It has been clear from the start that the arguments for brexit have been emotional and nebulous rather than critical.

It is interesting to go back to the very first threads on Brexit to see how Brexiteers arguments have changed....basically the argument to remain is unchanged and critical thinking based, whereas Brexiteers have slid from predictions of an imagined utopia to  pure racism and conspiracy theories.

Just go back a couple of years and take a look .... also look, at who is still arguing for Brexit.....those with any critical faculties have posted less and less leaving only most obtuse, fanatical and ill informed to continue regardless as tenet after tenet falls foul of reason and logic.

Edited March 7, 20197 yr by wilcopops

It is interesting to go back to the very first threads on Brexit to see how Brexiteers arguments have changed....

Haven’t you noticed that the situation has changed? That’s the Brexiteers - aware of the Remain treachery at every turn, and commenting.
Remainers comments - still crying about losing the referendum. Still calling the same names. Still ‘knowing’ better than everybody else about all the bad things that will definitely happen in the future, with absolute certainty. Well, if nobody does anything about it...maybe.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

15 minutes ago, Loiner said:

Haven’t you noticed that the situation has changed? That’s the Brexiteers - aware of the Remain treachery at every turn, and commenting.
Remainers comments - still crying about losing the referendum. Still calling the same names. Still ‘knowing’ better than everybody else about all the bad things that will definitely happen in the future, with absolute certainty. Well, if nobody does anything about it...maybe.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Shock us in to silence.

 

Show us your Brexit.

 

 

12 hours ago, Grouse said:

I can't abide Angela Loathsome 

And yet you like Anna Soubry.

Plenty remoaners in the civil service who worked against likes if D Davis etc
Were they doing their job properly???

It wasn't the remainers job to deliver Brexit.  Johnson and Gove (principle Brexiteers) backed away from leading Brexit when it was on offer and voted for Theresa May.  May then appointed Brexiteers to oversee the negotiations and appointed another hard line Brexiteer Liam Fox as Secretary of State for Foreign Investment.  She even brought Johnson into the Cabinet as Foreign Secretary and Andrea Leadsom as Leader of the House.  After Davis failed she appointed another Brexit hard Liner Raab.  There were no Remainers on May's team to deliver Brexit.
 
The truth is you seem to be looking for scapegoats and ignoring the real culprits.  But as always your views are just as valid as mine.

Sent from my SM-G7102 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Coincidence or the benefit of distraction.

 

From 29 March, by decision of the BIS, the gold in the portfolio of commercial and business banks becomes "Cash Equivalent", an asset equivalent to cash and therefore "risk free". In fact, it is the first "reassuring of gold" since the time of the Bretton Woods agreement: technicians call it "Gold Remonetization", a process that is the reverse of the "demonetization" of gold decided by Nixon.

https://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/finanza-e-mercati/2019-02-24/banche-ritorno-gold-standard-l-oro-bilanci-diventa-moneta-091055.shtml?uuid=ABCGxiXB&fromSearch

Yesterday’s De Volkskrant: brexit as seen by many across the North Sea........

14 hours ago, sanemax said:

   All previous UK referendums have been on a majority basis ,

You mean all 2 of them.

What on earth is the point of taking major decisions using a mechanism where the potential outcome is indeterminate.

I am sure you would have a lot to say if the justice system worked on the same basis.

16 hours ago, 7by7 said:

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.

The ECJ ruling is not binding though, just advisory (where have i heard that word before?) and the EU have consistently said that it would need the consent of all 27 EU nations for article 50 to be revoked. If the EU is as mutually inclusive as remainers would have us believe, then surely all 27 nations should have a say on us being able to return on exactly the same terms as before.

 

I'm glad though to see we agree on the difficulty that Britain would have restoring relations in the EU, were Brexit scrapped and were we to return, tail between legs. I don't think it can be done. What we need is a fresh start, whatever happens. Rewinding the clock and trying to erase the last 3 years is never going to work. That's why, amongst many other reasons, Brexit must be delivered, and must be given a fair chance to fail or succeed. Then, and only then, can the country properly move forward and divisions be healed.

17 hours ago, 7by7 said:

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?

