If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   UK government's secret Brexit forecasts leaked: Single Market: "tut tut, that's just not cricket". Trade deal: "Good heavens, what a bother." No deal: "u frkkin wot m8"   ( uk.news.yahoo.com) divider line
    More: Scary, European Union, North East, England, United Kingdom, World Trade Organization, Northern Ireland, single market, International trade  
•       •       •

1662 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Feb 2018 at 10:35 AM (23 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



48 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2018-02-08 08:50:13 AM  
Nonsense!  The Cornwall tin mines are already back to full capacity and an endless stream of Reliant Robins are streaming off the assembly line.   Keep 'em coming, boys!
 
2018-02-08 09:21:22 AM  
I'm confused by the table. Is the "-" supposed to be a minus sign or a dash?
 
2018-02-08 09:29:18 AM  
Um, once again, maybe we could have run these reports beforethe referendum?
 
2018-02-08 09:32:35 AM  

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: Um, once again, maybe we could have run these reports beforethe referendum?


The completely non-binding referendum that they decided to take as binding so they could do the thing they wanted to?
 
2018-02-08 09:37:16 AM  

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: Um, once again, maybe we could have run these reports beforethe referendum?


Wouldn't matter.  The Brexit will always pass because:

Option A:  this defined thing called EU membership which you know and which has pros and cons that you can understand

Option B:  this undefined thing called Brexit which you don't know and so you can imagine all the pros you want.

Everyone voting for Brexit voted for the things they wanted Brexit to give them.  More money for NHS!  No more pushy EU bureaucrats!  More sovereignty!  A return to ye olden times that exist only in my mind!   Sticking it to the establishment!  More jobs!  Less Poles!  Bananas in any size!
 
2018-02-08 10:20:04 AM  
I thought the Tories always wanted a hard Brexit
 
2018-02-08 10:48:22 AM  
And, of course, the regions that are getting farked the hardest are the ones that voted for Brexit. No shortage of fat, wheezy leopards this side of the pond.

Well, Scotland too. They're just getting farked anyway.
 
2018-02-08 10:54:36 AM  
The North East, which overwhelmingly voted to Leave the EU, would suffer the most harm, according to the forecast.

Yeah, but at least they'll get their blue passports back. You can't put a price on that.
 
2018-02-08 10:57:38 AM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: I'm confused by the table. Is the "-" supposed to be a minus sign or a dash?


It's a dash. All the numbers are minus numbers. There's exactly zero good news here. Thank God it's all about sovereignty and freedom from unelected Eurocrats and control of our borders and has fark all to do with making a living and paying the mortgage. We'd be proper farked if it was.
 
2018-02-08 10:58:15 AM  

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: Um, once again, maybe we could have run these reports beforethe referendum?


Why? The people would still have voted leave. I don't think the results of the referendum would have been different if you had taken the results of this study and pasted it onto some busses and had some wanker hold speeches in front of them
 
2018-02-08 11:00:22 AM  
"Fully regulatory alignment" pretty much makes the idea of a "Hard Brexit" impossible. Not sure what the point is in digging through reports that no longer have any bearing.
 
2018-02-08 11:04:07 AM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: I'm confused by the table. Is the "-" supposed to be a minus sign or a dash?


minus
 
2018-02-08 11:07:59 AM  
So they leave.  It's as bad as projected.  Turbulent times, recession, riots... then... can they rejoin?
 
2018-02-08 11:09:38 AM  

hammettman: So they leave.  It's as bad as projected.  Turbulent times, recession, riots... then... can they rejoin?


I think they need to take a walk to Canossa first.
 
2018-02-08 11:10:20 AM  

Felgraf: Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: Um, once again, maybe we could have run these reports beforethe referendum?

The completely non-binding referendum that they decided to take as binding so they could do the thing they wanted to?


You mean the non-binding referendum they used to overturn a previous referendum, all the while saying no more referendums allowed, now we've won one.
 
2018-02-08 11:11:05 AM  
that headline is only meant for british folks to understand, right?
queens english & such as

maybe i'll do better after this coffee ....nope, still gave my brain a right rogering
 
2018-02-08 11:22:29 AM  

Rapmaster2000: Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: Um, once again, maybe we could have run these reports beforethe referendum?

