OT. The futures Bright, the Futures Brexit!!!

[Ram59]

The trouble is that every dissenting voice on our side whether it be Fallon or Clarke or parts of the media or even the likes of anag and swale, they give a little bit of encouragement to the other side in our negotiations and so weaken the prospects of a good deal for us.

We've just got to hope that the turkeys on both sides don't vote for Xmas, just to save face.

[Andy_Faber]

The trouble is that every dissenting voice on our side whether it be Fallon or Clarke or parts of the media or even the likes of anag and swale, they give a little bit of encouragement to the other side in our negotiations and so weaken the prospects of a good deal for us.

We've just got to hope that the turkeys on both sides don't vote for Xmas, just to save face.

I agree that doesn't help (although RAG and Swale's publicity machine hasn't quite reached Merdreville, France just yet). I think the bigger fail on UK side though is if the ruling party are seen to be in-fighting. Like the Tories or loathe them, its they who will be leading us into the promised land so they need to stick together

[ramAnag]

'Dissenting voices' and 'Publicity Machine'...please! It's comments like that that justify any amount of angry outpourings from Swale.
'Dissenting' from what? Oh yes...the ill thought out and dubiously motivated views of just over one third of the electorate.
What am I/are we meant to do...accept that a very questionable decision has been reached by a minority of the electorate which might do lasting harm to our country, particularly the young people who represent the future but were deprived of a vote, and say...'oh well, we lost fair and square I'll swap sides now...good old Brexit'? Bollux to that...I want my country to succeed just as much as you two but I'll continue to fight my corner when I see things that are, imo, wrong...that's not 'dissenting'...it's consistent common sense.

[roger_ramjet]

Its also known as banging your head against a brick wall.

[Andy_Faber]

'Dissenting voices' and 'Publicity Machine'...please! It's comments like that that justify any amount of angry outpourings from Swale.
'Dissenting' from what? Oh yes...the ill thought out and dubiously motivated views of just over one third of the electorate.
What am I/are we meant to do...accept that a very questionable decision has been reached by a minority of the electorate which might do lasting harm to our country, particularly the young people who represent the future but were deprived of a vote, and say...'oh well, we lost fair and square I'll swap sides now...good old Brexit'? Bollux to that...I want my country to succeed just as much as you two but I'll continue to fight my corner when I see things that are, imo, wrong...that's not 'dissenting'...it's consistent common sense.

My comment about Swale and yourself was supposed to be tongue in cheek, I'll try to curtail my attempts at humour in future....

I think 'swapping sides' is missing the whole point a bit, this wasn't supposed to be about 'sides' it was about UK fashioning the best possible future for itsself. I voted Remain, despite DC's pathetic 'deal', but am now committed to making the best of it and helping if I can, and no way do I consider I've 'swapped'.

What's your view on my idealistic notion that there SHOULD be a second referendum, and it should for a series of questions on the key issues - eg 'on a scale of 1 to 10, do you think.......', and that the result of that should mould the government's targets for negotiation with EU? Maybe that would have been a better idea for June 23 referendum actually

[ramAnag]

Fair enough, the 'publicity machine' I accept was 'tongue in cheek', the 'dissenting voices' comment probably not and it's this whole myth that Brexiteers are true patriots - the only ones who care about 'their' country - while 'Remainers' are some sort of 'fifth columnists' that I object to. Total nonsense.

As for your notion of a second, more specific, referendum. I'd love to agree, but my objection was always that this was always too complex a subject to be settled by 'Joe Public' via an 'in/out' referendum so it would be inconsistent to support a more detailed referendum on a series of more complex single issues that personally I don't believe the majority of the electorate are capable of reaching an informed decision on.
There is, imo, a place for the use of a referendum to settle certain simple issues specific to certain communities e.g. football clubs, schools, small villages etc. Beyond that, isn't that what we elect MP's for? The fact that the majority of them seem depressingly inept and barely fit for purpose is, sadly, another issue.

[roger_ramjet]

Another issue that could also fill a 2000 post thread....

[macstheman]

That they are inept and barely fit for purpose is an essential part of our democracy, let's face it if any of them had half a brain they'd be a positive danger to society!! God, all that power and influence AND A BRAIN....does'nt bear thinking about!!

