Christ there are some idiots on here. Closing my account as just not got the time to cope with it!
I might pop back when the euro collapses for a good old gloat. But all the best till then!
A bit drastic, @PolzeathNick, closing your entire CL account because of a thread about Brexit! Pity, either way.
Seriously, have you set up your account so that it alerts you by email every time a thread is added to? Because, you know, there's a solution to that :-)
But to your last comment, if you were one of the 'smart" young traders who was shorting the Euro in 2009 ahead of its "imminent collapse", I trust you have finally made up your losses since then; but as an old git, maybe I can offer you some old git advice? "Once bitten, twice shy..."
Christ there are some idiots on here. Closing my account as just not got the time to cope with it!
I might pop back when the euro collapses for a good old gloat. But all the best till then!
In what way? I’m genuinely interested from a point of moderating the thread who the ‘idiots’ are as that’s a very sweeping statement and why you want to close your account? PM me if necessary
To be fair shooters there are a lot of intelligent posters on this thread and I do enjoy reading most comments on here. But the British public are split roughly 50 50 over Brexit. But on this particular thread it is more like 95 5 in favour of remain. Personally I cannot be arsed to try and argue on a subject that I cannot possibly win on here. I'm amazed that some still try it's a bit like going to sellhurst and explaining that Charlton are better than palarse. People are so set in their belief that nothing will change them. Anyway mate at the end of the day we are all going to win or lose together whatever the outcome. Good luck.
There's probably a strong Remain bias amongst people willing to discuss politics on a lengthy webforum thread. I suspect things might be more balanced on a Facebook chat group or similar
There's probably a strong Remain bias amongst people willing to discuss politics on a lengthy webforum thread. I suspect things might be more balanced on a Facebook chat group or similar
Quite possibly. But I've never been on Facebook Twitter or any other form of social media. Charlton life is the only place that I comment on and at 63 years of age I can't be bothered to join anywhere else.
To be fair shooters there are a lot of intelligent posters on this thread and I do enjoy reading most comments on here. But the British public are split roughly 50 50 over Brexit. But on this particular thread it is more like 95 5 in favour of remain. Personally I cannot be arsed to try and argue on a subject that I cannot possibly win on here. I'm amazed that some still try it's a bit like going to sellhurst and explaining that Charlton are better than palarse. People are so set in their belief that nothing will change them. Anyway mate at the end of the day we are all going to win or lose together whatever the outcome. Good luck.
This is a question that can be answered by both remainers and leave voters; but, in this case, the leave voters' answers might be of more interest. So, in the spirit of extending this thread to anyone who might feel their input is marginalised, it would be particularly interesting to see how @blackpool72@Imissthepeanutman@PolzeathNick@golfaddick and @Chippycafc - as well as any other contributors - answer.
If we were to have a follow-up referendum in order to extract the Government and Parliament from their current logjam, and we were presented with three options: No Deal; Take the Government's Deal; Remain, which would be your first and second choices?
For clarity, "No Deal" would be the "just leave" option, where we end our relationship with the EU, we keep the £39bn we offered, we pull up the drawbridge on EU migration, trade on WTO terms exclusively, stop paying anything towards the EU's costs and end any jurisdiction of the ECJ. "Take the Government's Deal" would be to accept whatever deal the negotiating team manages to extract from the EU. And "remain" would mean withdrawing the Article 50 trigger and ending the brexit process completely.
It's an interesting question, because it enables anyone clearly to define what "type" of brexit they most want, instead of putting everyone in the same "bucket".
So, what would you vote for, if we were to be put in the position to help the government out?
To be honest, I don't think I could argue Charlton are better than Palace in terms of football ability and how well we are run anywhere. I hope the time comes sooner rather than later where it becomes easy. It used to be easier than easy!
This is a question that can be answered by both remainers and leave voters; but, in this case, the leave voters' answers might be of more interest. So, in the spirit of extending this thread to anyone who might feel their input is marginalised, it would be particularly interesting to see how @blackpool72@Imissthepeanutman@PolzeathNick@golfaddick and @Chippycafc - as well as any other contributors - answer.
