Message for Brexit voters.

The devastating consequences would be caused by the trade between the european nations faltering, i.e more trade restrictions. If the UK is allowed to cherry pick, enjoying all the benefits while not sharing the responsibilities of true members (along with Norway, Iceland and Switzerland), that endangers the EU.

Which in turn endangers the single market, Schengen and (partly) common currency in the Euro. All of whom are essential parts in removing trade barriers. Turmoil and insecurity would ensue. Losing a bit of trade with 1 country, the UK, is one thing (it's not like the entire UK will suddenly buy minis instead of those fantastic and shiny german cars. Wait, Mini belongs to a german car maker as well). The entire EU potentially collapsing and new trade barriers, bureaucracy, currency exchange, excessive border controls etc. springing up with another 26 former close trade partners, at least temporarily while new agreements are struck, is a whole different dimension.

Future standards and regulations might also start being more incompatible with each other if they're solely done in the nation states instead of together in the EU. Another trade barrier.

I was merely pointed out that your one-sided blame game in your initial post was rather silly. The UK is doing the exactly same thing that you bemoaned with the EU, and even started the entire process.

So, essentially, if millions of people lose their jobs because there's no free trade then f*ck 'em. It's beyond me why anyone in their right mind wants to be part of this organisation

I can't believe how anyone expects a pat on the head for turning his back on his friends.

Right, so the EU is such a tottering house of cards that it'll collapse into an orgy of protectionism if little old UK remains in the Single Market, but leaves the EU.

Fine, so we can agree on a mutually beneficial free trade agreement instead with the UK outside the Single Market (cf. South Korea, Singapore etc). Everyone's happy.

Your last sentence is plain wrong. The UK is trying to minimise any economic damage from Brexit (democracy - what a bummer eh?). The EU is trying to maximise it.

....and as for UB. Seriously, that's what we should expect from the EU? Behaving like a jilted schoolgirl?

If and when Scotland goes it alone, I'd expect the UK government to secure the best mutually beneficial deal possible, while UB will be demanding a haggis ban in England.

Brexit strategists considered staunch - Fox, Farage, Gove, Redwood et al - are pretty open about their real goal, the destruction of the EU. It is their only justification for amputating the wealth of their own people. Only one side can emerge victorious.

It could collapse because other countries could get the idea of picking all the benefits without respecting freedoms and the not always popular, but necessary, responsibilities. It's not about UK remaining in the single market and leaving the EU. It's about the UK staying in the single market, while e.g not paying into the budget and not respecting the four freedoms that all the other members of the single market have.

If the UK government was trying to minimise the economic damage they'd go for a model like Norway respecting the freedoms and responsibilities. Instead they are talking about wanting everything that's good for only them, which giving into would be catastrophic for the EU and its remaining members and is hence unacceptable. The UK government knows that and is plain playing tough talking games. Just like the entire Brexit thing was really only meant as a power game between the two eton rich boys Cameron and Johnson that was being carried out on the back of large parts of the continent.

If the UK government isn't sure if there'd be a revolt if they kept single market & the freedoms, make another referendum on the key points on what people want Brexit to actually be and look like.

fishing quotas are there for a reason....to stop fish running out of numbers due to over fishing.

most of the uk's immigration is from outside the eu....and a lot come from countries that pose a higher risk than the eu.

the laws we make are worse than the eu's....bedroom tax and austerity which affected the poor way more than the non poor.
brexits arguments are flawed.

easily led by a right wing drunk , a clown wit no mask and a wrongun.

What the would-be EU wreckers miscalculate, imho, is the determination of Europe (France and Germany, really) never to be on different sides again.

.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a15pr465Rvo

Hey Burton, did you internet suddenly fail last night?

yes thanks for your concern outages are a pain down here lately

we haven't moved one foot towards the exit yet but the pound has dropped from 1.55 to 1.21.

