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

[Trickytreesreds]

It's not a question of 'changing the record'. I quite agree with you that Cameron and Osborn lied and employed scare tactics...absolutely guilty as charged, but that doesn't in any way diminish the three facts that 1) the £350m promise was the biggest and most advertised lie of all. 2) only 37% of the electorate voted in favour of leaving 3) the result of the referendum has only ever been 'advisory'.

Given that situation why 'change the record'. Those three issues have never been seriously addressed and as long as that is the case is it so unreasonable to cite them as part of an argument against a course of action which I believe will be financially and politically damaging to the country I live in for the foreseeable future?

As for your question about 'how many Brexiteers were persuaded by some meaningless figure...'? Well quite a few I imagine, otherwise why were we all 'treated' to the sight of 'Boris' battle bus' with the figures emblazoned down each side - £350m per week on one side, £50m per day on the other - for weeks on end before the 23rd June? Don't know about you but I'd hazard a guess that someone within the Brexit campaign thought it might be almost as big a vote winner as it was a total fabrication.

Ramanag, please review that.

1. Read the the bus advert again. It never promised £350 million to the NHS at all. It SUGGESTED a better way to spend the money. Coming fro a Tory, if anyone believed that, then you're an idiot for doing so.

2.The 37% of the electorate tosh. We was given a vote and 72% of the electorate did so. That is a massive turn out. Those that couldn't be bothered have no opinion since(thinking of that dumb bitch on question time 2 weeks ago), so the result was fair.
Exactly what was the percentage to remain, that you never mention?

3. Oh no you don't. The advisory bollox stops right there. The prime minister, on a pre election promise. Stated quite clearly that the result of a referendum, would be carried through as the will of the people.
Now if you wish to allow a political party off the hook and throw politics into chaos, then keep it up.
Luckily, May knows more than anyone, that if this was to happen. Then the Tories are finished. We're leaving, end of.

[ramAnag]

Tricky you're like a worm on a hook. So now it was just 'SUGGESTED' - and why are you shouting again? What a load of tosh...it's the most memorable slogan from the whole campaign...it didn't fool me, like most of the Remainers we knew, and said, it was utter nonsense...but it did fool many...otherwise, as I've already asked, why use it?

The percentage to 'remain' was slightly smaller...never denied it...but, for the ump****th time, 37% will never represent the 'will of the people', least of all in a two horse race.

No idea what 'oh no you don't' actually means. I've stated a simple fact. Unless stated otherwise no referendum is legally binding...they are 'advisory'. All May has said, repeatedly and meaninglessly, is 'Brexit means Brexit' but given that no one knows whether we're talking 'hard' or 'soft' Brexit, whether it involves membership of the Single Market or is a 'black', 'white' or 'grey' Brexit we simply don't know what the plan is...or if indeed there is one.

[Trickytreesreds]

Tricky you're like a worm on a hook. So now it was just 'SUGGESTED' - and why are you shouting again? What a load of tosh...it's the most memorable slogan from the whole campaign...it didn't fool me, like most of the Remainers we knew, and said, it was utter nonsense...but it did fool many...otherwise, as I've already asked, why use it?

The percentage to 'remain' was slightly smaller...never denied it...but, for the ump****th time, 37% will never represent the 'will of the people', least of all in a two horse race.

No idea what 'oh no you don't' actually means. I've stated a simple fact. Unless stated otherwise no referendum is legally binding...they are 'advisory'. All May has said, repeatedly and meaninglessly, is 'Brexit means Brexit' but given that no one knows whether we're talking 'hard' or 'soft' Brexit, whether it involves membership of the Single Market or is a 'black', 'white' or 'grey' Brexit we simply don't know what the plan is...or if indeed there is one.

Ramanag,


Lets look at this again. Read it slowly. Exactly where did anyone promise or say we are going to "give" that to the NHS.
It was a suggestion. To the weak minded, maybe it is a temptation, but you and swale bring this up time and again, as a cornerstone of the brexit vote. It isn't.
It pails into insignificance, to the lies told by remain and their stooges.
Emergency tax/mass unemployment/economic collapse/war in Europe/cats and dogs living together/ biblical disaster.
So please, just stop it. You nor I know what's coming up in the next 5 years.
You think it's a disaster, I do not. I believe the EU will fail inside those 5 years, you think it's yummy.