I am saying that one of the main reasons given by remainers for ignoring the 2016 vote was that people didn't know what they were voting for and that the whole issue of remaining or leaving was far too complex for people to get their heads around. Now you want to have another vote in which, as i have already mentioned, there will be three options: one, a 600 page document that only deals with the withdrawal; two, a no deal in which nobody really knows what the outcome would be; and three, remain, in which nobody really knows how Britain would work side by side with EU nations after the last three years of bickering and fighting.

 

Whereas in 2016, voters where supposed to just be selecting a direction of travel, with the politicians then working on the finer details of how we go in that direction, now voters are expected to get involved with the detail. I'm not suggesting it is too complicated for voters to understand, i'm suggesting that if the 2016 vote is going to be scrapped on the basis that it was flawed because of lack of understanding and complexity, the new vote you propose will be no different. In fact it will be worse.

Shock us in to silence.
 
Show us your Brexit.
 
 

Doubt very much that any Remainer would be silenced at anything.

Our Brexit, I’m afraid in in the hands of the Remainers.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

11 minutes ago, Loiner said:

Doubt very much that any Remainer would be silenced at anything.

Our Brexit, I’m afraid in in the hands of the Remainers.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Brexiteers failed to plan, planned to fail.

 

’Woosh!’

17 hours ago, 7by7 said:

As I have asked many times

Here's a suggestion, rather than repeatedly asking a question which has already been answered - which as i have said before, is trollish behaviour that really should be beneath you, (and no, before you ask, i haven't reported you), why not just make the statement that underlies the manner in which you ask the question and the manner in which you refuse to accept any of the hundred of times it has been answered..

 

...and that is to state, "i believe that leavers fear a referendum because they will lose and i don't think there is any other possible reason for them not wanting another vote, and nothing you can say will change my mind about that"... and then, if you did that, everyone knows where they stand and nobody wastes time answering a question for which you will never accept any answer besides the one that you have decided is correct.

48 minutes ago, rixalex said:

The ECJ ruling is not binding though, just advisory (where have i heard that word before?) and the EU have consistently said that it would need the consent of all 27 EU nations for article 50 to be revoked. If the EU is as mutually inclusive as remainers would have us believe, then surely all 27 nations should have a say on us being able to return on exactly the same terms as before.

 

I'm glad though to see we agree on the difficulty that Britain would have restoring relations in the EU, were Brexit scrapped and were we to return, tail between legs. I don't think it can be done. What we need is a fresh start, whatever happens. Rewinding the clock and trying to erase the last 3 years is never going to work. That's why, amongst many other reasons, Brexit must be delivered, and must be given a fair chance to fail or succeed. Then, and only then, can the country properly move forward and divisions be healed.

you have some good points there, in your 2nd paragraph, (don't agree with the first one)

not much point for UK to continue as EU member now and argue changes from within

when requested UK will be given the floor, but not the ears of the audience

 

 

 

56 minutes ago, rixalex said:

 

I'm glad though to see we agree on the difficulty that Britain would have restoring relations in the EU, were Brexit scrapped and were we to return, tail between legs. I don't think it can be done. What we need is a fresh start, whatever happens. Rewinding the clock and trying to erase the last 3 years is never going to work. That's why, amongst many other reasons, Brexit must be delivered, and must be given a fair chance to fail or succeed. Then, and only then, can the country properly move forward and divisions be healed.

Agree. 

57 minutes ago, rixalex said:

The ECJ ruling is not binding though, just advisory (where have i heard that word before?) and the EU have consistently said that it would need the consent of all 27 EU nations for article 50 to be revoked. If the EU is as mutually inclusive as remainers would have us believe, then surely all 27 nations should have a say on us being able to return on exactly the same terms as before.

 

I'm glad though to see we agree on the difficulty that Britain would have restoring relations in the EU, were Brexit scrapped and were we to return, tail between legs. I don't think it can be done. What we need is a fresh start, whatever happens. Rewinding the clock and trying to erase the last 3 years is never going to work. That's why, amongst many other reasons, Brexit must be delivered, and must be given a fair chance to fail or succeed. Then, and only then, can the country properly move forward and divisions be healed.

In politics there is no ‘must’.

11 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

?

what ever happened to Cecil Cyril?

 

 

Clarence?

11 hours ago, Grouse said:

Which is a fair point!

I try.

2 hours ago, rixalex said:

And yet you like Anna Soubry.

