UK's worst-case no-deal Brexit plan warns of food shortages, public disorder

[Joinaman]

3 hours ago, wilcopops said:

Brexit has cost the British economy £66 billion since the referendum,  -   Credit ratings agency Standard and Poor suggested that since the June 2016 vote, 3% has been shaved off GDP.

 

Read more: https://metro.co.uk/2019/04/04/britain-already-66000000000-poorer-brexit-9113538/?ito=cbshare 

Twitter: https://twitter.com/MetroUK | Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MetroUK/

could you be kind enough to give us figure that , that if we had left when we were supposed to , instead of dragging it out like it has ?

so who must we blame for most of this loss, the remainers who keep blocking the Leave ?

[Joinaman]

10 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Exactly. And here is a classic example of politicians claiming they are democratic but want to thwart democracy. Vile people who should not be allowed to be an MP..

 

"Jo Swinson will tell Liberal Democrats at their conference in Bournemouth today to go back to their constituencies and prepare to stop Brexit."

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/together-we-ll-stop-brexit-swinson-rallies-the-lib-dem-faithful-w6g8hfx3s

And how many of these MPs came out on TV and the newspapers saying they would abide by the results, Leave meant Leave, and no are crawling in their little holes while stabbing the people of the UK in the back

IF this leave fails, then lets back Corbyn in the next election, , lets show our contempt for the country just like our MPs are doing to the people who voted

The trouble with voting Labour, and the murder loving Corbyn, is i would not wish this on my worst enemy

[bangrak]

Just something from a personal experience. I have been at a time 'involved' (as a personal service to a friend of mine, consisting in translating official documents) in a 'damage control' operation by a government minister. I was able to see how the damning figures had been 'adapted', reduced, considerably...

What brings the next question: have the figures made public about 'Yellowhammer' been thoroughly controled, or will they very soon be, by some totally reliable specialists?

...As, IMHO, the possibilily exists the figures the government was made to publish might have been 'adapted', reduced to values well under a more dramatic reality!

Would anyone outside of extremist no-deal leavers be sure, without the shadow of a doubt, that shady personalities like DC and consorts would not be able to perform such a maneuver?  

[Slip]

43 minutes ago, vogie said:

If your arguements were a horse they would shoot it, it has been flogged to death.

Yes- flogged to death (which would of course negate the need for shooting), but still a matter of fact.  Your opinion about the fact that the referendum was not legally binding does not negate the fact that it was not legally binding.  As you have been told, you can't vote the globe flat regardless of how badly you might want to.

[CaptainNemo]

On 9/12/2019 at 6:16 AM, Samui Bodoh said:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/26/german-recession-fears-business-confidence-europe-economyBut but but...

 

The Brexiteers say that everything will be rainbows and unicorns!

 

What a Cluster-<deleted>!

 

I have said it before and will say it again...

 

Never before have I seen a country so utterly determined to shoot itself in the crotch.

 

 

Meanwhile, back in the real world, the UK economy continues to grow more than (the anti-Brexit media) expected...

UK recession fears ease after economy grows more than expected

https://www.ft.com/content/9f53ac38-d2dd-11e9-a0bd-ab8ec6435630

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/bulletins/gdpfirstquarterlyestimateuk/apriltojune2019

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49632627

 

...and the EU (particularly Germany and Italy) begin to sink into recession

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/26/german-recession-fears-business-confidence-europe-economy

https://www.ubs.com/global/en/wealth-management/chief-investment-office/market-insights/regional-outlook/2019/future-of-europe.html

 

Confirming that those who are desperate for the UK to remain inside the economically collapsing EU bloc are shooting themselves and their countrymen in the foot.

 

