How to deal with awkward journalists

[1959_60]

Sinkov, you simply can't even consider voting Lib Dem at the moment because of our stance on Europe. So why would you be interested in learning more about the party? As you say, they are irrelevant to you.

It would be a waste of time pointing out our other policies because, even if they offered to buy your ale, you wouldn't vote for them.

But follow the money. There is no such thing as a free lunch. So whoever funds the Tories or Labour will be sure to come calling for their payback once they are elected.

Hence, Labour will be looking after the unions and the Tories will support the super rich.

The Lib Dem, funded mainly from it's membership, are free to pursue policies that are in the national interest, not in the interest of big business or the unions.
Both parties claim to be on the side of the "ordinary" person and spend £££ on branding themselves as touchy feely people who you could share a pint with. Surely you can see through this? Trouble is, most people don't have enough interest in politics to fact check them, and they are easily impressed with the well rehearsed soundbites that they churn out.

[sinkov]

"Both parties claim to be on the side of the "ordinary" person and spend £££ on branding themselves as touchy feely people who you could share a pint with. Surely you can see through this?"

Yes I can, I won't be voting for either of them. You say I won't even consider voting LibDem because of your stance on Europe. That is correct up to a point, because the LibDems want to overturn the result of the referendum, telling 17.4 million people their opinion is irrelevant, and their decision will be overturned, is a truly dangerous step to take in what purports to be a democracy. I will not vote for any party that proposes such lunacy.

However, if the LibDems accepted the result of the referendum, but said we think leaving will be a disaster, and when we are proved right we will stand at the next election on a platform of re-applying to join the EU, or at least holding another referendum on it, then I might consider voting for them.

[1959_60]

You were told (Liam Fox) that negotiating a deal on Brexit would be "one of the easiest in human history"

We are now in a situation where a deal looks imminent, but it will probably mean that we will be tied to EU regulations without having a say on the rules. Is this what you voted for?

The alternative seems to be leaving without a deal. Hardly anyone supports this. I don't think you do either?

So, a new "Peoples Vote" would be on actual facts and figures, not on lies and supposition (from both sides) during the 2016 vote. A totally different situation.

There is simply no consensus in Parliament for ANY way forward. In these circumstances what do we do?

If you are happy to leave the final decision to Theresa May then that is fine. But probably the majority of the public now have genuine concerns about where we will end up.

I honestly believe that, having seen events unfold and unexpected consequences becoming apparent, the public has shifted its stance.

Surely the best thing to do, before it is to late, is to ask them their view on the final deal?

Democracy didn't end in June 2016 you know.

[sinkov]

What if you have a second referendum and the result is still 'Leave'. What then ? We still have the Irish backstop problem, we still don't have a deal, but the clock has ticked on. What then, a third referendum ?

Or if it's a close vote again but 'Remain', just wins, are the Brexiteers entitled to a third referendum, they'll think they are, and won't rest until they get one.

What if it's a vote to 'Remain', the EU says fine, but all your rebates have gone, it will cost you, as well they might ? Do we have another referendum on the terms of our Remaining ?

The current situation is a complete and utter manufactured shambles, but no situation is ever so bad that you can't make it worse, which is what telling 17 million people they're fools and had better think again will do. There is no good outcome to a second referendum, it's lunacy.

[1959_60]

What if you have a second referendum and the result is still 'Leave'. What then ? We still have the Irish backstop problem, we still don't have a deal, but the clock has ticked on. What then, a third referendum ?

Or if it's a close vote again but 'Remain', just wins, are the Brexiteers entitled to a third referendum, they'll think they are, and won't rest until they get one.

What if it's a vote to 'Remain', the EU says fine, but all your rebates have gone, it will cost you, as well they might ? Do we have another referendum on the terms of our Remaining ?

The current situation is a complete and utter manufactured shambles, but no situation is ever so bad that you can't make it worse, which is what telling 17 million people they're fools and had better think again will do. There is no good outcome to a second referendum, it's lunacy.

As you very well know, it's not a matter of telling people they're fools, it is simply asking their opinion on the final deal - now that we actually knows what it entails.
And I reckon that the 17 million is now considerably less than that.

If you bought something online and it was not as advertised then do you think you should have the opportunity to return it?

The Brexit deal looks like being a long way from what people were told it would look like, and it seems sensible to me to give them the opportunity to inspect the goods before paying up.

[sinkov]

Do you know something I don't 59/60, I have no idea what the final deal is, or even if there will be one. And it won't be May that makes the decision, she will have to put her deal to parliament, where the likelihood is it will be thrown out, and she will be told to go back and negotiate a better one.

