General / Off-Topic Are we brexiting?

[FuzzySpider]

NOTE: I am not starting this thread to discuss the rights and wrongs of this. I am looking for nuanced and thoughtful opinions on where this might all be going.

Is it just me, or are the events taking place post-brexit UK baffling as hell? Having carefully considered what is going on I am starting to think that Theresa May is attempting to stop the whole thing from occurring. But then again, "Brexit means Brexit" and she appointed Davis and Fox to key positions to deal with it. Ok, so let's examine this for a second.

Are we to leave?
The aforementioned Liam Fox has been appointed to tender for trading partners (a job he is already making a massive pigs ear of) and David Davis has been appointed Brexit minister. Davis in particular is known for speaking his mind and just resigning if he feels he is being stepped on from above. He is a noted Eurosceptic, and will undoubtedly be looking to withdraw from the EU as much as possible. Also is the statement from the woman herself - "Brexit means Brexit". Furthermore, she has a pretty small majority at the moment. If she causes enough of a kerfuffle (by denying the right-wingers of the Tory party their pound of Euro flesh) she will find getting anything done in parliament impossible. It could be the appointment of Fox and Davis was a demand of the 1922 committee, and she is stuck with them. The shutting down of Fox's "Customs Union" statement last week does point to him not really being there by the choice of Theresa May.

Are we to stay?
She has been jetting all over the place. She has spent more time out of the country than inside of it since she became PM, and is meeting every European leader by the looks of things. Why would she do this? Is it to calm nerves? Or is it to tell them all face to face that we're leaving? Why do the latter at all? Is she trying to sort some sort of deal out to remain in the single market but leave the EU? This could be the reason she appointed Johnson (a pro-EU Tory, whatever he said recently) to the foreign office.

I was on the fence until the other day. Mark Carney is expected to lower interest rates on Thursday in response to the economic crisis this has caused. If he does I think that is a pretty sure sign that we are staying in the single market at the very least and possibly the entire EU. The reason he would lower rates is to lower the cost of borrowing and lower the cost of mortgage repayments - giving the British public more spending power. Do you remember, pre-referendum, they warned of a massive hike in interest rates?

The reason why:

Spoiler

We import way way more than we export. This isn't just some nebulous thing for economists, we're talking about the food you eat, the clothes you wear, the petrol in your car, your car itself, your IKEA furniture, and your Samsung telly. We don't really make all that much to sell to the world and we certainly don't grow food - we sell services. Out of the single market these services are at best severely hobbled. So without single market access the UK has to collectively work harder to produce more whilst buying less and consuming less. And that means spending less on buying stuff from amazon, less on clothes and expensive food, and putting more in investment banks that will give to industries to start building things. Increasing interest rates will lower consumption and possibly increase productivity, reducing our negative trade balance.

But no, they are going to lower them in something they have admitted is an attempt to stimulate consumerism. Is this economic insanity? Or is this a knowing nod and a wink to the markets to not be alarmed by brexit for a certain reason? Or am I missing something?

 

[Chris Simon]

I recommend the CGP Grey's video on the matter of "what happens now". I think he nailed it.

[video=youtube;m3_I2rfApYk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3_I2rfApYk[/video]

 

[Frank]

I recommend the CGP Grey's video on the matter of "what happens now". I think he nailed it.

Have you got a link to that video?

 

[Chris Simon]

Added, sorry, I was on my phone when I wrote that, so I couldn't add it sooner.

 

[FuzzySpider]

Have you got a link to that video?

I think he means this one.

http://devour.com/video/brexit-briefly/

 

[StiTch]

It was always going to be a slow process, but the route out was also always going to be badly lead.

Let's face it - both "sides" of the MPs in this debate lead their campaigns with a disgusting but obvious lack of any idea what to do, so we had fearmongering and name-calling from day one rather than giving us anything real to understand.

The only reason we'd have done a better job staying in is that would have meant far less work and far less for them to mess up

So in effect, just leave them to prattle it out by themselves and go have a cuppa.

 

[beelbeebub]

NOTE: I am not starting this thread to discuss the rights and wrongs of this. I am looking for nuanced and thoughtful opinions on where this might all be going.

Is it just me, or are the events taking place post-brexit UK baffling as hell? Having carefully considered what is going on I am starting to think that Theresa May is attempting to stop the whole thing from occurring. But then again, "Brexit means Brexit" and she appointed Davis and Fox to key positions to deal with it. Ok, so let's examine this for a second.