Cameron was never interested in either outcome, it was a device to destabilize the world market. I said it before the election. It's obvious, a big payout for those that bet against the pound. the longer they hesitate the more they rake in. Global markets will crash with the Deutsche Bank trading at 65 percent of it's value. But Brexit will be blamed.
i doubt we will even reach the exit door next year.

Mark Carney never stops flapping his gums too? Usually you hear one thing every three years from the bank of England. this guy is giving a running commentary.

No problem, buddy. In case you missed it due to your bad internet, I can proudly tell you I did some investigation for the two of us. It turns out that the current quota on your beloved sea bass was due to the UK government requesting it as an emergency measure to preserve the fish. I was as shocked as you must be right now when I found out about it.

edy - Burton-Brewers has been punished enough by Brexit, don't twist the knife.

I mean, the entire year I had blamed the EU for it. I felt so super embarrassed when I found out it wasn't actually their fault and I been a total moron in that regard. In hindsight, even googling for 3 minutes about my beloved sea bass would've saved me from being so utter ignorant.

did you really I should read this then as it seems the European Commission are taking the credit for it
.
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-6016_en.htm?subweb=343&lang=en


hobknob everything is fine for me just fine

It's on the dedicated sea bass page of course

http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/fishing_rules/sea-bass_en

and this one
.
http://www.ukbass.com/2016-a-ban-on-all-bass-landings-from-january-to-june-but-a-1-bag-limit-for-anglers/


2016: A ban on all bass landings from January to June, but a 1 bag limit for anglers
Home → Blog → 2016: A ban on all bass landings from January to June, but a 1 bag limit for anglers

The recommendation by the EU for bass landings in 2016 have been announced today (http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-6016_en.htm?subweb=343&lang=en ).
In the Northern European area (containing the UK Ireland and Northern France) the proposal stated landings should be reduced from an estimated 2656 tonnes landed this year to 1449 tonnes in 2016 (a 46% reduction).
It proposed this reduction will be achieved by a:
Complete ban on landings of bass (both commercial and recreational) from the beginning of January to the end of June
1 bass bag limit per day for anglers from July to December
1 Tonne per month limit on bass landings July to December for commercial boats.

Mark Carney is proving an abysmal governor, he should be swiftly replaced in my view.

this site http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/fishing_rules/sea-bass_en you quote is 2015, try reading further down what came into force in 2016..............

Measure five – strengthened proposals for 2016

On 10 November 2015 the Commission proposed further measures, to be decided by the 28 Member States meeting in the Fisheries Council on 14 and 15 December. The proposals build upon and strengthen the measures already put in place, with the aim of bringing the stock under MSY management by 2017. They include:

a complete ban on fishing for the first half of 2016;
a 1-fish bag limit for recreational anglers and a monthly one tonne catch limit per commercial vessel for the second half of 2016;
a continued area closure around Ireland for commercial fishing.

Which is the next stop of the emergency request by the UK because your government is environmentally much more aware than you are. They want what's best for coming generations of British citizens. They want our grandsons to still be able to catch sea basses. Good to see you finally understand.

As you will know because you are an expert on the processes of the EU, you will know that the UK government also agreed to these new 2016 quotas.

*next step

Why do you want to be a total jerkass to the sea bass and eradicate it anyway? What did sea basses ever do to you?

I am a busy this evening and will not get time to read it but I would be grateful if you could put up the link where it mentions the UK gov requested the 2016 bass ban. Thanks in advance.

It's the continuation of measures, d'uh!

Also, answer why you hate the sea bass so much? Did one spit into your face once?

Your reluctance to simply admit that these things are decided together, with the UK formally requesting measures and also having to agree to the quotas, so you can keep on being an ignorant hater and keep your view of the "tyrannical" EU is quite astonishing.

