Change UK Threatens Brexit Party, Farage a Worldwide Joke

[ellal]

My mate was stuck in a bad marriage for 15 years. He eventually got a divorce. Cost him a lot of money, lost half his house and pension and for a few years afterwards he had it tough. Very tough. But you know what? He’s a different man now. Very happy, makes his own rules and has a wonderful partner. He wishes he’d taken the plunge much sooner.

Funny how all we ever get from quitters is empty slogans and stupidly irrelevant 'anecdotes'....

No facts and no answers of course!

 

[ellal]

Let's just for a moment presume everyone knows this, we'll be worse off, it'll damage the economy.

It goes back to public vote and the result is the same (leave) and let's for a moment consider (should the second vote allow) that the majority vote to leave with no deal.

To clarify, we know, we accept, by majority we vote for it anyway.


Then what?

Under that scenario, then we leave with no deal...

And as I have said before, referendum law should be changed so that it would be legally binding and that the issue not be revisited for a lengthy period of time unless there was a large majority in parliament to do so...

Currently the situation is that whatever quitters claim, people voting leave did not know what they were voting for and never fully will...
(they certainly didn't seem to understand the workings of our representative parliamentary 'democratic' system)

However, being partially informed is better than being totally in the dark!

 

[SammyInnit]

Under that scenario, then we leave with no deal...

And as I have said before, referendum law should be changed so that it would be legally binding and that the issue not be revisited for a lengthy period of time unless there was a large majority in parliament to do so...

Currently the situation is that whatever quitters claim, people voting leave did not know what they were voting for and never fully will...
(they certainly didn't seem to understand the workings of our representative parliamentary 'democratic' system)

However, being partially informed is better than being totally in the dark!

You've not answered the question either.

I suppose what I'm getting at is, if it's voted for again with the understanding it will be damaging, will that be enough for anyone else to just accept the fact that actually, yes that is what we voted for?

Would the minority of voters up root and try life on the continent or would they get on with it and accept it for what it is?

 

[Ihavenojob]

No facts and no answers of course!

Where are the facts to confirm something that has not even happened ?

 

[SammyInnit]

Where are the facts to confirm something that has not even happened ?

Ask George Osborne

 

[durhamplumber]

Leaving without a deal aint happening

Your crystal ball doing overtime again.

 

[durhamplumber]

Brexiteers need to start discussing the real economic issues rather than going on about 'the will of the people'.........

Remainiacs need to move on..Ref is over.

 

[JP_]

Remember this gem?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36355564

Economists

What's your point? We haven't left yet.

 

[SammyInnit]

What's your point? We haven't left yet.

You didn't read it, did you.

Publishing Treasury analysis, he said a Leave vote would cause an "immediate and profound" economic shock, with growth between 3% and 6% lower.

The Treasury's "cautious" economic forecasts of the two years following a vote to leave - which assumes a bilateral trade agreement with the EU would have been negotiated - predicts Gross Domestic Product would grow by 3.6% less than currently predicted.

In such a scenario, it suggests sterling would fall by 12%, unemployment would rise by 520,000, average wages would fall by 2.8% and house prices would be hit by 10%.

So much for your economists.
Lowest rate of unemployment since the 1970s
Wages are growing, not falling.
House prices are growing, not falling.

 

[JP_]

"... two years following a vote to leave - which assumes a bilateral trade agreement with the EU would have been negotiated" is referring to the 2 years after leaving, not after deciding to leave.

At the moment, nothing has change, we haven't left yet, why would anybody expect any major change to our economy before we actually leave?

 

[SammyInnit]

"... two years following a vote to leave - which assumes a bilateral trade agreement with the EU would have been negotiated" is referring to the 2 years after leaving, not after deciding to leave.

At the moment, nothing has change, we haven't left yet, why would anybody expect any major change to our economy before we actually leave?

You don't even understand what you've quoted is saying.

two years following a vote to leave

Vote to leave happened in 2016. In the 2 years that followed the exact opposite to those forecast became the reality. The only thing that did come to pass was a drop in the pound but in terms of housing prices, employment and GDP the forecast was wrong.

It doesn't say after leaving the EU. There was however a different analysis that looked at the situation after we had left the EU. This was not that.

why would anybody expect any major change to our economy before we actually leave?

If you leave today or leave tomorrow, you're still leaving.

In the two years since the ref you're the only person I can think of who has questioned the meaning of this analysis be it after we leave or after we vote to leave. It was pretty clear to everyone else.

 

[ellal]

You've not answered the question either.

Then it is you that has a problem understanding what an answer actually is

I suppose what I'm getting at is, if it's voted for again with the understanding it will be damaging, will that be enough for anyone else to just accept the fact that actually, yes that is what we voted for?

The clue is in the bit: "referendum law should be changed so that it would be legally binding and that the issue not be revisited for a lengthy period of time unless there was a large majority in parliament to do so"

But to spell it out even more simply, if people vote to damage this country then so be it...

Would the minority of voters up root and try life on the continent or would they get on with it and accept it for what it is?

No deal means that all voters (leave or remain) would find it very difficult to 'up root and try life on the continent', so would be stuck with it!

I thought you understood what leaving the EU meant as regards freedom of movement

 

[SammyInnit]

The clue is in the bit: "referendum law should be changed so that it would be legally binding and that the issue not be revisited for a lengthy period of time unless there was a large majority in parliament to do so"

Yeah, that didn't answer what I was asking Lal.

This did however:

But to spell it out even more simply, if people vote to damage this country then so be it...

The legality issue is irrelevant if you're using the argument 'they were uninformed'.

 

[Mottie]

Funny how all we ever get from quitters is empty slogans and stupidly irrelevant 'anecdotes'....

No facts and no answers of course!

And funny how we only get forecasts of gloom and doom from the remoaners.

 

[ellal]

Yeah, that didn't answer what I was asking Lal.

Poor old SammyInnit...

Resorts to name calling when shown up...Yet again!

But hey, you carry on changing the question when you don't get the answer you want...
(kind of like what the whole brexshit process you appear to not like is doing right now )