If we were to have a follow-up referendum in order to extract the Government and Parliament from their current logjam, and we were presented with three options: No Deal; Take the Government's Deal; Remain, which would be your first and second choices?
For clarity, "No Deal" would be the "just leave" option, where we end our relationship with the EU, we keep the £39bn we offered, we pull up the drawbridge on EU migration, trade on WTO terms exclusively, stop paying anything towards the EU's costs and end any jurisdiction of the ECJ. "Take the Government's Deal" would be to accept whatever deal the negotiating team manages to extract from the EU. And "remain" would mean withdrawing the Article 50 trigger and ending the brexit process completely.
It's an interesting question, because it enables anyone clearly to define what "type" of brexit they most want, instead of putting everyone in the same "bucket".
So, what would you vote for, if we were to be put in the position to help the government out?
It's not a choice we're going to be offered though is it? They gave everyone the chance to vote in a referendum and look what the Great British public did - truly pissed on the establishment's chips. They're not going risk us screwing things up for them again. This will be fought out in the back rooms and corridors of Westminster, as the Brexit/Remain factions of the Conservative party tear each other to pieces. The next chance we get to vote on this will be the General Election and by then it will done and dusted and we'll just be giving a judgement on what sort of Brexit the fuckwits in charge have ended up with.
I'll say this. I won't vote for a Labour Party led by Momentum poster boy Jeremy Corbyn nor a Conservative Party led by that broken android Theresa May or the egregious Boris Johnson.
This is a question that can be answered by both remainers and leave voters; but, in this case, the leave voters' answers might be of more interest. So, in the spirit of extending this thread to anyone who might feel their input is marginalised, it would be particularly interesting to see how @blackpool72@Imissthepeanutman@PolzeathNick@golfaddick and @Chippycafc - as well as any other contributors - answer.
If we were to have a follow-up referendum in order to extract the Government and Parliament from their current logjam, and we were presented with three options: No Deal; Take the Government's Deal; Remain, which would be your first and second choices?
For clarity, "No Deal" would be the "just leave" option, where we end our relationship with the EU, we keep the £39bn we offered, we pull up the drawbridge on EU migration, trade on WTO terms exclusively, stop paying anything towards the EU's costs and end any jurisdiction of the ECJ. "Take the Government's Deal" would be to accept whatever deal the negotiating team manages to extract from the EU. And "remain" would mean withdrawing the Article 50 trigger and ending the brexit process completely.
It's an interesting question, because it enables anyone clearly to define what "type" of brexit they most want, instead of putting everyone in the same "bucket".
So, what would you vote for, if we were to be put in the position to help the government out?
It's not a choice we're going to be offered though is it? They gave everyone the chance to vote in a referendum and look what the Great British public did - truly pissed on the establishment's chips. They're not going risk us screwing things up for them again. This will be fought out in the back rooms and corridors of Westminster, as the Brexit/Remain factions of the Conservative party tear each other to pieces. The next chance we get to vote on this will be the General Election and by then it will done and dusted and we'll just be giving a judgement on what sort of Brexit the fuckwits in charge have ended up with.
I'll say this. I won't vote for a Labour Party led by Momentum poster boy Jeremy Corbyn nor a Conservative Party led by that broken android Theresa May or the egregious Boris Johnson.
I think you have stated an interesting position. I frequently argue that as voters we should perhaps have less regard for party leaders, and even parties, and the most regard for the individual representing your constituency. I see a lot of benefit in investigating those who put themselves forward, and measuring the cut of their individual jibs.
This is a question that can be answered by both remainers and leave voters; but, in this case, the leave voters' answers might be of more interest. So, in the spirit of extending this thread to anyone who might feel their input is marginalised, it would be particularly interesting to see how @blackpool72@Imissthepeanutman@PolzeathNick@golfaddick and @Chippycafc - as well as any other contributors - answer.