Should say "keep ignorantly scapegoating". Ignorant hater sounds a bit too Taylor Swift-esque, all due respect to her.

edy is the German Eddie Izzard.

leave voters should flip reading this


The Independent‏ @Independent
The UK will 'pay the EU £350m-a-week' after Brexit

Isn't Eddie Izzard against Brexit? I say "Let there be the hardest of hard Brexits", albeit for different reasons than the UK-based hardcore brexiteers.

Sticking with the bass ban, I shore fish regularly around here for bass, somewhat successfully too.
I am allowed to catch and keep one bass a day (only kept one this year so far, mainly because I don't like bass to eat), but a small boat fishing 100 yards offshore from me can catch and keep 1 tonne per month!
Anything to do with the £5,000 pa licence to fish for bass by any chance? This goes up to £10,000 for an even bigger quota.
There are lots of small boats around here paying that amount and I'd like to know how many around our coastline are paying as well.
Add on the illegal gill netters and we do have a problem.
One thing has struck me though, is the sheer numbers of school bass this year, they've been a pest (jokingly) this year. IF these escape the nets there could be a greater numbers of adult fish in the next few years?

having read the paper in more detail edy you are correct the UK asked for assistance with bass stocks in 2012. I find it strange they wish to penalise the solo angler though who is they claim responsible for 25% of all bass catches, were you an angler you would realise that their 25% figure is a joke read johnizere's post above. I also do not see why Austria, a landlocked country with no fishing fleet, can judicate on our waters or why Germany, Poland and all the ex commie block have a say when they don't even have bass stocks. If they want to tamper with your hairdryers and hoovers let them get on with it but these are our waters not the EU's and spineless governments have continually handed over our waters to the French, Spanish and Portuguese.

I'm sorry you are taking the vote to leave the corrupt EU so badly, there had to be a loser and unfortunately it was the pink beret crowd that lost. However stamping your feet and coming on here day after day telling people what a nasty ignorant country we are will win you no friends and probably affect your mental health, you only have to look at Hobknob's posts that poor luvvie is very close to the abyss.

OK you enjoy the rest of your weekend now oh and by the way I know what a jerkbait is but never heard of jerkass, I'm guessing it is homosexual language or something.

I was merely correcting you on myths and misinformation. We don't want myths and lies to spread even further, do we? That can not be the aim of any enlightened and educated society and needs to be countered.

bigmo 14 Oct 16 13:49
A very interesting read. Many facts and figures here.

.
http://cicero-group.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Brexit-negotiations-The-View-from-the-EU-2.pdf


That report states that there is 2.5 million EU migrants working in the UK.  Maybe cameron should've allowed them to vote.

Is that including family/dependants, or just workers, TBB? Link not working here.

" It's not about UK remaining in the single market and leaving the EU. It's about the UK staying in the single market, while e.g not paying into the budget and not respecting the four freedoms that all the other members of the single market have."

Edy, I suggested a simple and workable alternative that addresses your concerns. I notice you ignored that bit.

a simple and workable alternative

You confuse a trade agreement that will be limited in scope and take years to be ratified, with the Single market that is wide in scope and in place.

I don't believe EU officials or politicians of the various member states have said there won't be a trade agreement at some point with the UK.

If the UK loses access to the single market, you can bet on there being negotiations on a trade agreement. These are neither simple nor quick as dave already pointed out however, especially if the interests of 28 different nations have to be considered and those nations need to agree to it. Nor would it give full single market access.

"you can bet on there being negotiations on a trade agreement"

But the EU is ruling that out Edy. They don't want a trade agreement that's a 'viable alternative to membership' for the UK, even if that means millions of EU jobs disappear as a result.

We've come full circle. As I said at the outset:-

It's beyond me why anyone in their right mind wants to be part of this organisation.

Room ...

"It's beyond me why anyone in their right mind wants to be part of this organisation."


Totally agree.
I voted out because I didn't agree that we should belong to and pay into an obviously corrupt organisation.

Any doubters please read every year's audit report.

If it was obviously corrupt the audit reports that you mention as credible source wouldn't exist. The waste, corruption and mismanagement also happens mostly in the member countries, including the UK.