Are we to leave?
The aforementioned Liam Fox has been appointed to tender for trading partners (a job he is already making a massive pigs ear of) and David Davis has been appointed Brexit minister. Davis in particular is known for speaking his mind and just resigning if he feels he is being stepped on from above. He is a noted Eurosceptic, and will undoubtedly be looking to withdraw from the EU as much as possible. Also is the statement from the woman herself - "Brexit means Brexit". Furthermore, she has a pretty small majority at the moment. If she causes enough of a kerfuffle (by denying the right-wingers of the Tory party their pound of Euro flesh) she will find getting anything done in parliament impossible. It could be the appointment of Fox and Davis was a demand of the 1922 committee, and she is stuck with them. The shutting down of Fox's "Customs Union" statement last week does point to him not really being there by the choice of Theresa May.

Are we to stay?
She has been jetting all over the place. She has spent more time out of the country than inside of it since she became PM, and is meeting every European leader by the looks of things. Why would she do this? Is it to calm nerves? Or is it to tell them all face to face that we're leaving? Why do the latter at all? Is she trying to sort some sort of deal out to remain in the single market but leave the EU? This could be the reason she appointed Johnson (a pro-EU Tory, whatever he said recently) to the foreign office.

I was on the fence until the other day. Mark Carney is expected to lower interest rates on Thursday in response to the economic crisis this has caused. If he does I think that is a pretty sure sign that we are staying in the single market at the very least and possibly the entire EU. The reason he would lower rates is to lower the cost of borrowing and lower the cost of mortgage repayments - giving the British public more spending power. Do you remember, pre-referendum, they warned of a massive hike in interest rates?

The reason why:

Spoiler

We import way way more than we export. This isn't just some nebulous thing for economists, we're talking about the food you eat, the clothes you wear, the petrol in your car, your car itself, your IKEA furniture, and your Samsung telly. We don't really make all that much to sell to the world and we certainly don't grow food - we sell services. Out of the single market these services are at best severely hobbled. So without single market access the UK has to collectively work harder to produce more whilst buying less and consuming less. And that means spending less on buying stuff from amazon, less on clothes and expensive food, and putting more in investment banks that will give to industries to start building things. Increasing interest rates will lower consumption and possibly increase productivity, reducing our negative trade balance.

But no, they are going to lower them in something they have admitted is an attempt to stimulate consumerism. Is this economic insanity? Or is this a knowing nod and a wink to the markets to not be alarmed by brexit for a certain reason? Or am I missing something?

I get how increasing interest rates will lower consumption by way of making borrowing more expensive (but it may raise the £ making imported goods cheaper)

How would increased interest rates increase productivity? Moreover, how would more expensive money help boost our manufacturing output and competitiveness.

The UK's problem is that what it makes is not what we want to consume (some cars aside). We make high tech industrial stuff, cars, chemicals, pharmaceuticals and provide services. We don't make clothes, xboxes, iPads, avocados, mozzarella, flats pack furniture.

So we need to sell our stuff which we don't really use much of, in order to buy the stuff we buy a lot of.

The much vaunted (potential) trade deal with Australia, that was trumpeted a few days ago, is a good example. Australia doesn't produce a hell of a lot of the things we want, iron ore (great for our steel industry....), gold and diamonds and some beef.

Most of the things we want are either manufactured in china, the EU or the US. coincidentally most of the market for the things we produce is the EU and the US.

Trading with china is all well and good, but the balance of trade is the most important bit.

 

[FuzzySpider]

I get how increasing interest rates will lower consumption by way of making borrowing more expensive (but it may raise the £ making imported goods cheaper)

How would increased interest rates increase productivity? Moreover, how would more expensive money help boost our manufacturing output and competitiveness.

Mortgage interest rates rise. People not only need to spend less but people are more likely to work overtime, put in some extra hours to meet payments, more likely to work a bit harder to put a bit more cash in their account.

As for more expensive money, remember that we have no natural resources like gas or oil, and we have no real raw material production of our own. All of that stuff has to be acquired from elsewhere. Whatever happens we need a pretty stable pound above the level of the euro and the dollar to really make a decent go of facing the world on our own.

