Public support for new Brexit referendum revealed

[RayC]

9 hours ago, retarius said:

Great idea. Rejoin a club that will give you a really bad deal when you re-apply to join. Besides the EU is going down the toilet economically, why would you want to rejoin, you dopes? 

How about because 1) in layman's terms, the closer a nation is to its'  export markets together with 2) the removal of barriers to (market) entry i.e. through the EU Single Market and Customs Union, the greater the volume of trade and increase in economic output (numerous links e.g. UK OBR report provided in the past).

 

Maybe the dopes are those who choose to ignore traditional economic theory and data?

[RayC]

16 minutes ago, nauseus said:

That status has taken decades to develop and was not offered to the UK anyway.

Nothing was off the table during the Brexit negotiations. May coined the phrase, 'Brexit means Brexit' and ruled out remaining in the Single Market and Customs Union. 

 

Deals such as 'Swiss', 'Canadian', 'Norway', 'Norway +', etc were all touted - and rejected by the UK - at one stage or another. One cause of the friction during the negotiations was that the UK government had no idea what it wanted and how much it was willing to pay for it.

[GypsyT]

I wish UK would rejoin to EU but now, with a new PM, it may be impossible...

 

So, I have started to take lessons so I can continue to use Heathrow.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L93SFqV18Gg&t=4s

 

[nauseus]

43 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

 

43 minutes ago, RayC said:

Nothing was off the table during the Brexit negotiations. May coined the phrase, 'Brexit means Brexit' and ruled out remaining in the Single Market and Customs Union. 

 

Deals such as 'Swiss', 'Canadian', 'Norway', 'Norway +', etc were all touted - and rejected by the UK - at one stage or another. One cause of the friction during the negotiations was that the UK government had no idea what it wanted and how much it was willing to pay for it.

 

 

We'll probably never know what truly might have been "on the the table". May was trying to act tough, failed, then soon changed her tune, eventually going to Merkel in the wee hours to return with with the lousy "Chequers Agreement" (as dictated by the EU and that few in the UK cabinet agreed with). The other, more relevant cause of friction was, of course, the belligerent EU, itself. 

Edited August 28, 2023 by nauseus

[Sing_Sling]

12 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

Incorrect once again.

 

Umm, yea . . . wasn't a statement, it was a question.  The inly reasonBrexit isn't done and dusted is because the UK is so blindingly and excruciatingly ineffectual.

 

12 hours ago, retarius said:

Rejoin a club that will give you a really bad deal when you re-apply to join. Besides the EU is going down the toilet economically, why would you want to rejoin, you dopes? 

'dopes' ???? The mensa member shows his Trump-esque brilliance

[Sing_Sling]

1 hour ago, RayC said:

How about because 1)

and 2 and 3 and 4 and etc ad infinitum - the fools had no clue in general, let alone economic principles. 

 

1 hour ago, RayC said:

Maybe the dopes are those who choose to ignore traditional economic theory and data?

No 'maybe' about it.

 

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

The other, more relevant cause of friction was, of course, the belligerent EU, itself. 

Ah yes, the EU that was simply adhering to the agreement that the UK signed willingly and tried to worm out of at every step.  

They deserve everything they get, though one does have to feel sorry for the 48% that weren't thick enough to fall for the likes of Johnson and Farage and voted to remain.

[transam]

1 minute ago, Sing_Sling said:

and 2 and 3 and 4 and etc ad infinitum - the fools had no clue in general, let alone economic principles. 

 

No 'maybe' about it.

 

Ah yes, the EU that was simply adhering to the agreement that the UK signed willingly and tried to worm out of at every step.  

They deserve everything they get, though one does have to feel sorry for the 48% that weren't thick enough to fall for the likes of Johnson and Farage and voted to remain.

It was a people's vote, the people voted to leave, so get over it.....????

[youreavinalaff]

15 minutes ago, Sing_Sling said:

Umm, yea . . . wasn't a statement, it was a question.????

A question which was totally unrelated to my post that you quoted. 

[candide]

2 hours ago, nauseus said:

Cherry-picking individual years again. Tsk tsk.

Which cherry picking? 

It's the current level of GDP (Q2) compared to the level of GDP at the end of 2019 (Q4 2019).

