Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
Oh Dear
17 Answers
Latest evidence that Project Fear predictions were wide of the mark
Never mind I'm sure the Remoaners will find some other grubby little scare story to try and put down the little people.
http://
Never mind I'm sure the Remoaners will find some other grubby little scare story to try and put down the little people.
http://
Answers
1 to 17 of 17
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
i don't mind that the Remain campaign produced a prediction of the world as we know it - the Leave campaign did the same, and both were based on a complete absence of knowledge of what is going to happen.
What I mind is the constant chipping and needling that they are doing, inferring that the vote is not binding, and that conditions need to be applied, and of course, the worst of all, that Parliament must be consulted.
If the people have voted in a referendum, what do Parliament need to say, other than, yes, that's fine.
What else is there for them to be supposed to say about the triggering of Article 58?
Of course, the notion that parliament needs to be aware of the exit strategy is nonsense - if they know, the EU will know, which removes the concept of negotiation which can only be based on the other side not knowing what you have, or what you will concede, that is what negotiation is.
Parliament can be apprised as we go, but not in advance.
What I mind is the constant chipping and needling that they are doing, inferring that the vote is not binding, and that conditions need to be applied, and of course, the worst of all, that Parliament must be consulted.
If the people have voted in a referendum, what do Parliament need to say, other than, yes, that's fine.
What else is there for them to be supposed to say about the triggering of Article 58?
Of course, the notion that parliament needs to be aware of the exit strategy is nonsense - if they know, the EU will know, which removes the concept of negotiation which can only be based on the other side not knowing what you have, or what you will concede, that is what negotiation is.
Parliament can be apprised as we go, but not in advance.
Jeez I really don't know where to start on your post Andy but let's have a bash anyway:
1.inferring that the vote is not binding - The vote never was binding it was advisory. From the FT BEFORE the referendum 'The relevant legislation did not provide for the referendum result to have any formal trigger effect'.
http://
2. 'worst of all, that Parliament must be consulted.' - It was always known that Parliament may be consulted. From the same article 'Or they (The Govt) could say it is now a matter for parliament, and then endeavour to win the parliamentary vote.'
3. 'If the people have voted in a referendum, what do Parliament need to say, other than, yes, that's fine.' This shows a complete ignorance of constitutional process and the devolving of law.
4. 'the notion that parliament needs to be aware of the exit strategy is nonsense' Sort of correct BUT, It wasn't Parliament who needed to be aware, it was our Government.
5. 'if they know, the EU will know' Really? By what automatic process does this happen?
6. 'Parliament can be apprised as we go, but not in advance' I don't know where to begin with this one in particular but the suggestion that Parliament is just some body to be consulted rather than the constitutional driving force leads me to believe you need to do a bit of reading up, Andy.
1.inferring that the vote is not binding - The vote never was binding it was advisory. From the FT BEFORE the referendum 'The relevant legislation did not provide for the referendum result to have any formal trigger effect'.
http://
2. 'worst of all, that Parliament must be consulted.' - It was always known that Parliament may be consulted. From the same article 'Or they (The Govt) could say it is now a matter for parliament, and then endeavour to win the parliamentary vote.'
3. 'If the people have voted in a referendum, what do Parliament need to say, other than, yes, that's fine.' This shows a complete ignorance of constitutional process and the devolving of law.
4. 'the notion that parliament needs to be aware of the exit strategy is nonsense' Sort of correct BUT, It wasn't Parliament who needed to be aware, it was our Government.
5. 'if they know, the EU will know' Really? By what automatic process does this happen?
6. 'Parliament can be apprised as we go, but not in advance' I don't know where to begin with this one in particular but the suggestion that Parliament is just some body to be consulted rather than the constitutional driving force leads me to believe you need to do a bit of reading up, Andy.
ZM, I would love to read up about political procedure. but unfortunately, I am already being lectured on here about the massive gaps in my knowledge of Islam, so I'm afraid that due process will have to take a ticket and join the queue for my valuable free time, which is occupied with 'scratching for money' as a music writer, one of your colleagues eloquently put it, and fripperies like children and grandchildren getting in the way as well.
