Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

[rcoobc]

What a ridiculous question.

So the question goes back, would you pay £1500 per person in your family for Brexit?

 

[Barca84]

So the question goes back, would you pay £1500 per person in your family for Brexit?

It's a ridiculous and hypothetical question. And you're asking someone who voted to remain. Think on.

 

[Adisa]

Brexit is going to cost around £100bn. Probably more, but we'll start with that figure.

That's £1500 for every man, woman and child in the UK. Note the children aspect.

How many would have voted Leave if they had to personally pay that. A £6k bill for a family of four.

My guess is, a lot of people would still have voted for Brexit. You cannot underestimate the power of nationalism.

 

[rcoobc]

What a ridiculous question. And where do you get the confident prediction of £100bn + from? Everything I've seen quotes a range of scenarios but nothing close to that figure.

Just to say, I'm genuinely a bit shocked by this.

A transition phase of three years, such as that proposed by the chancellor, Philip Hammond, would take Britain comfortably through to the end of the current EU budget cycle in 2019-20. The bulk of the up to €100bn (£90m) currently demanded as a financial settlement relates to unfunded commitments known as reste à liquider (RAL). If meeting these obligations can be disguised as part of the transition arrangements rather than an exit bill, then compromise may be possible.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...busier-negotiating-with-itself-than-eu-brexit

But member states appear to have ignored the Commission's own advice by demanding €100bn (£85bn) from the Government, a sharp hike in the original demand of €60bn.

The inflated bill deepened the rift between Brussels and Downing Street. A leaked report of a Downing Street dinner with European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker accused Theresa May of living in “another galaxy”, prompting the Prime Minister in turn to accuse EU politicians and officials of seeking to disrupt the General Election.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ally-impossible-enforce-european-commissions/

In a new report by the UK in a Changing Europe initiative, Professor Iain Begg said that reports suggest that the demand from the EU could exceed €100 billion (£88 billion).

The LSE research fellow said that this sum is close to the gross amount, after deducting the UK rebate, that Britain was expected to pay into the EU budget over the span of the 2014-20 financial framework.

Professor Begg said: “Unsurprisingly, messages from the UK side dismiss these claims which, it has to be emphasised, no-one on EU Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier’s team has formally made.”

http://www.express.co.uk/news/polit...-how-much-cost-UK-exit-payment-European-Union

Whatever you read, you should know the bill we are in for.

 

[devilish]

I think both Barca and Paul has a point TBH. As said before, as we drove outside London I was astounded by the difference in terms of Standard of living between London and the areas outside of it which made you think you’re in a totally different country. It’s no surprise why people were so angry with the ‘estabilishment’ and that some voted exactly against what the establishment and its army of experts suggested

However, I can’t help thinking that people had shot at their own foot here. The EU with all its weaknesses does take care of its own people. EU Funds had been allocated for the most vulnerable areas which had helped people a great deal. I also don’t think that it’s a very bright idea to allow the British government to allocate the same amount of funds (or more) to the affected areas either. We’re talking here about the same people who ruined the NHS, who had created this sorry state in the first place and who never gave a damn about the poor in the first place. People who would be under intense pressure to sign trade deals to compensate to the massive trade deal lost with the single market. The only way to achieve that is by spending £££ in a ‘divorce’ deal, giving concessions to its own labour market and by conceding in areas that the Brits aren’t actually happy conceding in (the end of the NHS, lowering food standards etc).

I believe that Brexit is a complex issue which brings together a wide variety of people. From the ignorant right to those who felt that it’s time to shake up the establishment, from the xenophobic to the elderly people who were caught into nostalgia trip. From those who genuinely believed the Brexiters ‘cherry picking’ lies right to those who truly believed in a global Britain (some of whom assumed that global Britain was another word to cherry picking but on a global scale). By the looks of it, its slowly turning into a big mess as the EU is far less weak/divided as Brexiters thought and is getting increasingly organized to the concept of kicking the UK out of Europe (financially speaking of course). I wonder whether these poor people would be happy seeing the UK becoming a poorer version of the US

 

[Rajma]

It's a ridiculous and hypothetical question. And you're asking someone who voted to remain. Think on.