If we were to have a follow-up referendum in order to extract the Government and Parliament from their current logjam, and we were presented with three options: No Deal; Take the Government's Deal; Remain, which would be your first and second choices?
For clarity, "No Deal" would be the "just leave" option, where we end our relationship with the EU, we keep the £39bn we offered, we pull up the drawbridge on EU migration, trade on WTO terms exclusively, stop paying anything towards the EU's costs and end any jurisdiction of the ECJ. "Take the Government's Deal" would be to accept whatever deal the negotiating team manages to extract from the EU. And "remain" would mean withdrawing the Article 50 trigger and ending the brexit process completely.
It's an interesting question, because it enables anyone clearly to define what "type" of brexit they most want, instead of putting everyone in the same "bucket".
So, what would you vote for, if we were to be put in the position to help the government out?
It's not a choice we're going to be offered though is it? They gave everyone the chance to vote in a referendum and look what the Great British public did - truly pissed on the establishment's chips. They're not going risk us screwing things up for them again. This will be fought out in the back rooms and corridors of Westminster, as the Brexit/Remain factions of the Conservative party tear each other to pieces. The next chance we get to vote on this will be the General Election and by then it will done and dusted and we'll just be giving a judgement on what sort of Brexit the fuckwits in charge have ended up with.
I'll say this. I won't vote for a Labour Party led by Momentum poster boy Jeremy Corbyn nor a Conservative Party led by that broken android Theresa May or the egregious Boris Johnson.
As a hypothetical exercise, which two options would you prioritise if we were given this choice though?
This is a question that can be answered by both remainers and leave voters; but, in this case, the leave voters' answers might be of more interest. So, in the spirit of extending this thread to anyone who might feel their input is marginalised, it would be particularly interesting to see how @blackpool72@Imissthepeanutman@PolzeathNick@golfaddick and @Chippycafc - as well as any other contributors - answer.
If we were to have a follow-up referendum in order to extract the Government and Parliament from their current logjam, and we were presented with three options: No Deal; Take the Government's Deal; Remain, which would be your first and second choices?
For clarity, "No Deal" would be the "just leave" option, where we end our relationship with the EU, we keep the £39bn we offered, we pull up the drawbridge on EU migration, trade on WTO terms exclusively, stop paying anything towards the EU's costs and end any jurisdiction of the ECJ. "Take the Government's Deal" would be to accept whatever deal the negotiating team manages to extract from the EU. And "remain" would mean withdrawing the Article 50 trigger and ending the brexit process completely.
It's an interesting question, because it enables anyone clearly to define what "type" of brexit they most want, instead of putting everyone in the same "bucket".
So, what would you vote for, if we were to be put in the position to help the government out?
It's not a choice we're going to be offered though is it? They gave everyone the chance to vote in a referendum and look what the Great British public did - truly pissed on the establishment's chips. They're not going risk us screwing things up for them again. This will be fought out in the back rooms and corridors of Westminster, as the Brexit/Remain factions of the Conservative party tear each other to pieces. The next chance we get to vote on this will be the General Election and by then it will done and dusted and we'll just be giving a judgement on what sort of Brexit the fuckwits in charge have ended up with.
I'll say this. I won't vote for a Labour Party led by Momentum poster boy Jeremy Corbyn nor a Conservative Party led by that broken android Theresa May or the egregious Boris Johnson.
I think you have stated an interesting position. I frequently argue that as voters we should perhaps have less regard for party leaders, and even parties, and the most regard for the individual representing your constituency. I see a lot of benefit in investigating those who put themselves forward, and measuring the cut of their individual jibs.
That is the difficulty of it. Our local Labour MP seems to be actually fairly decent and I know that our local Labour councillors are OK. I still won't vote for Labour while they accept Jeremy Corbyn as their leader.
This is a question that can be answered by both remainers and leave voters; but, in this case, the leave voters' answers might be of more interest. So, in the spirit of extending this thread to anyone who might feel their input is marginalised, it would be particularly interesting to see how @blackpool72@Imissthepeanutman@PolzeathNick@golfaddick and @Chippycafc - as well as any other contributors - answer.