Room 0182 • October 16, 2016 3:06 PM BST
"you can bet on there being negotiations on a trade agreement"

But the EU is ruling that out Edy. They don't want a trade agreement that's a 'viable alternative to membership' for the UK, even if that means millions of EU jobs disappear as a result.

Have they really? What EU officials and leaders of member states have always ruled out is that the UK gets full access to the single market without sharing the responsibilities and respecting the freedoms. That is what is meant with viable alternative, getting all the benefits without sharing the responsibilities of all the other members. That is also what the cicero group means when they talk about deal (notice how they do not write "trade deal").

If you have statements about the EU being unwilling to engage in negotiations regarding a bilateral trade deal, feel free to share it. Same goes for your allegation that the EU would sacrifice millions of jobs. Provide a source or I'll have to consider that a rather disingenuous effort from you.

edy

suggest you look up EU accounts and read audit reports.

HTH

mememe, these audit reports are done by an EU institution. You seem to consider them credible. Would an obviously corrupt organisation create credible audit reports?

and the other fact remains too - For the vast majority of projects, the vast majority of spent money, the individual member states are responsible for choosing the projects/recipients and final distribution.

Edy ... and the other fact remains too - For the vast majority of projects, the vast majority of spent money, the individual member states are responsible for choosing the projects/recipients and final distribution.

Yep ... EU is a corrupt organisation.

Read the audit reports

Why do you first "yep" that the member states are the source of the waste/corruption and then follow it by calling the EU a corrupt organisation?

If you mean that the member states constitute the EU, that is of course correct. In that way you could I guess call the EU corrupt. What does it tell you about the EU institutions however if they make these audit reports (and also demand wasted money back from the member states) to fight that waste?

And Remainers say that Brexiteers are thick.

Read the audit reports.

I did before I voted out.

From the original quote:-

"Finally, all Member States agree that the cost of a deal that makes leaving the EU look like a viable alternative to membership far outweighs the cost of new trade barriers."

Cicero are clearly talking about trade and it follows on from that the EU cannot agree a free trade deal as that would contradict the aim above - to make life as difficult as possible for the UK. Besides. they
have no other way of punishing the UK once we're out.

The 'millions of jobs' was of course a reference to the repeated threats from the Remainers about how many UK jobs 'rely directly' on the Single Market. It seems reasonable to assume that a similar number
of European jobs would be also be affected - and Nick Clegg, Peter Mandelson et al. wouldn't have lied to us would they?

Oct 16, 2016 -- 4:28PM, mememe wrote:

And Remainers say that Brexiteers are thick.Read the audit reports.I did before I voted out.

Well, educate me then. In your words. As a start you could start answering the questions I have been posing instead of ducking everything. This is a forum. We're meant to share opinions and have a discussion

While we're at it, I'll add another question/scenario.

We have country A. Not part of the EU, has its own auditing institution.

Counry B. Part of the EU, has its own auditing institution and at least its EU budget financed projects are audited by the European Court of Auditors.

Which country do you see as better equipped to detect corrupt structures and individuals in its country and why?

Oct 16, 2016 -- 5:16PM, Room 0182 wrote:

From the original quote:-"Finally, all Member States agree that the cost of a deal that makes leaving the EU look like a viable alternative to membership far outweighs the cost of new trade barriers."Cicero are clearly talking about trade and it follows on from that the EU cannot agree a free trade deal as that would contradict the aim above - to make life as difficult as possible for the UK. Besides. theyhave no other way of punishing the UK once we're out.The 'millions of jobs' was of course a reference to the repeated threats from the Remainers about how many UK jobs 'rely directly' on the Single Market. It seems reasonable to assume that a similar numberof European jobs would be also be affected - and Nick Clegg, Peter Mandelson et al. wouldn't have lied to us would they?

