The referendum was not a mandate for No Deal

But my mindset is to eb towards risk for bigger gains not trundle in the slow lane safely until I eventually arrive. So we will never agree it looks

What bigger gains?

The UK currently has preferential trade agreements with 160 countries.

Where are these gains you speak of?

-oh thats right they are the fictitious gains youve been told by Rees Mogg.

I hear Rees Mogg is makibg a tidy sum out of Brexit -is he sharing it with you? :ROFLMAO:
 
Sponsored Links
You are,very challenged.Good you are content with your condition.

I am very content with my condition. Thank you for your concern, it is most apprrciated.

I trust you are content with having voted Brexit out of ignorance?

-Im sorry if I am making an assumption there, but since you refuse point blank to have a serious discussion about any aspect of Brexit, I can only reach the conclusion you dont have the knowledge.

If you can show me anything I have written is incorrect, I would be pleased if you would provide the evidence, because I believe in intellectual honesty

I thank you for your interest, have a great day :)
 
Sponsored Links
Over the last two-and-a-half years, Remainers have lost no opportunity to tell us how smart, sophisticated and educated Barnier is – the perfect negotiator compared with our bunch of unprepared amateurs.

The truth is that at the outset, the EU team were scared of the UK team fearing they would drive a hard bargain, and mindful of the UK’s main cards – huge trade deficit, huge payments-in, and defence/security capabilities etc. But when they realized May was a pushover, Barnier pushed and pushed and got greedy. The resulting WA we all now know was a surrender document for the UK.

Smug Barnier became cock of his own dunghill; Weyand said “we have all the controls”; and on the BBC 4 documentary, officials declared “we have our first colony!”. Barnier was lauded in the EU, and assumed he would get one of the top for jobs which were up for grabs.

Fast forward to now and it looks increasingly as though we leave with no deal. Barnier overplayed his hand and in truth has let his own side down; if the WA is binned, the EU looses all Barnier negotiated for, and both sides have to start all over again.

Good, sophisticated negotiator? I don’t think so; just a dull, unimaginative functionary taking advantage; nil points, Michel.
 
Last edited:
Im sorry if I am making an assumption there, but since you refuse point blank to have a serious discussion about any aspect of Brexit, I can only reach the conclusion you dont have the knowledge.
You and your clan spent 3 years with your graphs figures etc telling us we are wrong.No point anymore Economics is a pseudo science at best,Brexit,good or bad etc etc etc,,was voted for ...
 
Im sorry if I am making an assumption there, but since you refuse point blank to have a serious discussion about any aspect of Brexit, I can only reach the conclusion you dont have the knowledge.
Of course i do not have the knowledge,,,no one on the freekin planet has the knowledge to predict tomorrow
 
Of course i do not have the knowledge,,,no one on the freekin planet has the knowledge to predict tomorrow
Then why disparage Notch's comments? If you don't know then he may turn out to be right! Surely all this leave and remain fighting is a waste of effort - time will tell eh.
:)
 
You and your clan spent 3 years with your graphs figures etc telling us we are wrong.No point anymore Economics is a pseudo science at best,Brexit,good or bad etc etc etc,,was voted for ...

Economics may well be a pseudo science.

I havent mentioned economics, haveI?

Lets stick to simple facts.

Leave with no deal: means losing all trade agreements, which will be damaging.

Leave with a deal: cant be done by 31st Oct, Boris has set red lines which the EU wont agree with.

You can carve it up however you like, one way or another we will continue to trade under the existing EU trade agreements.

And that means regulatory alignment -so no US trade deal. Or US trade deal and regulatory divergence, which means loss of all 759 trade agreements and border controls.....which given the amount of trade with the EU wont be beneficial to our economy.

As weve been told all along, the closer the alignment we have to the EU, the less damage.

Im sorry if this is boring but I need to emphasisi: it is all to do with trade agreements and regulatory standards.
 
If you can show me anything I have written is incorrect, I would be pleased if you would provide the evidence, because I believe in intellectual honesty
You might believe god lives in your bathroom..I cannot prove that is not true or any other crap you believe.
 
Economics may well be a pseudo science.

I havent mentioned economics, haveI?

Lets stick to simple facts.

Leave with no deal: means losing all trade agreements, which will be damaging.

Leave with a deal: cant be done by 31st Oct, Boris has set red lines which the EU wont agree with.

You can carve it up however you like, one way or another we will continue to trade under the existing EU trade agreements.

And that means regulatory alignment -so no US trade deal. Or US trade deal and regulatory divergence, which means loss of all 759 trade agreements and border controls.....which given the amount of trade with the EU wont be beneficial to our economy.

As weve been told all along, the closer the alignment we have to the EU, the less damage.

Im sorry if this is boring but I need to emphasisi: it is all to do with trade agreements and regulatory standards.
You are obviously wasted on here, being such an expert
 
Youtube thought I should watch this as I had allowed myself to get drawn into this **** again so I'm sharing it with the more deserving.
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top