EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[Bromley boy]

Yes, that's a distinct possibility, but at least it would be a vote on the outcome of Brexit so we all know where we stand.

We don’t need a further vote. The vote has already taken place! I guarantee if the next vote didn’t go your way you’d be on here complaining, asking for a rerun etc. The only result you will accept is the one you personally agree with.

As I have said before, we can't simply walk away with no-deal "A50 being default" as, in the last 2 years, we've done less than nothing to prepare for it. Fair enough if everything was now in place, but the goverment have not prepared for something that isn't gonna happen.

Well that’s down to the ineptitude of the current government, unfortunately. That said, I doubt things will be anything like as bad as we have been told by the remain camp. Much of what they said before the referendum has turned out to be lies (immediate recession, punishment budget etc.) so why should we believe anythng they say now?

But if there was that gives us the opportunity to say "that's not the brexit we voted for". But you don't seem to want that?

Quite right. I don’t want that! I’ve voted to leave the EU on the understanding the government would honour the result. Now I want them to get on with it!

The hypocrisy of remain astonishes me - would you be asking for a rerun of the referendum if it had gone your way in order to “see where we stand?!” I doubt it!!!

 

[Howardh]

We don’t need a further vote. The vote has already taken place! I guarantee if the next vote didn’t go your way you’d be on here complaining, asking for a rerun etc. The only result you will accept is the one you personally agree with.

Well that’s down to the ineptitude of the current government, unfortunately. That said, I doubt things will be anything like as bad as we have been told by the remain camp. Much of what they said before the referendum has turned out to be lies (immediate recession, punishment budget etc.) so why should we believe anythng they say now?

Quite right. I don’t want that! I’ve voted to leave the EU on the understanding the government would honour the result. Now I want them to get on with it!

The hypocrisy of remain astonishes me - would you be asking for a rerun of the referendum if it had gone your way in order to “see where we stand?!” I doubt it!!!

Last point, indeed yes. If the EU was doing things I disagreed with in future, and our country/economy was suffering, then certainly. No hypocracy at all - we're supposed to be in a democracy and things change daily, weekly, monthly. I'd like a referendum on PR and iw that was a win, and it led to disorganised governments that couldn't get stuff through I'd like another say.

But, as it stands, you don't wnat freedom of movement, yet if that's what the come up with - in some form or other, you will simply grin and bear it? After all, there was nothing on the ballot paper about that, or giving money to the NHS, or leaving the Customs Union.

The T's and C's of the referendum result are simply that we will leave the EU. Nothign about leaving the EEA, custom's union, single market, Euratom...

I'll grant you things haven't been a disaster since the vote. Maybe that's because we are still IN the EU and haven't yet suffered the concequences of leaving?

But everyone PLEASE NOTE; I don't want another bloody referendum on the EU; you have your Brexit, I just hope it's a calamity* and further down the line we return without a referendum, but by the public voting for a party to return us!!

*but my pensions survive, naturally. **Puts self first**

 

[mmh]

Last point, indeed yes. If the EU was doing things I disagreed with in future, and our country/economy was suffering, then certainly.
But, as it stands, you don't wnat freedom of movement, yet if that's what the come up with - in some form or other, you will simply grin and bear it? After all, there was nothing on the ballot paper about that, or giving money to the NHS, or leaving the Customs Union.

@Bromley boy has repeatedly said his anti-EU position does does not come from an anti-immigration position.

The government's EU referendum leaflet is still available if you want to remind yourself what we were actually told.

Some argue that leaving the EU would give us more freedom to limit immigration. But in return for the economic benefits of access to the EU’s Single Market, non-EU countries – such as Norway – have had to accept the right of all EU citizens to live and work in their country.

(from https://assets.publishing.service.g.../517014/EU_referendum_leaflet_large_print.pdf ; the full website is archived at http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160815143715/https://www.eureferendum.gov.uk/ )

I'll grant you things haven't been a disaster since the vote. Maybe that's because we are still IN the EU and haven't yet suffered the concequences of leaving?

