Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
sun_tzu said:
And you think any pr statement does not go through the investors... it's a 100m + company... it has banks money in there and you don't go making those type of statements without having them cleared (abn Amro and hsbc for me plus a very rich chap... but all approve things... especially if I was to want to say something like brexit and it was likely to be a bbc news top 10 story!)
Click to expand...

You really think that statement went through lawyers and investors before being issued, you don't think Brexit will just be an easy scapegoat going forward? An official we will blame brexit in a loose way, without actually blaming anyone or anything that could be to blame seems to be the game.

I'm not really sure how we get from me saying it's pretty poor form a company to loosely indict Brexit as one of the reasons to close six eateries, to this.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
You mean like the UK blaming the EU for their own incompetence
Click to expand...
Have they actually said that? I dont know.

I do know some of the EU's big feet have said the eu is shit in the last few days and they have blamed individual governments for not convincing its subjects that its great.

Thats like trying to convince me boiled kale is extremely tasty when its not.
 
Stanley Road said:
Have they actually said that? I dont know.

I do know some of the EU's big feet have said the eu is shit in the last few days and they have blamed individual governments for not convincing its subjects that its great.

Thats like trying to convince me boiled kale is extremely tasty when its not.
Click to expand...

But the money they're wasting on being in the single market could have been spent on the NHS, but they have a better idea, let's have an anti-immigration policy so that the NHS will be more understaffed than ever.

I can't wait for the May Brexit plan, need a good laugh.
 
Chorley1974 said:
I don't think anyone has tried to excuse the UK govt of it's incompetence, that's something I think we can safely lay claim to.
Click to expand...

But the politicians used Brexit to deflect the blame to cover its incompetence and die-hard labour supporters started voting for Leave as a protest vote in many cases
 
Paul the Wolf said:
But the money they're wasting on being in the single market could have been spent on the NHS, but they have a better idea, let's have an anti-immigration policy so that the NHS will be more understaffed than ever.

I can't wait for the May Brexit plan, need a good laugh.
Click to expand...
You are the ones believing the bus and shit, likewise then i am expecting ww3 and certain death
 
Stanley Road said:
You are the ones believing the bus and shit, likewise then i am expecting ww3 and certain death
Click to expand...

I saw the bus and heard a load of crap spoken by a load of power hungry politicians on all sides . I didn't believe the bus and the other rubbish because like any sensible person, it was obviously bs.

The problem was that a lot of people did believe all the bs and did think what the bus stated was real and that all the immigrants would go home and the NHS would become this magnificent health service and Britain would become a world power again like they used to be and everything would be all lovely again (whenever that was). It's clear a lot of people still, even now, believe this, and a lot of people want to believe this and other people have other motives. Some people just cannot think for themselves and are easily led.

It's when reality hits home, that's when the real problems start.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
I saw the bus and heard a load of crap spoken by a load of power hungry politicians on all sides . I didn't believe the bus and the other rubbish because like any sensible person, it was obviously bs.

The problem was that a lot of people did believe all the bs and did think what the bus stated was real and that all the immigrants would go home and the NHS would become this magnificent health service and Britain would become a world power again like they used to be and everything would be all lovely again (whenever that was). It's clear a lot of people still, even now, believe this, and a lot of people want to believe this and other people have other motives. Some people just cannot think for themselves and are easily led.

It's when reality hits home, that's when the real problems start.
Click to expand...

Linking the NHS to immigration is when the amaze balls starts.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
I know you still have your head in the sand but why did people vote to Leave
Click to expand...

Controls on EU migration, yes. Send all of the immigrants home and pull up some mythical drawbridge, no.

Make spending choices in the UK and channel previous EU funding into public services/infrastructure, yes. Brexit a panacea for all the failings of the NHS, no.

A desire that this global prosperity of ours to reach them and their communities. Bring back the Empire, no.

The above would be my assessment of the majority view among Leavers, regarding the points you listed earlier. Naturally, there are of course more extreme viewpoints, but such is the case with Remainers also.
 
Last edited:
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
Controls on EU migration, yes. Send all of the immigrants home and pull up some mythical drawbridge, no.

Make spending choices in the UK and channel previous EU funding into public services/infrastructure, yes. Brexit a panacea for all the failings of the NHS, no.

A desire that this global prosperity of ours to reach them and their communities. Bring back the Empire, no.

The above would be my assessment of the majority view among Leavers, regarding the points you listed earlier. Naturally, there are of course more extreme viewpoints, but such is the case with Remainers also.
Click to expand...