The UK's problem is that what it makes is not what we want to consume (some cars aside). We make high tech industrial stuff, cars, chemicals, pharmaceuticals and provide services. We don't make clothes, xboxes, iPads, avocados, mozzarella, flats pack furniture.

So we need to sell our stuff which we don't really use much of, in order to buy the stuff we buy a lot of.

The much vaunted (potential) trade deal with Australia, that was trumpeted a few days ago, is a good example. Australia doesn't produce a hell of a lot of the things we want, iron ore (great for our steel industry....), gold and diamonds and some beef.

Most of the things we want are either manufactured in china, the EU or the US. coincidentally most of the market for the things we produce is the EU and the US.

Trading with china is all well and good, but the balance of trade is the most important bit.

Our manufacturing is about 10% of our economy according to John Lanchester, (it's verbose but well worth reading). But as you say it is virtually nothing that we can use and every single thing we make depends upon having a place in a global economy. Even the cars you mentioned are often assembled elsewhere. For example, Ford make engines here but those engines go to the EU, which then puts them into cars, some of which come back here - they've already said that stops come brexit. And that's the other part of it - most of what me make goes to the EU anyway. There is no indication that any other nation wants this stuff. Australia certainly don't need our Rolls Royce/Boeing engines!

The permanent secretaries all know this. All the Sir Humphries will have been pointing this out to Theresa May and the rest. But is that whats going on? That's pretty much what CGP Greys video implies too I think.

 

[verminstar]

The leave side threatened us with the punishment budget if we voted out...that never happened. They threatened us with huge interest rate rises if we voted out...now that's not happening either. The threatened us with a lot of things that they said would happen, and none of it did...or at least has yet to happen. Punishing yer own people because they used their democratic right to vote, would be akin to cutting their own noses off to spite their face and the conservatives love having power above all else...if they carried out the threats that the leave side used, then their political careers would end when the next election swings around as we vote them right back out and replace them with UKIP for example, or something even more sinister...whatever gets the job done basically. And even were the main parties to stay in control, the right wing parties will only gain more votes and influence which could become a serious thorn in their sides in the future.

One could almost be forgiven fer thinking the leave side lied during their campaign considering much of what they said would happen...isn't happening at all.

Of course the politicians are gonna make the situation worse in the long run by achieving little things in the here and now to give the nation back some feel good factor...boost voter confidence now while they can. Those who value money above all else will work out all the details between them...just like we knew they would all along after they stopped feeling sorry fer themselves. Leave them to it I say while we worry about what matters most to us. When they mess up, and they will eventually, we can all worry about the consequences later.

But if this is some sorta diversion to try and get out of using article 50, then they basically sign the death warrant of their political careers. Time will tell the story as it unfolds over the next couple years...the important part about the establishment getting the message through their skulls has been done...now it's waiting to see if they heed the warnings or ignore them and so far, the signs are good that they are behaving themselves. Simple enough opinion from me...they brought this upon themselves and have nobody but themselves to blame...so if they feeling the pinch, then that's nothing more than icing on the cake ^^

 

[Patrick_68000]

What is sure is that the situation in the UK is complicated. But the EU is also complicated. One answer will come in late 2016, early 2017, if Article 50 is implemented. We will judge the determination of all

 

[beelbeebub]

The leave side threatened us with the punishment budget if we voted out...that never happened. They threatened us with huge interest rate rises if we voted out...now that's not happening either. The threatened us with a lot of things that they said would happen, and none of it did...or at least has yet to happen. Punishing yer own people because they used their democratic right to vote, would be akin to cutting their own noses off to spite their face and the conservatives love having power above all else...if they carried out the threats that the leave side used, then their political careers would end when the next election swings around as we vote them right back out and replace them with UKIP for example, or something even more sinister...whatever gets the job done basically. And even were the main parties to stay in control, the right wing parties will only gain more votes and influence which could become a serious thorn in their sides in the future.

One could almost be forgiven fer thinking the leave side lied during their campaign considering much of what they said would happen...isn't happening at all.

Of course the politicians are gonna make the situation worse in the long run by achieving little things in the here and now to give the nation back some feel good factor...boost voter confidence now while they can. Those who value money above all else will work out all the details between them...just like we knew they would all along after they stopped feeling sorry fer themselves. Leave them to it I say while we worry about what matters most to us. When they mess up, and they will eventually, we can all worry about the consequences later.

