So what he's really saying is "let's have a vote to reverse the Brexit referendum." And, presumably, if he loses that one too then he'll want another one in two years, because of all the young people who couldn't vote in this one but would totally vote his way in the next one .
Those who respond to the idea of a second ref with the notion that some people just want to have a new vote because the 52% voted "wrongly" the first time round are (wilfully) missing the point imo.
It is tragically clear now, and has been for some time, that any form of brexit is going to be an economic and cultural disaster for the UK. That is why it should be stopped - it is not in the national interest - rather than an attack or imposition of a different pov on people who voted for it.
TMPM was on the radio this morning saying that a general election "was not in the national interest" so she's quite happy to use that as a reason for not doing something when it suits her and her wretched party.
Kimmy It will be presented to the voters as the elites telling them they got it wrong and need to have a do over. And while not entirely true there’s a certain amount of truth to that statement. Yes there is a counter narrative about how the people deserve a vote on the actual deal we get VS the alternative and it is not a do over but that is a matter of politics and image and persuasion and frankly the Leavers - even if wrong on the substance - were streets ahead of the Remainers on that front.
Plus im not sure it is practical - the A50 mechanism has been triggered - we are leaving in a few months. There is no mechanism to stay in the EU
Kimmy It will be presented to the voters as the elites telling them they got it wrong and need to have a do over.
Agree.
And while not entirely true there’s a certain amount of truth to that statement.
Disagree. Brexit is going to be absolute sh1t. We are in the EU and not in the euro - that will never, ever happen again. We will never be in a better vis a vis the EU as we are now. I cannot see one good reason for the UK to leave.
Well, that is presumably why you voted Remain first-time around. You lost (and so did I, incidentally), because a majority of the voting public disagreed with you. Deal with it.
I agree we won’t be better off outside the EU. I voted to Remain and still think we should stay.
That is not mutually exclusive with thinking that the elites are telling the working class to have a do over because they got the wrong answer (I mean in this case the elites are right - but then again I’m a remain voter so I would say that).
Heffers - I thought even the possibility of unilateral staying in was only till Exit Day? After that we’re in the same position as any third country and need to apply for membership and join Schengen and Euro etc?
That does seem low, although we have a massive deficit in manufactured goods trade with the EU (which Germany dominates), which is masked in our total trade figures by our services surplus.
stru: if it turns out there is no politically feasible deal, primarily (though probably not solely) because of the Irish border issue, then it may well be that though neither the Tories nor Labour particularly want a 2nd (or 3rd) referendum, that nevertheless proves the only viable way forward.
I think the chances of this are increasing. I reckon the prospects of another referendum are now about 30-35%.
You lost (and so did I, incidentally), because a majority of the voting public disagreed with you. Deal with it.
This is what I mean. I would understand this response if a penalty had been wrongly awarded and my favourite team had lost the FA cup final. Or even if England had lost the WC final on that basis.
But crashing out of the EU is not a "get over it, you lost" matter. It is not in anyone's interest for it to happen. The voting public didn't know what they were voting for (and "sunny uplands" and "£350m a week for the NHS" don't count because they were lies).
Heff - presumably a chunky percentage of goods manufactured here are for domestic consumption and therefore aren't exported anywhere.
However it also presumably excludes goods whose final destination is outside the EU but are transported via the EU (e.g. anything that passes through Rotterdam) and goods who are sold to third party countries with an EU trade agreement - both of which will be adversely impacted by Brexit.
I also wouldn't be surprised if IDS' figures count Republic of Ireland as part of the UK rather than the EU or something similarly ridiculous.
Kimmy, that's your opinion, and it's a fairly common Remainer refrain to say that the general public did not know / understand what it was voting for. It's based almost entirely on assertion, with little to no evidence to back it up.
It is quite simple, any entity whether it is a company, an organisation and individual or an entire nation would be mad not to review a finely balanced life changing decision made on very little information when that information becomes available if it has the chance to do so. It really is that fvcking simple.