But is this really the case? And is it the case among the politicians who fought for Brexit and will be enacting it? That's a major part of the problem. If we look at the "Take Britain Back" sort of idea that managed to work its way into being one of the main slogans, it kind of asks Brits to harken back to a time when it was better to be British, and when Britain was better for the people within it before the EU. It's not quite imperial rhetoric as such, but it does argue that Britain was stronger and better in the past...and I'm not sure that's the case.

What specific spending choices, and what specific public service/infrastructure ventures did Brits feel would be better off under more British control than European control? And not just in the sense of Britain having control for the sake of it...because in a globalised world with bodies like the UN, NATO and other such initiatives Britain will always have to secede control of certain initiatives or projects to other countries, even if the EU is a more extreme example.

And what politicians involved with Brexit have come up with their own vision to bring such ventures previously funded by the EU into better British control? Farage has been the typically most prominent Brexiteer for a long time...and yet he lacked any sort of vision as to how a post-EU Britain should be. His argument was based in sovereignty and immigration...and yet the mechanisms through which he believed Britain would improve outside the EU, and how we would successfully change our immigration policies without isolating ourselves from the EU/other countries and thus damaging ourselves economically, were non-existent, barring a vague notion of an Australian style points system.

The other primary politician was probably Boris...who didn't really ever believe in Brexit at all, and had arguments sitting aside in case he backed Remain. Where was his plan for Brexit? Where was his vision for a post-Brexit Britain? What about Gove? Or Davis? Or Fox?

In the end we've been landed with a PM who sort of backed Remain but didn't really...and despite not backing Brexit is now bizarrely championing herself as the voice of the people on Brexit, even though she wouldn't have given a feck about their voice had the margin been a couple of percent the other way. What's her vision of Brexit? We don't really know...because she doesn't particularly have one.

The whole thing has been a mess, and ultimately any such decision to follow Brexit in the way you argued for demands that the people who supported Brexit wanted this and overwhelmingly understood what it meant, and that anyone enacting it, ie the central politicians, understood this and know how they will implement a smooth transition from EU Britain to post-Brexit Britain.
 
If you had a referendum with the question "1+1=2. Yes or no?" you'd see a lot of "no" votes. Perhaps not the majority, but still... For a lot of people, in their mind, the question always is "Are you satisfied with the current situation? Yes or no?"... it does not matter what the actual issues are.
 
Cheesy said:
The other primary politician was probably Boris...who didn't really ever believe in Brexit at all, and had arguments sitting aside in case he backed Remain. Where was his plan for Brexit? Where was his vision for a post-Brexit Britain? What about Gove? Or Davis? Or Fox?

In the end we've been landed with a PM who sort of backed Remain but didn't really...and despite not backing Brexit is now bizarrely championing herself as the voice of the people on Brexit, even though she wouldn't have given a feck about their voice had the margin been a couple of percent the other way. What's her vision of Brexit? We don't really know...because she doesn't particularly have one.
Click to expand...
The politicians are what really takes the piss. When you vote for a person, or policy, the thing you need above all else is basic competence for the task. And we've given the biggest policy in decades to the most incompetent, idiotic career politicians we've had since the monarchy had absolute power and genetic lottery could bend you over the table and shove its fist so far up your arse that you could smell its finger. A bunch of know-nothing posh twats who formed their worldview in fecking oratory clubs.
 
Last edited:
Silva said:
The politicians are what really takes the piss. When you vote for a person, or policy, the thing you need above all else is basic competence for the task. And we've given the biggest policy in decades to the most incompetent, idiotic career politicians we've had since the monarchy had absolute power and genetic lottery could bend you over the table and shove its fist so far up your arse that you could smell its finger. A bunch of know-nothing posh twats who formed their worldview in fecking oratory clubs.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's been a joke from start to finish.

Again, while it was far from perfect and arguably quite flawed, in 2014 the SNP actually wrote up a full paper outlining their plans for Scottish independence, and the primary figures surrounding the referendum were people like Salmond and Sturgeon and others within the SNP who had not only been backing independence for decades, but also were going to be around for the aftermath and implementation. Again, it wasn't perfect by any means, but at least had a hint of organisation, foresight and honesty.