Wouldn't matter.  The Brexit will always pass because:

Option A:  this defined thing called EU membership which you know and which has pros and cons that you can understand

Option B:  this undefined thing called Brexit which you don't know and so you can imagine all the pros you want.

Everyone voting for Brexit voted for the things they wanted Brexit to give them.  More money for NHS!  No more pushy EU bureaucrats!  More sovereignty!  A return to ye olden times that exist only in my mind!   Sticking it to the establishment!  More jobs!  Less Poles!  Bananas in any size!


"Ha!  Suck it, Krauts!"
 
2018-02-08 11:23:15 AM  
i0.kym-cdn.comView Full Size
 
2018-02-08 11:26:50 AM  

born_yesterday: Rapmaster2000: Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: Um, once again, maybe we could have run these reports beforethe referendum?

Wouldn't matter.  The Brexit will always pass because:

Option A:  this defined thing called EU membership which you know and which has pros and cons that you can understand

Option B:  this undefined thing called Brexit which you don't know and so you can imagine all the pros you want.

Everyone voting for Brexit voted for the things they wanted Brexit to give them.  More money for NHS!  No more pushy EU bureaucrats!  More sovereignty!  A return to ye olden times that exist only in my mind!   Sticking it to the establishment!  More jobs!  Less Poles!  Bananas in any size!

"Ha!  Suck it, Krauts!"


I generally go to express.co.uk to get my daily fill of continent hate and to check up on The Continuing Adventures of SAS Sniper Nigel.
 
2018-02-08 11:30:58 AM  
From Richard Moss' tweet "The full table from the government's Brexit economic forecast showing projected lost growth with the North East predicted to be the worst hit part of the UK. Outside the single market the region will be hit twice as hard as UK as a whole and around five times as hard as London.

They're not going to be mad their economy took a hit.  They're going to be mad London's wasn't hit as hard.
 
2018-02-08 11:38:09 AM  

whither_apophis: From Richard Moss' tweet "The full table from the government's Brexit economic forecast showing projected lost growth with the North East predicted to be the worst hit part of the UK. Outside the single market the region will be hit twice as hard as UK as a whole and around five times as hard as London.

They're not going to be mad their economy took a hit.  They're going to be mad London's wasn't hit as hard.


Relatively skilled, affluent people are always gonna be ok, that's the kicker.

I'll be fine. Still voted remain though : (
 
2018-02-08 11:40:02 AM  

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: Um, once again, maybe we could have run these reports beforethe referendum?


Reports of likely economic downsides were dismissed as propaganda by Leavers pre referendum. Still are, probably.
 
2018-02-08 11:40:07 AM  

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: Um, once again, maybe we could have run these reports beforethe referendum?


So they could be dismissed as Project Fear fear mongering?
 
2018-02-08 11:50:23 AM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: I'm confused by the table. Is the "-" supposed to be a minus sign or a dash?


No, that's hyphen.
 
2018-02-08 12:04:57 PM  
So...they gonna not do it or what?
 
2018-02-08 12:06:41 PM  

skozlaw: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: I'm confused by the table. Is the "-" supposed to be a minus sign or a dash?

No, that's hyphen.


I'm pretty sure it's Taylor Swift.
 
2018-02-08 12:07:53 PM  

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: Um, once again, maybe we could have run these reports beforethe referendum?


That would make sense if the Brexiters ran newspapers that would print them.
 
2018-02-08 12:12:14 PM  
Yet more Project Fear remoaner nonsense. It's about time they gave it a rest with all this glum 'Brexit will be terrible, Brexit will ruin the economy' nonsense. So what if the economy takes a bit of a hit for a few years? As soon as Timid Theresa gets her act together and gives us the chance to make the most of our hard-won freedom from EU oppression, the economy will be soaring again.

- Tens of billions we can give to the NHS instead of wasting on EU membership
- More than 100 billion a year in savings by not suffering under pointless EU regulation
- New trade partners lining up to strike deals that will bring cheaper food, cars, ease the burden on the NHS and much much more.

Oh, great days are coming back!
 
2018-02-08 12:21:55 PM  

DrakhanV: skozlaw: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: I'm confused by the table. Is the "-" supposed to be a minus sign or a dash?

No, that's hyphen.

I'm pretty sure it's Taylor Swift.


No, this is Patrick.
 