Your 37% thing is also tiresome. If I was to take your stance, then I would have to reject every government for the last 70 years.
We vote and the winning vote gets it's way. It's how we do things and is called democracy.
Listening to your whinging remoaners like Blair/Clegg/Soubary, then they wouldn't have even allowed a vote in the first place. The very thing that the EU embraces and loves. Non democracy.
Your stance of objecting plays right into EU policy as well. Keep voting till we get the answer we want.

The legally binding bit, is also bollox. If it isn't it needs ratifying now. A democratically elected government can not promise something to the electorate, then Welch on it. The government knew their position, acted on it and no one, yes no one said this isn't legally binding. Why? Because like you, they were so convinced they would win, they didn't bother.
I hope the Lords object, because that would be a belting reason to finally strip that corrupt bunch of leeches, once and for all.

Our involvement with the EU in the next two years, will revolve around the following points.

1. Do they want a fair deal for their citizens trade wise
2. Will or are they prepared to bend on their demands(free movement)
3. The imminent elections in Europe. France/Italy/Germany
We could see a massive shift in power in Europe, with governments more nationalistic and less Socialist/Liberal. We could even see countries like France, leave the EU all together should Le Penn rise to office.

So you don't know anything and neither do I.
It's all ifs and buts. However I won't change my stance. We voted, it was leave and out we go. The EU can either work with that or sod off.The pound continues to rise, despite all the soothsayers. One bad election result, will see the euro plummet.
It's a roller coaster, hold tight.

[ramAnag]

Ramanag,


Lets look at this again. Read it slowly. Exactly where did anyone promise or say we are going to "give" that to the NHS.
It was a suggestion. To the weak minded, maybe it is a temptation, but you and swale bring this up time and again, as a cornerstone of the brexit vote. It isn't.
It pails into insignificance, to the lies told by remain and their stooges.
Emergency tax/mass unemployment/economic collapse/war in Europe/cats and dogs living together/ biblical disaster.
So please, just stop it. You nor I know what's coming up in the next 5 years.
You think it's a disaster, I do not. I believe the EU will fail inside those 5 years, you think it's yummy.

Your 37% thing is also tiresome. If I was to take your stance, then I would have to reject every government for the last 70 years.
We vote and the winning vote gets it's way. It's how we do things and is called democracy.
Listening to your whinging remoaners like Blair/Clegg/Soubary, then they wouldn't have even allowed a vote in the first place. The very thing that the EU embraces and loves. Non democracy.
Your stance of objecting plays right into EU policy as well. Keep voting till we get the answer we want.

The legally binding bit, is also bollox. If it isn't it needs ratifying now. A democratically elected government can not promise something to the electorate, then Welch on it. The government knew their position, acted on it and no one, yes no one said this isn't legally binding. Why? Because like you, they were so convinced they would win, they didn't bother.
I hope the Lords object, because that would be a belting reason to finally strip that corrupt bunch of leeches, once and for all.

Our involvement with the EU in the next two years, will revolve around the following points.

1. Do they want a fair deal for their citizens trade wise
2. Will or are they prepared to bend on their demands(free movement)
3. The imminent elections in Europe. France/Italy/Germany
We could see a massive shift in power in Europe, with governments more nationalistic and less Socialist/Liberal. We could even see countries like France, leave the EU all together should Le Penn rise to office.

So you don't know anything and neither do I.
It's all ifs and buts. However I won't change my stance. We voted, it was leave and out we go. The EU can either work with that or sod off.The pound continues to rise, despite all the soothsayers. One bad election result, will see the euro plummet.
It's a roller coaster, hold tight.

Well thanks for that Tricky. I rest my case...if there isn't a clear implication there that, to 'vote Leave' would mean that instead of sending money to the EU we could spend it on the NHS then I mustn't be able to read. The key word, I would suggest, is 'instead' and we should all remember that by the morning after - 24th June - Gove, Farage and Johnson couldn't disassociate themselves from their proud claim - sorry 'suggestion' - fast enough.

As for the 37%, you seem unable to recognise the difference between a General Election and a Referendum. I've told you this so often...of course at a General Election where the vote may be split between three, four or even many more candidates then 37% could well equate to a convincing victory...in a 'two horse race' it isn't and never will be.

You may well be right to say that Cameron and Osborn didn't bother to make sure the result of the referendum was 'legally binding'. They were certainly complacent and it was probably another example of lazy politics. The point is though that they didn't and it's no use you saying 'it needs ratifying now'. It isn't 'bollox' at all. It's a straightforward fact that the result is 'advisory'. I agree the government needs to take account of a vote which revealed enormous concern amongst the electorate over the direction in which certain aspects of our society is moving. Whether that vote was in favour of what you clearly would like it to be in favour of is very debatable as is the idea that our electorate is actually capable of voting on such a complex and complicated matter.