Good on you. At least you are not hypocrite as opposed to other expats residing in Barcelona who voted Brexit.

White

 

[Stanley Road]

Brexit is going to cost around £100bn. Probably more, but we'll start with that figure.

That's £1500 for every man, woman and child in the UK. Note the children aspect.

How many would have voted Leave if they had to personally pay that. A £6k bill for a family of four.

I have already paid that in taxes so they can use that

 

[Ekkie Thump]

No. The point I made is that some people, rightly or wrongly, believe it can't get worse for them. I don't believe for a minute, from anything that you've posted that you have an understanding of that nor any empathy for those who find themselves in that position. Quite the opposite in fact.

So you've missed my point entirely. Dumb comes in many guises.

Obviously it's wrongly since the world evidences far greater depths of poverty on far greater scales than are found here - this isn't even up for question. It also isn't a difficult or elitist observation to make that the most vulnerable are often the least informed and that the least informed are often the most likely to make a mistake. Obviously your beef here is that you think Paul is undermining the dignity of the poor by calling them stupid and that the decision of those of them who voted to leave ought to be treated with at least understanding, if not respect. The truth is that you can do all this and still conclude that their decision was folly.

 

[rcoobc]

I have already paid that in taxes so they can use that

So does everyone earning over £15k. Unfortunately this is a new tax added on to it.

Amazing people baulk at the idea of paying a one off £1500. The wider economic pain will probably be £500-1000 per year.

 

[Barca84]

Just to say, I'm genuinely a bit shocked by this.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...busier-negotiating-with-itself-than-eu-brexit

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ally-impossible-enforce-european-commissions/

http://www.express.co.uk/news/polit...-how-much-cost-UK-exit-payment-European-Union

Whatever you read, you should know the bill we are in for.

I can link a similar number of articles speculating a bill much lower. 5 minutes gets you...

http://www.cer.eu/publications/arch...brexit-bill-how-disentangle-britain-eu-budget

http://bruegel.org/2017/03/divorce-settlement-or-leaving-the-club-a-breakdown-of-the-brexit-bill/

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...es-uk-willing-to-pay-40bn-brexit-divorce-bill

And whatever one reads one should also learn to discern between a euro and a pound sign? Genuinely shocked here.

 

[Silva]

So does everyone earning over £15k. Unfortunately this is a new tax added on to it.

Amazing people baulk at the idea of paying a one off £1500. The wider economic pain will probably be £500-1000 per year.

Nah it's existing taxes tbf, if a transitional agreement is reached the divorce bill will just be paid as part of normal EU budget contributions and the government will pretend they drove the price down. The problem of course is that we've put some proper dumb shits in charge of negotiations so it's hard to assume they'll take a responsible approach here.

 

[rcoobc]

I can link a similar number of articles speculating a bill much lower. 5 minutes gets you...

http://www.cer.eu/publications/archive/policy-brief/2017/€60-billion-brexit-bill-how-disentangle-britain-eu-budget

http://bruegel.org/2017/03/divorce-settlement-or-leaving-the-club-a-breakdown-of-the-brexit-bill/

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...es-uk-willing-to-pay-40bn-brexit-divorce-bill

And whatever one reads one should also learn to discern between a euro and a pound sign? Genuinely shocked here.

£85bn (which is now £90bn thanks to the fall in the pounds) is only what we pay the EU as an exit fee. The wider cost will be far more. But let's break dow what you said.

And where do you get the confident prediction of £100bn + from? Everything I've seen quotes a range of scenarios but nothing close to that figure.

Even if you assumed I was only talking about the exit fee - which I wasn't - is £90bn not "close to" £100bn?

If the pounds slips a further 11%, the £90bn would be £100bn anyway.

