How it Works12 mins ago
Are There Benefits To Staying In The Eu
i would like to know, no link..
Answers
Whether or not anybody is ideologicall
12:07 Wed 05th Dec 2018
At this point it doesn't matter what any of us think, the whole thing is a badly managed mess. People who were not equipped to understand the full implications ( you, me, in effect everyone in the country) were asked to vote on something we should never have been asked to vote on because we can't understand enough of it to make an informed choice. Now our unelected PM is trying to foist a truly terrible deal that keeps no-one happy on us, yet in fairness to her she's the only one who has stuck with it. All the clever boys so busy criticising her have run off when asked to help with the poisoned chalice, so you have actually got what you voted for, someone else ill equipped to understand it doing their best. It's like putting me in charge of NASA, the whole thing is ridiculous, and I'm almost at the point that I no longer care if we stay, go, or even sink under the waves, we're on a hiding to nothing all ways round now.
-- answer removed --
QUOTE
kvalidir At this point it doesn't matter what any of us think, the whole thing is a badly managed mess.
People who were not equipped to understand the full implications ( you, me, in effect everyone in the country) were asked to vote on something we should never have been asked to vote on because we can't understand enough of it to make an informed choice.
Now our unelected PM is trying to foist a truly terrible deal that keeps no-one happy on us, yet in fairness to her she's the only one who has stuck with it. All the clever boys so busy criticising her have run off when asked to help with the poisoned chalice, so you have actually got what you voted for, someone else ill equipped to understand it doing their best.
QUOTE
Well summarised, especially the second paragraph.
kvalidir At this point it doesn't matter what any of us think, the whole thing is a badly managed mess.
People who were not equipped to understand the full implications ( you, me, in effect everyone in the country) were asked to vote on something we should never have been asked to vote on because we can't understand enough of it to make an informed choice.
Now our unelected PM is trying to foist a truly terrible deal that keeps no-one happy on us, yet in fairness to her she's the only one who has stuck with it. All the clever boys so busy criticising her have run off when asked to help with the poisoned chalice, so you have actually got what you voted for, someone else ill equipped to understand it doing their best.
QUOTE
Well summarised, especially the second paragraph.
Nobody except Mauritiana trades exclusively on WTO rules. There's a reason for that.
A sudden transition from our current position to one where we trade exclusively under WTO rules would not be 'a bit tricky', it would not be 'bothersome'. It would be economically disastrous. About half of our trade (at least) would suddenly become significantly more expensive (versus about 10% of EU trade).
Port authorities at Dover predict operating at 25% capacity - at most. The government has already started stockpiling medicines in preparation for a no-deal Brexit but simply doesn't have enough temperature-controlled warehouses to store more than a very short-term supply. Most of the goods we export are reliant on imports to be assembled, which will make them significantly more expensive and far less competitive. There's also a not-insignificant chance that it would cause the breakup of the UK. At a time of serious economic disruption. Whatever your thoughts on the Union, this would be an extremely bad time to usher in more instability.
It's not hard to see why No-deal is not on the table.
A sudden transition from our current position to one where we trade exclusively under WTO rules would not be 'a bit tricky', it would not be 'bothersome'. It would be economically disastrous. About half of our trade (at least) would suddenly become significantly more expensive (versus about 10% of EU trade).
Port authorities at Dover predict operating at 25% capacity - at most. The government has already started stockpiling medicines in preparation for a no-deal Brexit but simply doesn't have enough temperature-controlled warehouses to store more than a very short-term supply. Most of the goods we export are reliant on imports to be assembled, which will make them significantly more expensive and far less competitive. There's also a not-insignificant chance that it would cause the breakup of the UK. At a time of serious economic disruption. Whatever your thoughts on the Union, this would be an extremely bad time to usher in more instability.
It's not hard to see why No-deal is not on the table.
I know I mention this a lot, but it's worth mentioning that it isn't only Remainers who think that no-deal would be a disaster. Plenty of Brexiters (like Leave Alliance) are of the same view, though many of them cynically brushed this under the carpet in 2016 in the hope of winning. Nor is there any evidence whatsoever that the public at large wants "no-deal" (although even if they did, it would not suddenly become a better idea).
Labour announced on 12.11.18 it would be asking the following day for any legal advice from the Attorney General (AG)to be published.
On 13.11.18, Parliament voted in favour of the AG's legal advice on the EU agreement being published . That wasn't done but a forty-six page summary was later produced.
The Government was subsequently found to be in contempt and the AG's advice, dated 13.11.18, was released yesterday.
Is it not odd that the "summary" is seven times as long as the original six-page document?
Is it not odd that the AG's original letter was written the day AFTER Labour said it would ask for publication of his advice?
I find it hard to believe that with all the issues at stake, such as any legal oblgation to future payments to the EU, legal advice was given by the AG only the once.
Is there more that we've not been telt about?
On 13.11.18, Parliament voted in favour of the AG's legal advice on the EU agreement being published . That wasn't done but a forty-six page summary was later produced.
The Government was subsequently found to be in contempt and the AG's advice, dated 13.11.18, was released yesterday.
Is it not odd that the "summary" is seven times as long as the original six-page document?
Is it not odd that the AG's original letter was written the day AFTER Labour said it would ask for publication of his advice?
I find it hard to believe that with all the issues at stake, such as any legal oblgation to future payments to the EU, legal advice was given by the AG only the once.
Is there more that we've not been telt about?
It's a bit of spin in its own kind to insist that (a) the 52% in 2016 who voted leave haven't changed their minds (at least some of them already have), and that (b) Leave voters in 2016 were all voting to leave at any cost.
While, in fairness, evidence since 2016 tends to suggest that most people haven't changed their positions since 2016, *enough* people might have to swing the vote the other way. Given the mess of the process, it's quite feasible that this is changing still further in favour of staying in after all. We can only know this for certain if, as seems increasingly likely, there is a second referendum -- but I would nevertheless be wary of insisting that Leave voters across the country all think the same way as those on this thread.
While, in fairness, evidence since 2016 tends to suggest that most people haven't changed their positions since 2016, *enough* people might have to swing the vote the other way. Given the mess of the process, it's quite feasible that this is changing still further in favour of staying in after all. We can only know this for certain if, as seems increasingly likely, there is a second referendum -- but I would nevertheless be wary of insisting that Leave voters across the country all think the same way as those on this thread.
Jim, I don’t see anyone ‘insisting’ but the electorate were given two options – ‘Remain’ or ‘Leave’ – conditions and provisos weren’t included - and as far as I can tell there hasn’t been a significant shift in the choice they made. You seem to find it impossible to comprehend that people do actually want to leave – really leave - the EU.
2 people on this thread at least (Jackdaw and TTT), both Brexiteers, have openly admitted to only voting on one topic- sovereignty. They openly say they don't care what an economic disaster Brexit is for our country, as long as they have a Blue Passport, can have misshapen fruit and veg and can jeer at the French whilst waving Union Jacks they're happy. Seriously is this the level of people who voted leave? Really? And now others, who actually care about the country as a whole, our trading position, our voice on the world stage, our security, have to try to mop up the mess your absurd tunnel vision has caused. Look at the mess, look at the disaster we are running headlong into because you're not bright enough to consider more than 'sovereignty'.