I wish people would be honest about why they oppose Brexit. It's not convincing that you oppose it for economic reasons. I can believe you oppose it because you fear the hassle of being able to retire in Tuscany, Mallorca, or Provence; I can believe it because you fear the temporary exchange rate hit on the Baht-Pound ratio affecting your visa status in Thailand. I can believe it even because maybe a relative's job is officially funded by an EU organisation (although with money from the UK... I know of someone in this category, but their job in Nuclear Energy is not at risk, the logos will change as the true source of the funding, as the UK not the EU, is revealed); but I really doubt that they have much interest in the economic effects of EU membership on the British economy or on the cost of living and availability of jobs to working class people in parts of the UK they probably wouldn't be seen dead in. I've met so many pro-EU socialists, all of them on £50k plus, and very middle class. I've never encountered working class remain voters. I think the middle class quite understandably enjoy having very good value Eastern European labour in hotels, restaurants, delivery drivers, and plumbers, it makes perfect sense; and I quite understand they have no interest in young British oiks having unskilled jobs. British people are very cliquey, selfish, and like to get one up on everyone else, and the exploitative nature of the EU, laudably providing better jobs in the richer western countries for people in the poorer eastern countries, at the expense of the people at the bottom of the richer western countries, is very capitalist and efficient, who needs pesky countries anyway! we need to keep costs low and quality high! The ones who are left out will have to raise their game.

It's fascinating to watch the strongest advocates for such capitalism coming from this very cossetted middle-class liberal-left elite, people who tend to get lots of support from home to go to uni, and never have to face the bleak options of the now sub-working-class. It kind of makes sense for the Labour party to be schizophrenic about where it stands on Brexit... it knows it's supposed to be for the workers, but it's full of people who never came from there. Now it's vote is being split by the LibDems who don't have to worry about being a middleclass party, it suits them, Labour are very lost.

 

[CaptainNemo]

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

Remain is clear, unless you want to attach conditions to that, but leave should be specified.

My question to you is, if we have another referendum, can we have another one after that, if Remain wins?

Or can we only have another one after that, if Remain loses?

 

When we joined the Common Market (we never got a vote to join the EEC, the EC, or the EU), there was a referendum after we joined, to confirm our joining.

If we have a second referendum to confirm our confirming that we want to leave, then it's unbalanced.

How do you reconcile that?

 

Would you support the idea of General Election re-runs... because I'm still not happy about New Labour winning in 1997, and I'd like to re-run that one, to make sure that they lose this time.

[stevenl]

1 minute ago, CaptainNemo said:

My question to you is, if we have another referendum, can we have another one after that, if Remain wins?

Or can we only have another one after that, if Remain loses?

 

When we joined the Common Market (we never got a vote to join the EEC, the EC, or the EU), there was a referendum after we joined, to confirm our joining.

If we have a second referendum to confirm our confirming that we want to leave, then it's unbalanced.

How do you reconcile that?

 

Would you support the idea of General Election re-runs... because I'm still not happy about New Labour winning in 1997, and I'd like to re-run that one, to make sure that they lose this time.

Since it should be a binding referendum next time it will decide all.

General elections are binding, no need to do them again.

 

Your post is looking much more like a rant than a well balanced opinion.

[CaptainNemo]

3 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Since it should be a binding referendum next time it will decide all.

General elections are binding, no need to do them again.

 

Your post is looking much more like a rant than a well balanced opinion.

Would it be a rant if I agreed with you? Or is it necessary to smear all comments that fail to be exuberant about Remaining in the EU with ad-hominem, play the man and not the ball responses?

 

Which specific parts of it were ranty? I want to know, because I don't want to be ranty. Please clarify.

 

I mean, are you able to describe anything specific about what you care about in terms of the imagined effects of Brexit on the British economy, or is just personal frustration with losing a benefit that affects yo u personally? That is my obvious point, isn't it? That people who hate Brexit are don't appear to be interested in factual data about the poor performance of the EU economy and it's slide into recession and high debt, the lack of accountability and things like that, or the growth in the UK economy; it's very observable that Brexaphobic commentry is all about making personal attacks against critics of the EU.

I positively encourage you to refute (and when I say refute, I mean present factual data) the points.

I'm sure you are intelligent and well-informed enough to present facts without indulging in smears.

 

Why should it be a binding referendum? Shouldn't parliament be sovereign?

Do you think the 2016 referendum should have been binding?

Do you think a simple majority is enough? Or do you want a higher threshold?

Are you a gambler? Do you think the odds are that you'll win, or do you want to hedge against losing?

 

Is your comment a well-balanced opinion?

[CaptainNemo]

24 minutes ago, stevenl said:

If we have a second referendum to confirm our confirming that we want to leave, then it's unbalanced.

How do you reconcile that?

24 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Your post is looking much more like a rant than a well balanced opinion.

I think you've dodged a very reasonable question that isn't remotely ranty.

 

If you have one vote to join, why should you have two votes to leave?

 

Do you think referenda/direct democracy should trump the elected representatives system?