Personally I wouldn't mind if we crash out and within 5 years everyone (bar the hard-liners who will NEVER change their mind) is begging and pleading for us to go back into the EU. As long as in the meantime my pensions remain reasonably intact.

I just hope it's a calamity

And that's why I find it very easy to completely discredit your opinion - you (and to be fair, many others) seem to actively want a shambles just so you can be proved right and say "told you so".

but by the public voting for a party to return us

The Lib Dems already exist for anyone who thinks EU membership is more important than any other political considerations. Why is there (nonsense) talk of the need for a new "centrist" party for EU supporting MPs to defect to, or the People's Vote campaign trying to persuade Labour to change its position? The pro-EU party is there already!

 

[Howardh]

Well, I'm hardly likely to vote to remain in the EU and then, when we leave, want Brexit to be a success! But if it is, then I'll doff my cap to my betters. But if/when it fails the option HAS to be there to return, even if I'm 6' under by then.

But f leavers would take the 48% on board instead of calling us "remoaners/want another vote/enemies of the people/sabateurs" etc etc and listen to our concerns, and maybe compromise a bit, we might get somewhere. 16m is a hell of a lot of votes and one day Labour may (undeline may) come off the fence.

Meanwhile, there's a border issue to sort out before any Brexit can go ahead.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Well, I'm hardly likely to vote to remain in the EU and then, when we leave, want Brexit to be a success!

Not sure I could agree with that attitude.

I also voted to remain, I believe that Brexit is completely wrong, partly because of the economic impacts, but mainly because I believe the future of humanity lies in more international co-operation and less petty nationalism. And also because it seems to me that Brexit is largely the outcome of decades of lies and misrepresentation of the EU, and it represents a victory for those who seek to belittle the EU for largely nationalistic reasons. For all those reasons, I will passionately do whatever I reasonably can by whatever ethical means I can to persuade people that Brexit should be reversed.

BUT... if Brexit does actually happen and we therefore have to start living outside the EU, then that's not going to stop me from still hoping for the best future we can get. I don't understand how anyone would not wish for the future of the UK to be one of success, no matter what decisions that you disagree with might have been taken.

 

[Howardh]

Not sure I could agree with that attitude.

I also voted to remain, I believe that Brexit is completely wrong, partly because of the economic impacts, but mainly because I believe the future of humanity lies in more international co-operation and less petty nationalism. And also because it seems to me that Brexit is largely the outcome of decades of lies and misrepresentation of the EU, and it represents a victory for those who seek to belittle the EU for largely nationalistic reasons. For all those reasons, I will passionately do whatever I reasonably can by whatever ethical means I can to persuade people that Brexit should be reversed.

BUT... if Brexit does actually happen and we therefore have to start living outside the EU, then that's not going to stop me from still hoping for the best future we can get. I don't understand how anyone would not wish for the future of the UK to be one of success, no matter what decisions that you disagree with might have been taken.

I understand that, but a lot of it is due to people wishing to see the UK disintigrate (ie losing Scotland, Northern Ireland, Gibraltar, even Anguilla at a pinch) just to get their wishes. I'm British, it says so on my passport, and I want the UK to remain as one and stronger in the world as one.

Yet how many Brexit voters would let Norn go if it meant saving their precious Brexit because we can't solve the border issue? Voting remain was one way of guaranteeing that the UK will remain intact for the forseeable future. Again, hope it doesn't happen and eventually we can work all this out together, but for that to happen there has to be compromise (from both sides).

 

[mmh]

Well, I'm hardly likely to vote to remain in the EU and then, when we leave, want Brexit to be a success!

I just find it really difficult to understand that sentiment though, even though it seems to be commonplace. As an example, I might vote Labour. Labour campaigns always include "don't vote Conservative, they'll destroy the NHS". If the Conservatives then win, would I think "I hope they do destroy the NHS, and prove me right"? It'd be a ridiculous stance to take.