Mate, the cicero report is explicitly about the Brexit negotiations. Explicitly! Of course it includes trade because it includes determining the UK's future relationship and access to the single market

What the EU is talking about is what I've now tried to explain to you about 3 times. To not give the UK privileged access to the single market that EU and EEA members do not have. Why that would be dangerous has also been explained to you at length.

Meaning of “obtuse” in the English Dictionary

obtuse adjective (STUPID)
​

formal stupid and slow to understand, or unwilling to try to understand:
The answer's obvious - or are you being deliberately obtuse?

more ducking?

But if you want to hear it from me - I do not know the answer. Maybe that means I am stupid or slow to understand. Nonetheless, I'd be very grateful if you tried to explain the obvious answers to me.

Also, Room, let's not behave like a lot of the Brexit spectacle wasn't about some of your politicians wanting to blackmail the EU into giving the UK whatever they wanted. Have the cake and also eat it at the same time and whatnot because the EU was considered weak and certain to give into the blackmail. Even on this forum I've read quite a few posts ala "they'll give us everything we'll want"

Only when the EU repeatedly made it clear that there would be no cherry picking, your leading politicians suddenly started insisting on Brexit meaning "Hard Brexit"

edy,

This has got nothing to do with the Single Market and you know it. It's not mentioned once in that report and I haven't once advocated the UK remaining in it.

"Finally, all Member States agree that the cost of a deal that makes leaving the EU look like a viable alternative to membership far outweighs the cost of new trade barriers"

Further up the introduction:-

"There is a misconception that Member States will inevitably refrain from imposing tough sanctions on the UK through fear of harming their own economies"

The statements above are quite clear. The EU wishes to punish, via 'trade barriers' any member state that leaves, including those that exit the Single Market. If that damages their own economies as a consequence, so be it.

I understand you're trying to muddy the waters, now that you've painted yourself into a corner, by banging on about the Single Market, but it won't wash. Your last post is just an extension of that.

Are you actually following the debate and what various european politicians have said over the course of the last few months?

It has everything to do with the single market because the EU is all about the single market. Most of the Brexit debate was about single market access vs. immigration control. Any exit negotiations are automatically about the future relationship to the single market.

Look, again:  The "viable alternative to membership" that the EU fears and opposes is single market access without the responsibilities, i.e what people like Boris Johnson openly bragged about gaining from Brexit because they thought the EU would be in the weaker position and bow down to the UK. If you had actually followed the debate you'd know this.

Nobody of note in the EU or its remaining members is against signing trade agreements with the UK. That any such agreement will contain trade barriers compared to single market access is of course understood.

as do all trade agreements that the EU strikes

as otherwise, if they didn't contain trade barriers compared to full single market access, we'd be back to the UK having privileged full access to the single market without sharing the responsibilities that all the other EU and EEA members have. You sound like you want that, but it'd hardly be fair on any of the other nations, would it?

I think we have a winner. Well framed, edy.

Adam S. Posen

Bank of England, and now president of the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington.

“There were the people who thought Brexit would be reversed,” he continued. “There were the people who delusionally thought there would be a soft Brexit, and all the northern Europeans would be nice to them. And there were people who believed that this crew in charge of the British negotiations were somehow going to strike a good deal. All of the delusions have run out of material.”

More obfuscation Edy.

My original post wasn't about the wider debate, it was about the EU view as expressed in the report bigmo referenced.

"Look, again:  The "viable alternative to membership" that the EU fears and opposes is single market access without the responsibilities"

That's not what it says. Nowhere does it mention single market access. Stop making it up.

A free trade deal would be a "viable alternative to membership", obviously (my preferred option since you ask). So, the report says,
the EU won't have it, even if it harms it's own citizens and no amount of bluster on your part changes that.