If we were to have a follow-up referendum in order to extract the Government and Parliament from their current logjam, and we were presented with three options: No Deal; Take the Government's Deal; Remain, which would be your first and second choices?
For clarity, "No Deal" would be the "just leave" option, where we end our relationship with the EU, we keep the £39bn we offered, we pull up the drawbridge on EU migration, trade on WTO terms exclusively, stop paying anything towards the EU's costs and end any jurisdiction of the ECJ. "Take the Government's Deal" would be to accept whatever deal the negotiating team manages to extract from the EU. And "remain" would mean withdrawing the Article 50 trigger and ending the brexit process completely.
It's an interesting question, because it enables anyone clearly to define what "type" of brexit they most want, instead of putting everyone in the same "bucket".
So, what would you vote for, if we were to be put in the position to help the government out?
It's not a choice we're going to be offered though is it? They gave everyone the chance to vote in a referendum and look what the Great British public did - truly pissed on the establishment's chips. They're not going risk us screwing things up for them again. This will be fought out in the back rooms and corridors of Westminster, as the Brexit/Remain factions of the Conservative party tear each other to pieces. The next chance we get to vote on this will be the General Election and by then it will done and dusted and we'll just be giving a judgement on what sort of Brexit the fuckwits in charge have ended up with.
I'll say this. I won't vote for a Labour Party led by Momentum poster boy Jeremy Corbyn nor a Conservative Party led by that broken android Theresa May or the egregious Boris Johnson.
As a hypothetical exercise, which two options would you prioritise if we were given this choice though?
You're hypothetical choice is a somewhat loaded question. You set out your parameters for a 'No Deal' Brexit, then leave the 'Take the government's deal' blank. What would anybody be hypothetically choosing? How can anybody judge what the government's deal is when you give no indication of what it entails. It's not a choice between 3 options, when you only define two of them. A seemingly clear, but in effect, useless referendum question is what got us in to this mess in the first place.
I'd vote No deal........and second choice Remain. All or nothing for me.
I came on here to say if you haven't done so then please watch tonights Newsnight. Excellent programme all about Brexit & basically confirms my thoughts as above.
The gist of it is ;
Chequers proposal is out Chequers + is out Norway option is out Canada + is a maybe (depends on the Irish border)
A no deal is not an option as Parliament has already voted it out A deal that involves us staying in the CU is out as Brexiteers would vote against it
errr....I think thats it.
JRM thinks the Irish border can be solved remotely because that's how its done atm.
I agreed with Nicola Horlick & the Yorkshireman.......the EU are doing all they can do scupper any deal so that we either give up & remain or have a 2nd Referendum. Interesting last point by Evan Davis......The UK is as big as the smallest 17 EU countries - that's why they don't want us to leave.
Seems amazing to me that May has lost two ministers, divided her party and country over a proposed deal that she didn't even run past the EU. That is mind-blowing incompetence from the person in charge of our country and the biggest challenge since WW2.
To be fair, I think the government would have been confident they could get it past the EU largely intact.
I think that confidence was grossly misplaced if that were the case. The EU have been remarkable consistent in their approach throughout. How many times do we have to be told we cannot cherry pick? How many times do we have to be told the "solutions" suggested are impractical, based on technology/infrastructure that doesn't exist and that they undermine the fundamental principles of the EU?
Rebranding Single Market membership as a "common rule book" might satisfy a few Leavers who can't see it for what it is, and save the Tories some face, but it was never going to fly in Brussels.
To be fair, I think the government would have been confident they could get it past the EU largely intact.
I think that confidence was grossly misplaced if that were the case. The EU have been remarkable consistent in their approach throughout. How many times do we have to be told we cannot cherry pick? How many times do we have to be told the "solutions" suggested are impractical, based on technology/infrastructure that doesn't exist and that they undermine the fundamental principles of the EU?
Rebranding Single Market membership as a "common rule book" might satisfy a few Leavers who can't see it for what it is, and save the Tories some face, but it was never going to fly in Brussels.
