Its a bit like "To be or not to be"
The problem looking from afar is you have a divided crap government but the possible replacement is worse,the EU seem to have you by the balls mainly because of the 52/48 vote and poor indecisive negotiate tactics over the last two years,lets face it you have not got an agreement as such but an agreement to work towards an agreement.
So its a mess and all of you have gone back to your respective corners.
At the moment it is a split decision draw, so in sporting terms I would think another fight is called for,but if OUT wins again its out with NO DEAL......
Hence"To be or not to be".......
It appears to me the situation is as follows
* The EU won’t give us a good deal - no surprise there, that was never going to happen - if they gave us a good deal it could lead to a domino effect with others countries considering leaving.
* A no deal Brexit will be difficult and costly and could take years (I would think at least 10) to get over.
* House prices and shares could and probably will fall because of the uncertainty as markets don’t like uncertainty. I may be getting old but house prices and shares have fallen before without Brexit and have recovered.
* In the short term unemployment may rise and investment may fall. Like house prices this is not exclusive to a post Brexit UK.
* There are hard core remainders and leavers who have their own agendas for their own reasons (which have been spouted on here ad nausem) whereas the majority of us voted after what reasoned consideration we could come to after pathetic information from both camps.
* All of this is what I thought and took into account when I voted leave. I ignored signs on buses and possibilities of WW3.
I don’t like what the EU has become over the last 40 years and believe that we will become ever more entwined which I don’t believe is in our long term interests.
* On balance I believe that not being part of a club I never wanted to be in was the best option.
* The question is, what does the fact that we have got a very poor deal (negotiated by a remain voting Prime Minister) which will probably lose in the commons by a large amount mean. Does it mean that we should leave with a no deal (which I have always believed that if we were to leave and the establishment couldn’t scupper the referendum result was the only option) or should we have another vote so we can get what the establishment wanted first time around?
... from the day the traitorous Heath & co conned us to todays liar May the Establishment has its cold hands around our throat for their personal gain. Liar May has put up a good Remainer disguise by constantly repeating the mantra of the UK being free. So how does she think we won't notice the EU lock-in? It's because she/the Establishment still think we're too stupid to notice.
The contemptible EU will make last minute concessions by February; but it will be too late as we go into freedom and WTO rules. Alleluja!
Yep, she's hiding the truth, but they are on to her.
It's a stitch up to tie us in this time. No get out clause.
I predict a riot.
https://news.sky.com/story/theresa-m...dvice-11570416
Morning Tricky, how is the EU interfering in Ukraine?
Heyup Swale.
On point 1. I was Remain all the way until literally the night before the vote, when Juncker (I think it was) appeared on TV and said "It's about time you Brits did as you were told" or words to that effect. Somehow, my cross went in the Leave box after that.