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

[swaledale]

An interesting, and absurd, solution to the "Irish Problem" proposed by the EU. Clearly they have no understanding of history. Wonder how they would resolve Catalan, Walloon etc border issues if they separated. The good old British colonial way of drawing a line? Lets get Radcliffe back - no Daniel, not Harry Potter

Oh they have but are fed up with the Uk government fannying about without putting forward a solution, you dont want to believe everything the right wing eurosceptic press put out FFS! Its us who are leaving and its the Uk that needs to find a solution, this half arsed idea that we can leave a club, not be subject to its rues and not pay the membership evy yet still cherry pick the benefits we like is complete horse **** and unfortunately the Brexit politicians wont admit the mess we are heading for.

Still as i have predicted all along, we will finish up with a solution which looks remarkably like being in the Eu even when we are not members, economic reality for the Uk will win out in the end.

[Andy_Faber]

Oh they have but are fed up with the Uk government fannying about without putting forward a solution, you dont want to believe everything the right wing eurosceptic press put out FFS! Its us who are leaving and its the Uk that needs to find a solution, this half arsed idea that we can leave a club, not be subject to its rues and not pay the membership evy yet still cherry pick the benefits we like is complete horse **** and unfortunately the Brexit politicians wont admit the mess we are heading for.

Still as i have predicted all along, we will finish up with a solution which looks remarkably like being in the Eu even when we are not members, economic reality for the Uk will win out in the end.

Agreed this idea of figuratively shrugging our shoulders as if to say 'something will work itself out' is a bit pathetic, but its a bit pathetic from the EU side that some of the demands (at least the starting points) are actually more stringent/onerous than those placed on countries who have never been part of the club

Economically no-one is going to win in the short term, but the mood amongst the non-footy social media groups I troll is that they'll take that hit for the sake of regaining sovereignty (I must admit I have no idea what that means really) and reduction in immigration

[ramAnag]

Agreed this idea of figuratively shrugging our shoulders as if to say 'something will work itself out' is a bit pathetic, but its a bit pathetic from the EU side that some of the demands (at least the starting points) are actually more stringent/onerous than those placed on countries who have never been part of the club

Economically no-one is going to win in the short term, but the mood amongst the non-footy social media groups I troll is that they'll take that hit for the sake of regaining sovereignty (I must admit I have no idea what that means really) and reduction in immigration

But the final sentence of Swale’s first paragraph sums it up perfectly. That and the fact that 63% of the electorate didn’t vote in support of all this nonsense, should tell you all you need to know.
By coincidence, I had a reply yesterday to a letter I wrote to Patrick McLoughlin about the effects of Brexit on the NHS. He ‘appreciated the uncertainty posed to our country’s future and our public services’ by Brexit...all so unnecessary...but suggested that the Government ‘has started one of the largest recruitment drives in the NHS’ and now has ‘over 14,000 more nurses and 11,000 more doctors in NHS wards’ than was the case in 2010.
Can only say...it certainly doesn’t feel like it!

[Andy_Faber]

But the final sentence of Swale’s first paragraph sums it up perfectly. That and the fact that 63% of the electorate didn’t vote in support of all this nonsense, should tell you all you need to know.
By coincidence, I had a reply yesterday to a letter I wrote to Patrick McLoughlin about the effects of Brexit on the NHS. He ‘appreciated the uncertainty posed to our country’s future and our public services’ by Brexit...all so unnecessary...but suggested that the Government ‘has started one of the largest recruitment drives in the NHS’ and now has ‘over 14,000 more nurses and 11,000 more doctors in NHS wards’ than was the case in 2010.
Can only say...it certainly doesn’t feel like it!

No it won't feel like it RA. There's the numerator/denominator thing I've rattled on about many times, basically a few more nurses dealing wit a lot more poorly plebs won't feel comfortable, but there is also the possibility that he's lying!

Lovely to see you are steadfastly clinging to your arithmetic argument, the Miloslav Mecir of the forum to be sure

[ramAnag]

No it won't feel like it RA. There's the numerator/denominator thing I've rattled on about many times, basically a few more nurses dealing wit a lot more poorly plebs won't feel comfortable, but there is also the possibility that he's lying!

Lovely to see you are steadfastly clinging to your arithmetic argument, the Miloslav Mecir of the forum to be sure

Forgive my consistency. We keep repetitively hearing about the ‘Will of the people’...as far as I’m aware the fact that 63% of ‘the people’ didn’t actually vote for national self harm hasn’t changed.

[roger_ramjet]

However please note that more than 63% didn't vote the the self harm of staying in. Its all about perspective.

[ramAnag]

However please note that more than 63% didn't vote the the self harm of staying in. Its all about perspective.

