1 minute ago, Spidey said:

Why aren't you talking about recent trade issues? Don't they fit your agenda?

 

The Greeks were masters of their own demise, setting completely unaffordable socialist budgets to curry favour with their voters whilst destroying their economy, which was rescued by the EU.

Trade issues are your pet. Not mine.

 

The Greeks were not rescued by the EU, they were made slaves.  

1 minute ago, nauseus said:

Trade issues are your pet. Not mine.

 

The Greeks were not rescued by the EU, they were made slaves.  

Slaves? The EU (led by Germany) insisted that their budget, vis-à-vis pensions, was unaffordable given their GDP. They insisted that the pension age was raised from 50 to 55. If that's slavery, they should try living in the UK where the pension age was raised to 67 for the same reason.

14 hours ago, 7by7 said:

Immediately before the referendum when polls showed Leave would lose  by 49% to 51% many Leave campaigners, led by Farage, said a Remain win by that margin would be unfinished business and they would want a second referendum.

 

Nigel Farage wants second referendum if Remain campaign scrapes narrow win

 

Having won by that narrow margin, they now claim a magnificent, irreversible victory!

 

And as i've said before, since i don't hang on Mr Farage's every word, nor agree with everything he says, (and i am assuming you are the same?), i fail to see what your point is. At the time of the vote i didn't have particularly strong feelings on the matter, i expected remain to win, and i was ready to respect that the decision the country had made was to stay and expected that Eurosceptics would have to do the same, regardless of what anyone might have said about unfinished business. But of course, i can only speak for myself. I can't speak for Mr Farage. Why is it you seem to expect ME to defend him? If i agree with him i will. If i don't, i won't.

 

It's like me quoting Chuka Umunna at you, who said after the vote that the remain camp should abandon calls for a second referendum or risk being seen as a metropolitan elite "who think they know best", and expecting YOU to defend Chuka contradicting himself and doing a complete 180. Is that YOUR job, to defend Mr Umunna?

1 hour ago, Spidey said:

Slaves? The EU (led by Germany) insisted that their budget, vis-à-vis pensions, was unaffordable given their GDP. They insisted that the pension age was raised from 50 to 55. If that's slavery, they should try living in the UK where the pension age was raised to 67 for the same reason.

Cherry pickin'

9 hours ago, 7by7 said:

I know, and have never said that they are.

 

What I did say is that any deal similar to the deals those countries have, especially with the 'plus' bit, would be Brexit in name only and therefore worse than actually remaining.

We know that. My point is that Brexiters want to leave the EU. So this is the sensible way forward. N+ is the Nash Equilibrium solution.

There is a bickering between Remainers & Leavers on every English speaking fora I know.

Is this representative for real life ?

Meaning for instance, is this something common in a U.K. pub ?

 

Nothing like that on Belgian, Dutch, French fora, ( as far as I know German neither ),

 

Brexit is not on the agenda at all.

 

It may if, eventually, the Europeans will be personnally  concerned when Brexit becomes a reality.

1 minute ago, Grouse said:

We know that. My point is that Brexiters want to leave the EU. So this is the sensible way forward. N+ is the Nash Equilibrium solution.

There is no "sensible" way forward other than to scrap Article 50 and call the whole thing off.

 

Most MPs know and agree with this. They should get on with the job we payed them for and stop fretting about what their constituents will say. Just do what's best for the British people, no matter how much some people will dislike it.

 

Remain. It's the only game in town.

5 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

Nothing like that on Belgian, Dutch, French fora, ( as far as I know German neither ),

 

Brexit is not on the agenda at all.

Probably because they're not British. Take that whichever way you like.

Edited January 23, 20197 yr by Spidey

4 minutes ago, Spidey said:

There is no "sensible" way forward other than to scrap Article 50 and call the whole thing off.

 

Most MPs know and agree with this. They should get on with the job we payed them for and stop fretting about what their constituents will say. Just do what's best for the British people, no matter how much some people will dislike it.

 

Remain. It's the only game in town.

I agree of course

 

BRINO is just a mechanism to deliver that.

^

Yes because we are not concerned directly ( as per now ).

 

What about real life  in the U.K. ?

19 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Cherry pickin'

Aren't you just.

1 minute ago, luckyluke said:

What about real life  in the U.K. ?

I wouldn't know, I don't live there. same as almost all contributors to this topic. Ironic or what?