I would love to read some of the predictions such as S&P's million job losses and see what assumptions they have made as I just don't see how you can model the effects of Brexit with any accuracy given the huge number of variables involved.
A general election would be a disaster as the Labour party is just the reverse of the Tories with a leader who wants to leave at the mercy of a group who are trying to persuade him to remain.
Guy, your assertion is based on some rather loaded assumptions. It can be said in respect of any decision that that decision was made when comparatively little information was available and that it should be re-visited before it is acted upon. That is a recipe for inertia (and bad negotiating tactics, in this instance) and is essentially a re-casting of Kimmy's position above.
I suspect that, had Remain won, you would not now be saying that the decision was a finely balanced one that needed to be re-taken now that further information was available .
Leave has just crystallised something that was always going to happen at some point anyway. But your assertion that there would have been "nothing to address" had Remain won assumes that the EU would have remained fixed in aspic after the referendum. In fact, there have been a number of pushes towards further integration and federalisation, which presumably would then justify re-opening the referendum on the above analysis. Some of those may have been knee-jerk reactions to the referendum outcome, but for example the movements towards tax harmonisation and an EU army have been trailed for some time.
Anything else is just a recipe for neverenda, and would also paralyse government (because if you're going to re-run plebiscites just because a large section of the populace considers the result to foreshadow immediate disaster, then you could never have a settled GE ever again.)
1. No it cannot be said for any decision, it can be said for a decision made between options A and B, when A was known and B was in all but the broadest terms unknown (with a range of outcomes actually almost as great in effect as the difference between A and B itself) when the details of B actually become known. Particularly as it is becoming increasingly evident that B is probably the wrong decision on an objective basis.
2. If we had voted Remain, we would have avoided the nonsensical self-flagellation of the last couple years and the question of another referendum would be moot. We would have voted for the status quo and we would have it.
2. Ditto, but also, thank you for making my point for me. We would have voted for the status quo; what would happen when the situation changed from the status quo at the time of the referendum? Would we have another one?
I am a Brexiteer, obvs, although I voted Remain during the referendum. I believed the various assertions about immediate financial disaster that would follow a leave vote and which, strangely turned out to be untrue sweeping predictions.
As to my specific statements, GH, please indicate precisely where I have made such sweeping predictions.
Hmmm. You'd be wrong on those points. By way of example only:
Re immediate financial disaster: George Osborne said that a Brexit vote (n.b. vote, not actual departure) would cause ""an immediate and profound" economic shock, with growth between 3% and 6% lower.") He was relying on a Treasury analysis that was headed "the immediate economic impact of leaving the EU" but which focused on "the immediate economic impact of a vote to leave and the two years that follow." See here.
Re tax harmonisation. Have you not been following the Apple/Eire issue? If not, see here, where tax harmonisation plans are reported on. This story refers to those plans as being eurozone wide, but other places, such as Reuters, reported the plans as being EU-wide (see here).
EU army. Again, very widely trailed. See for example here.
And before you make some point about it being independent of the EU, it will not be. It will be backed by a European Defence Fund launched by the Commission, for example, and is being championed by Verhofstadt and Juncker, who has previously called for full defence union by 2025.
In a few years time, when there is no Euro and the EU is run by nationalists, Brexit will look like nothing more than a legalistic footnote in history.....and we will be delighted that we left.
I would love to read some of the predictions such as S&P's million job losses and see what assumptions they have made
- they're always the same, usually some variation of "UK makes no policy change whatsoever to respond to underlying economic conditions". So a complete nonsense
And to be honest he'd be right. NATO doesn't really direct defence spending (other than the minimum GDP requirement) or operate from a common fund, and nor does it direct deployment of forces (beyond the collective defence pact). Otherwise, all of NATO would have been involved in Iraq, Syria, Libya - or none of it.
