so that's alright then? As long as we have someone to blame for the escalation in sectarian violence, terrorism, murder, intimidation - basically the state of things in the 70s and 80s.

 

But such an increase is just speculation.

 

The EU would share the blame for that.

It is May who is rolling over. :(

 

If the Irish veto it, we should get that 50b back. :P In any case, their blocking a deal won't prevent Brexit.

 

The decision is what matters, not the case.

 

Exactly as leading remainers predicted (not including the twatty resigner duo).

 

We won't get £50 "back". we still owe the money. if we don't pay up not only do we get no more business with the EU (at considerably more value than 50b) but no-one trusts the UK's ability to keep its word, and the billions the Gov borrows will cost much more, assuming any gov or bank trusts us to be able to repay debts as our economy goes into freefall.

 

The decision suddenly doesn't matter? Fine, then we can stay in the single market and avoid catastrophe, as the Leavers all said we could prior to the referendum. That includes farage the disparage.

But such an increase is just speculation.

 

It's factual if you follow politics here - there's already no government in ni!

Exactly as leading remainers predicted (not including the twatty resigner duo).

 

We won't get £50 "back". we still owe the money. if we don't pay up not only do we get no more business with the EU (at considerably more value than 50b) but no-one trusts the UK's ability to keep its word, and the billions the Gov borrows will cost much more, assuming any gov or bank trusts us to be able to repay debts as our economy goes into freefall.

 

Why are you *so* convinced that Brexit will be a failure?

 

As for the £50bn, without a detailed breakdown, it's like a cowboy builder asking for payment upfront. Only an idiot would cough up the money without knowing exactly what they were paying for!

 

Why are you *so* convinced that Brexit will be a failure?

 

As for the £50bn, without a detailed breakdown, it's like a cowboy builder asking for payment upfront. Only an idiot would cough up the money without knowing exactly what they were paying for!

 

Because there is no evidence that it will be anything other than a "failure" relative to our situation before June 2016, as I keep saying a million times a week - is your memory faulty? Why are you SO convinced it will be a success? What do you base that on? We would love to hear some optimism based on reality (as opposed to wishful thinking based on nothing). Have a look at that Daniel Hannan work of fiction and he told everyone the UK would be by 2025 from the second we voted to leave. Revisit everything every Leave campaigner claimed and then study what they are claiming now. Don't look at the promises. Try looking at the hard facts of what is actually happening, not what they said and still claim will happen. If you do that and have the capacity for rational decision-making then it should all become clear in a flash of revelation.

 

There is a detailed breakdown. The British Gov refuses to publish anything. Why have they suddenly said it £50b when they have been claiming it was £20b? Could it be that they were trying to blackmail the EU into agreeing only to pay what the UK owes if we get a fabulous deal that no other country in the world which is NOT in the EU gets? Funny that.....

Because there is no evidence that it will be anything other than a "failure" relative to our situation before June 2016, as I keep saying a million times a week - is your memory faulty?

 

There is no evidence to say it won't be a failure, either.

 

Are you seriously saying that, just because I remember you making that claim before, that proves your case? :wacko:

 

 

Why are you SO convinced it will be a success? What do you base that on? We would love to hear some optimism based on reality (as opposed to wishful thinking based on nothing).

 

For me, the economic success or failure of Brexit is less important than the reason *I* voted for Brexit - political freedom.

There is no evidence to say it won't be a failure, either.

 

Are you seriously saying that, just because I remember you making that claim before, that proves your case? :wacko:

For me, the economic success or failure of Brexit is less important than the reason *I* voted for Brexit - political freedom.

 

No, I'm saying I'm as sick of having to repeat myself as everyone else must be reading it.

 

There is no no evidence WHATSOEVER it will be a success. There is PLENTY of evidence it won't be.

 

Unlike you I don't have the capacity to put my trust in fantasy optimism based on prejudices against an organisation that you still have to clearly explain why you dislike so much in actual concrete examples. So, until you can offer up specific examples that don't involve vague meaningless phrases like "taking back control" and "free to trade with everyone" and "bureaucracy imposing their will" - none of which mean anything much EXCEPT in the one area of keeping EU citizens from having an automatic right to work here (as opposed to inviting them in anyway because we have jobs that need filling) - then there is no further point in making any response to any of your endlessly-repeated short-statements-posed-as-questions which rely on the Trump technique of wearing people out so much that they cease responding.