 

I mean, the question is really, is it more important for you that you get the result you want, or that the process by which any result is obtained, is fair and reasonable?

 

From the non-ranty and slightly academic perspective of many Leave voters, the 2016 referendum was heavily biased against them. The LSE published data online at the time showing that the result was heading for 60-40 in favour of leave prior to the post-Jo Cox murder media coverage. To many the result was lower than it should be.

Source: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/eu-referendum-polls/

(The LSE is a world-class, left-leaning, pro-remain academic institution)

[Slip]

21 minutes ago, CaptainNemo said:

Would it be a rant if I agreed with you? Or is it necessary to smear all comments that fail to be exuberant about Remaining in the EU with ad-hominem, play the man and not the ball responses?

 

Which specific parts of it were ranty? I want to know, because I don't want to be ranty. Please clarify.

 

I mean, are you able to describe anything specific about what you care about in terms of the imagined effects of Brexit on the British economy, or is just personal frustration with losing a benefit that affects yo u personally? That is my obvious point, isn't it? That people who hate Brexit are don't appear to be interested in factual data about the poor performance of the EU economy and it's slide into recession and high debt, the lack of accountability and things like that, or the growth in the UK economy; it's very observable that Brexaphobic commentry is all about making personal attacks against critics of the EU.

I positively encourage you to refute (and when I say refute, I mean present factual data) the points.

I'm sure you are intelligent and well-informed enough to present facts without indulging in smears.

 

Why should it be a binding referendum? Shouldn't parliament be sovereign?

Do you think the 2016 referendum should have been binding?

Do you think a simple majority is enough? Or do you want a higher threshold?

Are you a gambler? Do you think the odds are that you'll win, or do you want to hedge against losing?

 

Is your comment a well-balanced opinion?

Just a quick comment as I have to go.  To me your post looked like a rant because it was a massive wall of text that didn't seem to be logically organised into ideas which were then broken down with details and examples.  This may or may not have been what the poster you are replying to meant, I don't know.  I didn't really have time to read what you were saying then, and I don't now, but I notice that you have posted since then and those posts have not been the same, so they don't to my mind look ranty.  I did have a quick scan and saw some of your points about the middle classes treating europe as a potential retirement home which is not available to the working class which seemed interesting.  I will read them all tomorrow when I have time.  All the best.

[Loiner]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

 

Once more; in the UK Parliament has to pass legislation for a referendum to be held. In that legislation Parliament could, if it wished, make the result legally binding, but unless they do the default position is that the result is advisory.

 

Parliament did not make the 2016 referendum legally binding, therefore it was advisory.

 

Got it now?

We are long past the referendum details. Why do you keep harping on about advisory blah blah non-binding blah? 

 

These are not advisory, they are binding, they are the law:

The first one was done, even by Treason May. She didn't complete the second one, so Boris has to do the job for her, despite Remainer lies and trickery.

 

[CharlieH]

A number of abusive/troll comments have been removed as have those who quoted/responded to those posts.

 

Let me make it very clear, that "name-calling" and derogatory terminology will not be tolerated in these topics and repeated use of such may see suspensions issued. Nothing wrong with debate or strong opinions but please keep it civil.

 

7) You will respect fellow members and post in a civil manner. No personal attacks, hateful or insulting towards other members, (flaming) Stalking of members on either the forum or via PM will not be allowed.
 

 

 

[sanemax]

14 hours ago, wilcopops said:

QED - As said I think Brexiteers confuse democracy with mob rule. Unlike you, I don't need to google or dictionary everything as I already know not just a dictionary definition but its usage in modern English and the history of the expression.

You really do need to find out what the words 'mob rule ' means .

In no way can a referendum be classified as mob rule .

[wilcopops]

Couple of thoughts on mob rule and Brexitism.

A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, when fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine. - Thomas Jefferson

 

The intelligence of that creature known as a crowd is the square root of the number of people in it. - Terry Pratchett.

 

[wilcopops]

6 hours ago, Loiner said:

We are long past the referendum details. Why do you keep harping on about advisory blah blah non-binding blah? 

 

These are not advisory, they are binding, they are the law:

The first one was done, even by Treason May. She didn't complete the second one, so Boris has to do the job for her, despite Remainer lies and trickery.

 

Do you understand that the referendum was ADVISORY?

It looks as if you don't understand what you are posting.