Another point re the stupidity of brexit - the referendum was less than 52:48 of those who voted. So the choice of a minority of those able to vote is being actioned to everybody's fvcking detriment (save a tiny few whose wealth buffers them from any economic changes).
That's not an argument you'd expect an educated person to make. That same criticism (insofar as I understand your post correctly) could be made of any general or local election. More people voted for Brexit than have voted for anything in the history of this country.
Its the same argument as trotted out by everyone who disliked the result, and a complete non-argument unless they correspondingly advocate such a change to be applied to all votes.
the only reasonable conclusion as to the voting intentions of those that didn't vote is that they didn't care either way.
....and either way, the polls have barely changed since the referendum (when the polls also said that we would vote to Remain). Outside the capital most people (including remainers) a) respect the decision, and b) just want to get on with it
"Lizard how do you know growth hasn’t been lower than it would have been had it not been for the vote? All the evidence suggests it has been lower. So he was right there." This is not sensible debating, and is in fact a prime example of a sweeping, and completely unevidenced, generalisation. Go away and don't come back until you can actually back up this sort of statement. You know, the way I have done with the ones with which you specifically took issue.
What other points am I "predicting"?
"so actually you’d misunderstood both points and I was not wrong" - uh, okay.
Heh. Come on, Laz, admit it. Despite Googling desperately you cannot find a single piece of evidence to back up your position that UK growth collapsed 3%-6% immediately after the referendum.
And no, I don't get your prediction point. Because it does not make sense. But you don't have the intellectual confidence to admit that, do you .
Even now I keep expecting a leaver to come up with a half reasoned argument to explain the madness we are putting ourselves through, but, no every time, you read posts like spotty lizard, somebody who, to be fair, has probably thought about the issues more than most breximorons and realise there is only muddle headed nonsense behind Brexit. There are no good arguments for it. None at all. It is no longer possible to sensibly argue Brexit is not a bad idea - it all now pig headed hubris that will damage our country for generations to come.
With reasoned, not at all ad hominem remarks like that, Guy, I am amazed you have not been able to convince people to change to your way of thinking. I suspect that whatever I or anyone else posts will be insufficient for your purposes.
Laz, leaving aside your still incomprehensible gurn about predictions, you asserted that George Osborne's prediction that there would be a massive financial shock the day after a leave vote. Despite repeated requests, the only thing you have been able to produce to back that up is a chart (dunno why it won't show up on my phone) showing a gradual decline over many months in the country's growth rate. I agree that that is very likely due to Brexit (and in particular the result of continued uncertainty from, shall we say, less than optimal negotiating), and the question then becomes whether people who voted for Brexit considered that a fair trade-off in exchange for the various reasons for which they voted to leave. It does not support your assertion that the Remain campaign was telling the truth when it told voters that there would be an immediate financial shock following a leave vote.
They were not ad hominem remarks Lizard, in fact I credited you with having thought about the issues more than most, they were remarks against Brexit. You cannot put forward decent arguments in favour because there are none. This is not a finely balanced decision it is a no brainer, unfortunately we are taking the no brain option.
That's pretty rich coming from you, matey. And I've posted plenty of evidence above. If you don't agree with it, that's your business. Answering for the undeluded.
Gotta say, Spotz, I'm v surprised you're on that side of things (and confused because the bezerkers are on what I'd normally think of as the right side - albeit nothing weirder than someone listing all their personal flaws as though they are someone else's).
(Looking at Italy's recent ubi developments I was reminded that I actually do think the EU has stripped the UK of much of its "ordinary peoplp" wealth for the enrichment of the east and the south but I can't help but feel the answer was more telling Merkel to stfu and the commission to shove their infraction proceedings up their flag motif rather than this)
That's what you come back with? Your life must be truly quite desolate if you're so desperate to have the last word that your response is to focus on a complete non-point. Go on - try to resist replying. But we all know you won't be able to.
Brioche, I think it's fair to say that there is blinkered fanaticism on both sides; just look at some of the weirdos on this thread.