You're right about the roller coaster. Whatever happens that ride has certainly begun but the pound was in free fall a few weeks ago and that fall was only checked by the High Court decision which at least meant that a hurried 'hard' Brexit immediately became a lot less likely. You might want to think about that.

[Ram59]

Well thanks for that Tricky. I rest my case...if there isn't a clear implication there that, to 'vote Leave' would mean that instead of sending money to the EU we could spend it on the NHS then I mustn't be able to read. The key word, I would suggest, is 'instead' and we should all remember that by the morning after - 24th June - Gove, Farage and Johnson couldn't disassociate themselves from their proud claim - sorry 'suggestion' - fast enough.

As for the 37%, you seem unable to recognise the difference between a General Election and a Referendum. I've told you this so often...of course at a General Election where the vote may be split between three, four or even many more candidates then 37% could well equate to a convincing victory...in a 'two horse race' it isn't and never will be.

You may well be right to say that Cameron and Osborn didn't bother to make sure the result of the referendum was 'legally binding'. They were certainly complacent and it was probably another example of lazy politics. The point is though that they didn't and it's no use you saying 'it needs ratifying now'. It isn't 'bollox' at all. It's a straightforward fact that the result is 'advisory'. I agree the government needs to take account of a vote which revealed enormous concern amongst the electorate over the direction in which certain aspects of our society is moving. Whether that vote was in favour of what you clearly would like it to be in favour of is very debatable as is the idea that our electorate is actually capable of voting on such a complex and complicated matter.

You're right about the roller coaster. Whatever happens that ride has certainly begun but the pound was in free fall a few weeks ago and that fall was only checked by the High Court decision which at least meant that a hurried 'hard' Brexit immediately became a lot less likely. You might want to think about that.

I think you'll find the 'freefall' of the pound halted about a month before the high court case.

[ramAnag]

I think you'll find the 'freefall' of the pound halted about a month before the high court case.

With respect, it went into full free fall immediately following the Brexit vote, carried on declining till around the time of the High Court ruling and has picked up ever since. Coincidence? I think not...mind you it's still a long way from the €1.35 it was in January or the €1.25 immediately prior to June 23rd. Check Travelex pound to euro exchange history if you don't believe me.

[Ram59]

The charts show that the freefall bottomed out around a month before the high court decision, both against the euro and the dollar. I'd give you a link if I was capable. Admitedly, it has recovered since then, but you were wrong with your original statement.

It's like giving SM the credit for the win at Cardiff because it was around the time he took over.

[Trickytreesreds]

With respect, it went into full free fall immediately following the Brexit vote, carried on declining till around the time of the High Court ruling and has picked up ever since. Coincidence? I think not...mind you it's still a long way from the €1.35 it was in January or the €1.25 immediately prior to June 23rd. Check Travelex pound to euro exchange history if you don't believe me.

Sorry ramanag, you're clutching at straws now. The financial markets will always ebb and flow like the tide.If you did your homework, you'll observe that the pound has been a lot worse off, under the glory of the euro.
Every time something uncertain appears, the financial markets play safe and the usual doom merchants seize on it.

Look at Sterlings history.
http://www.pounds2euro.com/Charts

As said before, I believe EU has a rough ride to come yet, after elections. Then you'll see the plummets begin and be happy we aren't in the single currency.

[ramAnag]

The charts show that the freefall bottomed out around a month before the high court decision, both against the euro and the dollar. I'd give you a link if I was capable. Admitedly, it has recovered since then, but you were wrong with your original statement.

It's like giving SM the credit for the win at Cardiff because it was around the time he took over.

I don't think I was (wrong) but I'm equally incapable of sending links. That's why I said look at the Travelex Pound Euro history...then go to last six months. Bottomed out early October, then rose a little before bottoming again in first week of November. Since then it's been on the rise again. High Court decision was 1st week of November...draw your own conclusions.

[Trickytreesreds]

I don't think I was (wrong) but I'm equally incapable of sending links. That's why I said look at the Travelex Pound Euro history...then go to last six months. Bottomed out early October, then rose a little before bottoming again in first week of November. Since then it's been on the rise again. High Court decision was 1st week of November...draw your own conclusions.

Yes I get that Ramanag, but my point was that the pound has been worse than way before Brexit. It's become a weapon against the vote. That's bollox, because it has been up and down like a whores nickers.