In the case of Brexit, we've seen major politicians who quite genuinely didn't back Brexit this time last year playing a key role in the debate, and we're supposed to believe them? We see someone like Farage, who championed this for years, but had no clue how it was going to be implemented afterwards, and who since then has done nothing but argue for a hard Brexit with no contemplation as to how it'll work out.

I'd ask someone like Nick, who I generally think is very educated politically (probably more so than me), who he has faith in within the political sphere to deliver a competent, well-orchestrated Brexit that was also a Brexiteer? Also it's a loaded question, because this won't be delivered by one person alone, but I struggle to see how someone could take most of the prominent Brexiteers in good faith when they either had no vision for a post-Brexit Britain, or didn't really want it to happen at all but accidentally helped push it through, a la Boris.
 
While the remain perspective speak for itself, it surely can't be the case that leave voters are content with how the government has conducted itself up to now. It looks as if they feel obliged to go along with all of the nonsense out of a duty to defend the idea of Brexit itself, making it a self-fulfilling prophecy that it will turn out negatively, because anything other than mindlessly backing it and supporting questionable ideas is seen as a concession that the entire thing might be wrong. The government's left to fumble everything and answer to nobody.
 
Cheesy said:
Again, while it was far from perfect and arguably quite flawed, in 2014 the SNP actually wrote up a full paper outlining their plans for Scottish independence, and the primary figures surrounding the referendum were people like Salmond and Sturgeon and others within the SNP who had not only been backing independence for decades, but also were going to be around for the aftermath and implementation. Again, it wasn't perfect by any means, but at least had a hint of organisation, foresight and honesty.
Click to expand...
Cameron said he'd be around for the aftermath

Believing politicians is a bad move
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
Controls on EU migration, yes. Send all of the immigrants home and pull up some mythical drawbridge, no.

Make spending choices in the UK and channel previous EU funding into public services/infrastructure, yes. Brexit a panacea for all the failings of the NHS, no.

A desire that this global prosperity of ours to reach them and their communities. Bring back the Empire, no.

The above would be my assessment of the majority view among Leavers, regarding the points you listed earlier. Naturally, there are of course more extreme viewpoints, but such is the case with Remainers also.
Click to expand...

That sounds more like what you were hoping was going to happen.
We've been through all these points before so no point in going over them yet again and we have vastly different views.

As I've said before, ignore what the papers print, look at people's comments and people's reactions.
Also a large majority of people don't understand how the EU works or how government decide to spend their budget or what the criteria of immigration is, or what immigrants bring to the country, nevermind making Britain great again.

They are influenced by the politicians who spout the lies, by the newspapers they happen to read and are not capable or even willing to enquire as to whether what they have been told is the truth or even part truth.

Every time the pound improves a little or the UK figures seem better than was expected , you get the Leavers saying , see I told you it wouldn't be as bad as was predicted.

Nothing that has happened since the referendum has remotely surprised me, as I said months before the referendum, if the vote was to Leave the pound would drop to €1.10-€1.20 range, which it has . The rest of the predictions apply when the fatal deed or process begins and then when the UK eventually leaves.

The next minor short term prediction would be the result of the Supreme Court case - If May wins the pound will drop, if May loses the pound will improve, neither that significantly, maybe a few cents either way.

Everything that points to a hard brexit will devalue the pound, a soft brexit will maintain the value of the pound to a certain extent.

The next step is what plan May comes up with and subsequently whether an agreement is obtained with the EU.
May says she wants to represent all the British people and Brexit will suit all of them - this seems an impossible task
Either it's a hard brexit which will certainly not appease the Remainers or there's a soft brexit which in effect means that the UK are out of the EU but still paying the bills, still having FoM but having no say in the EU and I doubt that will appease the Leavers.

So you end up with either as you were but worse or possibly a tanking economy and little change other than possibly less immigrants.
Either way there will be a lot of unhappy people and a divisive society.
 
Fener1907 said:
While the remain perspective speak for itself, it surely can't be the case that leave voters are content with how the government has conducted itself up to now. It looks as if they feel obliged to go along with all of the nonsense out of a duty to defend the idea of Brexit itself, making it a self-fulfilling prophecy that it will turn out negatively, because anything other than mindlessly backing it and supporting questionable ideas is seen as a concession that the entire thing might be wrong. The government's left to fumble everything and answer to nobody.
Click to expand...
Great post, as you never see the leave voters complain (except when generally being labeled as racist and/or stupid), I'm inclined to believe that you're right. That they are content or stubborn...
 
Last edited:
You keep repeating that as if Farage has not made a career out of it as well as the other main Leavers.
 