Which is why David Davis left. Whatever you might think of the man he was in fact heading the dept to leave & therefore must have known their red lines too. If TM couldn't get him onside then it must have been a non starter from the word go.
Golfie, I don't think the EU is trying to scupper a deal, I think they are merely, rightly, protecting their own interests, just as we would like to get the best deal in our interests - ideally we would like all the benefits and rights of EU membership without any of the responsibilities.
To be fair, I think the government would have been confident they could get it past the EU largely intact.
I think that confidence was grossly misplaced if that were the case. The EU have been remarkable consistent in their approach throughout. How many times do we have to be told we cannot cherry pick? How many times do we have to be told the "solutions" suggested are impractical, based on technology/infrastructure that doesn't exist and that they undermine the fundamental principles of the EU?
Rebranding Single Market membership as a "common rule book" might satisfy a few Leavers who can't see it for what it is, and save the Tories some face, but it was never going to fly in Brussels.
Which is why David Davis left. Whatever you might think of the man he was in fact heading the dept to leave & therefore must have known their red lines too. If TM couldn't get him onside then it must have been a non starter from the word go.
What this David Davis?
Yes, he seems like he has a good grasp of what Brexit means...
He was of course famously described, by someone on his side, as being as "thick as mince".
That said, I agree he would have known the EU's red lines. We all do. They've been upfront about them since before the referendum. It's just that our government seems to have a negotiating strategy that pretends they don't exist and the only non-negotiable issues are those we've decided on.
The BBC's political correspondent on R4T was asked what the Brexit ultras' alternative is to the Chequers plan. Ah, he said, that is far from clear and depends on whom you ask. So as usual these muppets know what they don't like but have no idea how to bring something better (and rooted in the real world)> And as he said, that rather strengthens May's position.
So here is my prediction. May is going to use the big meeting in the autumn with the EU27 to beg for (and she will have to beg) a one year extension to the Article 50 deadline, assuming that she cannot get full EU agreement to her Chequers proposal. She has to. There is no way on this earth that she can get the country ready to leave on 29.3.19 (my effing birthday, FFS). As frequently reported, no infrastructure has even been planned, let alone built at our ports, for example, and nothing has been agreed about our new relationship with all the EU institutions which cover nuclear energy, medicines, food standards, Europol/intelligence sharing, air travel. Etc, etc, etc ad nauseam.
Think I'm wrong? OK tell me this. What in political terms is worse for her? A humiliating cap in hand approach to the EU for an extension, or flights to Malaga for all the Brexiteering UK residents grounded, the lorries queuing back to Brexitland-on-Medway and the shelves emptying of rocket and avocados? It's called realpolitik.
It is indeed called realpolitik but one senses that you are leaving out several other ingredients. 1) why would the EU27 be unanimous and why would they wish for UK participation in the MEP elections next Spring? They have enough challenges with the Alt-right without having Farage on the scene. The deadline is there for a reason and it will either force a solution. no deal or the collapse of the government. 2) Its not in Barnier's interest to extend the deadline and perhaps May too?! M.Barnier holds all the cards and can dictate the deal on offer. 3) The UK doesn't go over the cliff edge next March. Subject to a draft outline and a backstop with Irish border there is a transition deal which is effectively EEA membership until December 2020 - This is now Gove' s preferred option 4) An Irish backstop in theory contains a potential move of the Irish CU/SM border to the Irish Sea. But the wording might be formed so as to postpone - ultimately if the English Brexit nationalists are to be accommodated, this will not end well with the DUP. The alternative is to keep extending the transition deal, certainly beyond the next election. FYI polls in Northern Ireland are starting to show a majority for reunification if Brexit is a mess.
In light of all that, we are leaving, we transition and Labour policy should shift to a long term transition for jobs, the economy etc. along with a vote on a final deal to embrace some form of cemocracy. What appears to be happening is that the possible "solutions" adopted by factions within the Tory party are neither workable, favourable for the UK economy nor acceptable to Barnier nor the House of Commons.