Ignorance! What is a boy to do? Cha!
Ignorance! What is a boy to do? Cha!
I can accept that there's some principle by which "revealing" our negotiating position early might put us as somewhat of a disadvantage, but I think it's also a little misleading. Firstly, it makes the entire thing too combative for my tastes -- shouldn't we be working *with* the EU, rather trying to squeeze as much out of it as possible? Secondly, anyway the EU has already sort of revealed its starting point, ie protection of the various EU freedoms such that we can't have access to them unconditionally.
And thirdly, I can't simultaneously be told that I can't know what the future of the UK's relationship with the EU is going to be and that I have to be happy about it and accept it unconditionally. In the meantime, all Theresa May can come out with is meaningless platitudes such as "Brexit means Brexit" and "we're not wanting a hard or a soft Brexit but a red, white and blue Brexit" as if that means anything at all. And yet some people seem to lap it up.
I'd love to know what the government has in mind. No doubt the main reason we don't know, yet, is because the government doesn't either.
Anyhow, returning to the original point, I'd hardly want a scare story, but the "Project Fear" projections were generally based on the understanding that Cameron would trigger Article 50 instantly on a Leave vote. That didn't happen -- it stands to reason that most of the predictions are therefore void.
And thirdly, I can't simultaneously be told that I can't know what the future of the UK's relationship with the EU is going to be and that I have to be happy about it and accept it unconditionally. In the meantime, all Theresa May can come out with is meaningless platitudes such as "Brexit means Brexit" and "we're not wanting a hard or a soft Brexit but a red, white and blue Brexit" as if that means anything at all. And yet some people seem to lap it up.
I'd love to know what the government has in mind. No doubt the main reason we don't know, yet, is because the government doesn't either.
Anyhow, returning to the original point, I'd hardly want a scare story, but the "Project Fear" projections were generally based on the understanding that Cameron would trigger Article 50 instantly on a Leave vote. That didn't happen -- it stands to reason that most of the predictions are therefore void.
You can look at this in several ways. One is to say that if things are going so well perhaps leaving is unwise- or you could say we will do even better when we go; maybe other countries think we will leave and will be a good economy to do business with- or maybe they think we will never leave.
The picture is mixed and some people will interpret any bits of news in different ways. Those who believed in Brexit will use any good news as evidence they were right and use bad news to show what a mess the EU is “the sooner we get out the better” or see it as sabotage/scare stories/sour grapes from the elite. Strong Remainers will see good news as evidence to stay saying “we haven’t left” and will use bad news to say “we warned you bad time slay ahead if we chose to Leave”.
Fortunately most people I meet just want to see it sorted out and will welcome any good news and signs the economy is doing well without trying to relive past arguments, gloat or display sour grapes.
The picture is mixed and some people will interpret any bits of news in different ways. Those who believed in Brexit will use any good news as evidence they were right and use bad news to show what a mess the EU is “the sooner we get out the better” or see it as sabotage/scare stories/sour grapes from the elite. Strong Remainers will see good news as evidence to stay saying “we haven’t left” and will use bad news to say “we warned you bad time slay ahead if we chose to Leave”.
Fortunately most people I meet just want to see it sorted out and will welcome any good news and signs the economy is doing well without trying to relive past arguments, gloat or display sour grapes.
ff, AB is obviously a distillation of peoples ideas and it's good to debate points and learn more. IO do have a bit of an issue with your simplification of your reasons for voting when you say:
'One is to say that if things are going so well perhaps leaving is unwise- or you could say we will do even better when we go'
there was no IF needed in the first part & the second part was speculation or a roll of the dice if you will.
'One is to say that if things are going so well perhaps leaving is unwise- or you could say we will do even better when we go'
there was no IF needed in the first part & the second part was speculation or a roll of the dice if you will.
Yes, ZM--they are just different views I have heard. It all seems a bit pointless at the moment at the moment no clear picture is emerging and some on both sides are clutching at straws and reading a lot into very little just to convince themselves they voted in the right way and others who voted the other way were traitors/blind/racist/out of touch, etc
1 to 17 of 17
