National News Brexit - the Deal or No Deal poll

Brexit - Deal or No Deal?

  • Deal

    Votes: 51 29.1%
  • No Deal

    Votes: 77 44.0%
  • Call in the Donald

    Votes: 2 1.1%
  • Call in Noel Edmonds

    Votes: 8 4.6%
  • I don't care anymore

    Votes: 37 21.1%

  • Total voters
    175
Hahahaha. David Davis, the man who failed to plan/research anything whilst Brexit Secretary. We've had been absolutely screwed.
But he was Brexit but didn't matter whether it was Davis, Raab or any of the others it was the obnoxious cow in no 10 who said it was her way and her way only that's why she needs to go, and we would need a person who has the balls to stand up to Barnier, Tusk and Juncker and tell them to f**k off and let's talk a sensible deal if not then no deal
 
Don't know if you read my post above Baz, but is that sort of aggressive xenophobia really helpful? Will its achieve our (your) aims? I know you like a sweaty rant Baz - see every match thread - but we need cool, constructive heads to get us out of this mess, not some Brown-shirted hard man to give those pesky foreigners a bloody nose.
Ive not been xenophobic in any way just angry that this hasn't been sorted, the fact that's a lot MP's whose constituency's voted to leave and they're MP's are trying to prevent Brexit, a doubt they will be re-elected.
Personally if we leave and it goes tits up I would feel embarrassed but then after an initial 2 year period I think we GB would be getting things right and not have to worry about being told what to do when as a country we would be able to govern ourselves.
 
But he was Brexit but didn't matter whether it was Davis, Raab or any of the others it was the obnoxious cow in no 10 who said it was her way and her way only that's why she needs to go, and we would need a person who has the balls to stand up to Barnier, Tusk and Juncker and tell them to f**k off and let's talk a sensible deal if not then no deal

Davis is an incompetent fool who has already failed, and the EU negotiators laughed at him because he was that unprepared and you think he would make the EU quake with fear!

Raab is equally incompetent considering he only realised how important Dover was for international trade after becoming Brexit Secretary!!! The current bunch make Iain Duncan-Smith seem competent which is quite an achievement.

And you really think telling somebody to "f**k off" will really make them negotiate differently and bring them into your way of thinking?! That was the sort of dismissive attitude David Davis had which just wasted time and achieved nothing.
 
Ive not been xenophobic in any way just angry that this hasn't been sorted, the fact that's a lot MP's whose constituency's voted to leave and they're MP's are trying to prevent Brexit, a doubt they will be re-elected.
Personally if we leave and it goes tits up I would feel embarrassed but then after an initial 2 year period I think we GB would be getting things right and not have to worry about being told what to do when as a country we would be able to govern ourselves.

Jacob Rees-Mogg reckons it will be 50 years to see any benefits. How long do you think it takes to negotiate trade deals and international agreements because 2 years is exceptionally optimistic?
 
Not done any research on this, but isn't the point that it's true we spend £350 million per week (-ish) being members of the EU, but that doesn't necessarily mean if we weren't members we'd spend it on the NHS, as the side of the bus suggested?

Flakey case for court action, I agree.

Heard an interesting viewpoint on the radio yesterday. £300 million has been spent on a new armed forces rehabilitation centre. This was funded from private sources. Someone suggested that if we weren't in the EU it could have been paid for by the government with just six days worth of EU membership dues. Hook, line and sinker.
The figure was a generous view of the EU spending, let's put it that way - but no different to some of the other figures thrown around by both sides of the debate at the time. I'm still surprised that so many people read it as let's spend it all on the NHS - it wasn't what I and many leavers took it for, but it seems to stick that all Leavers thought it.
 
Many leavers thought it because that's what they were led to believe. Farage even admitted that it was incorrect after he resigned.
 
The figure was a generous view of the EU spending, let's put it that way - but no different to some of the other figures thrown around by both sides of the debate at the time. I'm still surprised that so many people read it as let's spend it all on the NHS - it wasn't what I and many leavers took it for, but it seems to stick that all Leavers thought it.

How is it generous view? The £350m was horsesh*t as it ignored the other side of the equation (ie. the rebate etc) which has a very significant effect. Also it ignored the non direct financial benefits to the economy of EU membership.

Many people believed it would be spent on the NHS because that is what the Leave Campaign kept pushing.
 