As it is, I was talking about the whole cost of Brexit, which will undoubtedly be over £100bn

 

[Silva]

I can link a similar number of articles speculating a bill much lower. 5 minutes gets you...

http://www.cer.eu/publications/archive/policy-brief/2017/€60-billion-brexit-bill-how-disentangle-britain-eu-budget

http://bruegel.org/2017/03/divorce-settlement-or-leaving-the-club-a-breakdown-of-the-brexit-bill/

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...es-uk-willing-to-pay-40bn-brexit-divorce-bill

And whatever one reads one should also learn to discern between a euro and a pound sign? Genuinely shocked here.

"We will categorically not give the European Union €60bn in one lump sum"

Downing Street and the Brexit department are just over promising on this point. There's no way of getting out of previously agreed monetary contributions. They can just refuse to pay them, of course, but then there's no Brexit deal whatsoever and Britain falls into an economic abyss. Of course, you can't rule out the current cabinet choosing the abyss over looking bad in the daily mail.

 

[rcoobc]

Nah it's existing taxes tbf, if a transitional agreement is reached the divorce bill will just be paid as part of normal EU budget contributions and the government will pretend they drove the price down. The problem of course is that we've put some proper dumb shits in charge of negotiations so it's hard to assume they'll take a responsible approach to the negotiations.

It depends on if we get the benefits of it. You are right though.

 

[rcoobc]

An upfront figure of €60 billion had been circulating in Brussels. But more recent reports that the EU view of what to ask the UK to pay for is hardening have led Alex Barker of the Financial Times to calculate an upfront demand of between €91-113 billion.

Mr Barker thinks this would come down to roughly €55-75 billion net as Britain received money back. Other researchers have given ranges of €16-22 billion and €25-65 billion.

https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-divorce-bill/

But I almost think it could be more than that

https://www.ft.com/content/7d26e4e9-2eb0-3afb-94ec-5874e178c311

 

[Barca84]

Obviously it's wrongly since the world evidences far greater depths of poverty on far greater scales than are found here - this isn't even up for question. It also isn't a difficult or elitist observation to make that the most vulnerable are often the least informed and that the least informed are often the most likely to make a mistake. Obviously your beef here is that you think Paul is undermining the dignity of the poor by calling them stupid and that the decision of those of them who voted to leave ought to be treated with at least understanding, if not respect. The truth is that you can do all this and still conclude that their decision was folly.

The only relevant measure of poverty for anyone living in the UK is one taken against a UK income median. Period. This is the accepted method and underpins the Child Poverty Act for example. We do not measure child poverty in this country against the living conditions of a child in Africa for and nor should we as poverty is relative, we live in a fully developed and wealthy economy, and poverty is measured accordingly. My beef here, as you put it, is when people trot out these tired and frankly insulting old chestnuts of how people should be thankful they're not in the bloody Congo. It is designed to belittle and demean and to silence.

As for this idea that the most vulnerable are more likely to make wrong decisions based on a lack of information this attitude is sneering and ill informed in itself. You wrongly equate vulnerability with a lack of information (I suspect your definition of "information" here is simply the facts as you see them) Notwithstanding I'll point out that some of the most vulnerable people I have worked with have been the most informed and educated and had a far greater insight into their condition, and their circumstances, than any professional engaged in providing services to them. Besides condemning this as a sweepingly vague generalisation I would also strongly refute it as exactly what you claim it isn't - an elitist observation. It appears a manifestation of this narrative that those in poverty are so because, well, they're a bit dim really and what they need are the well informed to make their decisions for them. I'd suggest that even most of the very vulnerable are largely and adequately informed by the very existence of their daily lives, not the observations of those passing through or from afar, and that bar removal of their right to make decisions under rigorous process of the Mental Capacity Act they are in the best position to judge what is right for themselves.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

@Barca84 - you obviously still haven't got the point. No-one is saying that they should be thankful they are not in Africa. The point is that you said they can't fall any further - they can.
You seem to be making the assumption that all poor people voted Brexit , I doubt that. There are people from all walks of life who voted Brexit and people from all walks of life who voted remain and if you want me to have empathy for people who shot themselves in the foot, no I don't have any empathy but that doesn't mean I want the Uk to collapse either, it's just a logical conclusion.