But if it is, then I'll doff my cap to my betters.

You won't though. If it is a success, there will still likely be things, however minor, which remainers will latch on to and complain about. Just see the past few months of people pontificating about theoretical tourist visa charges and queues at airports on this forum. Perhaps that will happen, perhaps it won't. It's an irrelevance but people will complain.

But if/when it fails the option HAS to be there to return, even if I'm 6' under by then

I'm no Nostradamus, but I'd be amazed if once having left, returning ever becomes a practical option. Cameron was right when he kept saying it was a once in a lifetime decision.

But f leavers would take the 48% on board instead of calling us "remoaners/want another vote/enemies of the people/sabateurs" etc etc and listen to our concerns, and maybe compromise a bit, we might get somewhere.

I've never called anyone an "enemy", "sabateur" or similar. I don't see any of this happening on this forum at all - it appears to be the remainers who use the word remoaner. I prefer to avoid it (well, I will use it when talking to other leave voters!). It's perfectly fine to be pro-EU - but it is true there's been a lot of moaning! I can't apologise for saying that you want another vote though, because that's what you do want.

16m is a hell of a lot of votes and one day Labour may (undeline may) come off the fence.

That's what happens if you have referendums and parliamentary elections - a lot of people don't get the result they wanted. 56% of people didn't vote Conservative in 1979, an election which changed the course of the country far more than leaving the EU ever could.
Labour are only on the fence because the "metropolitan elite" constituencies and faction of the PLP cannot accept that their pro-EU opinion, despite the majority of the party's support disagreeing, can be anything other than 100% unquestionably correct, so they're trying, and failing, to be all things to all men.

 

[Howardh]

I can't apologise for saying that you want another vote though, because that's what you do want.

Have I actually said that? I have said the TORIES might want another vote to escape from having to make the decision themselves, but me personally? Kudos to you if you can find such a post.

 

[pemma]

On the contrary. The mandate (from both the referendum result and the general election manifesto) is to take us out of the EU. Ideally with a deal but, if not, we will have to crash out.

There’s absolutely no mandate to remain in the EU if a deal can’t be struck!

So if the general election manifesto is a second 'mandate' why is a hypothetical referendum result opposing leaving without a deal not a 'mandate' to keep us in until a deal is agreed?

I voted for a candidate against HS2 in the General Election but his party supports HS2, so did I vote for or against HS2? In reality I didn't vote for either, I voted for a package, which somewhere in the small print mentioned HS2.

 

[pemma]

The Lib Dems already exist for anyone who thinks EU membership is more important than any other political considerations. Why is there (nonsense) talk of the need for a new "centrist" party for EU supporting MPs to defect to, or the People's Vote campaign trying to persuade Labour to change its position? The pro-EU party is there already!

It seems disgruntled Labour and Conservative members would prefer a SD mkII over joining the Lib Dems. I don't know exactly why. Interestingly I found out today that the remains of the original Liberal Party (who refused to be part of the Lib Dems and have a few local council seats) are anti-EU.

Labour doesn't have a Brexit position other than saying that the Conservatives are making a mess of it and not knowing what to do whenever there's a vote.

 

[pemma]

Have I actually said that? I have said the TORIES might want another vote to escape from having to make the decision themselves, but me personally? Kudos to you if you can find such a post.

Theresa May is currently on a walking holiday. The last time she came back from one she decided to do something she previously said she wouldn't do, so who knows what'll happen in September.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Labour are only on the fence because the "metropolitan elite" constituencies and faction of the PLP cannot accept that their pro-EU opinion, despite the majority of the party's support disagreeing, can be anything other than 100% unquestionably correct, so they're trying, and failing, to be all things to all men.