[stevenl]

7 hours ago, CaptainNemo said:

I think you've dodged a very reasonable question that isn't remotely ranty.

 

If you have one vote to join, why should you have two votes to leave?

 

Do you think referenda/direct democracy should trump the elected representatives system?

 

I mean, the question is really, is it more important for you that you get the result you want, or that the process by which any result is obtained, is fair and reasonable?

 

From the non-ranty and slightly academic perspective of many Leave voters, the 2016 referendum was heavily biased against them. The LSE published data online at the time showing that the result was heading for 60-40 in favour of leave prior to the post-Jo Cox murder media coverage. To many the result was lower than it should be.

Source: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/eu-referendum-polls/

(The LSE is a world-class, left-leaning, pro-remain academic institution)

Regarding the rant, see Slip's answer.

 

I have not dodged any question, a new referendum should be legally binding, therewith ending any questions about a new referendum.

[kingdong]

13 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 I wasn't afraid of the 2016 referendum.

 

I at first accepted the result; go back to my posts at the time on the subject if you don't believe me.

 

I have explained many times why I have changed that view and now want a final, legally binding referendum.

 

Now, instead of yet again evading the question, will you answer it?

Because parliament triggered article 50,pity they didn,listen to your views

[nauseus]

16 hours ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

I agree. It would be a pity if this entertaining <deleted>show came to an end. Please keep it going; I like my daily dose of Brexiteer slapstick. Maybe @evadgib could post some armchair analysis again why the UK has left already? 

Says the funny guy with the big red nose.

[nauseus]

16 hours ago, Mike Teavee said:

Again... Will you accept leaving with the "Deal" PM May agreed?

 

If so, then I accept, no need for a referendum... any claims of BRINO means you're disagreeing with yourself... 

 

The deal is a treaty. It is absolutely binding in international law and could have us tied to elements of the EU/ECJ rules and regulations for decades or more. It sees the UK pay the up 39B, or whatever, with no sure guarantee of a decent free trade deal in the long-term. 

 

No. I do not accept that this is an honest way to honour the leave vote. I do not see this as me disagreeing with myself but I'm sure the rabid remainers will. But who cares? 

[welovesundaysatspace]

 

Quote

 

These are not advisory, they are binding, they are the law:

The first one was done, even by Treason May. She didn't complete the second one, so Boris has to do the job for her, despite Remainer lies and trickery.

 

You forgot to mention the latest one. Let me add that one for you. Not advisory; legally binding ???? 

[nauseus]

16 hours ago, Mike Teavee said:

I'm still confused... 

 

Was there or was there not a referendum on joining a European Community??? 

 

 

How that community has changed since then may be due a vote of should we stay but was there or was there not a vote of whether we should join in the 1st place... 

 

 

 

There was not a referendum on joining the European Economic Community before we actually joined - the then so-called "Common Market" - but there was a confirmation referendum on staying in the EEC in 1975. That "community" mutated into the EU (via the Masstricht Treaty of 1992) which enabled a far more political "union" than was ever explained to the British people in the 1970's. John Major pushed the UK in without a referendum allowed before Masstricht. Sentiment to leave has been building up ever since we were pushed into the EEC by Heath in 1973. 

[nauseus]

16 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 I've never said I want to rerun the 2016 referendum; I want a new, final, legally binding referendum along the lines described.

 

Why are you so afraid of taking the decision away from MPs you have, yourself, described as duplicitous, and giving we, the people, the final, legally binding decision on our future?

And I did say that you want a different one entirely. Read me.

[welovesundaysatspace]

6 minutes ago, nauseus said:

There was not a referendum on joining the European Economic Community before we actually joined - the then so-called "Common Market" - but there was a confirmation referendum on staying in the EEC in 1975. That "community" mutated into the EU (via the Masstricht Treaty of 1992) which enabled a far more political "union" than was ever explained to the British people in the 1970's. John Major pushed the UK in without a referendum allowed before Masstricht. Sentiment to leave has been building up ever since we were foisted into the EEC by Heath in 1973. 

So the UK constitution says it’s not the government or parliament deciding, but the electorate which has to be make the final call for every decision? If that’s the case, why didn’t you go to the courts when your rights were ignored? 

[nauseus]

14 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

The EEC became the EU in 1993 as a result of the Maastricht treaty; but it was always a goal of the community going back to the pre EEC ECSC in the 1950s.

