, as so many Brexiteers insist, support for Brexit is stronger than ever, why are so many afraid of another referendum?

 

[sanemax]

Just now, 7by7 said:

Yes, it tells me a lot about Brexiteers who saw him as their champion then and the many who still do.

 

Parrot? Only quote to point out it was an ardent Leaver who said 52/48 was too close to call and so should result in a second referendum. Can you find a similar quote from anyone on the remain side?

 

But myself and others who are calling for a second referendum are not doing so because the last result was close; we are doing so for reasons I've explained many times, the last being above

 

As I have asked many times

 

Now you are quoting yourself and just keep repeating what you have previously  said 

Should I self quote my previous  reply your self quoted post ?

You have asked many times and you have been answered many times, yet you still keep on asking , just keep saying the same point over and over again, until people get bored keep replying with the same answer over and over again 

[rixalex]

4 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Now that the consequences of each option are much clearer than they were in 2016, the people should be given the final choice in a single transferable vote ballot; May's deal, no deal or cancel Brexit and remain.

 

If, as so many Brexiteers insist, support for Brexit is stronger than ever, why are so many afraid of another referendum?

 

 

But the consequences aren't any clearer.

 

May's deal is a 600 page document. Who is going to read it all? Plus, May's deal only concerns the withdrawal. It doesn't say anything about what the deals will be once we are out. That is as unknown as it ever was.

 

No deal. What is really know about that? Remainers predict an apocalypse. Leavers predict a world of opportunities waiting for us. Who really knows?

 

Remaining in the EU. In spite of what some may have you believe, it is not cast in stone that we will simply be able to erase the events of the last three years and go back to how things were before. Even if we could do that, Britain's relationship with the EU will have changed thanks to the fact that the EU will know, whatever happens or whatever they do, we aren't going anywhere, so if Britain wants to push for EU reform, go ahead Britain and see how far it gets you, will be their mindset.

 

Just as many unknowns as before, and in addition, rather than a simple binary in or out question, the new vote will have three choices and voters asked to choose their preference in order. More involved and more complicated. If the 2016 vote can be ignored as you wish, on basis that people didn't know what they were voting for, and because people have changed their minds, that will be equally true of any new vote.

 

Unless a new vote were to deliver an overwhelming decision in one direction or the other, all a new vote will do is extend the uncertainty and divide the country further. Remainers though don't care about that. It's become a tribal thing in which all they care about is having another shot at winning a vote they still can't get their heads around having lost.

 

[vogie]

2 hours ago, SheungWan said:

The threat of Brexit in Outer Space.

Have you been on your Harry Hill Masterclass yet, I would guess no?

 

[7by7]

2 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Now you are quoting yourself and just keep repeating what you have previously  said 

Should I self quote my previous  reply your self quoted post ?

I am quoting myself to respond to a point raised by someone who has obviously either not seen my previous post or chosen to ignore it.

 

3 minutes ago, sanemax said:

You have asked many times and you have been answered many times, yet you still keep on asking , just keep saying the same point over and over again, until people get bored keep replying with the same answer over and over again 

No, I have not been answered; all people say is that we had a vote and that should be enacted upon first. That is not an answer, it is dodging the question.

[rixalex]

9 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Yes, it tells me a lot about Brexiteers who saw him as their champion then and the many who still do.

 

Parrot? Only quote to point out it was an ardent Leaver who said 52/48 was too close to call and so should result in a second referendum. Can you find a similar quote from anyone on the remain side?

No, exactly, you can't. The only comment from remainers prior to the vote regarding a narrow victory meaning that the fight would go on, was along the lines of Farage being a sore loser. If there were any remainer on record as having said that Farage actually had a valid point, then you could argue that remainers were simply sticking to their principles. They didn't and they aren't.

 

Show me a remainer who would now be in agreement with having another referendum had remain won, and i'll show you a liar. You want another referendum because you lost and you are sore losers.

[7by7]

The first part of your post, rixalex, is a well thought out and cogent answer to my question; for which I thank you. I don't agree with you, but at least someone has finally provided a proper answer.