 

[JPRouve]

@Barca84 - you obviously still haven't got the point. No-one is saying that they should be thankful they are not in Africa. The point is that you said they can't fall any further - they can.
You seem to be making the assumption that all poor people voted Brexit , I doubt that. There are people from all walks of life who voted Brexit and people from all walks of life who voted remain and if you want me to have empathy for people who shot themselves in the foot, no I don't have any empathy but that doesn't mean I want the Uk to collapse either, it's just a logical conclusion.

I believe that @Barca84 is talking about the sentiment that you hit rock bottom, some people with good reason are convinced that they have nothing to lose because from their POV they have nothing or lost everything they could have cared about. In Africa the POV is different, rock bottom is different.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

I believe that @Barca84 is talking about the sentiment that you hit rock bottom, some people with good reason are convinced that they have nothing to lose because from their POV they have nothing or lost everything they could have cared about. In Africa the POV is different, rock bottom is different.

I get his point that they may think they have reached rock bottom, my point is that they haven't.

 

[Barca84]

@Barca84 - you obviously still haven't got the point. No-one is saying that they should be thankful they are not in Africa. The point is that you said they can't fall any further - they can.
You seem to be making the assumption that all poor people voted Brexit , I doubt that. There are people from all walks of life who voted Brexit and people from all walks of life who voted remain and if you want me to have empathy for people who shot themselves in the foot, no I don't have any empathy but that doesn't mean I want the Uk to collapse either, it's just a logical conclusion.

You were the one who brought up the Africa comparison Paul so you're being no more then disingenuous here. For what purpose other than to state that those in poverty can fall further I've no idea but it's bogus whatever the reason. And I've made no assumptions that "all poor people voted Brexit" Quite the opposite, stating only that the economic divide has played it's part, and it's there in b&w in my previous posts which at this point I cant be arsed to requote.

I think it's helpful to get past the "Brexit voter is stupid" narrative because, well, it's a bit stupid really isn't it? And until we do and get to some sort of genuine understanding of the complexities of the Brexit vote and the difficult questions it's posed the country will remain divided. But I've no interest in a debate where posts are disregarded or misquoted a mere handful of posts later nor, to be honest, with someone who doesn't have the ability, or desire, to empathise with a large section of society who thinks differently than yourself and someone who does, as evidenced throughout this thread, view them largely with contempt

 

[Barca84]

I get his point that they may think they have reached rock bottom, my point is that they haven't.

..........

 

[711]

Brexit is going to cost around £100bn. Probably more, but we'll start with that figure.

That's £1500 for every man, woman and child in the UK. Note the children aspect.

How many would have voted Leave if they had to personally pay that. A £6k bill for a family of four.

Are we being asked to pay anything that we wouldn't have had to pay if remaining? I honestly don't know, but if we are, then what and why?

 

[Paul the Wolf]

You were the one who brought up the Africa comparison Paul so you're being no more then disingenuous here. For what purpose other than to state that those in poverty can fall further I've no idea but it's bogus whatever the reason. And I've made no assumptions that "all poor people voted Brexit" Quite the opposite, stating only that the economic divide has played it's part, and it's there in b&w in my previous posts which at this point I cant be arsed to requote.