That's a bit of a loaded way of putting it, and not really correct either. Polls repeatedly show that a huge majority of Labour supporters are also remainers. As are the majority of Labour members. I do however suspect you're correct to the extent that Corbyn and the Labour leadership are trying to be all things to all men as far as the EU are concerned. I'm sure the Labour leadership is well aware that their supporters include people who have strong views on both sides, and they are hoping that their current course won't upset anyone on either side too much. I'm not sure that that's correct - a lot of remain-supporting Labour members (including me) are getting pretty unhappy. I suspect however there may also be a calculation amongst the Labour Leadership that if they lean too heavily towards 'remain', some of their Brexit supporters will shift their vote to the Conservatives or UKIP, but there are fewer fears about losing remain supporters' votes because, with the LibDems not currently looking very viable, the sense is there's nowhere else for those people to go electorally.

 

[pemma]

Labour are only on the fence because the "metropolitan elite" constituencies and faction of the PLP cannot accept that their pro-EU opinion, despite the majority of the party's support disagreeing, can be anything other than 100% unquestionably correct, so they're trying, and failing, to be all things to all men.

So nothing to do with many of their new members being under 35 and the majority of under 35s supporting remain regardless of their backgrounds?

 

[mmh]

That's a bit of a loaded way of putting it, and not really correct either. Polls repeatedly show that a huge majority of Labour supporters are also remainers. As are the majority of Labour members.

I prefer looking at how people actually vote rather than what they tell opinion pollsters, though. The majority of Labour (and Conservative, unsurprisingly) held constituencies are taken to have been overall leave voting areas. You might be right about Labour members, though they're a tiny proportion of the party's supporters. You might not be though - I'm a Labour member and I've never been asked if I'm a remainer or not, so I take "stats" like those with a large pinch of salt.

I do however suspect you're correct to the extent that Corbyn and the Labour leadership are trying to be all things to all men as far as the EU are concerned. I'm sure the Labour leadership is well aware that their supporters include people who have strong views on both sides, and they are hoping that their current course won't upset anyone on either side too much. I'm not sure that that's correct - a lot of remain-supporting Labour members (including me) are getting pretty unhappy. I suspect however there may also be a calculation amongst the Labour Leadership that if they lean too heavily towards 'remain', some of their Brexit supporters will shift their vote to the Conservatives or UKIP, but there are fewer fears about losing remain supporters' votes because, with the LibDems not currently looking very viable, the sense is there's nowhere else for those people to go electorally.

I think that's spot on, it seems far more likely that leavers would shift their vote than remainers, and the 2017 collapse in the UKIP vote seems to support that - there was no particular beneficiary of their post-referendum demise, suggesting their support was split roughly down the middle as former Labour and Conservative voters. The LibDems might have the pro-EU policy, but I suspect it will be many years before their 2010-2015 adventure is long enough in the past to make them palatable as even a protest vote option for many Labour supporters.

 

[mmh]

So nothing to do with many of their new members being under 35 and the majority of under 35s supporting remain regardless of their backgrounds?

I'm afraid I'd lump them in, a little condescendingly I'll admit, under the generic "metropolitan elite" banner. They're not representative of the party's actual support in any way.

 

[pemma]

I'm afraid I'd lump them in, a little condescendingly I'll admit, under the generic "metropolitan elite" banner. They're not representative of the party's actual support in any way.

So you're of the view those who joined because of Corbyn should be kicked out.

 

[bnm]

BUT... if Brexit does actually happen and we therefore have to start living outside the EU, then that's not going to stop me from still hoping for the best future we can get. I don't understand how anyone would not wish for the future of the UK to be one of success, no matter what decisions that you disagree with might have been taken.

We can all wish for the best, but wishes can't alter facts and evidence. To wish for the best after March 2019 may be a futile activity. The sunny uplands may just be obtainable again. The isolationist utopia may materialise. I'm willing to bet it will take a generation or more for those to happen if its a no deal brexit.

it's interesting to note that the positive predictions and positive news stories for the post-brexit UK are so few in number. Why aren't the brexiteers challenging the negative predictions, making rational argument to counter the negativity? The only answer the brexiteers seem to have for the negative predictions is "Project Fear".