But if this is some sorta diversion to try and get out of using article 50, then they basically sign the death warrant of their political careers. Time will tell the story as it unfolds over the next couple years...the important part about the establishment getting the message through their skulls has been done...now it's waiting to see if they heed the warnings or ignore them and so far, the signs are good that they are behaving themselves. Simple enough opinion from me...they brought this upon themselves and have nobody but themselves to blame...so if they feeling the pinch, then that's nothing more than icing on the cake ^^

With all due respect I think you have been misinformed by the Leave press.

GO did not "threaten" a punishment budget as in he did not say "if you vote for leave I will cut all your benefits". What he did say is that if the UK leaves the EU the resulting economic damage may require an emergency budget. That's not quite the same thing. However it was spun into "chancellor threatens punishment budget" by Leave in the same way that Cameron's speech, where he mentioned that the UK had fought alongside other EU nations (tactfully omitting against other EU nations) to preserve peace in WW2 and that peace had endured on the continent since the war, was somehow spun into "Cameron predicts WW3 if we vote to Leave".

In the same way the "threat" of interest rate rises was not a threat, the BoE reacts to circumstances to try to keep inflation in check. if it thinks circumstances in the future might require an interest rate rise then it is not threatening, just informing (and it's job is to list all the risks it can foresee). Remember we are only a month in from the result.

If you and I were sitting in pub and someone spilled your drink. You say to me that you're going to go up to him and call him a [insert insult of choice]. Now I think that this is a dangerous bloke, everybody in the town thinks this bloke is a dangerous nutter so I say to you "if you do that I'll probably be picking your teeth of the pavement later", I'm not threatening you, i'm telling you what I think might happen. now I might be wrong, the bloke might be in a good mood and laugh at your front or maybe his reputation is all bluster, but that still doesn't mean I'm threatening you.

Leave deliberately spun any of the Remain positions as threats when they could. it was good as this played into their narrative of "big politics crushing the little man, don't be cowed, show them you're not afraid!"

You are right that, even thought the vote was advisory, ignoring it may cause big problems later in the form of increased support for even more unsavoury parties and the policies they represent.

You say the money people will work things out, but some things can't be worked out. The Irish border issue is a good example.

If we take a two starting positions:

1) The Irish border must stay as is i.e. unimpeded movement of goods and people with no checkpoints or customs points of any kind.
2) The UK wishes to make it's own trade deals with the world

If the UK is to make it's own trade deals, which was a big part of their argument, it cannot be inside the EU customs union.

This means it will have to have customs checks (and all the paper works) at the border with the EU (i.e. Ireland)

We cannot have (2) and (1) at the same time.

If we forgo trade deals in order to keep the Irish border open

- We cannot make our own trade deals
- We are subject to a large chunk of EU law and jurisdiction
- We lose the ability to have any say over those laws

In which case why bother leaving?

And that's just the trade deal argument. You can run the same argument with immigration. In each case unless you tighten the border we end up in the same situation as now, but with less control.

Of course we could stuff it and close the Irish border and see what happens, or give NI back to Ireland, that would partly solve the problem. That was one of the things we were warned might happen, but was dismissed as "scare tactics".

 

[FuzzySpider]

You say the money people will work things out, but some things can't be worked out. The Irish border issue is a good example.

If we take a two starting positions:

1) The Irish border must stay as is i.e. unimpeded movement of goods and people with no checkpoints or customs points of any kind.
2) The UK wishes to make it's own trade deals with the world

If the UK is to make it's own trade deals, which was a big part of their argument, it cannot be inside the EU customs union.

This means it will have to have customs checks (and all the paper works) at the border with the EU (i.e. Ireland)

We cannot have (2) and (1) at the same time.

If we forgo trade deals in order to keep the Irish border open

- We cannot make our own trade deals
- We are subject to a large chunk of EU law and jurisdiction
- We lose the ability to have any say over those laws

In which case why bother leaving?

Just to add to this, the UK is its very own "Single Market". There are variances, but generally you can get on the train in Cornwall and head on up to Aberdeen and find the general ghist of things to be similar.

The City of London is prosperous. According to some it pays a third of all UK taxes. Imagine a situation where the City decided they were way way richer than the plebs outside of London, and they didn't want any non-Londoners entering the city. Would the "single market" of the UK still be applicable? Would the tariff free status of goods going into London, whether meat grown in Cheshire or cars constructed in Dagenham be maintained? Or would the "single market" status start to unravel?