Look, I understand you're too far in now to back down with pride intact, so I'll leave it at that.

the EU is all about the single market

Not true. Over half the money the EU has ever extracted from its taxpayers under threat of jail has gone on agricultural landowner subsidies - in other words servicing the coque of people who are not like ordinary people who generally don't own much land. People like richie biscuits who loves a hand out for a person who already has a lot. He especially gets hard when he sees numbers like UK median taxpayers subsidising UK landowners for £3bn a year, and UK median taxpayers subsidising non-UK landowners for a further £4bn a year. That kind of generosity in servicing foreign coque really gets him aroused. Probably owns a few Magyar vineyards.

The fact that several European countries that are not in the EU participate in the Single Market is also evidence, a list which includes three of the world's four happiest.

Oct 19, 2016 -- 7:49PM, Room 0182 wrote:

More obfuscation Edy.My original post wasn't about the wider debate, it was about the EU view as expressed in the report bigmo referenced."Look, again:  The "viable alternative to membership" that the EU fears and opposes is single market access without the responsibilities"That's not what it says. Nowhere does it mention single market access. Stop making it up.A free trade deal would be a "viable alternative to membership", obviously (my preferred option since you ask). So, the report says,the EU won't have it, even if it harms it's own citizens and no amount of bluster on your part changes that.Look, I understand you're too far in now to back down with pride intact, so I'll leave it at that.

Dude, you have not been following the debate and what people have said. It's obvious. Instead you go solely by your own misinterpretation of one sentence in some report that was posted in this thread.

Just for you information: Spain's foreign minister just recently, a few days ago, said the UK will likely end up with a CETA-esque deal if they insist on restricting free movement. What'd that be if not a free trade deal between the UK and EU?

Produce quotes where anyone of note has said that there won't be a trade deal. I urged you earlier already.

at best well pay billions into the eu and be allowed to veto free movement.

anything less from either side will be construed as losing credibility

Room, of course to understand the meaning of such expressions like "viable alternative to membership" you need to see it in the context of the wider debate. I mean, you always have to that. For everything. Otherwise you will end up misunderstanding like you insist on doing even though it's now been explained to you plenty of times.

id imagine the tariff will be high,if not extortionate though, to deter others from following suit.

read my 2 posts,that is what will happen.

prevaricate all night,week,month,next year.

problem being for theresa may whilst holding out for the will of the people the eu will try to strangle the british economy through a ridiculous high tariff.

it may be a political pyrrhic victory and ultimately her waterloo

id imagine the tariff will be high,if not extortionate though, to deter others from following suit.


Any tariffs will be at mates rates.
Why would another state want to Leave if Leaving puts a bomb under your economy?

Their media will certainly mushroom the negatives.

For now anyway........

The EU will have amendments in place to the Lisbon Treaty to make it even more difficult to leave the EU, especially if under the euro currency.

Looked around the station car park last few days would say 50/60% of cars are from Germany/France
So yes they really want high tariffs don't they.

Interesting paper about trade agreements
https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=briefing-paper-3.pdf&...

Wit-ham

Agree, i believe at worse, any tariff will be in the 'friends' category. We will still be at the forefront on European NATO representation. So to class the UK as anything but 'friends' would be very odd.

Also those that think the UK leaving with 'friendly terms' will encourage other states to do so, need to remember most of those other states are in the eurozone,schengen zone, or are net financial beneficiaries of the EU through EU membership fees.

It would be a completely different kettle of fish for them to leave. If they look at how complicated it is for the UK to leave, they will realise it will be much more complicated for them to leave.

And in the meantime, new EU reforms will make it even more complicated to Leave once the UK is out.
So i think it is a bit of a red herring that the EU will punish the UK to protect themselves. They have a reform clause in the Lisbon Treaty which can tighten the screw on other states, perhaps under the guise of further privileges.

its like changing your energy company or your bank

if you are in debt to them its tougher than if you are a valued customer




there is plenty for may to work with if she gets it right

Yeah,takes a couple of hours filling the forms out and hey presto everything is hunky dory, nothing to worry about..simples.

I think the Lisbon Treaty is around 280 pages long.
Have you read it yet Breedingmad?