I (reluctantly) voted Remain, but the EU's attitude since the referendum, and the sheer vitriol that has been directed towards people who voted Brexit, caused me to re-evaluate my view (as did the fact that I though Remain ran a misleading campaign on the economics of voting Leave). One of the principal reasons we're in this mess is because for years successive governments and the predominantly London-centric metropolitan elite have tended to ignore, while paying lip service to, genuine concerns held by other parts of the country in relation to our EU membership.
0
0
So what he's really saying is "let's have a vote to reverse the Brexit referendum." And, presumably, if he loses that one too then he'll want another one in two years, because of all the young people who couldn't vote in this one but would totally vote his way in the next one .
0
0
Let it burn. It's the only way out now.
0
0
Those who respond to the idea of a second ref with the notion that some people just want to have a new vote because the 52% voted "wrongly" the first time round are (wilfully) missing the point imo.
It is tragically clear now, and has been for some time, that any form of brexit is going to be an economic and cultural disaster for the UK. That is why it should be stopped - it is not in the national interest - rather than an attack or imposition of a different pov on people who voted for it.
TMPM was on the radio this morning saying that a general election "was not in the national interest" so she's quite happy to use that as a reason for not doing something when it suits her and her wretched party.
0
0
Kimmy It will be presented to the voters as the elites telling them they got it wrong and need to have a do over. And while not entirely true there’s a certain amount of truth to that statement. Yes there is a counter narrative about how the people deserve a vote on the actual deal we get VS the alternative and it is not a do over but that is a matter of politics and image and persuasion and frankly the Leavers - even if wrong on the substance - were streets ahead of the Remainers on that front.
Plus im not sure it is practical - the A50 mechanism has been triggered - we are leaving in a few months. There is no mechanism to stay in the EU
0
0
And it just so happens that that view-point coincides with how you voted first-time round, I'm guessing.
0
0
the EU will agree to delay the implementation of A50 even if the ECJ has not by then ruled that we can do so unilaterally
0
0
Agree.
Disagree. Brexit is going to be absolute sh1t. We are in the EU and not in the euro - that will never, ever happen again. We will never be in a better vis a vis the EU as we are now. I cannot see one good reason for the UK to leave.
0
0
Well, that is presumably why you voted Remain first-time around. You lost (and so did I, incidentally), because a majority of the voting public disagreed with you. Deal with it.
0
0
I agree we won’t be better off outside the EU. I voted to Remain and still think we should stay.
That is not mutually exclusive with thinking that the elites are telling the working class to have a do over because they got the wrong answer (I mean in this case the elites are right - but then again I’m a remain voter so I would say that).
Heffers - I thought even the possibility of unilateral staying in was only till Exit Day? After that we’re in the same position as any third country and need to apply for membership and join Schengen and Euro etc?
0
0
FFS, you'd have thought a former Chancellor of the Exchequer could count to 3.
0
0
Also Heffers even if legally possible there is zero political will to do that in the Tories or Labour even. It’s lretty much a fantasy.
The besf case would have been a competent PM in 2016 exiting to respect the referendum and staying in the EEA to make it as soft as possible.
That option is gone now and I’m not sure I see a realistic option other than a full on hard Brexit (whether technically no deal or not I don’t know).
0
0
I see Duncan Smith was arguing the other day that only 8% of our manufactured goods go to the EU
Is this correct?
0
0
That does seem low, although we have a massive deficit in manufactured goods trade with the EU (which Germany dominates), which is masked in our total trade figures by our services surplus.
0
0
stru: if it turns out there is no politically feasible deal, primarily (though probably not solely) because of the Irish border issue, then it may well be that though neither the Tories nor Labour particularly want a 2nd (or 3rd) referendum, that nevertheless proves the only viable way forward.
I think the chances of this are increasing. I reckon the prospects of another referendum are now about 30-35%.