Yes, very much

4 hours ago, wilcopops said:

It has been clear from the start that the arguments for brexit have been emotional and nebulous rather than critical.

It is interesting to go back to the very first threads on Brexit to see how Brexiteers arguments have changed....basically the argument to remain is unchanged and critical thinking based, whereas Brexiteers have slid from predictions of an imagined utopia to  pure racism and conspiracy theories.

Just go back a couple of years and take a look .... also look, at who is still arguing for Brexit.....those with any critical faculties have posted less and less leaving only most obtuse, fanatical and ill informed to continue regardless as tenet after tenet falls foul of reason and logic.

Not so easy to find examples of these vintage posts now. But my reasons for leave are unchanged. So, please find and post for us some of these racist, utopian claims that you say are par for these Brexiteers with faulty faculties.

Edited March 8, 20197 yr by nauseus

2 hours ago, Grouse said:

Yes, very much

I can't guess why.

 

Anyway, enjoy her duplicitous, sanctimonious clap trap while you can because she won't be an MP for much longer, i guarantee you that.

8 hours ago, aright said:

Trade as seen from the other side of the Channel

 

To make up for lost exports to the UK, Spanish businesses will have to compete for customers in other EU countries, which could create a produce glut and drive down prices.

“It will be hard… to find new clients or new countries. It’s almost impossible,” said Ms Llonch, adding that farmers who sell almost all of their produce to the UK “are terrified”.

 

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/terrified-produce-growers-in-southern-spain-brace-for-brexit-pain-37888385.html

olive and orange growers in spain selling a little less wont replace nissan,honda,bmw and toyota in the UK,just like trump thought starting a trade war was a good idea,but the trade gap has widened,he thought like a brexiteer and was wrong,

21 hours ago, sanemax said:

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

 

Not in that ballot, no.

 

But if you believe in democracy then you must allow them to change their mind afterwards and ask for another vote.

21 hours ago, aright said:

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

 And how many of them mentioned the word 'elected?'

 

From Oxford dictionaries: 

"Bureaucrat

noun

An official in a government department, in particular one perceived as being concerned with procedural correctness at the expense of people's needs."

 

Pathetic try.

17 hours ago, nauseus said:

No. You lot are trying to destroy any semblance of true democracy that may still lurk about in the UK.

How?

 

By giving the people the final choice?

 

It is denying them that choice which is against democracy.

9 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

Not in that ballot, no.

 

But if you believe in democracy then you must allow them to change their mind afterwards and ask for another vote.

If most of the women in UK change their minds every month

like my missus, you're have a problem with that system.

 

I can't guess why.
 
Anyway, enjoy her duplicitous, sanctimonious clap trap while you can because she won't be an MP for much longer, i guarantee you that.

I think many of them won’t be MPs next time around. That alone would make pretty thin odds for another snap election.

Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

17 hours ago, aright said:

The USA has the largest debt in the world. Next thing you will be telling us they have a poorer standard of living than Portugal. 

A significant percentage of the US population do!

 

Faces of poverty: What racial, social groups are more likely to experience it?

Quote

The U.S. Census estimates that 13.4 percent of Americans, about 42 million, lived below the poverty line in 2017.

 

Although, to be fair, percentagewise Portugal is slightly worse.

 

The pain and shame of poverty in Portugal

Quote

Two years ago, the Portuguese National Statistics Institute reckoned that 18% of the Portuguese population – roughly 1.8 million people - were living below the poverty line.

 

There may be nothing to remain in..with luck.

 

Quoted on the Hungarian government’s website, Orban said he could see a danger of fragmentation within the European Union.

"If we are left alone and they do not force islamisation on us, Europe can continue to live as the club of free nations," Orban said, but added that if Brussels forces Hungary "to accept the UN migration pact or the European Commission's decisions so as to make us fit their own Western concessive policies, a breakup [of the EU] cannot be ruled out.”

20 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

A significant percentage of the US population do!

 

Faces of poverty: What racial, social groups are more likely to experience it?

 

Although, to be fair, percentagewise Portugal is slightly worse.

 

The pain and shame of poverty in Portugal

 

In most cases anywhere in the western world thier is a reason people live below any supposed povety line,its called wasting wbat money they have on drink,alcohol,drugs,smoking etc they then plead povety.

Edited March 8, 20197 yr by bomber