Fener1907 said:
The government's left to fumble everything and answer to nobody.
Click to expand...

Indeed... I can't help but feel that with a more credible (electable) leader that labour would have been able to do have actually done a better job of holding them to account

As labour can't do that and are even odds on to loose a safe seat in a by-election it looks like may has a free pass to bumble her way to a botched brexit and still come under little pressure (except from some of her more eurosceptic mps who seem to want a return to the grand days of the British empire and all that entails)
 
You can't believe the arguments the leavers are cooking up now to justify this nonsense. They've had months now to twist and prepare their arguments and outs for any reasonable disagreement on the matter of Brexit. You need to go and look at the shite they were spouting back around the time of the vote for a real reflection.
 
Stanley Road said:
Cameron said he'd be around for the aftermath

Believing politicians is a bad move
Click to expand...

And? Leavers should've been prepared for a possible exit after the result, and more so should have been pushing for it. After all, Cameron was a pro-EU Tory and had he remained in power could've forced through a soft Brexit and maintained no changes to immigration. It'd have been in the Leavers best interest to put someone in charge who had their own aims and goals as a priority. They're just lucky they got someone who happened to support them all along, but was too non-committal to come out and say so.
 
Cheesy said:
And? Leavers should've been prepared for a possible exit after the result, and more so should have been pushing for it. After all, Cameron was a pro-EU Tory and had he remained in power could've forced through a soft Brexit and maintained no changes to immigration. It'd have been in the Leavers best interest to put someone in charge who had their own aims and goals as a priority. They're just lucky they got someone who happened to support them all along, but was too non-committal to come out and say so.
Click to expand...
I find it weird they all argued so passionately for our withdrawal but were arguing on nothing more than pure theoretical dreams rather than hard practicalities, like choosing to sell their house on the basis that they could possibly get a better house for a cheaper price somewhere else and will just wing it after already selling.

I just don't understand why anyone would do that.
 
endless_wheelies said:
I find it weird they all argued so passionately for our withdrawal but were arguing on nothing more than pure theoretical dreams rather than hard practicalities, like choosing to sell their house on the basis that they could possibly get a better house for a cheaper price somewhere else and will just wing it after already selling.

I just don't understand why anyone would do that.
Click to expand...

It's quite remarkable, isn't it? Obviously in any referendum there are going to be uncertainties and risks, but in this case the Leavers who hard done by were in a position wherein there was no guarantee whatsoever as to what sort of Brexit they would get. They think they're hard done by because they might not get a hard Brexit, but imagine if Cameron's wing of the party had mobilised and nullified the Leave wing? Or if there had been a massive Labour bounce in the polls? Nothing was ever close to even remotely certain as to what would happen afterwards, in regards to immigration, deals with the EU, transferring of funding etc.
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38546820

Theresa May: UK cannot keep 'bits' of EU membership

Theresa May had said the usual stuff all over again. However she did revealed something very important in what she said. I the word 'cannot' is quite revealing here.

Most voters (remainers and leavers) think that the UK has a big say on things. That's its up to Westminster to seal a good deal and that inability to do so is up to their politicians. However they can't be more wrong. Once article 50 is activated the UK has little say on what's going to happen. It is in no position whatsoever to demand let alone force a deal over a much stronger, richer and more influential market.

In my opinion Brexit was yet another attempt by the English to destroy Europe's unity and return to the divide and conquer strategy that worked so well for the Brits for centuries. Unfortunately for them it didn't work. Just look around. Austria hasn't voted for an Eurosceptic, Italy did voted for the No referendum but Italy is still part of the EU and now even Grillo seem distancing himself from the pesky Brexiters, Le Pen doesn't seem to have a much of chance of winning and Wilders seem quite isolated. Also traditional allies seem to distance themselves from the UK including Malta, Denmark and Ireland. Its too early to say, but the more time passes the more it seem that Brexit was a fail coupe d'etat

If you ask me, I believe that the EU won't give the UK any deal that isn't off the shelf (ie EEA membership for example). The reasons are various but the major one are.

a- There's too much things on their plate (Putin, Trump, various key general elections etc) to give a feck about the spoiled boy who wants candy despite refusing to stay into the candy shop.
b- There isn't enough time
c- The UK had just handled the EU the best excuse to justify any financial crisis in Europe (ie Brexit). Just as the Brexiters loved to blame EU workers for every ills in the UK, the EU will blame the British for every crisis within the EU. The populism card can be played by everybody