The current value of UK GDP is below pre-pandemic level. That's fact.

Considering the current trend, it is possible that the pre-pandemic level may be reached in Q3 or Q4.

Edited August 28, 2023 by candide

[candide]

2 hours ago, nauseus said:

That status has taken decades to develop and was not offered to the UK anyway.

That's why I wrote "similar" (EFTA type deal). It was not offered because it has been excluded from the start by the "red lines" set by Theresa May.

[Sing_Sling]

36 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

A question which was totally unrelated to my post that you quoted. 

You're quite confused, aren't you.  

So.  You were going to show all this proof that the UK is doing brilliantly?

[transam]

2 minutes ago, Sing_Sling said:

You're quite confused, aren't you.  

So.  You were going to show all this proof that the UK is doing brilliantly?

Oh dear, still smarting, I see...........

[nauseus]

58 minutes ago, Sing_Sling said:

and 2 and 3 and 4 and etc ad infinitum - the fools had no clue in general, let alone economic principles. 

 

No 'maybe' about it.

 

Ah yes, the EU that was simply adhering to the agreement that the UK signed willingly and tried to worm out of at every step.  

They deserve everything they get, though one does have to feel sorry for the 48% that weren't thick enough to fall for the likes of Johnson and Farage and voted to remain.

I didn't fall for Johnson or Farage. Promise.

[nauseus]

40 minutes ago, candide said:

That's why I wrote "similar" (EFTA type deal). It was not offered because it has been excluded from the start by the "red lines" set by Theresa May.

The EU had plenty of time to offer this "similar" type of deal before Article 50 was triggered.

[retarius]

23 hours ago, Sing_Sling said:

Of course, because the EU is the party suffering. ????????

 

Yeah the EU is doing really great....Germany especially. Weak leadership by spineless idiots and zero growth

[retarius]

23 hours ago, Sing_Sling said:

Of course, because the EU is the party suffering. ????????

 

Yeah the EU is doing really great....Germany especially. Weak leadership by spineless and/or unelected fools and who now have zero growth. And growth was never much too crow about and pretty much always lower than the US.  

[transam]

23 hours ago, Sing_Sling said:

Of course, because the EU is the party suffering. ????????

 

Not the EU Oliver Twist countries, what one are you from......?  

[Chomper Higgot]

18 minutes ago, nauseus said:

The EU had plenty of time to offer this "similar" type of deal before Article 50 was triggered.

The Tories weren’t interested in a deal.

[RayC]

2 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

 

 

We'll probably never know what truly might have been "on the the table". May was trying to act tough, failed, then soon changed her tune, eventually going to Merkel in the wee hours to return with with the lousy "Chequers Agreement" (as dictated by the EU and that few in the UK cabinet agreed with). The other, more relevant cause of friction was, of course, the belligerent EU, itself. 

I think that we can be pretty sure that if the UK had asked for a deal based on, say, the Swiss model and the EU had refused to play ball then we would have been inundated with stories in the Telegraph, Mail and Express berating the EU for its' intransigence, and quoting 'sources close to the UK negotiators'. The fact that no such stories appeared speaks volumes.

 

The fact that the 'Chequers Deal' and the one that was eventually signed were largely dictated by the EU should be no surprise. It was merely a demonstration of the balance of power and that, contrary to what the 'Leave campaign' stated, "They need us more than we need them", the actuality is the exact opposite.

 

In so far as (successive) UK governments had any sort of plan during the Brexit negotiations, it amounted to we want all the benefits of EU membership without any of the costs or responsibilities. You appear to hold the belief which appears common amongst Brexiters that the refusal of the EU to accept this proposal can be seen as proof of their belligerence. 

[transam]

10 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The Tories weren’t interested in a deal.

Really, is that straight out of Labour Party headquarters, or is it another one of your guesses........????

[RayC]

1 hour ago, transam said:

It was a people's vote, the people voted to leave, so get over it.....????

I'll get over it when the UK government starts to deliver on the promises made about the benefits of Brexit and when Brexiters start taking responsibility and accountability for the mess they voted for.

 

Until that happens, I'll keep complaining 

[candide]

34 minutes ago, nauseus said:

The EU had plenty of time to offer this "similar" type of deal before Article 50 was triggered.