[Trickytreesreds]

I agree to part of your last paragraph. I too think that the final deal will end up not that much different to what we have now. A so called hard brexit is bad for both sides. So a deal will be made where both sides will be able to claim some success. We will get some control over immigration at the expense of a small tarif on the single market. But it's not a case of May pandering to her eurosceptics, it's basic negotiation tactics, you ask for far more than you expect and negotiate down.

All this rubbish talk of May going for a hard brexit is wrong. If she's was truly going for a hard brexit, she would be saying that there will be no discussion and that we're leaving and not interested the eu in any way.

Disagree for these reasons.

May-
Any climb down on- immigration/sovereignty/tying our hands on trade deals= failure and a ballot box nightmare at the next general election.

EU-
Any climb down on- immigration & FREE MOVEMENT/sovereignty from Eu rule/being free to negotiate trade deals away from the free market. Yet still having access to the EU market without tariffs, means other disgruntled members will say, "hang on a minute". I want out as well.
It would be their worst nightmare having already lost one of their biggest cash cows.

Expect hard Brexit, because Junckers mob would rather cut off a leg, than compromise from the programme.

As May said, no deal is better than a bad deal.

[swaledale]

Disagree for these reasons.

May-
Any climb down on- immigration/sovereignty/tying our hands on trade deals= failure and a ballot box nightmare at the next general election.

EU-
Any climb down on- immigration & FREE MOVEMENT/sovereignty from Eu rule/being free to negotiate trade deals away from the free market. Yet still having access to the EU market without tariffs, means other disgruntled members will say, "hang on a minute". I want out as well.
It would be their worst nightmare having already lost one of their biggest cash cows.

Expect hard Brexit, because Junckers mob would rather cut off a leg, than compromise from the programme.

As May said, no deal is better than a bad deal.

Really? Mm when you and your fellow Brexiteers are moaning about how things are worse after Brexit, I for one will laugh as will those "liberal elites" who you denigrate, because they won't be feeling the economic effects of a disastrous decision!

As for electoral meltdown if we don't do a hard Brexit, you assume the majority of the people in this country a) voted Brexit and b) want a hard Brexit, not sure where you get your facts from but the evidence is that both those assumptions are wide of the mark!

Still I'm sure there is a tiny number of people who voted for "taking back control" even if it means highe rprices, fewer jobs and an economy slumping!!

[Trickytreesreds]

Really? Mm when you and your fellow Brexiteers are moaning about how things are worse after Brexit, I for one will laugh as will those "liberal elites" who you denigrate, because they won't be feeling the economic effects of a disastrous decision!

As for electoral meltdown if we don't do a hard Brexit, you assume the majority of the people in this country a) voted Brexit and b) want a hard Brexit, not sure where you get your facts from but the evidence is that both those assumptions are wide of the mark!

Still I'm sure there is a tiny number of people who voted for "taking back control" even if it means highe rprices, fewer jobs and an economy slumping!!

No point me arguing with you Swale, your head is firmly camped where it is.
All I'll say is, you DON'T know we'll be worse off and you DON'T know the EU is the better place to be. Even Schultz (the europhile) is admitting the EU could break up, especially with Trump now in office.
So please don't patronise everyone like you're a soothsayer

[ramAnag]

Hold on Tricky...how come Swale is a 'soothsayer' for predicting what might happen but you're not when you do exactly the same thing?
Not much point in contributing to say no point in arguing with someone who's made their mind up. You've made yours up too, but what about Swale's second paragraph...where is there any evidence at all to suggest that the majority of the electorate voted for Brexit and now 'want' a hard Brexit? You have accepted elsewhere that many who voted for Brexit did so largely as a reaction to immigration levels...what is to say they will still feel that way if it means, as Swale asks, higher prices, fewer jobs and a weaker economy and please don't play the Trump card...he's said repeatedly that he's going to put the U.S. first, coupled with the fact that he is - imo - an untrustworthy sociopath, where do you think that leaves us?

[roger_ramjet]

is your final US above a reference to the collective first person plural or the country on the north american continent?

Actually it probably doesn't matter as the answer in both cases is "up **** creek without a paddle"

[roger_ramjet]

are we at 2000 yet? Almost as many posts on this thread as years since the supposed birth of the godhead jr

[roger_ramjet]

1995 Austria Sweden and Finland join the EU