5 hours ago, tebee said:

Worth reading the whole of this thread, some wise words there by an actual expert.

 

 

Please provide a proper link

5 hours ago, sanemax said:

Yes, but the UK is on one side of the border and Eire/E.U on the other .

Eire/E.U can decide what they want to do with their side of the border

Can someone remind me what are the huge tangible benefits that the UK will receive in return for all this grief 

2 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Can someone remind me what are the huge tangible benefits that the UK will receive in return for all this grief 

A change is as good as a rest.

 

Instead of constantly moaning about all these foreign Johnnies invading our sceptred isle from the likes of Poland, we can have a good old whinge about the IRA blowing up our shopping centres.

 

Happy days are here again.

 

4 minutes ago, Spidey said:

A change is as good as a rest.

 

Instead of constantly moaning about all these foreign Johnnies invading our sceptred isle from the likes of Poland, we can have a good old whinge about the IRA blowing up our shopping centres.

 

Happy days are here again.

 

too bad with shopping centres,

disturbs stockpiling before 29 March

 

1 hour ago, rixalex said:

And as i've said before, since i don't hang on Mr Farage's every word, nor agree with everything he says, (and i am assuming you are the same?), i fail to see what your point is.

But then you (expect everyone to) hang on Mr Cameron’s every word that’s just as little decisive or relevant as Mr Farage’s? 

 

18 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Can someone remind me what are the huge tangible benefits that the UK will receive in return for all this grief 

Let's revisit the balance of likely gains and losses

 

1) Control our own money

 

We're not in the Euro

We have a permenant opt out

We have significant rebates

Net subs are 0.4% of GDP 

UK regions have benefitted hugely

 

2) Control our own borders

 

Why don't we?

EU immigration controls already available

EU immigration already drying up

RoW immigration is going up?

 

3) Make our own laws

 

Parliament is indeed sovereign

We were against 2% of EU law

We were in favour of 95% of EU law

What law should be revoked immediately?

 

4) Trade

 

Where are the great trade deals on the cusp of being signed?

Being in SM and CU has enabled massive foreign direct investment

I am happy that our farmers and ourselves are protected against sub standard imports

Why are we not applying our soft power toward a services trade deal with the EU?

 

In short, far too much grief in return for ill defined benefits.

 

Leaving the EU will not resolve U.K. gross inequality.

 

 

Edited January 23, 20197 yr by Grouse

“If you can’t get the deal through, can’t get an improved version of it agreed, can’t sustain a government on a cross-party basis, can’t implement a no-deal Brexit, can’t keep control of the House of Commons, and can’t risk a general election — you have then eliminated all options except one, and you find yourself saying reluctantly: ‘Oh go on then, let’s ask them again’.” (William Hague, former Tory leader)

33 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

But then you (expect everyone to) hang on Mr Cameron’s every word that’s just as little decisive or relevant as Mr Farage’s? 

 

What bizarre and twisted lengths you are prepared to go to, to try and argue the case for remain.

 

So now, what Mr Farage said prior to the vote is as equally relevant as what the Prime Minister and leader of the country said?!

 

Do you read back to yourself what you are writing?

1 hour ago, Grouse said:

We know that. My point is that Brexiters want to leave the EU. So this is the sensible way forward. N+ is the Nash Equilibrium solution.

Yes, it's the sensible way forward for a British man living in the EU whose main concern is maintaining those precious reciprocal rights that benefit himself, his family and a tiny percentage of British people. For everyone else, as 7by7 himself states, it's a waste of time.

49 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

But then you (expect everyone to) hang on Mr Cameron’s every word that’s just as little decisive or relevant as Mr Farage’s? 

 

On the subject, still waiting for you to explain what the "pink unicorn" that Cameron wrote about in his leaflet was, that you say was impossible to deliver.

17 minutes ago, rixalex said:

Yes, it's the sensible way forward for a British man living in the EU whose main concern is maintaining those precious reciprocal rights that benefit himself, his family and a tiny percentage of British people. For everyone else, as 7by7 himself states, it's a waste of time.

But it carries out what it said on the ballot paper. You want a specific flavour? OK, let's have a referendum to decide who prefers salt and vinegar and who prefers seaweed flavor Brexit!

 

BTW, I am still resident in Thailand.

 

I agree that it is a shame that so many of my brethren have neither the education nor the linguistic ability to take advantage of the opportunities open to them throughout the EU. Hell, most of them cannot apply for the 800,000 unfilled vacancies in the U.K.! 