Xai [TotalFark] [BareFark]
2018-02-08 12:45:03 PM  

Foghorn of Ignorance: Yet more Project Fear remoaner nonsense. It's about time they gave it a rest with all this glum 'Brexit will be terrible, Brexit will ruin the economy' nonsense. So what if the economy takes a bit of a hit for a few years? As soon as Timid Theresa gets her act together and gives us the chance to make the most of our hard-won freedom from EU oppression, the economy will be soaring again.

- Tens of billions we can give to the NHS instead of wasting on EU membership
- More than 100 billion a year in savings by not suffering under pointless EU regulation
- New trade partners lining up to strike deals that will bring cheaper food, cars, ease the burden on the NHS and much much more.

Oh, great days are coming back!


You ignored my last post in a previous thread, obviously inn an attempt to weasel out of a straight answer, so i'll repost it here;

Foghorn of Ignorance: Xai: Foghorn of Ignorance: Xai: Foghorn of Ignorance: -Stuff-


You aren't mystic meg? over 95% of the MP's are the same as they were before the last general election and as I said before, their intentions were very clear before even the vote (just 20% supported brexit, even fewer a hard brexit) so you're suggesting that you expected either half of all MP's to be replaced in a general election or you expected over half to change their opinion to one which opposed the will of the british people (let us not forget that, as explained in my last post, the majority of the public voted AGAINST a hard brexit, unless of course you are suggesting that fewer than 2% of voters supported a soft brexit despite polls showing numbers over 10 times higher)

You keep acting as though Theresa May acts alone, as though she alone dictates what kind of deal we have when in reality it is all of parliament that gets the final say - so i'll reiterate my aforementioned point so you can't weasel out of answering it; What were you expecting, either 50% of MP's to get replaced or 50% of MP's to change their alignment to one that the majority of the british public did not vote for (hard brexit)?
 
2018-02-08 12:59:08 PM  

Foghorn of Ignorance: Yet more Project Fear remoaner nonsense. It's about time they gave it a rest with all this glum 'Brexit will be terrible, Brexit will ruin the economy' nonsense. So what if the economy takes a bit of a hit for a few years? As soon as Timid Theresa gets her act together and gives us the chance to make the most of our hard-won freedom from EU oppression, the economy will be soaring again.

- Tens of billions we can give to the NHS instead of wasting on EU membership
- More than 100 billion a year in savings by not suffering under pointless EU regulation
- New trade partners lining up to strike deals that will bring cheaper food, cars, ease the burden on the NHS and much much more.

Oh, great days are coming back!


Username checks out.
 
2018-02-08 01:31:02 PM  

Xai: Foghorn of Ignorance: Yet more Project Fear remoaner nonsense. It's about time they gave it a rest with all this glum 'Brexit will be terrible, Brexit will ruin the economy' nonsense. So what if the economy takes a bit of a hit for a few years? As soon as Timid Theresa gets her act together and gives us the chance to make the most of our hard-won freedom from EU oppression, the economy will be soaring again.

- Tens of billions we can give to the NHS instead of wasting on EU membership
- More than 100 billion a year in savings by not suffering under pointless EU regulation
- New trade partners lining up to strike deals that will bring cheaper food, cars, ease the burden on the NHS and much much more.

Oh, great days are coming back!

You ignored my last post in a previous thread, obviously inn an attempt to weasel out of a straight answer, so i'll repost it here;
Foghorn of Ignorance: Xai: Foghorn of Ignorance: Xai: Foghorn of Ignorance: -Stuff-

You aren't mystic meg? over 95% of the MP's are the same as they were before the last general election and as I said before, their intentions were very clear before even the vote (just 20% supported brexit, even fewer a hard brexit) so you're suggesting that you expected either half of all MP's to be replaced in a general election or you expected over half to change their opinion to one which opposed the will of the british people (let us not forget that, as explained in my last post, the majority of the public voted AGAINST a hard brexit, unless of course you are suggesting that fewer than 2% of voters supported a soft brexit despite polls showing numbers over 10 times higher)

You keep acting as though Theresa May acts alone, as though she alone dictates what kind of deal we have when in reality it is all of parliament that gets the final say - so i'll reiterate my aforementioned point so you can't weasel out of answering it; What were you expecting, either 50% of MP's to get replaced or 50% of MP's to change their alignment to one that the majority of the british public did not vote for (hard brexit)?


