EU referendum...THE RESULT...and aftermath...

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

This is pathetic. We can all find posts to suit our argument.

You are a bit sad really.

It's not a post, it's a quote from a robustly Eurosceptic member of the Government, who reckons we aren't leaving the EU before 2019.

Well I would argue that anything written on any website would be posted.

I think we all get where Saint Francis is coming from. This particular post was pathetic.

But then again, you're a fellow like minded remainer..

What an astonishing reaction to such a simple post!

It's a good job that the disgraced ex-Defence Minister (does anybody else remember Mr Werrity and Atlantic Bridge?) Dr Fox, as so pertinently noted by Mr Watt above, said this in his capacity as a current Minister and prominent campaigned for Brexit and not me. Just imagine how much abuse I would have been the target for...

If this all pans out as expected

• No prospect of leaving the EU until 2019 at the earliest?
  
  
• No trade deals in place when we do?
  
  
• Probably going to end up still paying the EU for access to the single market?
  
  
• Probably going to have to accept the free movement of people between us and the EU too?
  

What was the point of winning the referendum and what do you feel you have actually won?

Are you Brexiteers happy with this?

And just what is it you expect to happen. It's barely been a month since you lot lost but you now want to complain about the slowness of it all.

We will in time get trade deals with China, India, USA, Canada, Brazil etc. Once that is we uncouple from the EU. They will not make it easy for fear of other members wishing to withdraw.

The EU is a failing project. It's been a scheming, underhanded political union from day one.

The wealthy are all for it. How typical.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

What an astonishing reaction to such a simple post!

It's a good job that the disgraced ex-Defence Minister (does anybody else remember Mr Werrity and Atlantic Bridge?) Dr Fox, as so pertinently noted by Mr Watt above, said this in his capacity as a current Minister and prominent campaigned for Brexit and not me. Just imagine how much abuse I would have been the target for...

If this all pans out as expected

• No prospect of leaving the EU until 2019 at the earliest?
  
  
• No trade deals in place when we do?
  
  
• Probably going to end up still paying the EU for access to the single market?
  
  
• Probably going to have to accept the free movement of people between us and the EU too?
  

What was the point of winning the referendum and what do you feel you have actually won?

Are you Brexiteers happy with this?

Witnessing your disgust/pity/amazement/shame/anger/confusion/denial/mortification towards the will of your fellow country(wo)men has made it all worthwhile for me, nothing else really matters

Democracy is about rather more than accepting a consensus: a vital component to it is being allowed to voice dissent about that consensus.

Seriously though: what do you think you have won and are you happy with it?

Or was winning the vote but seeing no significant change at huge cost all that matters?

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

And just what is it you expect to happen. It's barely been a month since you lot lost but you now want to complain about the slowness of it all.

We will in time get trade deals with China, India, USA, Canada, Brazil etc. Once that is we uncouple from the EU. They will not make it easy for fear of other members wishing to withdraw.

The EU is a failing project. It's been a scheming, underhanded political union from day one.

The wealthy are all for it. How typical.

Liam Fox clearly says "We cannot negotiate any new trade deals as long as we are part of the EU". So you've got that bit wrong for a start. So in 2019 having left the EU we have a further 2 years negotiating trade deals with those countries, in the meantime we revert to basic WTO terms so exporting businesses might as well give up.

So what has actually been won by the referendum? It's not going to make a blind bit of difference to immigration, nor is that mythical £350 million a week going to be spent elsewhere.

What do I expect to happen?

The Government will continue to punt this into the long grass until after the next election. Like they have done with all other contentious decisions.

Hugh Watt wrote:

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

We will in time get trade deals with China, India, USA, Canada, Brazil etc. Once that is we uncouple from the EU.

Liam Fox clearly says "We cannot negotiate any new trade deals as long as we are part of the EU". So you've got that bit wrong for a start.

I don't think so. Read it again.

Les Miserable wrote:

He's even gone to the trouble of taking a picture of a newspaper(guardian foreshore) article and uploading it. A total zealot.

I got the photo from a tweet and the article was in the Financial Times.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Other than that bang on.

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

Hugh Watt wrote:

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

We will in time get trade deals with China, India, USA, Canada, Brazil etc. Once that is we uncouple from the EU.

Liam Fox clearly says "We cannot negotiate any new trade deals as long as we are part of the EU". So you've got that bit wrong for a start.

I don't think so. Read it again.

That is exactly what he said so it is difficult to argue your point. Read it again in full.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I know we're in a post-truth political world now but denying plain fact remains bonkers.

Listen, this isn't that difficult surely.

When we are free of the EU, then and only then, will we be able to do deals with China, USA, India etc.

We can't at the moment as we are still a member of the single market and are not allowed to have a trade deal with these countries.

Unbelievably the EU doesn't have trade deals with them but then it's a protectionist Union above all else.

Then why say the very opposite only 6 posts above?

I think you think you have said one thing when you have actually said the very opposite.

You denied that Fox had said "we cannot negotiate any new trade deals as long as we are part of the EU" when it is a word-for-word direct quote from the article and then make the point that we cannot negotiate any new trade deals as long as we are part of the EU to validate your argument.