 

The points you raise and questions you ask would obviously have to be answered, by both sides, during the campaign.

 

I would point out, though, the ECJ ruling which confirms that were we to cancel Brexit before the deadline then we would remain in the EU on exactly the same terms as before. Though I agree that our relationship with the other 27 would be damaged, maybe irrevocably.

 

To imply that the STV system is too complicated for voters to understand is rather an insult, I think. After all, it is used in some elections in Scotland and Northern Ireland and they seem to understand it! Are you saying that the Welsh and English wont be able to?

 

7 minutes ago, rixalex said:

Unless a new vote were to deliver an overwhelming decision in one direction or the other, all a new vote will do is extend the uncertainty and divide the country further. Remainers though don't care about that. It's become a tribal thing in which all they care about is having another shot at winning a vote they still can't get their heads around having lost.

By using the single transferable vote system, I believe an overwhelming result would be achieved.

 

What is more, unless Remain won the first round that result would most likely be for Brexit in one form or another. After all, how many Brexiteers would put remain as their second choice?

[7by7]

8 minutes ago, rixalex said:

Show me a remainer who would now be in agreement with having another referendum had remain won, and i'll show you a liar

In other words, you want me to prove a negative.

 

There are plenty of Leavers who, unlike Farage and his supporters, say that they would respect the result and not want a second referendum had Remain won by such a narrow margin; I call them liars.

[sanemax]

6 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

I am quoting myself to respond to a point raised by someone who has obviously either not seen my previous post or chosen to ignore it.

 

No, I have not been answered; all people say is that we had a vote and that should be enacted upon first. That is not an answer, it is dodging the question.

There have been numerous posts answering your question , posts explaining the democratic process and the effect of another referendum would have on the democratic process , i.e, it would make a mockery of the democratic process and prove it to be worthless .

 

 

[7by7]

4 minutes ago, sanemax said:

There have been numerous posts answering your question , posts explaining the democratic process and the effect of another referendum would have on the democratic process , i.e, it would make a mockery of the democratic process and prove it to be worthless .

 

 

Not an answer.

 

Using you argument, the 2016 referendum makes a mockery of the democratic process.

 

Using your argument, all elections since the first make a mockery of the democratic process.

 

Why? Because they changed previous results.

 

As I have said before, in a democracy people are allowed to change their minds; but you and many other Brexiteers wont allow them the opportunity to do so.

 

That is what makes a mockery of the democratic process!

[sandyf]

59 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

If, as so many Brexiteers insist, support for Brexit is stronger than ever, why are so many afraid of another referendum?

 

One can only assume that brexiteers faced with a serious health issue would have the operation before considering a second opinion.

[sandyf]

All going really well.

 

Theresa May faces a fresh headache over her Brexit strategy after peers inflicted a defeat on the government in favour of keeping the UK in a customs union with the EU.

The House of Lords supported a cross-party bid to keep Britain in a tariff-free trade bloc with Brussels, which means the legislation will bounce back to the Commons for approval.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-theresa-may-lords-customs-union-eu-trade-a8811361.html

 

And no better in Brussels

 

The commission said there was still "no solution" to the Irish backstop impasse, despite a meeting between the EU's chief negotiator Michel Barnier and attorney general Geoffrey Cox and Brexit secretary Stephen Barclay.

[dunroaming]

So who is it the Brexiteers blame for where we are today?  Obviously they blame the EU for not capitulating and sticking to what they said from day one.  And then May even though she surrounded herself with Brexiteers and laid down pro Brexit red lines.  Then of course they blame the MP's for not rolling over and actually taking a stand over the chaotic mess that Brexit has turned into.  Today they are blaming the House of Lords.  Tomorrow it will be back to blaming businesses and their "project fear".  Same will go for the economists.

 

But never blaming the liars that promised them the Brexit they voted for and then ran away.  Never Davis and then Raab for failing miserably to deliver any workable deal.

[sanemax]

3 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Not an answer.