No clue what you're drivelling about, dear boy. 17.4m of us voted for Brexit. We knew that meant leaving the EU, the single market, customs union, the ECJ and all those other tools of oppression the EU is so fond of. That's what we were expecting, those were the marching orders we gave to the government in 2016. It's just Theresa May who doesn't seem to have got the message.

In my opinion, the time has come for Theresa May to stand up. Theresa May needs a Love Actually moment. She needs to stand up and say:

'We are the United Kingdom, a proud, free people that have voted to take back our sovereignty, our independence, our self-determination, control over our own future. We will not be talked down to and bullied by unelected bureaucrats like Barnier. Now, either get real and come to the table and talk about a sensible future trade deal or do you know what? We're off. And you don't get your £40 billion.'
 
Xai [TotalFark] [BareFark]
2018-02-08 01:50:02 PM  
Foghorn of Ignorance: "No clue what you're drivelling on about"...

Fascinating how you seem to think feigning idiocy is an acceptable way to rebut an argument.

I'll re-word the original argument for you;

You are suggesting that anything other than the current dealings of Theresa may is a possibility (i.e. you're suggesting hard brexit is possible), however Theresa May is not a dictator, solely responsible for any deal with the EU. Any final deal must be acceptable to the whole of parliament and given that the intentions of the MP's was both known prior to the vote AND that the MP's are acting in line with the public will (the majority of people opposed hard brexit) then for what you claim to be even possible, you are either suggesting that 50% of MP's be replaced prior to 2019 brexit or that 50% would change their voting to support hard brexit in opposition to the will of the british public.

Either one of those or you admit that there is no option other than the deal we are constructing with the EU currently.

Which is it?
 
2018-02-08 02:01:45 PM  

Xai: Foghorn of Ignorance: "No clue what you're drivelling on about"...

Fascinating how you seem to think feigning idiocy is an acceptable way to rebut an argument.

I'll re-word the original argument for you;

You are suggesting that anything other than the current dealings of Theresa may is a possibility (i.e. you're suggesting hard brexit is possible), however Theresa May is not a dictator, solely responsible for any deal with the EU. Any final deal must be acceptable to the whole of parliament and given that the intentions of the MP's was both known prior to the vote AND that the MP's are acting in line with the public will (the majority of people opposed hard brexit) then for what you claim to be even possible, you are either suggesting that 50% of MP's be replaced prior to 2019 brexit or that 50% would change their voting to support hard brexit in opposition to the will of the british public.

Either one of those or you admit that there is no option other than the deal we are constructing with the EU currently.

Which is it?


You seem to forget that, until that darling of the remainers Gina Miller began sticking her oar in, Brexit was to be the purview of the executive, not the legislature. Theresa May, not MPs. It was only long after the referendum was held that Parliament getting to meddle in Brexit became an issue, so I really can't say I'm arboreally proximate to whatever tree it is you're barking up.
 
2018-02-08 02:15:02 PM  
Xai:

Have you been notified yet that Foghorn is a parody account?

It's an understandable mistake to make, I and several others have mistaken him as an alt for one of the actual resident Brexiteers that grace this site.
 
Xai [TotalFark] [BareFark]
2018-02-08 02:37:40 PM  

Foghorn of Ignorance: Xai: Foghorn of Ignorance: "No clue what you're drivelling on about"...

Fascinating how you seem to think feigning idiocy is an acceptable way to rebut an argument.

I'll re-word the original argument for you;

You are suggesting that anything other than the current dealings of Theresa may is a possibility (i.e. you're suggesting hard brexit is possible), however Theresa May is not a dictator, solely responsible for any deal with the EU. Any final deal must be acceptable to the whole of parliament and given that the intentions of the MP's was both known prior to the vote AND that the MP's are acting in line with the public will (the majority of people opposed hard brexit) then for what you claim to be even possible, you are either suggesting that 50% of MP's be replaced prior to 2019 brexit or that 50% would change their voting to support hard brexit in opposition to the will of the british public.

Either one of those or you admit that there is no option other than the deal we are constructing with the EU currently.

Which is it?

You seem to forget that, until that darling of the remainers Gina Miller began sticking her oar in, Brexit was to be the purview of the executive, not the legislature. Theresa May, not MPs. It was only long after the referendum was held that Parliament getting to meddle in Brexit became an issue, so I really can't say I'm arboreally proximate to whatever tree it is you're barking up.