Tell us what we gain as a nation. Tell us how our economy will improve. Tell us that we'll still get EU goods and services at the same price. Tell us that our European travel will be as easy and as cheap as it today. Tell us that non-EU countries won't demand a pound of flesh in WTO negotiations. Tell us that our NHS won't collapse because of a staffing crisis. Tell us that unfettered cross-border movement in Ireland and Gibraltar will continue. Tell us that necessary economic migration will continue. Tell us we can retire comfortably to the Med.

And don't just say, "It'll be okay". Explain with facts, evidence, and without denigrating those asking the questions by parroting "project fear" all the time.

The negative predictions are becoming a flood. Come on brexiteers, turn the tide.

If you can.

 

[EM2]

Precisely the same number of times as the U.K. faced the 2008 sub prime financial crisis and resulting recession (ie zero!!!).

Yet we were told at the time, that would never happen! So, why should BREXIT doom laden predictions be any more accurate?

But who was telling us that? It was the banks themselves, telling us that the rules and regulations prevented it. Except they were gaming the rules and bending them as far as possible to their own advantage.
The commentators, like Robert Peston, were sounding the warning bells in mid-2007:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/2007/08/us_exports_poison_1.html

I am a long way from a properly functioning computer screen. But thanks to the miracle of mobile telephony I have been able to read BNP Paribas's explanation for prohibiting investors from cashing in more than a billion pounds of funds linked to the US subprime market.

BNP's statement is scary, to put it mildly. The giant French bank says that it cannot value the assets in these funds due to the "complete evaporation of liquidity in certain market segments of the US securitization market".

The terrifying bit is not BNP's citing of the disappearance of two-way trade in bonds and derivatives linked to poor quality US home loans, or what it calls the "evaporation of liquidity". That's just a statement of the obvious, bad news we've known about for some weeks.

No. What gives the game away is that BNP, the pride of France and one of Europe's biggest banks, doesn't dare take the long view and offer to buy these illiquid investments from investors who want to sell.

In theory, BNP should be able to ascribe an economic value to the assets in the funds, independent of their market price. And as a well-capitalised bank, it ought to be able to buy these assets at this fair value from investors and hold them to maturity or until normal conditions return to credit markets.

So why won't BNP do this? Could it be that it fears that the assets in the fund are toxic garbage that defy rational valuation?

Is there reason to believe that many of the securities manufactured out of subprime loans are worse than ordure?

I'm afraid so. Here are just three reasons:

1) As the FT pointed out this morning, many of the underlying subprime loans were taken out by fraudsters and will therefore never be repaid in full.

2) When repackaged as mortgage-backed bonds, they were given ratings by the credit rating agencies based on delinquency experience during the benign conditions of the past few years - which almost certainly means that the ratings flattered their innate (poor) quality. Or to put it another way, investors have bought the financial equivalent of poisoned mutton dressed as prime lamb.

3) Hundreds of billions of dollars of these mortgage backed bonds have been re-engineered as collateralised debt obligations. These CDOs are customised bonds of varying quality and varying yields. There is nothing intrinsically noxious about them. However there are CDOs made out of other CDOs, called CDOs squared, which are marketed as high quality investments - and they've been bought by the "one-born-every-minute" brigade. What's more, there's accumulating evidence that even the simpler CDOs have been bought by naïve investors, who had no idea what they were buying.

It is wonderfully ironic that a disproportionate share of losses from America's dodgy mortgages should be borne by financial institutions in France and Germany - and that theEuropean Central Bank is pumping cash into the banking system to avert a possible crisis.

The incongruity is that the Anglo-American model of financial markets is despised in many European capitals; it is droll that their banks were seduced by Wall Street.