I think it's helpful to get past the "Brexit voter is stupid" narrative because, well, it's a bit stupid really isn't it? And until we do and get to some sort of genuine understanding of the complexities of the Brexit vote and the difficult questions it's posed the country will remain divided. But I've no interest in a debate where posts are disregarded or misquoted a mere handful of posts later nor, to be honest, with someone who doesn't have the ability, or desire, to empathise with a large section of society who thinks differently than yourself and someone who does, as evidenced throughout this thread, view them largely with contempt

The reason I brought up Africa was to prove there is further to fall which is what I said in my first post on the subject but it continues to be disregarded , not to say they should be lucky that they are not as poor as Africans.
This discussion started about the economics of the vote, if somebody thinks the Uk will be economically better off by voting Brexit then yes I think they are stupid.
But economics was not the only reason for the vote. Xenophobia, sovereignty and nationalism played a much bigger part which is not touched on in this particular discussion.

 

[rcoobc]

Are we being asked to pay anything that we wouldn't have had to pay if remaining? I honestly don't know, but if we are, then what and why?

Nope, but it all comes down to whether we are paying for a club we will no longer be in.

The most important document on the financial side of Brexit is the “position paper” of 12 June 2017. This should be read carefully. The annexes are especially important — here the EU has set out the heads of what will be affected by departure. There are no figures. There is, however, reference to methodologies and principles. The EU is saying, in essence, agree what needs to be covered and they will be covered, and whatever figure comes out at the end, will be the amount to pay. This way of working out an overall settlement amount has its attractions, and looks reasonable and fair. But it seems to horrify the UK.

As the FT reports elsewhere: “The point is a reminder of the EU’s demand that the two sides devise a methodology for working out the UK’s obligations, rather than discussing total sums. The UK has resisted that approach, fearing that agreeing to the wrong methodology might leave the UK exposed to an unexpectedly vast bill.” The scene is not difficult to imagine: ministers sitting there and staring, paralysed in terror of making a judgment call. One can understand why saying “no legal liability” ever more loudly seems a better option. Part of the UK’s problem is that it has done very little of its own work on the financial side of Brexit. Whether this was because of complacency (“no legal liabilities say our lawyers!”) or of lack of capacity, the EU has been able set the terms of this element of the process.

I think this is the best analysis of it

The net figures are considerably lower — €60.2bn, according to the commission figures. Those calculations exclude the European Investment Bank. The sums in effect make good the EU’s 2014-2020 long-term budget, reducing the need for other countries to increase their contributions or face lower payments. They also include pension promises and other long-term EU liabilities (in total worth €83bn) that the bloc wants the UK to honour.

https://www.ft.com/content/69296fe6-51be-11e7-a1f2-db19572361bb?mhq5j=e4

But whilst we've been part of the EU, we get the benefits of EU membership. Membership of the EU single market, including the export services we provide (pretty much the only area other than defence where we export more than we import). Without that, what are we paying for?

 

[711]

Nope, but it all comes down to whether we are paying for a club we will no longer be in.

I think this is the best analysis of it

https://www.ft.com/content/69296fe6-51be-11e7-a1f2-db19572361bb?mhq5j=e4

But whilst we've been part of the EU, we get the benefits of EU membership. Membership of the EU single market, including the export services we provide (pretty much the only area other than defence where we export more than we import). Without that, what are we paying for?

Thanks. So the EU, quite understandably, will be asking the UK to pay for the budget the UK has already agreed to, until 2020. I would imagine the UK will respond by saying ok, so long as the spending side for those projects etc in the UK will continue until 2020, and in order to pay it we will need access to the single market to continue until 2020, the 'transitional agreement' the UK government has said it wants?

I'm just speculating, but that's my point really, everyone is just speculating at the moment, we don't know what the EU will ask for, or what rationale they will put forward to justify it, or what the UK will ask for (or get) in return.

I'm just thinking that before people use the Brexit payment to justify their opinions maybe they'd be better waiting until we actually know what the payment and conditions will be?

I do think the EU is holding the highest cards mind, but we live in hope. (Some of us).

 

[rcoobc]

so long as the spending side for those projects etc in the UK will continue until 2020, and in order to pay it we will need access to the single market to continue until 2020, the 'transitional agreement' the UK government has said it wants?

