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  *hoped* they might
Cheers, T i m
 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?
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
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
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
Most people would only be pushed to jump when the outcome of not was
*guaranteed* to be worse,
Cheers, T i m
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
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
Ooh - ad hominem: is that really the best you can manage, says the one
accusing *me* of having a low EQ...
Fact: Everyone knew exactly what the Referendum meant, even if not the
precise path of how a BREXIT vote would be implemented.
At worst, it was "Status Quo" vs "Leave, for some definition of leave".
Everyone knew BEXITers would be out in force, so anyone who cared to
remain had the opportunity and civil duty to vote accordingly.
If they couldn't be bothered, well, that's not my fault, is it?
On Tuesday, 30 January 2018 11:26:51 UTC, Tim Watts wrote:
or the precise path of staying in the EU
I don't get how anyone could really believe that staying in the EU would be status quo. If the fact that the EU now wants to raise an army doesn't give any clues, I dunno, something's really not working up there.
On 30/01/2018 12:03, email@example.com wrote:
Don't talk rubbish, the UK wants the EU to have an army, they want them
to share the costs of replacing NATO.
Leaving the EU will not stop the UK being part of an EU army, we will
just have less say in how its done.
Some brexshiteers are really naive.
On Tuesday, 30 January 2018 13:09:49 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
Why not link to this past history then, show the evidence.
Are canada and the USA to be part of the EU too.
So what differnce will the EU make, without USA or canada ?
Having an EU army will just create more bureaucrats and wasted money and re
sourses, all it'll do is create jobs for the boys, or perhaps girls if they
actually want equality to be achived which I think is very unlikely at tha
Lok where the vast majoroty of descrimination exists it's not amonst cleane
rs but high up in board rooms and above £100K PA.
Utter and complete tosh bandied about by soviet agitators in the cold
war and inccorporated into hollywood and Left spin ever since.
If say India and Pakistan exchanged all their nuclear weapons, it would
ultimately be beneficial to both in terms of population loss: Rdaiatiomn
would be gine in a few years and the land released would be avuialable
fior 'green field' devbelopmentr much as Hiroshima and Nagasaki were
re-developed post war.
To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote.
Its quite possible he has suffered some sort of brain damage due to his
claimed illness. Something like his heart going into AF for a few
minutes could result in clots causing damage.
He should get checked out.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.