26 minutes ago, Grouse said:

But it carries out what it said on the ballot paper. You want a specific flavour? OK, let's have a referendum to decide who prefers salt and vinegar and who prefers seaweed flavor Brexit!

This is a quote from 7by7:

 

My point being, as I said in an earlier post, that Norway plus, Switzerland plus, Canada plus even Turkey plus; in fact any deal which means accepting the four freedoms and remaining in the customs union (the 'plus') all mean that we have Brexit in name only.

 

And he's right. It's not a different flavour of Brexit that you are advocating, it is Brexit in name only.

 

 

8 minutes ago, rixalex said:

This is a quote from 7by7:

 

My point being, as I said in an earlier post, that Norway plus, Switzerland plus, Canada plus even Turkey plus; in fact any deal which means accepting the four freedoms and remaining in the customs union (the 'plus') all mean that we have Brexit in name only.

 

And he's right. It's not a different flavour of Brexit that you are advocating, it is Brexit in name only.

 

 

So what? What did it say on the ballot paper?

 

And while you are pondering that, what's wrong with CU? New trade deals? ????

Edited January 23, 20197 yr by Grouse

2 hours ago, Grouse said:

Can someone remind me what are the huge tangible benefits that the UK will receive in return for all this grief 

We had a couple of years in the run up to the referendum discussing this extensively. Remain explained why they thought the grief outweighed the "huge tangible benefits", leave explained why they thought the "huge tangible benefits" outweighed the grief. The public voted in favour of leave. Wasting time continuing to argue the toss on this, rather than accepting the result and moving forward with it, is why we are where we are.

The worst possible thing is prolonged uncertainty- to an extent the deal we have is secondary.  The Govt has created a total omnishambles.  In the absence of a competent government, revocation is probably the only option. 

 

Referenda! I don't like them, but if we were to have one there is only one salient question imo:  Given this shambles, would you prefer to shelve Brexit?

19 minutes ago, rixalex said:

This is a quote from 7by7:

 

My point being, as I said in an earlier post, that Norway plus, Switzerland plus, Canada plus even Turkey plus; in fact any deal which means accepting the four freedoms and remaining in the customs union (the 'plus') all mean that we have Brexit in name only.

 

And he's right. It's not a different flavour of Brexit that you are advocating, it is Brexit in name only.

 

 

It is patently obvious now that where Brexit is concerned there is no compromise position- we leave lock, stock, and barrel, or we don't.

 

The only complication in my mind is that I do not believe the referendum mandate covers the mess we have now.  It could well be clarification is needed via another vote, which is a real pain.

10 minutes ago, rixalex said:

We had a couple of years in the run up to the referendum discussing this extensively. Remain explained why they thought the grief outweighed the "huge tangible benefits", leave explained why they thought the "huge tangible benefits" outweighed the grief. The public voted in favour of leave. Wasting time continuing to argue the toss on this, rather than accepting the result and moving forward with it, is why we are where we are.

I realise that you are far better informed than me but I should tell you that I learnt a great deal over the past 3 years.

 

It is clear now that the disadvantages of leaving are massive and the benefits, if any, are diminishingly small.

 

I think it would be wise to check with the electorate that whatever parliament decides is acceptable.

 

You voted to leave the EU. I would give you that but minimize the damage by at least staying in the SM and CU. You want a specific type of Brexit? Vote for it.

Edited January 23, 20197 yr by Grouse

42 minutes ago, rixalex said:

On the subject, still waiting for you to explain what the "pink unicorn" that Cameron wrote about in his leaflet was, that you say was impossible to deliver.

If I remember correctly, I wrote that people were promised pink unicorns, and then Cameron sent leaflets telling everyone “pink unicorns don’t exist, but I will make sure you’ll get one should you vote for it”. It should be clear that the pink unicorn is referring to the false promises made in terms of a have-the-cake-and-eat-it easiest-deal-of-history type of Brexit. 

 

 

56 minutes ago, rixalex said:

So now, what Mr Farage said prior to the vote is as equally relevant as what the Prime Minister and leader of the country said?!

Yes, in terms of a second referendum and the decision-making authority over such or the Brexit process in general, both persons’ word is equally irrelevant. Brexiteers like to cherry-pick and feel entitled to speak for “the people”, whether that’s  regarding to what people were voting for and not or with regards to what public figure has what relevance.