0
0
Yeah that’s possible. Although I think Tory leadership battle and/or general election are more likely than another referendum
0
0
I voted Remain and would now vote to Leave
John Major, like everyone else who originally said "there will be ONE referendum", can go fvck himself
0
0
This is what I mean. I would understand this response if a penalty had been wrongly awarded and my favourite team had lost the FA cup final. Or even if England had lost the WC final on that basis.
But crashing out of the EU is not a "get over it, you lost" matter. It is not in anyone's interest for it to happen. The voting public didn't know what they were voting for (and "sunny uplands" and "£350m a week for the NHS" don't count because they were lies).
0
0
Nearer 40% than 8% Bernstein.
I voted remain and would do so again.
0
0
I'm not sure about those statistics, Chambers/Bernstein
Overall exports to EU including services is 40/44% or thereabouts
in terms of goods, I think the proportion exported from UK to EU is higher: about 55%
I don't know if there is a specific dataset for goods manufactured in the UK.
0
0
though 8% looks way out. 15% of our goods are cars alone, and the bulk of those will be going to the EU
0
0
Heff - presumably a chunky percentage of goods manufactured here are for domestic consumption and therefore aren't exported anywhere.
However it also presumably excludes goods whose final destination is outside the EU but are transported via the EU (e.g. anything that passes through Rotterdam) and goods who are sold to third party countries with an EU trade agreement - both of which will be adversely impacted by Brexit.
I also wouldn't be surprised if IDS' figures count Republic of Ireland as part of the UK rather than the EU or something similarly ridiculous.
0
0
Kimmy, that's your opinion, and it's a fairly common Remainer refrain to say that the general public did not know / understand what it was voting for. It's based almost entirely on assertion, with little to no evidence to back it up.
0
0
It is quite simple, any entity whether it is a company, an organisation and individual or an entire nation would be mad not to review a finely balanced life changing decision made on very little information when that information becomes available if it has the chance to do so. It really is that fvcking simple.
0
0
I would love to read some of the predictions such as S&P's million job losses and see what assumptions they have made as I just don't see how you can model the effects of Brexit with any accuracy given the huge number of variables involved.
A general election would be a disaster as the Labour party is just the reverse of the Tories with a leader who wants to leave at the mercy of a group who are trying to persuade him to remain.
0
0
Guy, your assertion is based on some rather loaded assumptions. It can be said in respect of any decision that that decision was made when comparatively little information was available and that it should be re-visited before it is acted upon. That is a recipe for inertia (and bad negotiating tactics, in this instance) and is essentially a re-casting of Kimmy's position above.
I suspect that, had Remain won, you would not now be saying that the decision was a finely balanced one that needed to be re-taken now that further information was available .
0
0
Leave has just crystallised something that was always going to happen at some point anyway. But your assertion that there would have been "nothing to address" had Remain won assumes that the EU would have remained fixed in aspic after the referendum. In fact, there have been a number of pushes towards further integration and federalisation, which presumably would then justify re-opening the referendum on the above analysis. Some of those may have been knee-jerk reactions to the referendum outcome, but for example the movements towards tax harmonisation and an EU army have been trailed for some time.
Anything else is just a recipe for neverenda, and would also paralyse government (because if you're going to re-run plebiscites just because a large section of the populace considers the result to foreshadow immediate disaster, then you could never have a settled GE ever again.)
0
0
Spotty Lizard
1. No it cannot be said for any decision, it can be said for a decision made between options A and B, when A was known and B was in all but the broadest terms unknown (with a range of outcomes actually almost as great in effect as the difference between A and B itself) when the details of B actually become known. Particularly as it is becoming increasingly evident that B is probably the wrong decision on an objective basis.
2. If we had voted Remain, we would have avoided the nonsensical self-flagellation of the last couple years and the question of another referendum would be moot. We would have voted for the status quo and we would have it.
0
0
Guy.