 

Using you argument, the 2016 referendum makes a mockery of the democratic process.

 

Using your argument, all elections since the first make a mockery of the democratic process.

 

Why? Because they changed previous results.

 

As I have said before, in a democracy people are allowed to change their minds; but you and many other Brexiteers wont allow them the opportunity to do so.

 

That is what makes a mockery of the democratic process!

No, all previous UK elections, people got what they voted for .

Previous Parliamentary elections and the result stood until the next election .

That is democracy .

The referendum was a one off vote and that was quite clearly stated and well known .

Voters cannot change their mind , after they have caste their vote .

The result of the referendum needs to be adhered too and once the UK has left the E.U. , reminers can ask for another referendum , asking whether the UK should rejoin the E.U.

   

[aright]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

Civil servants in the UK are bureaucrats! The definition of bureaucrat is an appointed government official! 

 

The EU commission proposes legislation in exactly the same way as the civil service in the UK does. just as in the UK only Parliament can enact legislation, in the EU only the European Parliament or the Council of Ministers can enact.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have read five varied definitions of bureaucrat and not one of them mentions the word appointed so nice try.

 

"The UK public elects Members of Parliament (MPs) to represent their interests and concerns in the House of Commons. MPs consider and can propose new laws as well as raising issues that matter to you in the House. "

"The Civil Service helps the government of the day develop and implement its policies and legislation as effectively as possible."

"The European Parliament’s role and responsibilities are very limited. It cannot propose new European legislation - only the European Commission can do that "

 

From that I read the UK Parliament (MP's) are responsible for proposing new legislation and the British Civil Service is there to help them develop and implement their policies...…..nothing to do with them proposing legislation.

"The European Parliament’s role and responsibilities are very limited. It cannot propose new European legislation - only the European Commission can do that " speaks for itself.

So for starters, unlike the British Parliament, the man I voted to the EU parliament has no say in proposing new laws that's left to the people I had no say in voting.

 

Our difference is caused by the fact British Civil Servants don't need to be elected they are gophers whereas imo people like the European Commission who propose legislation, implement policies and the EU Budget  should be.

 

To cover a point at issue from a previous post regarding Martin Selmayr . If his appointment was so clean and tidy why the fuss made by MEP's and the Ombudsman. 

Appointing the President

The candidate is put forward by national leaders in the European Council, taking account of the results of the European Parliament elections. He or she needs the support of a majority of members of the European Parliament in order to be elected.

As I recall there was only one candidate. Suspicious or what?

 

 

 

 

[Loiner]

So who is it the Brexiteers blame for where we are today?  Obviously they blame the EU for not capitulating and sticking to what they said from day one.  And then May even though she surrounded herself with Brexiteers and laid down pro Brexit red lines.  Then of course they blame the MP's for not rolling over and actually taking a stand over the chaotic mess that Brexit has turned into.  Today they are blaming the House of Lords.  Tomorrow it will be back to blaming businesses and their "project fear".  Same will go for the economists.
 
But never blaming the liars that promised them the Brexit they voted for and then ran away.  Never Davis and then Raab for failing miserably to deliver any workable deal.

The responsibility for the ongoing and today’s mess rests fairly and squarely with you Remainers. Remainers in whatever guise you may hold - vote losing common moaners; biased media talking heads; we-know-better elitists; ideologically confused expurts; vested interest businessmen; subversive bureaucrats; treacherous MPs; inflated ego peers; and the soon to be cash strapped EU. Anybody I’ve missed out?
The blame will always be on those who are preventing Brexit happening.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[nontabury]

8 hours ago, SheungWan said:

Naive and uninformed. Parliamentary democracy doesn't work that way. 

 

 

If your referring to those buildings in Westminster, then you should not use the words Parliamentary and Democracy.

 

 

[evadgib]

23 minutes ago, Loiner said:

Anybody I’ve missed out?

I can think of a couple...

Edited March 7, 2019 by evadgib

[SheungWan]

Hello! Its the Big Font Brexiteers with their colored crayons!