We have four months of this coming up - rather than extending Article 50, it's actually more likely that the government collapses and a new centrist coalition looks to either join EEA or abort the whole thing... for the polls are swinging with 47:42 view that the 2016 result was a mistake. And this is where we appear to agree - the theatre / farce taking place combined with the drip feed of negative news is affecting the polls with steady shift against a hard Brexit and in favour of a second poll to avoid that outcome.
To be fair, I think the government would have been confident they could get it past the EU largely intact.
I think that confidence was grossly misplaced if that were the case. The EU have been remarkable consistent in their approach throughout. How many times do we have to be told we cannot cherry pick? How many times do we have to be told the "solutions" suggested are impractical, based on technology/infrastructure that doesn't exist and that they undermine the fundamental principles of the EU?
Rebranding Single Market membership as a "common rule book" might satisfy a few Leavers who can't see it for what it is, and save the Tories some face, but it was never going to fly in Brussels.
Which is why David Davis left. Whatever you might think of the man he was in fact heading the dept to leave & therefore must have known their red lines too. If TM couldn't get him onside then it must have been a non starter from the word go.
What this David Davis?
Yes, he seems like he has a good grasp of what Brexit means...
He was of course famously, described by someone on his side as being as "thick as mince".
That said, I agree he would have known the EU's red lines. We all do. They've been upfront about them since before the referendum. It's just that our government seems to have a negotiating strategy that pretends they don't exist and the only non-negotiable issues are those we've decided on.
I think you're being very generous indeed to David Davis to suggest he would have known the EU's red lines. He seems to me to be utterly incapable of understanding anything of importance at all, with regards to the EU.
Less than a month before the referendum, he said this: “Post Brexit a UK-German deal would include free access for their cars and industrial goods, in exchange for a deal on everything else,” he said on 26 May this year.
“Similar deals would be reached with other key EU nations. France would want to protect £3 billion of food and wine exports. Italy, its £1 billion fashion exports. Poland its £3 billion manufacturing exports.”
This is a man who was Europe Minister in his 30s. Yet, in the last weeks of the EU referendum, he was arguing that we would be able to do deals with Germany, France, Italy and Poland.
This level of incompetence is extraordinary. The only thing more surprising is that he was given the top job to negotiate brexit. That he failed, and that subsequently he is trying to distance himself from culpability for that failure, is utterly unsurprising.
To be fair, I think the government would have been confident they could get it past the EU largely intact.
I think that confidence was grossly misplaced if that were the case. The EU have been remarkable consistent in their approach throughout. How many times do we have to be told we cannot cherry pick? How many times do we have to be told the "solutions" suggested are impractical, based on technology/infrastructure that doesn't exist and that they undermine the fundamental principles of the EU?
Rebranding Single Market membership as a "common rule book" might satisfy a few Leavers who can't see it for what it is, and save the Tories some face, but it was never going to fly in Brussels.
Which is why David Davis left. Whatever you might think of the man he was in fact heading the dept to leave & therefore must have known their red lines too. If TM couldn't get him onside then it must have been a non starter from the word go.
What this David Davis?
Yes, he seems like he has a good grasp of what Brexit means...
He was of course famously, described by someone on his side as being as "thick as mince".
That said, I agree he would have known the EU's red lines. We all do. They've been upfront about them since before the referendum. It's just that our government seems to have a negotiating strategy that pretends they don't exist and the only non-negotiable issues are those we've decided on.
I think you're being very generous indeed to David Davis to suggest he would have known the EU's red lines. He seems to me to be utterly incapable of understanding anything of importance at all, with regards to the EU.
Less than a month before the referendum, he said this: “Post Brexit a UK-German deal would include free access for their cars and industrial goods, in exchange for a deal on everything else,” he said on 26 May this year.
“Similar deals would be reached with other key EU nations. France would want to protect £3 billion of food and wine exports. Italy, its £1 billion fashion exports. Poland its £3 billion manufacturing exports.”
