Bercow going..............

[Toodles McGinty]

Perhaps you weren't listening closely to Project Fear. We were promised a breakdown in civilisation in Europe and war as an inevitability.

Nobody said that. People might have referred to one of the benefits of the EU has been peace between member nations. Who were we going to war with?

House prices would crash (a perfect example of being out of touch with an electorate that would be lucky to find themselves on the housing ladder before middle age), food shortages leading to riots, medicine shortages leading to death. They are at it again now.

I suppose the government stockpiling body bags, among other things, is just 'Project Fear'? Just going off one of the doctors who contributed to 'Yellowhammer' - neurologist Dr David Nicholl "They're stockpiling body bags for the risk of an increased mortality rate in a no-deal Brexit.", wouldn't you say there's a slight cause for concern.

Apparently remainers can't tell the difference between worst case scenario and what is more likely.

In your opinion, what is the likely scenario? Not being flippant, a genuine question.

However, there is still a lot of negotiating to do about our relationship with Europe, and this can only be done after we have left..... a fact that remaners don't seem to have grasped.

So the possibilities of food shortages, medicine shortages are just 'Project Fear', but we can't actually sort out deals until we've left. So how is the food and medicine going to get in without these deals? How can lorries have the correct paperwork if the paperwork doesn't exist until deals are done?

Think of the precedent that this refusal to accept a vote is setting. Or will you be OK with next general election's losers rioting and refusing to accept the result?

It wasn't a general election. Different rules, for starters. There is a precedent in Switzerland for a refusal to accept the results of a referendum, on the grounds of the public not being given the correct information. There is also an argument that those representing us should represent all of us. Not just the majority. This isn't a 98%-2% majority being overturned, this is a slight majority won by a campaign built on a tissue of lies. If our government is for the people, bound by truth and decency, shouldn't the referendum by re-run with the full facts at hand?

Might I personally say that anybody believing in a campaign headed by Nigel Farage, and manipulated by the likes of Dominic Cummings and Cambridge Analytica, are the ones without a grasp on reality.

If they say Yellowhammer is a worst case scenario, then fair enough. I don't think many people see that as the most likely scenario, but certainly a possibility. But wouldn't all this be sorted out if our government popped along to the EU and negotiated a deal? An actual deal, not 'the EU isn't giving me everything I want so I'm not talking to them'.

The EU isn't going to let us be better off by leaving. Accept that and get on with it. But what is going to be done about the Irish border is beyond the experts at the moment. And deal or no deal, that has to be sorted out.

[gazaprop]

Will there really be food shortages - and by that I mean actual shortages were people will starve or - (as I rather suspect might be the case) - people will be prevented, for a limited period, from gorging themselves to excess!

[seivad]

Perhaps you weren't listening closely to Project Fear. We were promised a breakdown in civilisation in Europe and war as an inevitability. House prices would crash (a perfect example of being out of touch with an electorate that would be lucky to find themselves on the housing ladder before middle age), food shortages leading to riots, medicine shortages leading to death. They are at it again now. Apparently remainers can't tell the difference between worst case scenario and what is more likely.

I can't recall, were the above forecasts supposed to take effect if the electorate voted leave? Or were they forecast for when you actually exited? If it was the latter, at this point in time the forecasts haven't been proved or disproved.

I agree on your point in regard to the worst case scenario. Government and industry has to plan for all possible eventualities. Plan for the worst, hope for the best! However there are some negative consequences that are inevitable.

However, there is still a lot of negotiating to do about our relationship with Europe, and this can only be done after we have left..... a fact that remaners don't seem to have grasped.

Under the terms of Article 50, negotiations for your future relationship were always meant to take place after leaving the EU. I think that remainers are well aware of this.

What most remainers do want, is what was envisaged by the government at the time. A withdrawal deal which was agreeable to both parties, and negotiated within the stated two year time frame, followed by a two year transition period for negotiating a future relationship.

What they don't want, is a no deal Brexit. It's far easier to negotiate from inside the protected position under Article 50 than it is from outside. Plus frictionless trade with the EU would continue during the transition period in the same way that it has for the past 46 years. Bear in mind that many leavers want the same thing.

[Toodles McGinty]

Mentioning Cambridge Analytica, from the New Yorker:

New Evidence Emerges of Steve Bannon and Cambridge Analytica’s Role in Brexit

[seivad]

The principle of the deal can be struck quickly and the detail to follow with two co-operating parties.

There's a couple of problems with that:

There won't be two cooperating parties. There will be 28, you and the other 27 member countries. In the case of trade agreements, the parliaments of all 27 countries have to give consent.

An agreement in principle with detail to follow will not pass muster with the WTO. Proof of intent to enter into a trade deal has to be presented, and that would entail providing a rough draft of the trade deal. Ain't gonna happen!

[joan ofarc]

Peace at risk
What was said: David Cameron warned: "Can we be so sure that peace and stability on our Continent are assured beyond any shadow of doubt? Is that a risk worth taking? I would never be so rash as to make that assumption."

What happened: There are no current wars between EU countries.

Brexit will destroy Western civilization as we know it
What was said: European Council President Donald Tusk said a vote to leave the EU would boost anti-European forces. "As a historian I fear Brexit could be the beginning of the destruction of not only the EU but also Western political civilization in its entirety," he told the German newspaper Bild.

The punishment budget, the breakup of the United Kingdom and even the end of Western civilization as we know it — all were prophesied by the Remain campaign during the Brexit referendum and denounced as "Project Fear" by Leavers.

I could go on but you can check out the rest for yourself
https://www.politico.eu/article/accu...ned-out-so-far

[joan ofarc]

Will there really be food shortages - and by that I mean actual shortages were people will starve or - (as I rather suspect might be the case) - people will be prevented, for a limited period, from gorging themselves to excess!