"Until", so you admit that ship has sailed and thus your bringing it up is irrelevant.

Now that you have accepted that it is indeed the MP's that will have the final say, then my point becomes very clear indeed, since for your notional exit (hard brexit) from the EU would be dependant on their voting for such a thing, given their clear opposition at the current time for hard brexit to ever happen either;
A) 50% of MP's would need to be replaced prior to the final date in 2019,
B) 50% of MP's would need to suddenly and unexpectedly vote against their stated positions
C) Neither and thus no hard brexit.

I would hope that would be simplistic enough for you to offer up a direct answer.
 
2018-02-08 02:54:11 PM  
Did I miss the debut of a UK version of P. Ninja or Mr. Lowell?  These are some Greatest Hit level talking points.  Remoaners, tools of oppression?  I love the oldies.
 
2018-02-08 02:54:21 PM  
So it appears that "Project Fear" is actually turning out to be "Project Actually We Kind of Undersold it a Bit if Anything"
 
2018-02-08 03:14:02 PM  
Scotland and Northern Ireland should leave the rest to wallow in their stupidity.
 
2018-02-08 03:27:28 PM  

Xai: Foghorn of Ignorance: Xai: Foghorn of Ignorance: "No clue what you're drivelling on about"...

Fascinating how you seem to think feigning idiocy is an acceptable way to rebut an argument.

I'll re-word the original argument for you;

You are suggesting that anything other than the current dealings of Theresa may is a possibility (i.e. you're suggesting hard brexit is possible), however Theresa May is not a dictator, solely responsible for any deal with the EU. Any final deal must be acceptable to the whole of parliament and given that the intentions of the MP's was both known prior to the vote AND that the MP's are acting in line with the public will (the majority of people opposed hard brexit) then for what you claim to be even possible, you are either suggesting that 50% of MP's be replaced prior to 2019 brexit or that 50% would change their voting to support hard brexit in opposition to the will of the british public.

Either one of those or you admit that there is no option other than the deal we are constructing with the EU currently.

Which is it?

You seem to forget that, until that darling of the remainers Gina Miller began sticking her oar in, Brexit was to be the purview of the executive, not the legislature. Theresa May, not MPs. It was only long after the referendum was held that Parliament getting to meddle in Brexit became an issue, so I really can't say I'm arboreally proximate to whatever tree it is you're barking up.

"Until", so you admit that ship has sailed and thus your bringing it up is irrelevant.

Now that you have accepted that it is indeed the MP's that will have the final say, then my point becomes very clear indeed, since for your notional exit (hard brexit) from the EU would be dependant on their voting for such a thing, given their clear opposition at the current time for hard brexit to ever happen either;
A) 50% of MP's would need to be replaced prior to the final date in 2019,
B) 50% of MP's would need to suddenly and unexpectedly vote against their stated positions
C) Neither and thus no hard brexit.

I would hope that would be simplistic enough for you to offer up a direct answer.


Unexpectedly? My dear fellow, here in Blighty we expect our MPs to honour the will of the citizens they represent. There's nothing unexpected in MPs looking at the referendum voting map for their constituency and thinking to themselves "Even though I myself am a short-sighted, Euro-mad remoaner, the good people I represent have made a clear decision to win back English sovereignty so I shall do my duty by them.'
 
Xai [TotalFark] [BareFark]
2018-02-08 03:55:30 PM  

Foghorn of Ignorance: Xai: Foghorn of Ignorance: Xai: Foghorn of Ignorance: "No clue what you're drivelling on about"...

Fascinating how you seem to think feigning idiocy is an acceptable way to rebut an argument.

I'll re-word the original argument for you;

You are suggesting that anything other than the current dealings of Theresa may is a possibility (i.e. you're suggesting hard brexit is possible), however Theresa May is not a dictator, solely responsible for any deal with the EU. Any final deal must be acceptable to the whole of parliament and given that the intentions of the MP's was both known prior to the vote AND that the MP's are acting in line with the public will (the majority of people opposed hard brexit) then for what you claim to be even possible, you are either suggesting that 50% of MP's be replaced prior to 2019 brexit or that 50% would change their voting to support hard brexit in opposition to the will of the british public.