A market isn't really a well integrated free trade area if it doesn't have the four freedoms of capital, services, goods, and people. Put restrictions on any of that and it degrades the process.

But getting away from that, what's your analysis of the situation? It's early days, just a month, but it seems like this is one hot potato that Theresa May is taking a "wait and see" approach on.

 

[Talarin]

But getting away from that, what's your analysis of the situation? It's early days, just a month, but it seems like this is one hot potato that Theresa May is taking a "wait and see" approach on.

Speaking for myself, I don't feel that things have really moved on too much since the vote. I'd imagine that informal talks have started behind the scenes (including May's various direct meetings with other foreign heads) to see exactly what can be agreed in principle, both within and without the EU. Eventually a package of proposed agreements will be assembled.

Eventually I expect all of this to come to a head with an announcement and debate in parliament about the government's official position - with perhaps a vote on the government's position which will lead to the delivery of Article 50 if it passes.

In short, too early to draw any conclusions in my opinion.

 

[verminstar]

With all due respect I think you have been misinformed by the Leave press.

GO did not "threaten" a punishment budget as in he did not say "if you vote for leave I will cut all your benefits". What he did say is that if the UK leaves the EU the resulting economic damage may require an emergency budget. That's not quite the same thing. However it was spun into "chancellor threatens punishment budget" by Leave in the same way that Cameron's speech, where he mentioned that the UK had fought alongside other EU nations (tactfully omitting against other EU nations) to preserve peace in WW2 and that peace had endured on the continent since the war, was somehow spun into "Cameron predicts WW3 if we vote to Leave".

In the same way the "threat" of interest rate rises was not a threat, the BoE reacts to circumstances to try to keep inflation in check. if it thinks circumstances in the future might require an interest rate rise then it is not threatening, just informing (and it's job is to list all the risks it can foresee). Remember we are only a month in from the result.

If you and I were sitting in pub and someone spilled your drink. You say to me that you're going to go up to him and call him a [insert insult of choice]. Now I think that this is a dangerous bloke, everybody in the town thinks this bloke is a dangerous nutter so I say to you "if you do that I'll probably be picking your teeth of the pavement later", I'm not threatening you, i'm telling you what I think might happen. now I might be wrong, the bloke might be in a good mood and laugh at your front or maybe his reputation is all bluster, but that still doesn't mean I'm threatening you.

Leave deliberately spun any of the Remain positions as threats when they could. it was good as this played into their narrative of "big politics crushing the little man, don't be cowed, show them you're not afraid!"

You are right that, even thought the vote was advisory, ignoring it may cause big problems later in the form of increased support for even more unsavoury parties and the policies they represent.

You say the money people will work things out, but some things can't be worked out. The Irish border issue is a good example.

If we take a two starting positions:

1) The Irish border must stay as is i.e. unimpeded movement of goods and people with no checkpoints or customs points of any kind.
2) The UK wishes to make it's own trade deals with the world

If the UK is to make it's own trade deals, which was a big part of their argument, it cannot be inside the EU customs union.

This means it will have to have customs checks (and all the paper works) at the border with the EU (i.e. Ireland)

We cannot have (2) and (1) at the same time.

If we forgo trade deals in order to keep the Irish border open

- We cannot make our own trade deals
- We are subject to a large chunk of EU law and jurisdiction
- We lose the ability to have any say over those laws

In which case why bother leaving?

And that's just the trade deal argument. You can run the same argument with immigration. In each case unless you tighten the border we end up in the same situation as now, but with less control.

Of course we could stuff it and close the Irish border and see what happens, or give NI back to Ireland, that would partly solve the problem. That was one of the things we were warned might happen, but was dismissed as "scare tactics".

The irish border will stay exactly how it is now...that has already been decided and it's old news...as in it's last week's news. Or they can close it...I have very little desire to have much more to do with them and the irish government has already made it quite clear that they don't actually want ulster back...they have enough problems of their own without inheriting us. There's also the tiny little detail that the majority here want to stay a part of the UK, so handing us back isn't really an option they have right now, hence that's nothing more than hyperbole because now yer stuck with option 1 whether ye like it or not. Yer free to argue the point with our first minister who resides in stormont castle if ye won't take my word fer it.