None of your logic is consistent or coherent.

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

Listen, this isn't that difficult surely.

When we are free of the EU, then and only then, will we be able to do deals with China, USA, India etc.

We can't at the moment as we are still a member of the single market and are not allowed to have a trade deal with these countries.

Unbelievably the EU doesn't have trade deals with them but then it's a protectionist Union above all else.

Yes that's right. You got there in the end!

However our recent experience in trading with the Chinese Government was to grovel to them so that they could hugely overcharge us to build a new nuclear power station, which will be run by the French Government. A deal so atrocious for the British taxpayer even George Osborne's father in law criticised it.

I don't know why people think its a good thing that we'll be able to negotiate our deals given this level of incompetence.

But then we are never really going to leave, not in any meaningful sense.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Then why say the very opposite only 6 posts above?

I think you think you have said one thing when you have actually said the very opposite.

You denied that Fox had said "we cannot negotiate any new trade deals as long as we are part of the EU" when it is a word-for-word direct quote from the article and then make the point that we cannot negotiate any new trade deals as long as we are part of the EU to validate your argument.

None of your logic is consistent or coherent.

Please show me where I denied Liam Fox's quote.

Until Article 50 is sanctioned then it's obvious we can't do deals.

You know this very well but ignore it for some reason.

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Then why say the very opposite only 6 posts above?

I think you think you have said one thing when you have actually said the very opposite.

You denied that Fox had said "we cannot negotiate any new trade deals as long as we are part of the EU" when it is a word-for-word direct quote from the article and then make the point that we cannot negotiate any new trade deals as long as we are part of the EU to validate your argument.

None of your logic is consistent or coherent.

Please show me where I denied Liam Fox's quote.

Until Article 50 is sanctioned then it's obvious we can't do deals.

You know this very well but ignore it for some reason.

I don't ignore it. There's definite whooshing going on here.

Where did you deny Fox's quote?

Here:

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

Hugh Watt wrote:

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

We will in time get trade deals with China, India, USA, Canada, Brazil etc. Once that is we uncouple from the EU.

Liam Fox clearly says "We cannot negotiate any new trade deals as long as we are part of the EU". So you've got that bit wrong for a start.

I don't think so. Read it again.

I give up.

The "I don't think so. Read it again" refers to Hugh's "you've got that bit wrong for a start".

What is it you're seeing that I'm not?

I'm in total agreement with Fox. His trade talks are only preliminary deals. His hands are tied at present.

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

I give up.

The "I don't think so. Read it again" refers to Hugh's "you've got that bit wrong for a start".

What is it you're seeing that I'm not?

I'm in total agreement with Fox. His trade talks are only preliminary deals. His hands are tied at present.

No, his hands are tied by the fact trade talks aren't even in his departmental brief! So quite what he's supposed to be doing is anybodies guess, you couldn't make it up.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

As if anyone would trust a man who finished last out of 4 other crap candidates in the leadership election, a man even less popular with his colleagues than Michael Gove. A man who let his best mate and defence lobbyist accompany him on state MOD visits!

They'll be an independent commission set up soon, which will report a month after the next general election. I can't wait until the penny drops that you've been lied to, there'll be no taking back control and you'll have nothing to blame it on.

If you're looking for a squeaky clean politician then forget it. They've all got skeletons in their cupboard.

The fact is Brexit is barely one month old but the remainers will pick up on anything that says "we told you so".

This decoupling is a long process and the economy is fragile but give it a chance. Not that you will.

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

If you're looking for a squeaky clean politician then forget it. They've all got skeletons in their cupboard.

The fact is Brexit is barely one month old but the remainers will pick up on anything that says "we told you so".

This decoupling is a long process and the economy is fragile but give it a chance. Not that you will.

Not all of them have been forced to resign due to breaching the ministerial code though have they?

Thats not how it was sold, we were told that Brexit meant taking back control and £350 million a week to spend on the NHS. If that was true I would have been delighted, I voted to stay in because I knew that to be complete bollocks and that leaving the EU would lead to complete chaos all of which has been proven.

The decoupling process was not supposed to be a long process, it was sold to the electorate on the basis that article 50 would be activated the morning of the result. However rather complacently as it proved no one expected the country to collectively bite its own nose off to spite its face. Not even the leavers. So we're now faced with years of uncertainty as the Government hopes the country will quietly forget what it told the Government.

Hugh Watt wrote:

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

If you're looking for a squeaky clean politician then forget it. They've all got skeletons in their cupboard.

The fact is Brexit is barely one month old but the remainers will pick up on anything that says "we told you so".

This decoupling is a long process and the economy is fragile but give it a chance. Not that you will.

Not all of them have been forced to resign due to breaching the ministerial code though have they?

Thats not how it was sold, we were told that Brexit meant taking back control and £350 million a week to spend on the NHS. If that was true I would have been delighted, I voted to stay in because I knew that to be complete bollocks and that leaving the EU would lead to complete chaos all of which has been proven.