Either one of those or you admit that there is no option other than the deal we are constructing with the EU currently.

Which is it?

You seem to forget that, until that darling of the remainers Gina Miller began sticking her oar in, Brexit was to be the purview of the executive, not the legislature. Theresa May, not MPs. It was only long after the referendum was held that Parliament getting to meddle in Brexit became an issue, so I really can't say I'm arboreally proximate to whatever tree it is you're barking up.

"Until", so you admit that ship has sailed and thus your bringing it up is irrelevant.

Now that you have accepted that it is indeed the MP's that will have the final say, then my point becomes very clear indeed, since for your notional exit (hard brexit) from the EU would be dependant on their voting for such a thing, given their clear opposition at the current time for hard brexit to ever happen either;
A) 50% of MP's would need to be replaced prior to the final date in 2019,
B) 50% of MP's would need to suddenly and unexpectedly vote against their stated positions
C) Neither and thus no hard brexit.

I would hope that would be simplistic enough for you to offer up a direct answer.

Unexpectedly? My dear fellow, here in Blighty we expect our MPs to honour the will of the citizens they represent. There's nothing unexpected in MPs looking at the referendum voting map for their constituency and thinking to themselves "Even though I myself am a short-sighted, Euro-mad remoaner, the good people I represent have made a clear decision to win back English sovereignty so I shall do my duty by them.'


So you're suggesting option B, that you expect 50% of MPs to change their current position.  Given that they have held their position (soft brexit) for over a year knowing full well how their constituencies voted, we can easily discount that the vote will, as you infer, influence a change in their opinion now.

Let's summarise where we are so far, so that you can't feign idiocy again.  You are claiming that you expect 50% of MPs to suddenly change the position they have held firm behind for over a year, you throw away the efforts of their own government that they supported and instead support a hard brexit.

You also admit that a soft brexit would be a disaster for this country (I could quote your statements of contempt for the current deal Theresa and the rest of government are currently perusing but I would hope you can remember your own opinions) so given this don't you think it's a big risk to gamble the future of this country on a scenario (MPs changing their minds) that is less likely with each passing day?
 
2018-02-08 04:09:04 PM  

Xai: Foghorn of Ignorance: Xai: Foghorn of Ignorance: Xai: Foghorn of Ignorance:

Let's summarise where we are so far, so that you can't feign idiocy again.


The account name is literally "Foghorn of Ignorance", and you are surprised that the things posted from it are idiotic?

Keep tilting at that windmill I guess
 
2018-02-08 04:23:01 PM  

Rapmaster2000: Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: Um, once again, maybe we could have run these reports beforethe referendum?

Wouldn't matter.  The Brexit will always pass because:

Option A:  this defined thing called EU membership which you know and which has pros and cons that you can understand

Option B:  this undefined thing called Brexit which you don't know and so you can imagine all the pros you want.

Everyone voting for Brexit voted for the things they wanted Brexit to give them.  More money for NHS!  No more pushy EU bureaucrats!  More sovereignty!  A return to ye olden times that exist only in my mind!   Sticking it to the establishment!  More jobs!  Less Poles!  Bananas in any size!


Let it all burn....I will be witness to the destruction of Anglo Saxon civilization as we know it and maybe it's not a bad thing.  Tzeentch be praised!
 
2018-02-08 04:49:07 PM  

Xai: Foghorn of Ignorance: Xai: Foghorn of Ignorance: Xai: Foghorn of Ignorance: "No clue what you're drivelling on about"...

Fascinating how you seem to think feigning idiocy is an acceptable way to rebut an argument.

I'll re-word the original argument for you;

You are suggesting that anything other than the current dealings of Theresa may is a possibility (i.e. you're suggesting hard brexit is possible), however Theresa May is not a dictator, solely responsible for any deal with the EU. Any final deal must be acceptable to the whole of parliament and given that the intentions of the MP's was both known prior to the vote AND that the MP's are acting in line with the public will (the majority of people opposed hard brexit) then for what you claim to be even possible, you are either suggesting that 50% of MP's be replaced prior to 2019 brexit or that 50% would change their voting to support hard brexit in opposition to the will of the british public.

Either one of those or you admit that there is no option other than the deal we are constructing with the EU currently.

Which is it?