This is a man who was Europe Minister in his 30s. Yet, in the last weeks of the EU referendum, he was arguing that we would be able to do deals with Germany, France, Italy and Poland.
This level of incompetence is extraordinary. The only thing more surprising is that he was given the top job to negotiate brexit. That he failed, and that subsequently he is trying to distance himself from culpability for that failure, is utterly unsurprising.
Despicable man.
Just another in a long line of pompous prats who have overestimated just how big we are and how much the rest of the world needs us. Can’t buy any of this bullshit about the EU scuppering a deal. As Nadou points out above. They’re protecting their interests. Of course one or two of the larger nations like Germany use the EU to work in their National interest. May not be fair and I’ve always believed the EU needs reform, but we knew how it worked from being part of it. We should have had the understanding to know how it would work should we choose to leave. Yet here we are just making vague demands on the basis that we should a get a bespoke deal. Not if the bespoke deal compromises the 4 pillars, which most of what we’ve come up with does
Arrogance, incompetence and continued lemming like behaviour that’s the last 18 months in a nutshell
Until people start seeing a detrimental effect on their daily lives, we’ll just go back and forth with all this nonsense. Rabb, Davis, Fox whoever. Utter numpties
The problem is that when people really start to feel it, they will just say that it was because we got the wrong Brexit, not the one they wanted! I would argue we are feeling it now to a point.
Comments
Seriously, have you set up your account so that it alerts you by email every time a thread is added to? Because, you know, there's a solution to that :-)
But to your last comment, if you were one of the 'smart" young traders who was shorting the Euro in 2009 ahead of its "imminent collapse", I trust you have finally made up your losses since then; but as an old git, maybe I can offer you some old git advice? "Once bitten, twice shy..."
But when you are outnumbered about 50 to 1 it becomes rather pointless to continue.
But the British public are split roughly 50 50 over Brexit.
But on this particular thread it is more like 95 5 in favour of remain.
Personally I cannot be arsed to try and argue on a subject that I cannot possibly win on here.
I'm amazed that some still try it's a bit like going to sellhurst and explaining that Charlton are better than palarse.
People are so set in their belief that nothing will change them.
Anyway mate at the end of the day we are all going to win or lose together whatever the outcome.
Good luck.
But I've never been on Facebook Twitter or any other form of social media.
Charlton life is the only place that I comment on and at 63 years of age I can't be bothered to join anywhere else.
If we were to have a follow-up referendum in order to extract the Government and Parliament from their current logjam, and we were presented with three options: No Deal; Take the Government's Deal; Remain, which would be your first and second choices?
For clarity, "No Deal" would be the "just leave" option, where we end our relationship with the EU, we keep the £39bn we offered, we pull up the drawbridge on EU migration, trade on WTO terms exclusively, stop paying anything towards the EU's costs and end any jurisdiction of the ECJ. "Take the Government's Deal" would be to accept whatever deal the negotiating team manages to extract from the EU. And "remain" would mean withdrawing the Article 50 trigger and ending the brexit process completely.
It's an interesting question, because it enables anyone clearly to define what "type" of brexit they most want, instead of putting everyone in the same "bucket".
So, what would you vote for, if we were to be put in the position to help the government out?
I'll say this. I won't vote for a Labour Party led by Momentum poster boy Jeremy Corbyn nor a Conservative Party led by that broken android Theresa May or the egregious Boris Johnson.
I frequently argue that as voters we should perhaps have less regard for party leaders, and even parties, and the most regard for the individual representing your constituency.
I see a lot of benefit in investigating those who put themselves forward, and measuring the cut of their individual jibs.
You're hypothetical choice is a somewhat loaded question. You set out your parameters for a 'No Deal' Brexit, then leave the 'Take the government's deal' blank. What would anybody be hypothetically choosing? How can anybody judge what the government's deal is when you give no indication of what it entails. It's not a choice between 3 options, when you only define two of them. A seemingly clear, but in effect, useless referendum question is what got us in to this mess in the first place.
