News0 min ago
Your Predictions On Brexit
will parliamnet pass any deal, can we leave without a deal, or does it have to be voted on.
how does it actually work..
how does it actually work..
Answers
Achieving the referendum result will destroy neither party nor country. It'll move things on. No-deal support is neither posturing nor irresponsibl
17:34 Sat 08th Jun 2019
"it's only a threat to the EU if you accept that the option is damaging, and that's damage that people cannot ignore and shouldn't wish upon themselves or on anybody else"
Two things. First it's non ideal but what temporarily damage there is, is the cost of regaining sovereignty and cheap at twice the price. Other than that, "shouldn't wish upon themselves or on anybody else" is what we all have been saying about the EU and their insistence of trying to force no-deal by only offering bad/unacceptable deals, would be more amazing hadn't we realised that the EU elite, who are game playing, don't have the welfare of EU member nations as their priority. They clearly can't care, and so are ok with the issues they create so long as they still rule the EU.
Two things. First it's non ideal but what temporarily damage there is, is the cost of regaining sovereignty and cheap at twice the price. Other than that, "shouldn't wish upon themselves or on anybody else" is what we all have been saying about the EU and their insistence of trying to force no-deal by only offering bad/unacceptable deals, would be more amazing hadn't we realised that the EU elite, who are game playing, don't have the welfare of EU member nations as their priority. They clearly can't care, and so are ok with the issues they create so long as they still rule the EU.
//There are, after all, a few outlying economists (eg Patrick Minford) that predict the opposite//
But the same consensus made predictions about the dire economic consequences which would immediately follow a Leave majority in 2016, Jim. And most of them advocating the necessity of joing the Euro etc.
The world did not end in June 2016, did it? So, at what point in their consistent prophetic failures, do you realise the Millerites and Jehovah's Witnesses have got it wrong, forego your "faith", and accept reality?
But the same consensus made predictions about the dire economic consequences which would immediately follow a Leave majority in 2016, Jim. And most of them advocating the necessity of joing the Euro etc.
The world did not end in June 2016, did it? So, at what point in their consistent prophetic failures, do you realise the Millerites and Jehovah's Witnesses have got it wrong, forego your "faith", and accept reality?
"Throughout the campaign No Deal was barely mentioned. The talk was of Norway, or Canada Plus, or variations upon these themes, or our own bespoke arrangement."
Of course it wasn't. Of course the UK wanted a good deal beneficial to both sides. But the other side of the table wouldn't play ball so we are left with what we all knew was the fallback. No-deal, and here we are.
Of course it wasn't. Of course the UK wanted a good deal beneficial to both sides. But the other side of the table wouldn't play ball so we are left with what we all knew was the fallback. No-deal, and here we are.
The success or failure of a post to explain something is highly subjective. I could just as easily say the same about your posts, but it would only because I am reading them through my eyes. I have done my best, over the years, to explain why I believe what I believe, and it certainly doesn't boil down to "because economists said so". It's again total rubbish to claim that there's no genuine belief behind what I write. I look on what Brexit is doing, and will continue to do, to the country and despair.
By the way, Pixie, I've never had reason to doubt Jim's honesty. Quite the opposite.
My complaint (which is what we've both spotted, I suggest)is that he seems to be in thrall to all the latest fashionable absurdities.
He did produce a "research" paper a while ago, for instance, covering endocrinology and other scientific commentary which "proved" that gender is not determined, or even necessarily affected by biology. I, perhaps unfairly - though I doubt it - asked him whether the "research" had been produced by the Women's Studies faculty at Keele.
My complaint (which is what we've both spotted, I suggest)is that he seems to be in thrall to all the latest fashionable absurdities.
He did produce a "research" paper a while ago, for instance, covering endocrinology and other scientific commentary which "proved" that gender is not determined, or even necessarily affected by biology. I, perhaps unfairly - though I doubt it - asked him whether the "research" had been produced by the Women's Studies faculty at Keele.
VE, if that was "research" it is at best rubbish and at worst, cowardly PC.
I know, Jim, I would never suggest you are dishonest, but (as with VE's example,) I just see you as too intelligent and too scientific minded to believe some of what you post. It seems to be wishful thinking and then twisting the facts to confuse people into agreeing.
Of course, you will say I'm wrong - and maybe I am. But you can come back and beat me up when you are ready;-)
I know, Jim, I would never suggest you are dishonest, but (as with VE's example,) I just see you as too intelligent and too scientific minded to believe some of what you post. It seems to be wishful thinking and then twisting the facts to confuse people into agreeing.
Of course, you will say I'm wrong - and maybe I am. But you can come back and beat me up when you are ready;-)
Good that someone hasn't ruled it out. I think all contenders ought to consider making their position clear. https:/
I find it very difficult to trust any of them, OG. Gove who has remained in her cabinet to the bitter end, all those who were dragged "kicking and screaming" into the Division Lobby to support her Treaty of Versailles. That means Boris and JRM, for example.
Surely even David Davies could/should have worked
out getting on for three years ago that his role was titular only, and that the real negotiations were being handled by the damage limitation PM and her "advisors" like Olly Robins ("Guy, can you get me a Belgian passport? I don't think I'll let be back in when all this is over.").
Surely even David Davies could/should have worked
out getting on for three years ago that his role was titular only, and that the real negotiations were being handled by the damage limitation PM and her "advisors" like Olly Robins ("Guy, can you get me a Belgian passport? I don't think I'll let be back in when all this is over.").