You seem to forget that, until that darling of the remainers Gina Miller began sticking her oar in, Brexit was to be the purview of the executive, not the legislature. Theresa May, not MPs. It was only long after the referendum was held that Parliament getting to meddle in Brexit became an issue, so I really can't say I'm arboreally proximate to whatever tree it is you're barking up.

"Until", so you admit that ship has sailed and thus your bringing it up is irrelevant.

Now that you have accepted that it is indeed the MP's that will have the final say, then my point becomes very clear indeed, since for your notional exit (hard brexit) from the EU would be dependant on their voting for such a thing, given their clear opposition at the current time for hard brexit to ever happen either;
A) 50% of MP's would need to be replaced prior to the final date in 2019,
B) 50% of MP's would need to suddenly and unexpectedly vote against their stated positions
C) Neither and thus no hard brexit.

I would hope that would be simplistic enough for you to offer up a direct answer.

Unexpectedly? My dear fellow, here in Blighty we expect our MPs to honour the will of the citizens they represent. There's nothing unexpected in MPs looking at the referendum voting map for their constituency and thinking to themselves "Even though I myself am a short-sighted, Euro-mad remoaner, the good people I represent have made a clear decision to win back English sovereignty so I shall do my duty by them.'

So you're suggesting option B, that you expect 50% of MPs to change their current position.  Given that they have held their position (soft brexit) for over a year knowing full well how their constituencies voted, we can easily discount that the vote will, as you infer, influence a change in their opinion now.

Let's summarise where we are so far, so that you can't feign idiocy again.  You are claiming that you expect 50% of MPs to suddenly change the position they have held firm behind for over a year, you throw away the efforts of their own government that they supported and instead support a hard brexit.

You also admit that a soft brexit would be a disaster for this country (I could quote your statements of contempt for the current deal Theresa and the rest of government are currently perusing but I would hope you can remember your own opinions) so given this don't you think it's a big risk to gamble the future of this country on a scenario (MPs changing their minds) that is less likely with each passing day?


A soft Brexit would be a disaster in comparison to properly Brexiting, but would at least be a step in the right direction, and a vast gain over the horrors we currently have to endure. Sir Nigel is right that we may need to re-fight Brexit. As an upstanding Englishman, I'll do my bit to fight the good fight to win back our sovereignty now, but if it takes more than that to get the scales to fall from the eyes of reticent MPs then so be it. We will not lie down!
 
2018-02-08 05:03:27 PM  

theDesertHamster: Felgraf: Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: Um, once again, maybe we could have run these reports beforethe referendum?

The completely non-binding referendum that they decided to take as binding so they could do the thing they wanted to?

You mean the non-binding referendum they used to overturn a previous referendum, all the while saying no more referendums allowed, now we've won one.


They arrived at a foundational shift in international economic policy via the same decision-making process that produced Boaty McBoatface. Decided not to learn from history.
 
Xai [TotalFark] [BareFark]
2018-02-08 05:07:36 PM  

Foghorn of Ignorance: Xai: Foghorn of Ignorance: Xai: Foghorn of Ignorance: Xai: Foghorn of Ignorance: "No clue what you're drivelling on about"...

Fascinating how you seem to think feigning idiocy is an acceptable way to rebut an argument.

I'll re-word the original argument for you;

You are suggesting that anything other than the current dealings of Theresa may is a possibility (i.e. you're suggesting hard brexit is possible), however Theresa May is not a dictator, solely responsible for any deal with the EU. Any final deal must be acceptable to the whole of parliament and given that the intentions of the MP's was both known prior to the vote AND that the MP's are acting in line with the public will (the majority of people opposed hard brexit) then for what you claim to be even possible, you are either suggesting that 50% of MP's be replaced prior to 2019 brexit or that 50% would change their voting to support hard brexit in opposition to the will of the british public.

Either one of those or you admit that there is no option other than the deal we are constructing with the EU currently.

Which is it?

You seem to forget that, until that darling of the remainers Gina Miller began sticking her oar in, Brexit was to be the purview of the executive, not the legislature. Theresa May, not MPs. It was only long after the referendum was held that Parliament getting to meddle in Brexit became an issue, so I really can't say I'm arboreally proximate to whatever tree it is you're barking up.

"Until", so you admit that ship has sailed and thus your bringing it up is irrelevant.