The UK will try and get an extension to avoid the much discussed cliff edge. Unfortunately I can't see it succeeding on it for various reasons.

a- the timescale is just too short and most EU leaders have more important things to worry about then to accommodate the UK
b- Any pressure from the outside (businesses, UK friendly MEPs etc) will be silenced by the fact that the EU did offered a deal to the UK and it would be them refusing a deal not the EU

Therefore the UK will most probably end up with the hardest of Brexits ie outside the EU with no trade deal and with a deal that need to be sorted with WTO (who once again include EU countries + nations such as Argentina, India and Russia). That will leave the UK very vulnerable both from inside forces and outside forces. Will Scotland, Northern Ireland and Gibraltar remain in the UK if it ends up in recession especially if the former is offered the chance to join the EEA and the latter the chance to join Ireland and Spain respectively?


I am pretty sure that many countries would be ready to conduct trade deals with the UK. However I can't help thinking how vulnerable the UK will be at that point and how easy prey it would be for the likes of China, Trump's US (he's a big fan of protectionism) and the EU itself. Considering how sensitive Trump is and the fact that he might go tough against China and the EU, the UK will need to choose its friends very careful else it risks to sign a trade deal with one country and then find it very hard to sign a decent trade deal with others
 
The EU has always been a political artífice with economic consequences, not the other way round. The serious politics will kick in after article 50 has been invoked.
 
devilish said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38546820

Theresa May: UK cannot keep 'bits' of EU membership

Theresa May had said the usual stuff all over again. However she did revealed something very important in what she said. I the word 'cannot' is quite revealing here.

Most voters (remainers and leavers) think that the UK has a big say on things. That's its up to Westminster to seal a good deal and that inability to do so is up to their politicians. However they can't be more wrong. Once article 50 is activated the UK has little say on what's going to happen. It is in no position whatsoever to demand let alone force a deal over a much stronger, richer and more influential market.

In my opinion Brexit was yet another attempt by the English to destroy Europe's unity and return to the divide and conquer strategy that worked so well for the Brits for centuries. Unfortunately for them it didn't work. Just look around. Austria hasn't voted for an Eurosceptic, Italy did voted for the No referendum but Italy is still part of the EU and now even Grillo seem distancing himself from the pesky Brexiters, Le Pen doesn't seem to have a much of chance of winning and Wilders seem quite isolated. Also traditional allies seem to distance themselves from the UK including Malta, Denmark and Ireland. Its too early to say, but the more time passes the more it seem that Brexit was a fail coupe d'etat

If you ask me, I believe that the EU won't give the UK any deal that isn't off the shelf (ie EEA membership for example). The reasons are various but the major one are.

a- There's too much things on their plate (Putin, Trump, various key general elections etc) to give a feck about the spoiled boy who wants candy despite refusing to stay into the candy shop.
b- There isn't enough time
c- The UK had just handled the EU the best excuse to justify any financial crisis in Europe (ie Brexit). Just as the Brexiters loved to blame EU workers for every ills in the UK, the EU will blame the British for every crisis within the EU. The populism card can be played by everybody

The UK will try and get an extension to avoid the much discussed cliff edge. Unfortunately I can't see it succeeding on it for various reasons.

a- the timescale is just too short and most EU leaders have more important things to worry about then to accommodate the UK
b- Any pressure from the outside (businesses, UK friendly MEPs etc) will be silenced by the fact that the EU did offered a deal to the UK and it would be them refusing a deal not the EU

Therefore the UK will most probably end up with the hardest of Brexits ie outside the EU with no trade deal and with a deal that need to be sorted with WTO (who once again include EU countries + nations such as Argentina, India and Russia). That will leave the UK very vulnerable both from inside forces and outside forces. Will Scotland, Northern Ireland and Gibraltar remain in the UK if it ends up in recession especially if the former is offered the chance to join the EEA and the latter the chance to join Ireland and Spain respectively?


I am pretty sure that many countries would be ready to conduct trade deals with the UK. However I can't help thinking how vulnerable the UK will be at that point and how easy prey it would be for the likes of China, Trump's US (he's a big fan of protectionism) and the EU itself. Considering how sensitive Trump is and the fact that he might go tough against China and the EU, the UK will need to choose its friends very careful else it risks to sign a trade deal with one country and then find it very hard to sign a decent trade deal with others
Click to expand...
Will you be deported when its all done and dusted?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.