[Supersub6]

I love the arguments for and against etc., etc., however, we are talking about politics and politicians who always make all sorts of promises at election time which they know that they either can't or won't fulfil and are never brought to book about it.
My question is, did anybody tell the truth whether it was on the remain or leave side?
The way I see it is that, as is normal, all sorts of things were spouted by both sides, however, neither side had any real plan to put forward, it was all just hot air.
The shock was that the people voted to leave and this really put the cat amongst the pigeons because those in power were taken by surprise and have been bumbling along ever since. Those politicians who were on the leave side have just been critical of everything, however, I am certain that, secretly, they will be over the moon that they have not had to negotiate because they can sit back and say that it was nothing to do with them. Meanwhile, even those who wished to remain will secretly be thankful that they have not had to negotiate and they too will be only too pleased to point out that it was nothing to do with them.

It really did need someone to get hold of the reins and be courageous and go out on a limb to ensure that everything was covered, sadly this has not happened and it will certainly be interesting to see the next step.
Personally, I do not think that another referendum should be held and that the remainers, of which I am one, should just accept the defeat and stop moaning. We are months away and none of us yet know what is happening. As an ex-military man I find this very strange but I am not surprised at all.

[sinkov]

If you bought something online and it was not as advertised then do you think you should have the opportunity to return it?

Of course, if it wasn't as advertised I'd return it, I've just bought Brexit, if it isn't delivered as advertised then I want to return it and be sent what I paid for, which is an exit from the EU. If you bought something online and it wasn't as advertised, wouldn't you return it, and demand that you were sent what you'd requested and paid for. You wouldn't expect the vendor to then enter into discussions with manufacturers and suppliers about whether they should even bother to send you what you'd paid for, and then tell you feck off, we're not sending you what you paid for, we've changed our minds.

It's simple really 59/60, we voted to leave the EU, to become a sovereign nation once more, controlling our laws, our borders, our trade, it's the default position of every country in the world excepting those in the EU, there's nothing contentious or extreme about it. The majority of politicians, bureaucrats, technocrats and the establishment in both the EU and the UK are fighting to prevent it happening. Which is why we have the current impasse, nothing I can do about it, the traitors are making a very good job of trying to keep us in, it is what it is.

[1959_60]

Trouble is Sinkov, some snake oil salesmen sold you a version of Brexit that never existed.

"They need us more than we need them"
"We will trade with Europe on equal, or better terms than we have now without paying them a penny, and we will be free to strike deals with the rest of the world"
I could go on, but you know what they tried to tell us.

Now reality is happening and it looks like the deal about to be unveiled will satisfy neither leavers or remainers. We were mis-sold Brexit. Their version of Brexit never existed - surely that much is now clear?

The only other option is to leave without a deal - and leavers and remainers are united that this would be a disaster.

So what would YOU do if you were in charge? In reality you would have to admit to the country that this is the best deal you could get - even though not many people like it. Would you recommend the deal, recommend leaving without a deal....or what?
And remember, there is absolutely no consensus in Parliament for ANY course of action.

How would YOU break the en passe?

[sinkov]

If I was in charge we wouldn't in this position now, there wouldn't be an impasse at this late stage. This manufactured Irish backstop problem for instance. Before negotiations began, while Brexiteers were still involved, it was our position that we negotiated a trade deal alongside the withdrawal agreement, all as required under Article 50. With a free trade deal agreed there would be no need for a hard border, no need for a backstop, but the EU refused to talk about a trade deal until the withdrawal agreement had been signed, and now we know why. So we backed down and agreed to their timetabling of events. They set up a trap, and we walked right into it, probably quite deliberately, and we are where we are. We haven't even started talking about the trade deal which would solve the problem. We should never have backed down on their timetabling proposal, and wouldn't have if the Brexiteers warnings had been heeded, first big mistake. Or was it a mistake ? Why were our negotiating team persuaded against their wishes to go along with this folly ? And who persuaded them ?

So two problems we are encountering, the backstop and citizens rights. Both had easy solutions, which the EU refused to countenance. It's shameful, it really is, the way the EU and traitors in the UK are playing politics with ordinary people's lives.

If the Brexiteers like Boris, Davis and even Farage had been in charge of negotiations we wouldn't be in this position now. All those who wanted to leave the EU, and had their own ideas on how to achieve it, have been sidelined, the Remainers took charge, the Soft Brexiteers. And so you'll get your soft Brexit. What's not to like ?