Bit of Brexit info required.

[in_the_top_one]

Nonsense. They have agreed a trade deal with Canada recently. You would have thought that 45 years of contribution and £40 billion they have no legal right to might count for something and would mean we could have a reasonable end position. So it is a punishment not to act with us in a reasonable fashion.

We have made them a good offer. If they want to deal with a brexiteer instead they should keep going the way they are because I can assure you they will risk kissing goodbye to the £40billion.

This is entirely empty and belies your knowledge of the process. Tere is no evidence of punishment because they aren't punishing us.

They have said since the beginning that we can have off-the-peg options such as Canada, Switzerland and Norway, and have these in place quite quickly. Canada would not be a good outcome for us. The £40bn is existing commitments to which we have already signed contracts. If we renege on that we will not be trusted by them or anybody else. Funding pouring into Britain would stop instantly. Nearly 10% of that money comes in for scientific research - if that ends we lose that straight away plus all the jobs and associated benefits that would relocate plus all the return on innovation from the impact of that research. Job losses and economic catastrophe. Even DD understood that quite early on.

 

[in_the_top_one]

They have agreed a trade deal with Canada recently.

And Japan. In fact a hell of a lot of the world's economy is tied into trade deals with the EU - funny that, eh?

 

[in_the_top_one]

We have made them a good offer.

We haven't made them an offer at all until this week ebcause not even the cabinet can agree! It's a fkin shambles.

 

[in_the_top_one]

No deal =WTO rules. No deal is better than a bad deal. They get no money from us. In the meantime, we prepare for a no deal and mitigate some of the risks you have mentioned

The rest of it is Project Fear Mark 2

It would have to be an extraordinarily bad deal to be worse than no deal! DexEu's own figures that were leaked predict a loss of 8% in growth in 15 years with a no deal outcome. That's >£250bn and based on securing a favourable deal with the US which, frankly, looks like pie in the sky.

No deal is never, never, never, going to happen because it is bad for everybody. Everyone knows this. Keeping it on the table in an attempt to strengthen our hand in some way is patently ridiculous and both sides know it.

 

[toms]

How do you kow it didn't?
Why did they spend it if they didn't think it might make the difference. This is exactly why the rules are there. The result was a knife edge and one side broke the laws of campaigning. You are bringing Soros into it precisely to muddy the waters and hint at equivalence. Otherwise why did you do it? I gave you a list of people who were on a committee that oversaw lawbreaking and you replied with "yeah, but Soros". It's pathetic.

Its not pathetic and was it a knife edge? Most polls had remain streets ahead

Im simply asking you if you think the extra spending equated to the additional votes that made the difference because we are not arguing about whether it is wrong or right to break the rules. We are arguing about whether the poll should be rerun if there was a breach of the rules

 

[in_the_top_one]

The rest of it is Project Fear Mark 2

If this denial of evidence is all you have left then the argument is won and I can put the kettle on.

 

[toms]

No, look it up yourself. There have been speeches throughout about us being welcomed back with open arms if we reverse or cancel the decision.

Err no-they don't exist, it is not clear by any means. We can reverse the decision but that doesn't mean wed have the same terms

 

[toms]

If this denial of evidence is all you have left then the argument is won and I can put the kettle on.

don't be silly but certainly recommend a cup of tea in any event

 

[in_the_top_one]

If this:

We are arguing about whether the poll should be rerun if there was a breach of the rules

then this:

Im simply asking you if you think the extra spending equated to the additional votes that made the difference

..is irrelevant.


But - for completeness - Yes, I do believe the vote was close; Yes, I do believe that advertising works; Yes I do believe that spending nearly 10% over the limit could have made the difference.

 

[toms]

Except the speeches are empty waffle about taking back control with no workable, acceptable solutions offered. How do we maintain the good friday agreement without a customs union? How do we avoid queues at the borders and turning Kent into a lorry park? How do we maintain the just in time deliveries? How do we move radioisotopes without the ECJ being involved? How do we enage with ANY of the european agencies without the ECJ being involved?

Instead, we remainers are told that we aren't imaginative enough. Well it isn't up to us. DD and an entire department, and his Leave colleagues have had two years to come up with something but they have spectacularly blown it. They've had their chance and come up with nowt.

And how do you know there are no contingency plans being developed and finalised. You are not on the Brexit committee are you?

 

[toms]

Except the speeches are empty waffle about taking back control with no workable, acceptable solutions offered. How do we maintain the good friday agreement without a customs union? How do we avoid queues at the borders and turning Kent into a lorry park? How do we maintain the just in time deliveries? How do we move radioisotopes without the ECJ being involved? How do we enage with ANY of the european agencies without the ECJ being involved?

Instead, we remainers are told that we aren't imaginative enough. Well it isn't up to us. DD and an entire department, and his Leave colleagues have had two years to come up with something but they have spectacularly blown it. They've had their chance and come up with nowt.

And how do you know there are no contingency plans being developed and finalised. You are not on the Brexit committee are you?

 

[toms]

If this:


then this:

..is irrelevant.


But - for completeness - Yes, I do believe the vote was close; Yes, I do believe that advertising works; Yes I do believe that spending nearly 10% over the limit could have made the difference.

Desperate mate and a sledgehammer to crack a nut

 

[in_the_top_one]

Started to read this thread - in order to try & get a better understanding of the issues.
My head hurts...

Good to see you are taking on more views and getting a better understanding.

What is your position?

Do you think the government is doing a good job of delivering Brexit?

Have you learnt new information as the picture has become clearer since the referendum?
- If yes, is this positive or negative?

Are you concerned about criminal activity by the official Leave campaign, headed up by members of the cabinet and close colleages?

Would you like to choose whether or not you want to accept the final compromise cooked up by Dominic Raab and Olly Robbins (an unelected bureaucrat)?

 

[in_the_top_one]

And how do you know there are no contingency plans being developed and finalised. You are not on the Brexit committee are you?

The contingency plans include stock piling medicine and tinned food and building a lorry park in Kent..

 

[in_the_top_one]

Desperate mate and a sledgehammer to crack a nut

I was just answering your question.

Can you put a £ figure on how much overspend isn't worth bothering the police about?

 

[in_the_top_one]

You could also say how many voters you think that sum of money might sway.

You referred back to polling which I remember all being worryingly within the noise in the run up to the vote. You may also remember that 10% were declaring themselves undecided - which way did all those people go in the end? What could have been the basis of their decision making?

 

[toms]

These multiple

I was just answering your question.

Can you put a £ figure on how much overspend isn't worth bothering the police about?

There is no £ figure-but to extend this to annulling the vote is very extreme.

 

[toms]

You could also say how many voters you think that sum of money might sway.

You referred back to polling which I remember all being worryingly within the noise in the run up to the vote. You may also remember that 10% were declaring themselves undecided - which way did all those people go in the end? What could have been the basis of their decision making?

It must have been that overspend-nothing to do with Project Fear, the various hustings, the TV..it was the overspend I tell you

Come on man...you surely cant attribute the extra million votes to the overspend

 

[toms]

The contingency plans include stock piling medicine and tinned food and building a lorry park in Kent..

Are you on the brexit select committee? Or a politician? Or is this opinion/sarcasm?

 

[in_the_top_one]

These multiple


There is no £ figure-but to extend this to annulling the vote is very extreme.

If it isn't free and fair with an informed electorate then it means nothing. Again you turn a blind eye to substantial, criminal cheating.