Bit of Brexit info required. | Page 92 | Vital Football

Bit of Brexit info required.

in_the_top_one said:
Why not create a prospectus for a No Deal Brexit (whatever that is)?
Then we can put it up against remaining and the PMs negotiated deal and you can campaign for it. We can have second choice so as not to split the leave vote.

If the PMs plan goes through and you don't like it, then by definition you didn't know what you were voting for. And, no, I'm not calling you thick, nobody did.
Click to expand...

There will be no further People’s vote. Personally i have broadly backed may. The deal won’t be entirely to my liking but I don’t want continued uncertainty or a Labour government. We voted to leave the eu and that is the overriding principle
 
toms said:
Are you privy to the deal?
Click to expand...
Why does that matter?
I'm going on:
what Feco has said;
how that ties into what already know the government has been pushing for;
the art of the possible.

It appears Feco has a knowledgeable source. I'm taking it with a small pinch of salt because most sources are partisan but I don't doubt what he has heard in the slightest.
 
in_the_top_one said:
Why does that matter?
I'm going on:
what Feco has said;
how that ties into what already know the government has been pushing for;
the art of the possible.

It appears Feco has a knowledgeable source. I'm taking it with a small pinch of salt because most sources are partisan but I don't doubt what he has heard in the slightest.
Click to expand...

You stated (as a matter of fact) I wouldn’t be happy with the actual deal. Feco doesn’t have full details of the deal. You have chosen to rely on what a stranger to you has Stated to argue that I won’t be happy with the deal. Which only goes to prove my previous point. You are a group thinker relying on someone from your side to make an argument
 
toms said:
Get to the back of the queue itto. Interference is interference.
Click to expand...
So predictable.

No. Interference is not interference.
Giving an opinion/prediction - which incidentally has turned out to be true - is not the same as the crimes banks is accused of. Not even close.

Banks made the single biggest donation in British history. He is alleged to have provided that money from sources which are not permitted under our law for very, very good reasons. The vote was won on a knife edge. On the basis of that vote we are going against the combined wisdom of experts speaking for every single sector of our society. Yet you don't want to question it or take a moment to consider if this is our final decision. We're being railroaded here.

Of course, if Feco is right then it's Brino, which is what I thought it would be back in June 2016. You won't get your hard Brexit. With luck, Brino won't have the numbers in Parliament either, a People's Vote will be forced, and it will be there to be won (however likely /unlikely). But Feco thinks the PM can push it through and who am I to disagree.
 
toms said:
You stated (as a matter of fact) I wouldn’t be happy with the actual deal. Feco doesn’t have full details of the deal. You have chosen to rely on what a stranger to you has Stated to argue that I won’t be happy with the deal. Which only goes to prove my previous point. You are a group thinker relying on someone from your side to make an argument
Click to expand...
Deary me.

I said, "Then you won't be able to live with what Feco suggests is the only deal on offer."


So you are quite wrong to say, "You stated (as a matter of fact) I wouldn’t be happy with the actual deal."

And you are also wrong to say, "You have chosen to rely on what a stranger to you has Stated to argue that I won’t be happy with the deal."

Which means you are also wrong to say, "Which only goes to prove my previous point. You are a group thinker relying on someone from your side to make an argument."
 
in_the_top_one said:
So predictable.

No. Interference is not interference.
Giving an opinion/prediction - which incidentally has turned out to be true - is not the same as the crimes banks is accused of. Not even close.

Banks made the single biggest donation in British history. He is alleged to have provided that money from sources which are not permitted under our law for very, very good reasons. The vote was won on a knife edge. On the basis of that vote we are going against the combined wisdom of experts speaking for every single sector of our society. Yet you don't want to question it or take a moment to consider if this is our final decision. We're being railroaded here.

Of course, if Feco is right then it's Brino, which is what I thought it would be back in June 2016. You won't get your hard Brexit. With luck, Brino won't have the numbers in Parliament either, a People's Vote will be forced, and it will be there to be won (however likely /unlikely). But Feco thinks the PM can push it through and who am I to disagree.
Click to expand...

An allegation is not the same as a fact. So why are you querying the legitimacy of the referendum result based on an allegation. I’ve consistently said I would prefer a deal but if it’s not possible then no deal implements the referendum result. We leave with no deal

Experts have got many things wrong and their Armageddon predictions will be wrong on this. It won’t be smooth initially without doubt but we cannot throw away this once in a lifetime opportunity to be an independant trading nation.
 
in_the_top_one said:
Deary me.

I said, "Then you won't be able to live with what Feco suggests is the only deal on offer."


So you are quite wrong to say, "You stated (as a matter of fact) I wouldn’t be happy with the actual deal."

And you are also wrong to say, "You have chosen to rely on what a stranger to you has Stated to argue that I won’t be happy with the deal."

Which means you are also wrong to say, "Which only goes to prove my previous point. You are a group thinker relying on someone from your side to make an argument."
Click to expand...

You are willing to listen to feco because he is on your side. You are willing to accept that what he has told you about the deal and the source as highly plausible. I find it hard to understand how you can trust feco but the suggestions I made about what I think the deal will include are off the chart

It’s ok to be a group thinker. The earth was flat you know
 
toms said:
why are you querying the legitimacy of the referendum result based on an allegation.
Click to expand...
I don't want it brushed under the carpet. It is vitally important and it should be cleared up before we leave. Right now, very serious questions remain so we query the legitimacy until we know the truth.
 
in_the_top_one said:
I don't want it brushed under the carpet. It is vitally important and it should be cleared up before we leave. Right now, very serious questions remain so we query the legitimacy until we know the truth.
Click to expand...

Anyone can make an allegation. Pretty clear the motives why Banks is in court with the electoral commission. He was waving a legal opinion around refuting the new allegations.

Despite 2 years of incessant remain campaigning and trying to scupper the vote the recent survation poll has remain at 54 and leave at 46. That’s a knife edge and well within the margin of error and what we saw in the polls before the vote

Once the deal is presented and gets through Parliament that will swing back the other way very very quickly
 
toms said:
You are willing to listen to feco because he is on your side. You are willing to accept that what he has told you about the deal and the source as highly plausible. I find it hard to understand how you can trust feco but the suggestions I made about what I think the deal will include are off the chart
Click to expand...
I'm willing to listen to anyone.
Feco has given an opinion which he claims is based on a knowledgeable source. He might be making it up. I'm open to that possibility but on balance of probability I think he is telling the truth. I also have my own sources but they certainly aren't privy to the negotiations.

Please remind me of what you think might be in the deal? All I remember is stuff that is unfeasible, or the the eu could never agree to because it would undermine the SM, or is based on technology that doesn't exist, or that breaks the Belfast Agreement. If I've missed any more credible suggestions then you can remind me what they are and we might find some common ground.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.