Watching CNN a few weeks ago a breathless American reporter was canvassing citizens on the streets of a UK town. Are you worried about food shortages? What is going to happen, will there be riots? (to be fair to her there probably would be if this was America). An elderly gentleman just looked at her and said 'It'll do some of 'em good to go wi'out.'
Classic!

[said]

Toodles - I really don't know if you are being serious or not - but your post gave me the best laugh I have had in years! Dammit! I nearly choked on a biscuit I was eating while I was reading it. Far better than those media reporters they have now! Ha!Ha! Really funny!

[joan ofarc]

This isn't a 98%-2% majority being overturned, this is a slight majority won by a campaign built on a tissue of lies. If our government is for the people, bound by truth and decency, shouldn't the referendum by re-run with the full facts at hand?

That 'slight majority' has been good enough for many results in the past.
ALL campaigns are based on a tissue of lies.
If our government is for the people shouldn't all referenda and elections be re-run with the full facts at hand?
Of course not.

Look, as far as I am concerned, unless you believe that some people's votes are worth more than others, you accept the result and move on, same as we all do when our tribe doesn't win. The problem now, after more than three years of thrashing this three ways from Sunday, is that no one is prepared to give up their entrenched positions.

As for Farage i never have and never will believe a word he says. I made my decision after listening to far too many political discussions and reading a variety of viewpoints. I actually voted to join the Common Market and I expected the result of that to be followed. Same for this latest referendum.

[said]

There's a couple of problems with that:

There won't be two cooperating parties. There will be 28, you and the other 27 member countries. In the case of trade agreements, the parliaments of all 27 countries have to give consent.

An agreement in principle with detail to follow will not pass muster with the WTO. Proof of intent to enter into a trade deal has to be presented, and that would entail providing a rough draft of the trade deal. Ain't gonna happen!

So all countries of the EU who deal with British companies - will refuse a deal with the UK if we leave without a trade agreement - is that what you are saying? I believe there are World laws forbidding that, if I am correct. The greatest trade that the UK has with the EU is in the financial sector - and none of the single market tariffs apply to that sector. In that situation the EU is redundant to the UK.

The UK cannot start trade deals with other countries until we leave the EU - these delays caused by those who refuse to accept British democracy when it suits them to do so - are stopping the UK from moving forward. Had the situation been that Remain had won, do you honestly think that the Leave supporters would have turned on their own country? I think not! There is not one remain supporter who can give a strong argument about why they want to stay in the EU - they are merely following major players who receive financial benefit from the EU. In fact, if you read the EU's home page - you can see that they are more worried about losing out on the money they are about to lose.

[silver fox]

Peace at risk
What was said: David Cameron warned: "Can we be so sure that peace and stability on our Continent are assured beyond any shadow of doubt? Is that a risk worth taking? I would never be so rash as to make that assumption."

What happened: There are no current wars between EU countries.

Brexit will destroy Western civilization as we know it
What was said: European Council President Donald Tusk said a vote to leave the EU would boost anti-European forces. "As a historian I fear Brexit could be the beginning of the destruction of not only the EU but also Western political civilization in its entirety," he told the German newspaper Bild.

The punishment budget, the breakup of the United Kingdom and even the end of Western civilization as we know it — all were prophesied by the Remain campaign during the Brexit referendum and denounced as "Project Fear" by Leavers.

I could go on but you can check out the rest for yourself
https://www.politico.eu/article/accu...ned-out-so-far

Not sure what you're trying to say, I see very little comfort in the "what happened" responses, many of the situations are far from being resolved, the value of the pound continues it's steady slide, the N Ireland Border is still very much a flash point for security and peace, fairly sure no-one mentioned war in Europe between current EU members, but Russia continues it's agitation along and within countries on it's borders, as of January this year the government has already allocate £billions to offset the anticipated, now The Office for Budget Responsibility have come with an estimate of an overall ANNUAL cost of £30billion if we leave with no deal, you can class that any way you wish, but that is serious cash loss, if this scenario comes about it will most certainly push the country into recession then see what the cost families is.

Then we have the Government's own assessment in Yellowhammer, not much comfort in there either, none of this is Project Fear as leavers like to glibly call the warnings.

In some ways I would almost welcome a no deal Brexit just to see these ardent leavers squirm, but sadly the rest of us would suffer as well, pity we can't split the country so that leavers could leave, remainers could stay, but again that simply can't happen.

[Toodles McGinty]

Toodles - I really don't know if you are being serious or not - but your post gave me the best laugh I have had in years! Dammit! I nearly choked on a biscuit I was eating while I was reading it. Far better than those media reporters they have now! Ha!Ha! Really funny!

Well, if I've brightened one person's day, I'm happy.

[seivad]

So all countries of the EU who deal with British companies - will refuse a deal with the UK if we leave without a trade agreement - is that what you are saying?

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that when the EU concludes trade negotiations with non-EU countries, it has to be passed by all EU member country's individual parliaments.

The Canada-EU agreement (CETA) was held up for quite some time because Wallonia wouldn't approve it. For a while it was thought that Wallonia's decision would kill the deal, a deal that was 7 years in the making!

[said]

More concerned with Johnson's war on anyone who doesn't subscribe to his agenda, he can't actually remove these people from parliament all he is doing is building more opposition, then when his plans hit the buffers the Buller Boy will stamp his feet and try to blame everyone else for his abysmal performance.

Who had the final say as to who would lead the Conservative Party out of Hunt or Johnston? Yes, he was voted in by 2/3rds of the Conservative Party itself - but who led that voting? Johnson is being told what to do!

[joan ofarc]

Not sure what you're trying to say,



I was responding to a poster who doubted what Project fear said.

Nice to see you are so far into your tribal loyalty that you want something bad to happen so you can crow.