 

Even Churchill in his 1948 Zurich speech envisaged what he called a United States of Europe; though no one wants to go that far! Even if they did, it would take the unanimous agreement of all member states.

 

As the Telegraph article makes clear, we knew all that when we joined in 1973, we knew all that when we voted to remain in 1975.

 

There are 3 million plus EEA, not just EU, nationals living in the UK for the same reason there are 1.8 million British nationals living in other EU/EEA states. In order to exercise a treaty right; that tells me that FoM is popular amongst Brits as well as others. What does it tell you?

 

Despite the slurs poured upon us by many Brexiteers, Remainers are patriotic; we want what's best for our country. The only difference between you and I as far as EU membership is concerned is that we disagree on what that is.

 

I hope that you are not serious in suggesting that British citizens who disagree with you should leave the country (be forced to leave, perhaps?). Such sentiments reminds me of Stalin and his gulags!

Patriotic? Not a chance. If you go the EU way there will be no country left.

[nauseus]

14 hours ago, wilcopops said:

It is the gullibility exhibited by Brexiteers that has enables the far right to gain so much power and influence in the UK - they have no idea what a slippery slope they are embarking on. The rest of the world can see though....

Far right? So much power? What are you on about? 

[Mike Teavee]

15 minutes ago, nauseus said:

The deal is a treaty. It is absolutely binding in international law and could have us tied to elements of the EU/ECJ rules and regulations for decades or more. It sees the UK pay the up 39B, or whatever, with no sure guarantee of a decent free trade deal in the long-term. 

 

No. I do not accept that this is an honest way to honour the leave vote. I do not see this as me disagreeing with myself but I'm sure the rabid remainers will. But who cares? 

It would have resulted in the UK leaving the EU & so fulfilled the "Will of the People", but Leavers are not happy about it because it's not what they meant when they voted Leave.

 

Yet when Remainers say that nobody voted for a No-Deal brexit, Brexiters are up in arms saying that the vote was simply Leave or Remain.

 

You can't see the double standards here?

 

 

 

 

 

[nauseus]

5 hours ago, stevenl said:

Regarding the rant, see Slip's answer.

 

I have not dodged any question, a new referendum should be legally binding, therewith ending any questions about a new referendum.

Assuming you win, right?

[transam]

15 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

The EEC became the EU in 1993 as a result of the Maastricht treaty; but it was always a goal of the community going back to the pre EEC ECSC in the 1950s.

 

Even Churchill in his 1948 Zurich speech envisaged what he called a United States of Europe; though no one wants to go that far! Even if they did, it would take the unanimous agreement of all member states.

 

As the Telegraph article makes clear, we knew all that when we joined in 1973, we knew all that when we voted to remain in 1975.

 

There are 3 million plus EEA, not just EU, nationals living in the UK for the same reason there are 1.8 million British nationals living in other EU/EEA states. In order to exercise a treaty right; that tells me that FoM is popular amongst Brits as well as others. What does it tell you?

 

Despite the slurs poured upon us by many Brexiteers, Remainers are patriotic; we want what's best for our country. The only difference between you and I as far as EU membership is concerned is that we disagree on what that is.

 

I hope that you are not serious in suggesting that British citizens who disagree with you should leave the country (be forced to leave, perhaps?). Such sentiments reminds me of Stalin and his gulags!

"Remainers are patriotic"......Are you sure you're on the right thread...?

 

Your last para just shows how you think...Amazing.....

[nauseus]

24 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

So the UK constitution says it’s not the government or parliament deciding, but the electorate which has to be make the final call for every decision? If that’s the case, why didn’t you go to the courts when your rights were ignored? 

This was a reply and explanation to Mike. I am not referring to what the constitution says. Such a nosey parker. 

 

 

[nauseus]

27 minutes ago, Mike Teavee said:

It would have resulted in the UK leaving the EU & so fulfilled the "Will of the People", but Leavers are not happy about it because it's not what they meant when they voted Leave.

 

Yet when Remainers say that nobody voted for a No-Deal brexit, Brexiters are up in arms saying that the vote was simply Leave or Remain.

 

You can't see the double standards here?

 

 

 

 

 

I see. But May's deal is a BRINO from hell. Not simply or really leaving at all. 

 

And remainers can't say that nobody voted for a no-deal Brexit either. How would they know?