I think you and Silva have got it right. It's not something I've been thinking about as most leavers want a quick exit. Still, hopefully common sense prevails!

 

[Ekkie Thump]

The only relevant measure of poverty for anyone living in the UK is one taken against a UK income median. Period. This is the accepted method and underpins the Child Poverty Act for example. We do not measure child poverty in this country against the living conditions of a child in Africa for and nor should we as poverty is relative, we live in a fully developed and wealthy economy, and poverty is measured accordingly. My beef here, as you put it, is when people trot out these tired and frankly insulting old chestnuts of how people should be thankful they're not in the bloody Congo. It is designed to belittle and demean and to silence.

It is designed to do neither. I am not denying the existence of a great deal of poverty in this country, nor do I in the slightest amount believe that somehow this society is equal or that many millions aren't desperate or that they haven't been shafted for generations. The notion that things can't get worse is the thing I am objecting to. Not that they should be thankful they aren't in the bloody congo, but that it isn't necessarily in people's best interests to inadvertently go in that direction. Your insinuation that asserting things can get worse means I and others don't wish for them to get better or that desperate people should somehow be grateful is a shameful distortion of the position I hold. My position is that Europe is, has and will continue to be a fig leaf for this country's problems and that the inequality you and I both fervently resent finds its nexus in this countries institutions, administrations and policies. The axe you grind is aiming for the wrong neck.

As for this idea that the most vulnerable are more likely to make wrong decisions based on a lack of information this attitude is sneering and ill informed in itself. You wrongly equate vulnerability with a lack of information (I suspect your definition of "information" here is simply the facts as you see them) Notwithstanding I'll point out that some of the most vulnerable people I have worked with have been the most informed and educated and had a far greater insight into their condition, and their circumstances, than any professional engaged in providing services to them. Besides condemning this as a sweepingly vague generalisation I would also strongly refute it as exactly what you claim it isn't - an elitist observation. It appears a manifestation of this narrative that those in poverty are so because, well, they're a bit dim really and what they need are the well informed to make their decisions for them. I'd suggest that even most of the very vulnerable are largely and adequately informed by the very existence of their daily lives, not the observations of those passing through or from afar, and that bar removal of their right to make decisions under rigorous process of the Mental Capacity Act they are in the best position to judge what is right for themselves.

Here's your problem. You are entirely unwilling to grant reasonableness to your interlocutor and instead bring to the table a vast array of preconceived notions about who they are and how they arrive at their decisions. You then ironically accuse them of the self same thing with regards to vulnerable people.

Education, time, space and access to resources and information is severely lacking in impoverished communities. In no way does this society provide an equitable portion to each. This is part of what being impoverished actually means. Being uninformed does not equate to people being a bit dim, it equates to having a lack of information and a lack of access to it. This is a terrible thing. In no way is it sneering to point it out, it's complacent and alarming to pretend the problem isn't there. I know exactly what having barely enough to get by on an exhausting 40 hour week in a two bed flat with 4 kids actually means. Where I can't afford a computer, the local library's shut down and where the primary nagging pressing concern is a never ending line of rent, food, shoes.

 

[Stanley Road]

The reason I brought up Africa was to prove there is further to fall which is what I said in my first post on the subject but it continues to be disregarded

But that's like seeing someone in Somalia that truly has nothing and telling him he can still sink further because people in the congo have less than him.

 

[JPRouve]

It depends on if we get the benefits of it. You are right though.

Here you have the official position of the EU:

2. This single financial settlement should be based on the principle that the United Kingdom must
honour its share of the financing of all the obligations undertaken while it was a member of the
Union. The United Kingdom obligations should be fixed as a percentage of the EU obligations
calculated at the date of withdrawal in accordance with a methodology to be agreed in the first
phase of the negotiations.
3. On this basis, the United Kingdom should continue to benefit from all programmes as before the
withdrawal until their closure under the condition that it respects the applicable Union legal
rules.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

But that's like seeing someone in Somalia that truly has nothing and telling him he can still sink further because people in the congo have less than him.