I may not be as upto date with international affairs but there's really not much ye can tell me about my own country that I don't already know...but feel free to keep trying by all means.

Also, I'm not entirely soft meself...someone spills me drink and they either buy me a new one with a chaser and an apology, or they get a free taxi ride in an ambulance. Not that it would happen anyway because I've been dry fer a number of years...as in I don't drink anymore. Even so...hard or no hard, I'm not the sorta guy to just let it go regardless what his reputation is supposed to be...been there done that got the tee shirt.

The punishment budget...this was a threat no matter what excuses ye throw at it. Of course, yer gonna have a plethora of excuses ready to explain that one as not being a threat, but it was a threat pure and simple. Wasn't the only threat used either, I just picked on one I remembered better because I ignored most the others. "Not quite the same thing" just doesn't cut the mustard I'm afraid and a great many people saw that fer what it was even though they used all sorts of excuses to say it wasn't...just yer doing now. Sorry but didn't buy it then and don't buy it now and there's really not much ye can say that's gonna change that.

It's only been a month...chill out and let them do what has to be done...or don't and wind yerself up into knots over it. I got more important things to worry bout, so the folks on the hill can start earning their money fer a change and do something besides bicker and argue all the time ^^

 

[beelbeebub]

The irish border will stay exactly how it is now...that has already been decided and it's old news...as in it's last week's news. Or they can close it...I have very little desire to have much more to do with them and the irish government has already made it quite clear that they don't actually want ulster back...they have enough problems of their own without inheriting us. There's also the tiny little detail that the majority here want to stay a part of the UK, so handing us back isn't really an option they have right now, hence that's nothing more than hyperbole because now yer stuck with option 1 whether ye like it or not. Yer free to argue the point with our first minister who resides in stormont castle if ye won't take my word fer it.

Tight then so the Irish border stays as is, that's the fixed, immovable point. Fine.

Now if you fix that fact, that means that we have to remain in the customs union. There is no way around it, if we have an open free border with Ireland we cannot have our own trade deals, we must allow the EU to negotiate for us.

As the ability to do our own trade deals was a cornerstone of brexit economic strategy, that's a big deal. Those trade deals were supposed to be the way the UK offset any loss to EU trade and the only way we were going to be able to do better.

I may not be as upto date with international affairs but there's really not much ye can tell me about my own country that I don't already know...but feel free to keep trying by all means.

Also, I'm not entirely soft meself...someone spills me drink and they either buy me a new one with a chaser and an apology, or they get a free taxi ride in an ambulance. Not that it would happen anyway because I've been dry fer a number of years...as in I don't drink anymore. Even so...hard or no hard, I'm not the sorta guy to just let it go regardless what his reputation is supposed to be...been there done that got the tee shirt.

I think the point has been missed, I wasn't questioning your fighting ability, merely trying to make a point. Let's imagine it was the other way around and I was in your local looking to call the local loyalist commander names and it was you telling me "I wouldn't do that if you like your kneecaps" . would you regard your words to me as a threat or just trying to tell a chap what he's about to do might be a bad idea.

The punishment budget...this was a threat no matter what excuses ye throw at it. Of course, yer gonna have a plethora of excuses ready to explain that one as not being a threat, but it was a threat pure and simple. Wasn't the only threat used either, I just picked on one I remembered better because I ignored most the others. "Not quite the same thing" just doesn't cut the mustard I'm afraid and a great many people saw that fer what it was even though they used all sorts of excuses to say it wasn't...just yer doing now. Sorry but didn't buy it then and don't buy it now and there's really not much ye can say that's gonna change that.

It's only been a month...chill out and let them do what has to be done...or don't and wind yerself up into knots over it. I got more important things to worry bout, so the folks on the hill can start earning their money fer a change and do something besides bicker and argue all the time ^^

Dead right they can earn their money

 

[verminstar]

I get the analogy but personally speaking, I wouldn't say anything to ye...if ye were that crazy/dumb to do as ye say, then I'd be wanting to move as far away from ye as possible in case I got hit by mistake. In fact, I'd probably encourage ye cos the guy can barely run the length of himself and it'd be funny watching him try...seriously...he makes those half dozen steps into the club and his face resembles a very wet red thing. We've started keeping a book on when he has another stroke, so you go right ahead and get those vocal chords to work while I grab the popcorn.