But although I allow myself a chuckle, it is a hollow one. I fear there'll be plenty more damage to come from America's exports of subprime poison.

 

[Howardh]

We can all wish for the best, but wishes can't alter facts and evidence. To wish for the best after March 2019 may be a futile activity. The sunny uplands may just be obtainable again. The isolationist utopia may materialise. I'm willing to bet it will take a generation or more for those to happen if its a no deal brexit.

it's interesting to note that the positive predictions and positive news stories for the post-brexit UK are so few in number. Why aren't the brexiteers challenging the negative predictions, making rational argument to counter the negativity? The only answer the Brexit ewers, seem to have for the negative predictions is "Project Fear".

Tell us what we gain as a nation. Tell us how our economy will improve. Tell us that we'll still get EU goods and services at the same price. Tell us that our European travel will be as easy and as cheap as it today. Tell us that non-EU countries won't demand a pound of flesh in WTO negotiations. Tell us that our NHS won't collapse because of a staffing crisis. Tell us that unfettered cross-border movement in Ireland and Gibraltar will continue. Tell us that necessary economic migration will continue. Tell us we can retire comfortably to the Med.

And don't just say, "It'll be okay". Explain with facts, evidence, and without denigrating those asking the questions by parroting "project fear" all the time.

The negative predictions are becoming a flood. Come on brexiteers, turn the tide.

If you can.

Yes, the opportunity's been there for two years, and when a problem emerges it's fear/scaremongering rather than giving a positive answer. We STILL don't even know if our EHIC card will be valid after March, a simple enough situation, how easy is that to confirm or deny? When you ask a question, sometimes it's answered, more often it gets deflected which doesn't help their case.

Typically - if we all need visas, it's suddenly an "irrelevance" because it doesn't suit their argument. Funny that if the EU suddenly decided everyone inside the EU needed Visas they would be a horrid organisation putting red tape, expense and bureaucracy in the way of poor innocent businessmen and travellers - and we should leave!!

But that aside, the door's always been open, just tell us in tangible terms how much better it will be for all of us after B-day. Should be, to quote Fox, the "simplest thing ever".

And give us the solution to the Border as a post-script!!

 

[NSEFAN]

Yes, the opportunity's been there for two years, and when a problem emerges it's fear/scaremongering rather than giving a positive answer. We STILL don't even know if our EHIC card will be valid after March, a simple enough situation, how easy is that to confirm or deny? When you ask a question, sometimes it's answered, more often it gets deflected which doesn't help their case.

Typically - if we all need visas, it's suddenly an "irrelevance" because it doesn't suit their argument. Funny that if the EU suddenly decided everyone inside the EU needed Visas they would be a horrid organisation putting red tape, expense and bureaucracy in the way of poor innocent businessmen and travellers - and we should leave!!

But that aside, the door's always been open, just tell us in tangible terms how much better it will be for all of us after B-day. Should be, to quote Fox, the "simplest thing ever".

And give us the solution to the Border as a post-script!!

The point is that there is no plan for an outcome. People didn't vote for a plan, they simply voted to leave. It doesn't matter why and it doesn't matter how it pans out. What's done is apparently done and we have little choice but to put up and shut up.

 

[dgl]

The problem is that Project Fear seems to be coming true.
If we leave the EU we will soon realise that no body want's anything we want and the only trade deals will be for them to sell us low quality crap that even their own people don't want.
The EU incentivised each part to buy from each other and therefore we had at least some people wanting to buy our stuff (excluding our foreign owned car industry, which was set up primarily to get around tax)

 

[Howardh]

The good news (for me anyway) is that May can't push through a *no deal* without the say so of Parliament, that's enshrined in law curtesy of Gina Miller and the Supreme Court, and apparently there aren't the numbers there to accept a no-deal.

The question is, how many Tories who would vote down a no-deal motion would change their minds if they thought the concequence would be a vote of no-confidence and an immediate general election risking their seat? Anyhow, any such vote would probably lead to May's resignation.