But according to him everyone who earns below the median wage, ie 50% of the population is in poverty, it's meaningless whereas if the average wage is £10k higher than Spain for example, the people in Spain are much poorer than the UK but this is precisely what you are saying, the standard of living is higher in the UK than maybe in Spain so they are not as poor as they think they are.
The "having absolutely nothing" does not quite have the same meaning. If the food they are buying after Brexit is 20% more expensive then they have 20% less than absolutely nothing

I was also accused of calling everyone who is poor "a bit dim", then I pointed out that not all poor people voted Brexit. Odd.

 

[Stanley Road]

But according to him everyone who earns below the median wage, ie 50% of the population is in poverty, it's meaningless whereas if the average wage is £10k higher than Spain for example, the people in Spain are much poorer than the UK but this is precisely what you are saying, the standard of living is higher in the UK than maybe in Spain so they are not as poor as they think they are.
The "having absolutely nothing" does not quite have the same meaning. If the food they are buying after Brexit is 20% more expensive then they have 20% less than absolutely nothing

I was also accused of calling everyone who is poor "a bit dim", then I pointed out that not all poor people voted Brexit. Odd.

I dont think thats his stance at all.

Would you not say that remainers who voted for Cameron are perhaps dimmer than any exit voter?

 

[rcoobc]

Here you have the official position of the EU:

Thing is, there are direct benefits, and indirect benefits.

I expect we'll get farming subsidies back, but we certainly won't get access to the Single Market, if we've left the Single Market.

 

[JPRouve]

Thing is, there are direct benefits, and indirect benefits.

I expect we'll get farming subsidies back, but we certainly won't get access to the Single Market, if we've left the Single Market.

If you want access to the market until 2020, you will have it. The problem is that your politicians sold an immediate exit.

 

[711]

Would you not say that remainers who voted for Cameron are perhaps dimmer than any exit voter?

If they feel as strongly about Brexit as many on here then they are the dimmest of the lot.

 

[711]

If you want access to the market until 2020, you will have it. The problem is that your politicians sold an immediate exit.

We don't know what transitional arrangement the uk will be asking for yet, neither do we know what the EU will agree to, or what it will cost, so how you can be so sure of what's going to happen I don't know.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

I dont think thats his stance at all.

Would you not say that remainers who voted for Cameron are perhaps dimmer than any exit voter?

You mean in him granting a referendum, many people even including Farage, May etc didn't think there was much danger that the people would vote to leave.
The same could be asked about the last election, Corbyn was obviously anti-EU and May changed from pro-EU to anti-EU in a year.
Not a lot of choice in the last one.

I wasn't even following UK politics in the first part of this decade until alarm bells started ringing that they may be daft enough to do the unthinkable and they did!

Anyone who votes for their own downfall is dim.

 

[JPRouve]

We don't know what transitional arrangement the uk will be asking for yet, neither do we know what the EU will agree to, or what it will cost, so how you can be so sure of what's going to happen I don't know.

Which is why I used the word "if".

 

[711]

If you want access to the market until 2020, you will have it. The problem is that your politicians sold an immediate exit.

Which is why I used the word "if".

So all we have to do is ask? Well I'm glad that's settled. All this speculation was starting to annoy me.

 

[Stanley Road]

You mean in him granting a referendum, many people even including Farage, May etc didn't think there was much danger that the people would vote to leave.

That's such a lame excuse tho mate, you know it too. They need to put their hands up and show us who they are, they have no right to complain whatsoever.

 

[JPRouve]

So all we have to do is ask? Well I'm glad that's settled. All this speculation was starting to annoy me.

It's in fact one way to do it, since you can ask for an extension of the negotiation period. But what I meant is that if you really want to be in the single market until 2020(basically the end of the current budget), you have the possibility to negotiate for it and make the concessions needed.