Actually it's Norway which rejected this unofficial plan.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/07/norwegian-politicians-reject-uks-norway-plus-brexit-plan

[transam]

1 minute ago, RayC said:

I'll get over it when the UK government starts to deliver on the promises made about the benefits of Brexit and when Brexiters start taking responsibility and accountability for the mess they voted for.

 

Until that happens, I'll keep complaining 

I know you will, though most move on, life is too short, it could affect your health too..............????...................????

[RayC]

40 minutes ago, nauseus said:

I didn't fall for Johnson or Farage. Promise.

Really? Didn't you have a picture of Johnson as your avatar for a while? Weren't you just a little bit smitten?????

[RayC]

1 minute ago, transam said:

I know you will, though most move on, life is too short, it could affect your health too..............????...................????

Fortunately, physical health is good. Could have done without the unnecessary stress when living in Belgium which was a direct result of the referendum outcome but all resolved now.

 

No choice but to move on but feel sorry for those younger than me for their loss of opportunity.

[youreavinalaff]

1 hour ago, Sing_Sling said:

You're quite confused, aren't you.  

So.  You were going to show all this proof that the UK is doing brilliantly?

No. You asked me to when I'd never even suggested as such. I suggested Brexit wasn't done, backed up by the polls in the report.

 

If I have suggested what you accuse me of suggesting, please quote me. Thanks.

[nauseus]

8 minutes ago, RayC said:

I think that we can be pretty sure that if the UK had asked for a deal based on, say, the Swiss model and the EU had refused to play ball then we would have been inundated with stories in the Telegraph, Mail and Express berating the EU for its' intransigence, and quoting 'sources close to the UK negotiators'. The fact that no such stories appeared speaks volumes.

 

The fact that the 'Chequers Deal' and the one that was eventually signed were largely dictated by the EU should be no surprise. It was merely a demonstration of the balance of power and that, contrary to what the 'Leave campaign' stated, "They need us more than we need them", the actuality is the exact opposite.

 

In so far as (successive) UK governments had any sort of plan during the Brexit negotiations, it amounted to we want all the benefits of EU membership without any of the costs or responsibilities. You appear to hold the belief which appears common amongst Brexiters that the refusal of the EU to accept this proposal can be seen as proof of their belligerence. 

"Appear to hold the belief which appears common amongst Brexiters"! Well, from that, it appears to me that you appear to have no idea what I believe. 

 

However, I will agree that neither party had a plan, mainly because those in power believed that a no vote was forthcoming. Initially, elements of the UK Gov foolishly expected to get far more from the EU than was going to be given from the more belligerent elements within the EU.

 

Then again, there are no exit plans or arrangements set out in the Treaty of Lisbon, anyway.

[nauseus]

17 minutes ago, RayC said:

Really? Didn't you have a picture of Johnson as your avatar for a while? Weren't you just a little bit smitten?????

You should be on Mastermind.

[soalbundy]

On 8/15/2023 at 2:59 PM, JonnyF said:

I suggest we revisit the polls on how people would vote before the actual vote in 2016 before we take this too seriously. 
 

They all predicted Remain. Hence the shock and horror on the face of the “totally unbiased” BBC pundits when the result came through.

 

Even if we voted to rejoin I doubt the EU would be interested. They have enough problems such as their powerhouse economy Germany being in recession and the corruption scandal.

 

Last thing they need is Farage and co. ruining their cozy setup.

 

Nah, we’re out of the corrupt federalist project. Thank goodness.

 

 

Yeah right, British corruption and political inability is far more acceptable, there is a certain style about it.

[Woof999]

On 8/26/2023 at 11:04 AM, RayC said:

How has/ is the EU being unreasonable?

If the EU was reasonable then the majority of the UK voters wouldn't have voted to leave in the first place. I had already left the UK before 2016 but would have voted remain. The EU is far from perfect, but it's benefits outweigh the negatives.

 

The one thing I don't get about the EU is the willingness for it's members to allow their national identities to be slowly yet surely eroded. If the EU's remit remained closer to that of the former EEC and less that of a singular republic that seeks to control all aspects of all member states then it would have had far more UK support.