1. In your subjective opinion.
2. Ditto, but also, thank you for making my point for me. We would have voted for the status quo; what would happen when the situation changed from the status quo at the time of the referendum? Would we have another one?
0
0
I am a Brexiteer, obvs, although I voted Remain during the referendum. I believed the various assertions about immediate financial disaster that would follow a leave vote and which, strangely turned out to be untrue sweeping predictions.
As to my specific statements, GH, please indicate precisely where I have made such sweeping predictions.
0
0
Hmmm. You'd be wrong on those points. By way of example only:
Are you Laz?
0
0
Whoops. The last link, to the Grauniad, did not work. Here it is typed correctly.
0
0
And before you make some point about it being independent of the EU, it will not be. It will be backed by a European Defence Fund launched by the Commission, for example, and is being championed by Verhofstadt and Juncker, who has previously called for full defence union by 2025.
0
0
In a few years time, when there is no Euro and the EU is run by nationalists, Brexit will look like nothing more than a legalistic footnote in history.....and we will be delighted that we left.
0
0
SummerSails31 Oct 18 10:40
I would love to read some of the predictions such as S&P's million job losses and see what assumptions they have made
- they're always the same, usually some variation of "UK makes no policy change whatsoever to respond to underlying economic conditions". So a complete nonsense
0
0
Full defence union by 2025? It already exists, its called NATO.
0
0
Not according to Juncker.
0
0
And to be honest he'd be right. NATO doesn't really direct defence spending (other than the minimum GDP requirement) or operate from a common fund, and nor does it direct deployment of forces (beyond the collective defence pact). Otherwise, all of NATO would have been involved in Iraq, Syria, Libya - or none of it.
0
0
Another point re the stupidity of brexit - the referendum was less than 52:48 of those who voted. So the choice of a minority of those able to vote is being actioned to everybody's fvcking detriment (save a tiny few whose wealth buffers them from any economic changes).
It is a scandal.
0
0
That's not an argument you'd expect an educated person to make. That same criticism (insofar as I understand your post correctly) could be made of any general or local election. More people voted for Brexit than have voted for anything in the history of this country.
0
0
Its the same argument as trotted out by everyone who disliked the result, and a complete non-argument unless they correspondingly advocate such a change to be applied to all votes.
the only reasonable conclusion as to the voting intentions of those that didn't vote is that they didn't care either way.
....and either way, the polls have barely changed since the referendum (when the polls also said that we would vote to Remain). Outside the capital most people (including remainers) a) respect the decision, and b) just want to get on with it
0
0
"Lizard how do you know growth hasn’t been lower than it would have been had it not been for the vote? All the evidence suggests it has been lower. So he was right there." This is not sensible debating, and is in fact a prime example of a sweeping, and completely unevidenced, generalisation. Go away and don't come back until you can actually back up this sort of statement. You know, the way I have done with the ones with which you specifically took issue.
What other points am I "predicting"?
"so actually you’d misunderstood both points and I was not wrong" - uh, okay.
0
0
Heh. I am going to take that as a rather undignified admission on your part that you could not find anything to back up your position.
And tax and defence unity would be a further push towards integration and federalisation - how else would you describe them?
0
0
Heh. Come on, Laz, admit it. Despite Googling desperately you cannot find a single piece of evidence to back up your position that UK growth collapsed 3%-6% immediately after the referendum.
And no, I don't get your prediction point. Because it does not make sense. But you don't have the intellectual confidence to admit that, do you .
0
0
Some idiot was on here a moment ago bleating about ridiculous sweeping generalisations. I wonder what happened to him.
0
0
Still no evidence, Laz? Still no actual point to make?
0
0
Didn't think so.
All these years and you're still third rate, Laz. Keeping busy?
0
0
Your chart appears to have the same content as all your arguments.
0
0
Sunny uplands... ...sunny uplands.
0
0
Suffer now and live the rest of your life as a champion...