The decoupling process was not supposed to be a long process, it was sold to the electorate on the basis that article 50 would be activated the morning of the result. However rather complacently as it proved no one expected the country to collectively bite its own nose off to spite its face. Not even the leavers. So we're now faced with years of uncertainty as the Government hopes the country will quietly forget what it told the Government.

I guess we all have our own definition of what "complete chaos" is.

The only current tangible effect I'm seeing, personally, is possibly getting about 1.17 Euro to the £, as opposed to 1.22 before the referendum. I can live with that.

To be honest, far and away the clearest definition of "complete chaos", would for me, apply to what has happened with Corbyn and the Labour Party.

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

I give up.

The "I don't think so. Read it again" refers to Hugh's "you've got that bit wrong for a start".

What is it you're seeing that I'm not?

I'm in total agreement with Fox. His trade talks are only preliminary deals. His hands are tied at present.

I think  everyone except SFD and Hugh Watt understood you and what you meant the first time you said it, and certainly since you've explained yourself...

The reason they  still don't, is because they are so blinkered and dogged in their 'idealism' that they literally can't think straight anymore.

As for "Complete Chaos"...  Really?  

Whatever happened to "keep calm and carry on"!

Czarcasm wrote:

Hugh Watt wrote:

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

If you're looking for a squeaky clean politician then forget it. They've all got skeletons in their cupboard.

The fact is Brexit is barely one month old but the remainers will pick up on anything that says "we told you so".

This decoupling is a long process and the economy is fragile but give it a chance. Not that you will.

Not all of them have been forced to resign due to breaching the ministerial code though have they?

Thats not how it was sold, we were told that Brexit meant taking back control and £350 million a week to spend on the NHS. If that was true I would have been delighted, I voted to stay in because I knew that to be complete bollocks and that leaving the EU would lead to complete chaos all of which has been proven.

The decoupling process was not supposed to be a long process, it was sold to the electorate on the basis that article 50 would be activated the morning of the result. However rather complacently as it proved no one expected the country to collectively bite its own nose off to spite its face. Not even the leavers. So we're now faced with years of uncertainty as the Government hopes the country will quietly forget what it told the Government.

I guess we all have our own definition of what "complete chaos" is.

The only current tangible effect I'm seeing, personally, is possibly getting about 1.17 Euro to the £, as opposed to 1.22 before the referendum. I can live with that.  

To be honest, far and away the clearest definition of "complete chaos", would for me, apply to what has happened with Corbyn and the Labour Party.

Absolutely. The feebleness of the opposition is as depressing as everything else.

I do t mind being criticised for idealism. SFD would probably think I'm Blairite scum though.

We're getting off track here but I'm not a great fan of Corbyn. As far as policies go I'm about 75% in favour. As far as his leadership goes I'm about 0% in favour. He's just not The Man.

I'm not at all keen on Blair though. For him it was the other way around. His policies stank but he was a very effective leader.

So park me somewhere between the two.

As for PMs I'd say Blair (for the Iraq War) and Cameron (for Brexit) have been the most appalling PMs we have ever had - and certainly in my lifetime if there's worse way back in history.

And that is some claim when Thatcher is in the field.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

We're getting off track here but I'm not a great fan of Corbyn. As far as policies go I'm about 75% in favour. As far as his leadership goes I'm about 0% in favour. He's just not The Man.

I'm not at all keen on Blair though. For him it was the other way around. His policies stank but he was a very effective leader.

So park me somewhere between the two.

As for PMs I'd say Blair (for the Iraq War) and Cameron (for Brexit) have been the most appalling PMs we have ever had - and certainly in my lifetime if there's worse way back in history.

And that is some claim when Thatcher is in the field.

Cameron (for Brexit). Really?

You're lambasting a PM purely for giving the nation a choice? Bizarre.

He gave the nation a choice. He wanted to remain. He lost. God bless democracy.

If Cameron is guilty of anything, then it's quite clearly underestimating the depth of feeling of us Brits on EU issues.

If there'd have been a couple of % swing the other way to remain, I presume Thatcher would have usurped Dave as your 'most appalling'.

Obviously.

Maggie was a disaster on multitudinous levels but she did not endanger the Union, she did oversee the signing of the Maastricht Treaty and was rightly dismissive of referendums as a way of governing. Nor did she leave the horrendous mess in the Middle East that Blair was a part of creating.

Putting Cameron and Osborne's abhorrent economic and social vandalism to one side Cameron completely failed to lead his party, and the nation as you observe, in the direction he wanted, promised a referendum that he never expected to have to call and then lost it. His negligence, complacency, incompetence and calamities piled high and all of it could easily have been avoided were he not such an arrogant oaf, had the balls to face his opponents down and not allowed the tail of his party to wag the dog instead of which he fecked up completely and then quit to absolve himself of the aftermath that gives this thread its name.

Worst of all though was the leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party endangering the very Union from which it takes its name. Unforgiveable.

The only thing on his balance sheet that bestows any credit is legalising same sex marriage, which was long overdue, but it is not enough.

History will not be kind to him.