 

I will in future refer you back to my previous statements and give everyone a break.....

 

You on the other hand, avoid answering difficult questions all the time (see some of my recent posts on various topics that you have just come back with a repeat statement/change of subject because you don't admit you are wrong, you just ignore it entirely if my logic is flawless).

No, I'm saying I'm as sick of having to repeat myself as everyone else must be reading it.

then the answer is simple : stop saying it :teresa:

 

 

You on the other hand, avoid answering difficult questions all the time (see some of my recent posts on various topics that you have just come back with a repeat statement/change of subject because you don't admit you are wrong, you just ignore it entirely if my logic is flawless).

 

You and others here seem to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to trip me up, and persuade me I made a mistake voting for Brexit, but what's the point - it's not going to change the result. :rolleyes:

 

To save you a lot of effort then - I will inform you now that I *cannot* be persuaded by economic arguments, simply because, as I said earlier, I voted Brexit for political reasons.

Edited December 1, 20177 yr by vidcapper

Political reasons which you haven't been able to back up with any actual facts.

then the answer is simple : stop saying it :teresa:

You and others here seem to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to trip me up, and persuade me I made a mistake voting for Brexit, but what's the point - it's not going to change the result. :rolleyes:

 

To save you a lot of effort then - I will inform you now that I *cannot* be persuaded by economic arguments, simply because, as I said earlier, I voted Brexit for political reasons.

 

Happy to stop saying it if you do :P I dont enjoy repeating myself, just damned if I'm going to let you keep making the same old remarks.

 

Not trying to trip you up. Just not letting you spread misinformation to any helpless passers by that might wander on here and actually get taken in by your unsubstantiated opinions. God knows the Twittersphere is full enough of that, just doing my bit to help keep Buzzjack refreshingly free of Fake News.

 

PS if you try sticking to arguing for Brexit on POLITICAL REASONS (still waiting for examples of specific things) then I won't have any reason to respond. Result! I can post some pop music charts instead. Hooray!

 

 

 

Political reasons which you haven't been able to back up with any actual facts.

 

But political reasons aren't as reliant on them as economic ones are.

 

Is it so wicked to want to be able to make decisions on how you run your country, without having to consult 27 others, who if they wished could make it very difficult for you to implement them?

But political reasons aren't as reliant on them as economic ones are.

 

Is it so wicked to want to be able to make decisions on how you run your country, without having to consult 27 others, who if they wished could make it very difficult for you to implement them?

You make it sound as if we have to consult 27 other members before doing anything. We don't. Can you name a single piece of legislation a government has wanted to introduce but couldn't because of EU rules? If not, your point is irrelevant.

You make it sound as if we have to consult 27 other members before doing anything. We don't.

 

I was saying the opposite of that - pointing that while we *could* act unilaterally, it wouldn't be as consequence-free as if we weren't in the EU.

 

No you weren’t. Stop trying to weasel out of everything and answer his damn question

No you weren’t. Stop trying to weasel out of everything and answer his damn question

 

 

No you weren’t. Stop trying to weasel out of everything and answer his damn question

 

I thought better of keeping what I originally posted!

 

I am just *so* tired of people misunderstanding what I post, though! :coffee:

Edited December 2, 20177 yr by vidsanta

I think you voted out based on the Enid Blyton fantasy tbh

I think you voted out based on the Enid Blyton fantasy tbh

 

There's one slight flaw in that theory - I never read Enid Blyton.

The myth pervades other aspects of the zeitgeist - it's not just limited to the books.

I was saying the opposite of that - pointing that while we *could* act unilaterally, it wouldn't be as consequence-free as if we weren't in the EU.

 

You mean like invading Iraq with the Americans? Only 3 EU countries (it seems) were involved though the consequences have been felt considerably wider afield.

 

So, the EU could do nothing to stop it, they suffered consequences from it along with much of the Middle East and northern Africa, and we didn't. Didn't ask for or receive EU permission. The EU was totally irrelevant to Blair's decision-making process, and hindsight suggests the EU's more balanced measured approach would have been the sane one.

 

So how am I misunderstanding what you posted earlier? Feel free to enlighten....

 

This by the way is a POLITICAL reason, nothing to do with economics (at least they say oil wasn't the reason, they claimed it was WMD, the sort that Iran and North Korea has - and who aren't getting invaded)