...Jesus circa AD 26
0
0
Even now I keep expecting a leaver to come up with a half reasoned argument to explain the madness we are putting ourselves through, but, no every time, you read posts like spotty lizard, somebody who, to be fair, has probably thought about the issues more than most breximorons and realise there is only muddle headed nonsense behind Brexit. There are no good arguments for it. None at all. It is no longer possible to sensibly argue Brexit is not a bad idea - it all now pig headed hubris that will damage our country for generations to come.
0
0
With reasoned, not at all ad hominem remarks like that, Guy, I am amazed you have not been able to convince people to change to your way of thinking. I suspect that whatever I or anyone else posts will be insufficient for your purposes.
Laz, leaving aside your still incomprehensible gurn about predictions, you asserted that George Osborne's prediction that there would be a massive financial shock the day after a leave vote. Despite repeated requests, the only thing you have been able to produce to back that up is a chart (dunno why it won't show up on my phone) showing a gradual decline over many months in the country's growth rate. I agree that that is very likely due to Brexit (and in particular the result of continued uncertainty from, shall we say, less than optimal negotiating), and the question then becomes whether people who voted for Brexit considered that a fair trade-off in exchange for the various reasons for which they voted to leave. It does not support your assertion that the Remain campaign was telling the truth when it told voters that there would be an immediate financial shock following a leave vote.
0
0
I feel this discussion has now become somewhat unproductive. Thanks for your considered views .
0
0
They were not ad hominem remarks Lizard, in fact I credited you with having thought about the issues more than most, they were remarks against Brexit. You cannot put forward decent arguments in favour because there are none. This is not a finely balanced decision it is a no brainer, unfortunately we are taking the no brain option.
0
0
Heh@Laz describing something as redundant .
0
0
Ahem. Today's GDP figures show the UK outpacing France, Germany and Italy, and absolutely stuffing the Eurozone as a whole into a cocked hat.
0
0
Sure, nutcake.
0
0
Well - you certainly have lots of that, Cookie.
0
1
That's pretty rich coming from you, matey. And I've posted plenty of evidence above. If you don't agree with it, that's your business. Answering for the undeluded.
0
1
A basic Google search would have brought it up for you, but happy to oblige nonetheless.
0
1
Gotta say, Spotz, I'm v surprised you're on that side of things (and confused because the bezerkers are on what I'd normally think of as the right side - albeit nothing weirder than someone listing all their personal flaws as though they are someone else's).
(Looking at Italy's recent ubi developments I was reminded that I actually do think the EU has stripped the UK of much of its "ordinary peoplp" wealth for the enrichment of the east and the south but I can't help but feel the answer was more telling Merkel to stfu and the commission to shove their infraction proceedings up their flag motif rather than this)
0
1
That's what you come back with? Your life must be truly quite desolate if you're so desperate to have the last word that your response is to focus on a complete non-point. Go on - try to resist replying. But we all know you won't be able to.
0
1
How does serg enrage people so easily?? He's just a silly boy, ruffle his hair!
0
1
Brioche, I think it's fair to say that there is blinkered fanaticism on both sides; just look at some of the weirdos on this thread.
I (reluctantly) voted Remain, but the EU's attitude since the referendum, and the sheer vitriol that has been directed towards people who voted Brexit, caused me to re-evaluate my view (as did the fact that I though Remain ran a misleading campaign on the economics of voting Leave). One of the principal reasons we're in this mess is because for years successive governments and the predominantly London-centric metropolitan elite have tended to ignore, while paying lip service to, genuine concerns held by other parts of the country in relation to our EU membership.
0
1
*ruffles *
0
1
Realistically, tho, the London way is the future and that's hardly a UK or even European phenomenon - look at Tokyo.
0
1
Knew you couldn't stay away, boy.
0
1
Many brexiteers in deepest darkest ruralshire have no conception of Europe-wide supply chains, or finance generally.
They probably don't much like people in the next village, let alone foreigners.
Don't hold a referendum.
Join the discussion