OT: things going as expected.

I wonder how many of them actually agree exactly what they understood they might get by voting Leave? They certainly didn't *know* what they would get, because no one does, even now! So, were they just voting for a wish list? At least those who voted to remain had a pretty good idea what that meant, especially for the immediate future.
I think we have ascertained (they say) that none of them believed the whole '£350M/week to the NHS' thing, not just because we never have given the EU '£350/week' but because there was no 'plan' to give any of it 'to the NHS instead'.
Have they sorted out the legality of the 'bung' we gave NI (from the money tree) to get the DUP to keep our current government in power, after the snap election to show how much support it had from the UK electorate? Maybe they are going to spend it putting (back) up a wall?
I'm sure all this is helping with the NHS nurses issue (not). I thought we could 'just' get people in from countries outside the EU if we wanted?
Given, that the outcome of the whole Brexit farce could be very damaging to a lot of people, it's really worrying that the 'decision' to leave (made by only 1/3rd of the electorate) still seems to be splitting the nation?
It certainly seem to be destroying the partly that kindly brought Brexit to us (the biggest question (few were asking) of the century).
If it really was considered 'a good thing' for 'most people', don't we think that a bigger percentage would be behind it?
Of course we do (well, people with any EQ do), it's just that 'most people' would probably like to know what they are likely to be getting, *before* they vote on it.
Cheers, T i m
Reply to
T i m
This part of the article caught my eye:
"Mr Barnier dismissed the Brexit secretary's demands that Britain be allowed to negotiate trade deals with other countries during the transition period.
Of course they can, Mr Barnier said. In fact, Britain had better get a move on if it wants to replicate the 750 international agreements that come with EU membership."
Starry-eyed nationalists who saw Brexit as an opportunity to get all their favourite policies implemented are coming down to earth with a bump
Reply to
pamela
On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 20:33:52 +0000, alan_m wrote:
The difference is one is simply what *might* happen over time if we stayed in the EU versus what will / could / might happen if we make such a change to the status quo.
The point of leaving is that things *will* change.
If we don't leave, there is nothing to say that anything will change at all (and certainly not quickly).
If we do leave there is still no way anyone can predict which things *will* change and of those things that do, by how much.
The worrying thing is those who seemed very happy to vote leave yet didn't have even the slightest clue what exactly they would get at the end (which is completely different to what they [1] *hoped* they might get).
Cheers, T i m
[1] When there is no agreement what so ever exactly what 'they' wanted either. eg. Some may only agree that leaving the EU would be worth doing *IF* certain criteria were met whilst other would run headlong over the cliff irrespective, 'certain', they have a better grasp of the whole thing than the majority of the electorate?
Reply to
T i m
Staying would not have resulted in a status quo. The EU is changing all of the time and not necessarily for the benefit of the UK.
Reply to
alan_m
Do you actually believe that Germany and France etc. is in the EU for the greater good of the other 26?
Reply to
alan_m
On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 22:43:50 +0000, alan_m wrote:
Of course it would, subject to your qualifying period.
Of course (as you would hope it would etc).
But the EU isn't there 'for the UK', it's there for all it's members (something fundamental the Brexiteers simply don't seem to be able to get).
So, can you guarantee that the outcome of leaving *will* be better than the outcome of not using, and if so, over what periods?
If it was such a 'good thing', why isn't everone behind it (or even better than 1/3rd of the electorate)?
The answer (to save you trying to fabricate even more bogus pro Brexit propaganda) is that the whole Brexit thing was a question few were asking and even now, *no one* can even start to predict the full consequences of.
What most sensible people see Brexit as us jumping out of a perfectly good aeroplane before there is any real world indication it's going to crash and using unknown and untested parachutes made and packed by someone else.
Most people would only be pushed to jump when the outcome of not was *guaranteed* to be worse,
Cheers, T i m
Reply to
T i m
The EU is intended to be mutually beneficial and creates a greater overall benefit through co-operation.
We don't have to turn green with envy whenever we see another country doing well. It's not necessarily at anyone else's expense.
Reply to
pamela

And what is that exactly then and do you actually think you are going to get it (or any of it)?
Is what you are actually going to get sufficient to make the whole thing worthwhile?
And so *must* know the answers to the above, or I'm guessing you wouldn't be shouting so loud over it [1].
Cheers, T i m
[1] Where 'loud' equals 1/3rd on the electorate volume control.
Reply to
T i m
It's also just fact.
My mum for example voted remain simply because 'it's the devil we know', and it's true, we certainly know more about that than the alternative.
Cheers, T i m
Reply to
T i m
In article ,
How many etc do you need to make 26?
Do any Brexiteers not consider it some form of footie match?
The whole idea of trade is (or should be) it is of mutual benefit to all concerned. Not a pissing contest.
Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)
In article ,
I get the impression many Brexiteers would be perfectly happy to see the UK do badly, as long as it is outside the EU.
Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)
And if we reverse the premise and say:
Remaining in the EU:
So essentially, that's a non argument.
Reply to
Tim Watts
On Tue, 30 Jan 2018 00:15:57 +0000, Tim Watts wrote:
As seen by someone with a low EQ?
What is it the Brexiteers don't get with how 'real people' vote on things and what the votes actually mean?
We were (are) in the EU (apparently the average persons DNA in the UK is 60% European).
So the question (irrespective of how some took it), was actually 'hands up who wants to leave the EU'.
Those who want change, those who want out, those who are on a crusade are 'more likely' to bother to vote than those who are not 'looking' to change the status quo or actually want out of the EU (or CBA to vote).
You don't normally 'vote' *for* something you don't want or (don't) want to change.
So, (fact), only 1/3rd of the electorate voted *for* leaving the EU and it was (morally) wholly incumbent on *them* to agree in sufficient numbers to justify that decision. Exactly as Firage wanted of course (if it was to go to Remain).
Cheers, T i m
Reply to
T i m
On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 22:43:50 +0000, alan_m wrote:
I can gaurantee it wouldn't be for the benefit of Mogg, with his Cayman Islands tax loophole companies coming under the EU spotlight.
Sadly it's his ilk that will benefit, not the poor ignorant losers that fell for the lies and voted leave.
AB
Reply to
Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp
it's almost funny that remoaners think so
an example of the whoosh inherent in such a position.
Reply to
tabbypurr

Site Timeline Threads

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.