Could The Uk Use The Channel Tunnel To...
ChatterBank0 min ago
Sir Humphrey Says We Are Ok For No Deal......so Lets Get On With It.
86 Answers
https:/
Instead of hand wringing and allowing the EUSSR to shaft us, should we just accept no deal and prepare for it as best we can in the remaining time?
Instead of hand wringing and allowing the EUSSR to shaft us, should we just accept no deal and prepare for it as best we can in the remaining time?
Answers
You don't need to be a politician, just have a grasp of common sense, to know that the EU were always going to play hard ball from Day One of the negotiators, how could they do any other? To roll over and accept Britain's exit is to start a domino effect which would see the EU collapsing within five years, they were always going to make it as hard as they could to set an...
12:36 Sun 16th Jun 2019
Playbill, hopefully most people voted for what they thought was best for the country and not just what was quickest and easiest. Of course it has been made a mess of, because it has been led by people who never wanted to leave and who haven't tried, except by seeing it as damage limitation. Ie to "leave" as little as possible. Which was not what was voted for.
There wouldn't be a possible Irish border problem if the EU elite weren't so keen on making one. No one can be expected to anticipate idiocy from the other side of the table, nor allow such idiocy to dictate whether we control our own nation. All this talk of not knowing the details is nonsense. No one can know every little thing, one deals with issues as they arise and don't use those issues to imply we should never do anything ever, for fear of having to manage risk.
Steg - // //What you said was, if the 'deal' had been sorted out before the referendum, eveyone would be in a better position now. //
No I never said that either //
I think you did actually - here is what you said -
// If most/all of whatever deal the gov wanted, was sorted out before the referendum, every one would have known what they were voting for and this mess we seem to be in probably would not be happening //
The point you appear to fail to grasp is that a deal takes two parties to negotiate and conclude. Again, why would the government spend serious amounts of money working out what it may want from an EU exit deal, if the deal may not happen because the electorate may not vote for it.
Do you know what putting the cart before the horse means?
No I never said that either //
I think you did actually - here is what you said -
// If most/all of whatever deal the gov wanted, was sorted out before the referendum, every one would have known what they were voting for and this mess we seem to be in probably would not be happening //
The point you appear to fail to grasp is that a deal takes two parties to negotiate and conclude. Again, why would the government spend serious amounts of money working out what it may want from an EU exit deal, if the deal may not happen because the electorate may not vote for it.
Do you know what putting the cart before the horse means?
steg - // // bang on AH, BA. It's regular feature of the remoaners argument that had we known what would ensue we'd vote to continue our enslavement. BS.//
Aye the ‘so’ rule wins the day lol //
Not in this case it doesn't.
The 'So' Rule involves saying something a poster has not said, and then criticising them for it, opening a sentence with "So what you are saying is …".
I paraphrased what you actually did say, and since you failed to accept that, I have quoted it directly back to you.
The 'So Rule' does not apply in this instance, so it doesn't win.
It would help if you actually read what people are saying, it will save you trying to deny what you have said, and then having it quoted back at you as proof of the facile argument you are trying to offer.
Aye the ‘so’ rule wins the day lol //
Not in this case it doesn't.
The 'So' Rule involves saying something a poster has not said, and then criticising them for it, opening a sentence with "So what you are saying is …".
I paraphrased what you actually did say, and since you failed to accept that, I have quoted it directly back to you.
The 'So Rule' does not apply in this instance, so it doesn't win.
It would help if you actually read what people are saying, it will save you trying to deny what you have said, and then having it quoted back at you as proof of the facile argument you are trying to offer.
Clearly not so. All it told them was that there were negotiations to be had to make the best of the situation. It was the EU elite that decided not to act responsibility, reject all reasonable suggestions, demand a bribe for leaving, and take the Mickey by suggesting we either stay in, in all but name, or split the UK into two areas where one part stays in.
Playbill - // Exactly pixie374: just leave, giving no real thought to what that would entail. As I said earlier, if the government had no idea, how could the voters. //
I think it's naïve in the extreme to imagine that the government - and the EU - did not start considering each and every scenario from the day the referendum was announced.
Like all Remainers, you like to pretend 20/20 hindsight equates to wisdom - it does not.
I think it's naïve in the extreme to imagine that the government - and the EU - did not start considering each and every scenario from the day the referendum was announced.
Like all Remainers, you like to pretend 20/20 hindsight equates to wisdom - it does not.
Playbill - // andy-huges - The government and the EU considered each and every scenario? That's so far fetched it is almost funny. //
That's one way of avoiding admitting that your posts were inaccurate - care to respond to them instead of making up statements that are clearly not true - almost funny or not?
That's one way of avoiding admitting that your posts were inaccurate - care to respond to them instead of making up statements that are clearly not true - almost funny or not?
There have been hilarious instances of stupidity from remain as well as leave. Such as the wail of dispare at the possibility there might not be enough Latvians or poles to serve coffee in London, or people wont be able to go on holiday. So ferreting around for the silly bits works both ways.
All the talk of economic disaster has been perpetuated because in part people are not willing to contemplate a number of things.
The first being that the UK government have done nothing to prepare for no deal. And where it is true parliament passed motions to stop spending on preparations they have actually done quite a lot and could get a lot more done between now and end of Oct.
Change can be problematic even if you are prepared but that doesn’t mean you don’t change, it just means you have to be more focused.
All the talk of economic disaster has been perpetuated because in part people are not willing to contemplate a number of things.
The first being that the UK government have done nothing to prepare for no deal. And where it is true parliament passed motions to stop spending on preparations they have actually done quite a lot and could get a lot more done between now and end of Oct.
Change can be problematic even if you are prepared but that doesn’t mean you don’t change, it just means you have to be more focused.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank1 min ago
ChatterBank5 mins ago
Will Stonehenge Become Reform's...
News5 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.