I came on here to say if you haven't done so then please watch tonights Newsnight. Excellent programme all about Brexit & basically confirms my thoughts as above.
The gist of it is ;
Chequers proposal is out
Chequers + is out
Norway option is out
Canada + is a maybe (depends on the Irish border)
A no deal is not an option as Parliament has already voted it out
A deal that involves us staying in the CU is out as Brexiteers would vote against it
errr....I think thats it.
JRM thinks the Irish border can be solved remotely because that's how its done atm.
I agreed with Nicola Horlick & the Yorkshireman.......the EU are doing all they can do scupper any deal so that we either give up & remain or have a 2nd Referendum. Interesting last point by Evan Davis......The UK is as big as the smallest 17 EU countries - that's why they don't want us to leave.
Rebranding Single Market membership as a "common rule book" might satisfy a few Leavers who can't see it for what it is, and save the Tories some face, but it was never going to fly in Brussels.
Yes, he seems like he has a good grasp of what Brexit means...
He was of course famously described, by someone on his side, as being as "thick as mince".
That said, I agree he would have known the EU's red lines. We all do. They've been upfront about them since before the referendum. It's just that our government seems to have a negotiating strategy that pretends they don't exist and the only non-negotiable issues are those we've decided on.
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/david-davis-truth-errors-mistakes-u-turns-brexit/
1) why would the EU27 be unanimous and why would they wish for UK participation in the MEP elections next Spring? They have enough challenges with the Alt-right without having Farage on the scene. The deadline is there for a reason and it will either force a solution. no deal or the collapse of the government.
2) Its not in Barnier's interest to extend the deadline and perhaps May too?! M.Barnier holds all the cards and can dictate the deal on offer.
3) The UK doesn't go over the cliff edge next March. Subject to a draft outline and a backstop with Irish border there is a transition deal which is effectively EEA membership until December 2020 - This is now Gove' s preferred option
4) An Irish backstop in theory contains a potential move of the Irish CU/SM border to the Irish Sea. But the wording might be formed so as to postpone - ultimately if the English Brexit nationalists are to be accommodated, this will not end well with the DUP. The alternative is to keep extending the transition deal, certainly beyond the next election. FYI polls in Northern Ireland are starting to show a majority for reunification if Brexit is a mess.
In light of all that, we are leaving, we transition and Labour policy should shift to a long term transition for jobs, the economy etc. along with a vote on a final deal to embrace some form of cemocracy. What appears to be happening is that the possible "solutions" adopted by factions within the Tory party are neither workable, favourable for the UK economy nor acceptable to Barnier nor the House of Commons.
We have four months of this coming up - rather than extending Article 50, it's actually more likely that the government collapses and a new centrist coalition looks to either join EEA or abort the whole thing... for the polls are swinging with 47:42 view that the 2016 result was a mistake. And this is where we appear to agree - the theatre / farce taking place combined with the drip feed of negative news is affecting the polls with steady shift against a hard Brexit and in favour of a second poll to avoid that outcome.
Less than a month before the referendum, he said this: “Post Brexit a UK-German deal would include free access for their cars and industrial goods, in exchange for a deal on everything else,” he said on 26 May this year.
“Similar deals would be reached with other key EU nations. France would want to protect £3 billion of food and wine exports. Italy, its £1 billion fashion exports. Poland its £3 billion manufacturing exports.”
This is a man who was Europe Minister in his 30s. Yet, in the last weeks of the EU referendum, he was arguing that we would be able to do deals with Germany, France, Italy and Poland.
This level of incompetence is extraordinary. The only thing more surprising is that he was given the top job to negotiate brexit. That he failed, and that subsequently he is trying to distance himself from culpability for that failure, is utterly unsurprising.
Despicable man.
Arrogance, incompetence and continued lemming like behaviour that’s the last 18 months in a nutshell
Until people start seeing a detrimental effect on their daily lives, we’ll just go back and forth with all this nonsense. Rabb, Davis, Fox whoever. Utter numpties