Now that you have accepted that it is indeed the MP's that will have the final say, then my point becomes very clear indeed, since for your notional exit (hard brexit) from the EU would be dependant on their voting for such a thing, given their clear opposition at the current time for hard brexit to ever happen either;
A) 50% of MP's would need to be replaced prior to the final date in 2019,
B) 50% of MP's would need ...


how could you suggest such a thing in opposition to the will of the British people?

I expect you'll reply that the vote was for brexit, so let me assume you said that and offer further explanation;

The vote only had 2 options bit we can use logical analysis of the data to deduce 2 separate votes on hard and soft brexit. We can say for certain that 48% opposed both hard and soft brexit.  Of the 52% that voted for brexit, while there are no definitive figures on how many voted for hard brexit and how many voted for soft brexit, if more than 2% of those were voting in favour of soft brexit, and opposed to hard brexit then they would be a majority.

Polls indicate this figure is around 10-15× higher but unless you are suggesting that 1% or fewer people voted in favour of soft brexit then you have to recognise that the majority were and are opposed to hard brexit.

Do you agree?
 
2018-02-08 05:28:09 PM  

Xai: I expect you'll reply that the vote was for brexit, so let me assume you said that and offer further explanation;

The vote only had 2 options bit we can use logical analysis of the data to deduce 2 separate votes on hard and soft brexit. We can say for certain that 48% opposed both hard and soft brexit.  Of the 52% that voted for brexit, while there are no definitive figures on how many voted for hard brexit and how many voted for soft brexit, if more than 2% of those were voting in favour of soft brexit, and opposed to hard brexit then they would be a majority.

Polls indicate this figure is around 10-15× higher but unless you are suggesting that 1% or fewer people voted in favour of soft brexit then you have to recognise that the majority were and are opposed to hard brexit.

Do you agree?


I think you're getting terribly confused about the difference between being opposed to something, and preferring an alternative. There may be a few Leave voters who are somewhat concerned about taking such a bold step as that involved in Brexiting properly and would prefer a more timid approach, as embodied by The Appeaser's limp soft Brexit. That doesn't mean they oppose a full throttle Brexit, it just isn't their first choice.

But you go ahead and keep spinning your hypotheticals, if that is what is needed to sustain Project Fear. I am sure that all those years ago there were remoaners like you insisting Britain shouldn't bother with a Royal Navy, or with the spinning jenny, because it would upset champagne swillers across the sea. But never mind, Britannia still ruled the waves!
 
Xai [TotalFark] [BareFark]
2018-02-08 05:57:56 PM  

Foghorn of Ignorance: Xai: I expect you'll reply that the vote was for brexit, so let me assume you said that and offer further explanation;

The vote only had 2 options bit we can use logical analysis of the data to deduce 2 separate votes on hard and soft brexit. We can say for certain that 48% opposed both hard and soft brexit.  Of the 52% that voted for brexit, while there are no definitive figures on how many voted for hard brexit and how many voted for soft brexit, if more than 2% of those were voting in favour of soft brexit, and opposed to hard brexit then they would be a majority.

Polls indicate this figure is around 10-15× higher but unless you are suggesting that 1% or fewer people voted in favour of soft brexit then you have to recognise that the majority were and are opposed to hard brexit.

Do you agree?

I think you're getting terribly confused about the difference between being opposed to something, and preferring an alternative. There may be a few Leave voters who are somewhat concerned about taking such a bold step as that involved in Brexiting properly and would prefer a more timid approach, as embodied by The Appeaser's limp soft Brexit. That doesn't mean they oppose a full throttle Brexit, it just isn't their first choice.

But you go ahead and keep spinning your hypotheticals, if that is what is needed to sustain Project Fear. I am sure that all those years ago there were remoaners like you insisting Britain shouldn't bother with a Royal Navy, or with the spinning jenny, because it would upset champagne swillers across the sea. But never mind, Britannia still ruled the waves!


This is baffling, you both admit that a percentage would prefer an alternative to a 'full throttle brexit' and then simply step over the fact that stating such a thing is in itself an admission that supporters of a 'full throttle brexit' would be a minority. Stating facts about a vote that took place last year isn't a hypothetical and you yourself have used that vote to justify post after post on previous threads, so what's it to be - that the vote is irrelevant, or that it should be used to justify the soft brexit that the public clearly voted for?
 
Displayed 48 of 48 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report