But if they DID vote down the no-deal senario, then what? A50 suddenly ISN'T the default situation as it won't have been accepted by Parliament.

But realistically May's case has been weakened by that court ruling AND the fact there is no prep for a no-deal (save for some loos on the M20) so the likelyhood is she will accept whatever scraps the EU throw at her. Brexit In Name Only for tea, anyone??

 

[AlterEgo]

Well, I'm hardly likely to vote to remain in the EU and then, when we leave, want Brexit to be a success!

So if Brexit happens you would prefer for it to be a disaster. Haha.

 

[Howardh]

So if Brexit happens you would prefer for it to be a disaster. Haha.

Something along those lines. A lot depends on the "deal"; if we have a good deal where life can carry on as before then that would be fine. But if there's no deal, and we leave on WTO terms, prices and taxes go up, jobs are lost, pensions are down....

Haha

.

As for the WTO, I understand with Brexiters we are happy to be part of that. Bureaucratic, overpowering, unelected, undemocratic, expensive organisation where we are a small member amongst a much larger number. Now, where have I heard....

 

[AlterEgo]

Something along those lines. A lot depends on the "deal"; if we have a good deal where life can carry on as before then that would be fine. But if there's no deal, and we leave on WTO terms, prices and taxes go up, jobs are lost, pensions are down.....

That doesn’t really answer my question about whether you *want* Brexit to be a disaster.

 

[EM2]

Quite right. I don’t want that! I’ve voted to leave the EU on the understanding the government would honour the result. Now I want them to get on with it!

So when (if?) this incompetent Government eventually manages to negotiate its way out of a wet paper bag, and tie up some sort of deal with the EU, you'd be happy? You have absolutely no idea if it will address any of the issues that you have, and will have absolutely no say on it either.

 

[Howardh]

That doesn’t really answer my question about whether you *want* Brexit to be a disaster.

If it's no deal, then yes, I WANT it to be a total and utter disaster bigger than the biggest disaster in disasterland. If she GETS a deal, and it goes some way to keeping things pretty much as they are today, I could live with it.

Happily it's very unlikely to be no deal, so what's left shouldn't be a disaster, and I'll do my best to support it. But if the deal means we lose our travellers rights in the EU (cheap roaming, no visas/waivers, keep the medical cards, use our drivers licences without extra, compensation rights for delayed flights etc) plus an increase in price of Mediterranean foods I love (and need for my cholesterol levels) then I can't support it. Why would I?? But it's not up to me, it's up to the electorate as a whole, who can be very fickle.

 

[Howardh]

So when (if?) this incompetent Government eventually manages to negotiate its way out of a wet paper bag, and tie up some sort of deal with the EU, you'd be happy? You have absolutely no idea if it will address any of the issues that you have, and will have absolutely no say on it either.

When the final deal is announced and it's not what the majority of Leave voters thought it was going to be, I'm thoroughly looking forward to the meltdown. Especially since they have boxed themselves out of having a final vote on the outcome.

 

[Senex]

But that aside, the door's always been open, just tell us in tangible terms how much better it will be for all of us after B-day. Should be, to quote Fox, the "simplest thing ever".

But no-one from amongst the Brexiteers has ever told us just what the tangible benefits for the average citizen in their everyday life will be. It’s all been about “taking back control” (of what precisely?), more money for that sacred cow the NHS (which will do exactly what?), controllig immigration from the EU (so we can let in even more from Africa etc?), and so on. A little precision would be good. After all, it was going to be the easiest negotiation ever, wasn’t it?

 

[mmh]

Have I actually said that? I have said the TORIES might want another vote to escape from having to make the decision themselves, but me personally? Kudos to you if you can find such a post.

You're one of the most vehement remainers on here, while talking about this today you said a second referendum would give people a chance to vote against a brexit they didn't want, but you don't want a re-run? Pull the other one.