I do get the analogy though. At the time, it looked and felt like a threat and considering the timing and the bungled excuses immediately afterwards, the claim of innocence didn't stick and nobody believed them. Still don't especially not after they had a month to get their stories right, so of course they can prove the contrary now...wouldn't be much fun if ye couldn't get the story straight after a whole month.

I keep tryin to tell ye that I couldn't give a monkeys about trade deals and economies...I'm not paid to worry about them so I don't. The state of the economy didn't even enter my mind when I voted out because that wasn't, and never was, my beef with the EU. Why ye think I do care is quite beyond me...so how ye expect me to argue about something I don't know very much about or care to learn is akin to accelerating down the wrong way of a one way street. If that's what you say will happen, then I'll just nod and agree...if ye say the complete opposite, I'll also just nod and agree...because I really absolutely and totally couldn't care less.

Hope fer the best and prepare fer the worst. Like I said, I got way more important things to worry about now so I'm just gonna wait and see...patience is a virtue and I'm not gonna sit and argue about this all over again so chill...we barely outta foreplay yet ^^

 

[Becks]

I keep tryin to tell ye that I couldn't give a monkeys about trade deals and economies...I'm not paid to worry about them so I don't. The state of the economy didn't even enter my mind when I voted out because that wasn't, and never was, my beef with the EU. Why ye think I do care is quite beyond me...so how ye expect me to argue about something I don't know very much about or care to learn is akin to accelerating down the wrong way of a one way street. If that's what you say will happen, then I'll just nod and agree...if ye say the complete opposite, I'll also just nod and agree...because I really absolutely and totally couldn't care less.

And that's the mistake. If your economy is dead, your country is done for. Period. A thriving economy is vital for a thriving country.

The Brexit sacrificed a huge part of the british influence in international matters for ... yeah, for what? What did you get in return?

Do you expect the upper class to lose money and become poor? I'd bet that most of them have already exchanged huge parts of their capital into foreign currency to avoid exactly that.

More sovereignity? Until the UK becomes North Korea 2.0 that's not going to happen.

Control over immigration? Not even Farage believes that one.

It's kinda ironic how Leave complained about "unelected Eurocrats making their laws" and now it looks like that's indeed going to happen for the UK.

You've wrecked your country and have achieved literally nothing ...

 

[Adept]

I keep tryin to tell ye that I couldn't give a monkeys about trade deals and economies...I'm not paid to worry about them so I don't. The state of the economy didn't even enter my mind when I voted out because that wasn't, and never was, my beef with the EU.

I think he isn't explaining this right.

If there is no border checks between Ireland and Ulster then anybody who can enter the EU can come into Northern Ireland. Either there's a border with passport checks and limited entry, or the people who'se movement you'd like to control are not getting controlled either.

So. Border between N.I. And Ireland, or the idea of keeping out those undesirables in the EU doesn't happen. I don't see how you could have one without the other.

 

[verminstar]

I can see yer still a bit miffed about this whole brexit thing and tbh I just can't be bothered giving you lot the argument ye so desperately want. The thread specifically asked for an opinion without this exact thing happening, and lo and behold, it's again a game of "lets all team up on verm"

At least one of us did as the OP asked hmm?

I gave my opinion so now everyone is just gonna pick it apart? So who gets the reply first? We play eeny minny mo or is that not politically correct these days?

I got a better game to play...so you lot have fun without me fer a bit while I um...go play with myself ^^

You guys really need to chill out more...yer all so stressed out all the time.

 

[FuzzySpider]

You've wrecked your country and have achieved literally nothing ...

Have we though?

It really does look as if this isn't going to happen. I'd put good money on the UK leaving the EU but staying absolutely part of the single market. The UK will still have to accept freedom of travel, still have to pay into the EU, and still have market access, but will just not have a seat at the EU table.

So. Border between N.I. And Ireland, or the idea of keeping out those undesirables in the EU doesn't happen. I don't see how you could have one without the other.

If this goes forward Northern Ireland will almost certainly be reunified with Ireland.

Northern Ireland is pretty expensive, and ironically enough gets a fair bit of cash from the EU to maintain itself. Furthermore, putting borders between NI and Ire will very likely result in a resurgent IRA, and no government is going to want that to be on their head.

When you look at the possible outcomes of all this you can see why Cameron ran away the very next day.