It’s not all about perspective at all. The vote in favour of Brexit does not represent the ‘Will of the people’...it represents the Will of just over a third of the people...a little under two thirds did not vote for it...that’s just fact.
Rees-Mogg, Johnson, Gove and even May keep justifying the stagger towards a poorer society with meaningless statements such as ‘Brexit is Brexit’ and ‘the Will of the People’...it simply isn’t true is it?

[MadAmster]

It’s not all about perspective at all. The vote in favour of Brexit does not represent the ‘Will of the people’...it represents the Will of just over a third of the people...a little under two thirds did not vote for it...that’s just fact.
Rees-Mogg, Johnson, Gove and even May keep justifying the stagger towards a poorer society with meaningless statements such as ‘Brexit is Brexit’ and ‘the Will of the People’...it simply isn’t true is it?

People are just bending stats to fit their own agenda. 57.6% of the votes cast in the last General Election went to the Tories. 13.6 million voted Tory which is about 30% of those eligible to vote. The Tories mandate is as viable as the Brexit vote.

Elections are always based on those who bother to turn out and vote. Those who fail to turn out don't count, and shouldn't count, in discussions thereafter. The rules are always 50% +1 OR a minimum of so many % (66 and 70 being two popular numbers worldwide) of those who vote. Where PR is in force there is often a minimum of 5% or 10% of the votes cast to qualify for a seat.

The rule of the referendum was 50% + 1. Everybody knew that before the vote. To me, that makes the 67% argument invalid. Some may not agree and that is their prerogative but everybody knew the rules before polling day. I don't remember a huge opwelling of complaints about 50%+1 before polling day.

[Trickytreesreds]

People are just bending stats to fit their own agenda. 57.6% of the votes cast in the last General Election went to the Tories. 13.6 million voted Tory which is about 30% of those eligible to vote. The Tories mandate is as viable as the Brexit vote.

Elections are always based on those who bother to turn out and vote. Those who fail to turn out don't count, and shouldn't count, in discussions thereafter. The rules are always 50% +1 OR a minimum of so many % (66 and 70 being two popular numbers worldwide) of those who vote. Where PR is in force there is often a minimum of 5% or 10% of the votes cast to qualify for a seat.

The rule of the referendum was 50% + 1. Everybody knew that before the vote. To me, that makes the 67% argument invalid. Some may not agree and that is their prerogative but everybody knew the rules before polling day. I don't remember a huge opwelling of complaints about 50%+1 before polling day.

I concur. You cannot cling to the, those that don't bother to vote or don't even qualify to be counted in an opinion.

If you didn't vote, tough ****. You had your chance, so shut the **** up.
If you don't qualify, be it age or status, tough ****. Shut the **** up, those rules apply to every vote.

It's getting boring now. The vote was cast. It was quite clear on the paper. Remain or leave!!!
All this crap, I don't know what I voted for is crap as well.
I wanted out. If something as a positive comes from the EU, then brilliant. If not, I'll live with it.
Don't buy a European car/wine/go on holiday etc. Watch them scream.

Give me the Common Market again please. It was what we started with, not ****s like Verhofstadt telling me how to live my life and what's good for me. An insignificant politician, from an insignificant country. Whose previous claim to fame,is the fact it has been used twice as a military training ground by the Germans.

[ramAnag]

People are just bending stats to fit their own agenda. 57.6% of the votes cast in the last General Election went to the Tories. 13.6 million voted Tory which is about 30% of those eligible to vote. The Tories mandate is as viable as the Brexit vote.

Elections are always based on those who bother to turn out and vote. Those who fail to turn out don't count, and shouldn't count, in discussions thereafter. The rules are always 50% +1 OR a minimum of so many % (66 and 70 being two popular numbers worldwide) of those who vote. Where PR is in force there is often a minimum of 5% or 10% of the votes cast to qualify for a seat.

The rule of the referendum was 50% + 1. Everybody knew that before the vote. To me, that makes the 67% argument invalid. Some may not agree and that is their prerogative but everybody knew the rules before polling day. I don't remember a huge opwelling of complaints about 50%+1 before polling day.

Sorry MA, I don’t think you’ve thought this through. You really can’t compare a General Election with a Referendum. In the former there is a choice of at least three and sometimes up to eight or ten candidates so a ‘minority’ winner will often prove victorious. The Referendum was a two choice vote and relies entirely upon people being fully informed about what they are voting about. If a 50% + 1 majority was achieved the Remainers would no longer have a case, but only 37% voted for something the conditions of which still, 21 months on, are unclear so...other than in the minds of those who want it to be so...how can it have any credibility?