Yes,know it back to front

Congratulations, it's quite unreadable isn't it?
MP's in Parliament however pretended to understand it and gave Gordon Brown the go ahead to sign it on your behalf.

Blame the bloke who signed it then.

Gordon Brown was given instructions to sign it by Parliamentary consent.
The people were led up the garden path with talks of a referendum on it.
ALL three major Party's at the time suggested there should be a referendum on the Treaty. Even the BBC seemed opposed to the unreadability of it.

But another yardstick is readability.

While the constitution was intended to be a reader-friendly document that could be taught in schools, the Reform Treaty is going to reel off a new mass of revisions to two already unreadable treaties.

Traditionally, unreadable EU treaties have not been subjected to a referendum, except in Ireland - though France and Denmark made an exception for the Maastricht treaty.

This one seems set to be even more clumsy than usual with its protocols, declarations and footnotes.

"They decided that the document should be unreadable. If it is unreadable, it is not constitutional, that was the sort of perception," former Italian Foreign Minister Giuliano Amato told a conference in London this month.

"Any prime minister - imagine the UK prime minister - can go to the Commons and say, 'Look, you see, it's absolutely unreadable, it's the typical Brussels treaty, nothing new, no need for a referendum.'"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6907478.stm

This is why Farage and other Eurosceptics campaigned so rigorously for the EU referendum.

ALL three major Party's at the time suggested there should be a referendum on the Treaty. Even the BBC seemed opposed to the unreadability of it.


But of course there was a U-turn.

Ahhh the days we had Sovereignty

breedingmad writing something thoughtful is good, you should try it.

Yeah like "don`t worry about trade, that is a matter for business and is not linked to free movement except in the minds of politicians."

Yes like... "don`t worry about trade, that is a matter for business and is not linked to free movement except in the minds of politicians."

Ahhh do you have a problem with the people getting to vote and over-rule Parliament Breedingmad?

That democracy is as direct as it can be.

You don't like direct democracy then Breedingmad?

I know that, that's what I said.
I don`t want to put a sentence too full of thoughts
someone with no thoughts like yourself doesn`t need his nose rubbed in it.

* that was to breedingmad, of course

It's called over simplification of complicated processes ,Brexiters seem to do it a lot,it's very childlike.

There is now three possible brexits.
1 a HARD brexit
2 a soft brexit
3 Theresa said today that she wants a SMOOTH brexit.

Surely Brexit means Exit.

Brexit means whatever Chairman May says it means when she gets her instructions from whoever rules Germany and France after next year's elections. Particularly Germany.

The United Kingdom is the sixth largest economy in the world and the second largest in Europe after Germany. The Services sector is the most important and accounts for 79 percent to total GDP. The biggest segments within Services are: government, education and health (19 percent of total GDP); real estate (12 percent); professional, scientific and technical activities and administrative and support services (12 percent); wholesale and retail trade (11 percent); and financial and insurance (8 percent). Industry accounts for 21 percent of the GDP and the largest segments within this sector are: manufacturing (10 percent of total GDP) and construction (6 percent). The Agriculture sector accounts for only 1 percent of GDP. This page provides the latest reported value for - United Kingdom GDP Annual Growth Rate - plus previous releases, historical high and low, short-term forecast and long-term prediction, economic calendar, survey consensus and news. United Kingdom GDP Annual Growth Rate - actual data, historical chart and calendar of releases - was last updated on October of 2016.

libdems slash Tory majority by 20,000

hard brexit looks iffy

John MacDonald‏ @1johnmacdonald
Finnish PM: the UK will meet a united EU front; Britons were clearly "quite unprepared" for #Brexit.

Faisal Islam‏ @faisalislam
Juncker's top Brexit negotiator @MichelBarnier wants to conduct the Brexit negotiations ... in French, says Reuters

Forget hard Brexit or soft Brexit, European officials are preparing for a dirty #Brexit.