If I say "I've got £750 I wasn't expecting. There's a guitar that I'd like to buy', you might be forgiven for suspecting that I might be off to the music shop shortly. I haven't said that, but many people (including Mrs ZeroTheHero!) would take that to be the meaning.
Having said that, I suspect it wouldn't be long before she 'took back control'! :)
 
It’s covering* old ground this argument.
When the vote took place I don’t believe that people were considering whether they’d like this to stay or go. They clearly voted out and Cameron told us we would be out, no customs union, no single market etc
In the end what we have is government going against the electorate and the EU doing more than their level best to keep us in.
We should be out and be saving £12 billion a year. Negotiate treaties when we leave

The problem is that it was never that clear. You would assume that we would leave the single market, as Cameron said at one point: "The British public would be voting if we leave would be to leave the EU and leave the single market. We’d then have to negotiate a trade deal from outside with the European Union."

However, there was a lot of confusion and downright obfuscation on this point, with different people saying different things about how much access we'd have to the single market. So the argument that all 17.4 million people knew exactly what they were voting for doesn't really hold water.

This is helpful: https://fullfact.org/europe/what-was-promised-about-customs-union-referendum/
 
Personally if we leave and it goes tits up I would feel embarrassed but then after an initial 2 year period I think we GB would be getting things right and not have to worry about being told what to do when as a country we would be able to govern ourselves.

I'm curious - what have our leaders done over the past couple of years that gives you confidence that they'll be getting things right in the next two?

Personally, I was dubious about their capabilities two years ago - now I'm 100% sure they're incompetent and incapable of successfully governing the country in isolation.
 
Questions already about Brexit Party funding:


 
How is it generous view? The £350m was horsesh*t as it ignored the other side of the equation (ie. the rebate etc) which has a very significant effect. Also it ignored the non direct financial benefits to the economy of EU membership.

Many people believed it would be spent on the NHS because that is what the Leave Campaign kept pushing.
It's generous as as it uses the very top line, rather than the figure after rebates, funding, pensions, etc. But, if I recall, it was even slightly lower than the real figure that they could have used if they were smarter - 352m (I think)! It's not horseh*t, but I grant as I always have, it's a generous view.

You may not agree with the method/presentation, fair enough, but as it is, the 350m is correct. It's not a lie. It's no different to the other stats flung about by both sides at the time and since, but for some reason, is the sand is some Remainers shoe that they can't get rid of.
Difficult to see how this could be interpreted as anything else than 'we send the EU £350 million a week let's fund our NHS instead'.

th


Who would like to claim that the two are unconnected?

EDIT - The word 'instead' is the giveaway.
I still read it as we send ..... Let's fund our NHS instead.

It doesn't say We send the EU £350 million a week, let's give it all to the NHS. Maybe I am being thick, but I still struggle to see how it's read as let's give it all to the NHS and always have done.

I'm still slightly in awe at the perceived power that battle bus over the Brexit vote.
 
I'm curious - what have our leaders done over the past couple of years that gives you confidence that they'll be getting things right in the next two?

Personally, I was dubious about their capabilities two years ago - now I'm 100% sure they're incompetent and incapable of successfully governing the country in isolation.
There was an interesting quote from a journo a few months back that I'll paraphrase.

The sad state of UK politics is such that there is more talent and nous sat in the the back benches on both sides of the house than there is on the front benches (cough, Chris Failing. cough.). If the leaders of the 2 big parties were better, we'd be worried about where the next generation was coming from, but we aren't.
 
It's generous as as it uses the very top line, rather than the figure after rebates, funding, pensions, etc. But, if I recall, it was even slightly lower than the real figure that they could have used if they were smarter - 352m (I think)! It's not horseh*t, but I grant as I always have, it's a generous view.

You may not agree with the method/presentation, fair enough, but as it is, the 350m is correct. It's not a lie. It's no different to the other stats flung about by both sides at the time and since, but for some reason, is the sand is some Remainers shoe that they can't get rid of.

I still read it as we send ..... Let's fund our NHS instead.

It doesn't say We send the EU £350 million a week, let's give it all to the NHS. Maybe I am being thick, but I still struggle to see how it's read as let's give it all to the NHS and always have done.

I'm still slightly in awe at the perceived power that battle bus over the Brexit vote.

With regards the £350m, it is massively different as it was their main strapline which was repeated over and over and was knowingly and deliberately inaccurate, at the least it was a serious obfuscation of the truth. Boris was still quoting the £350m figure in the TV debates as did the other Leave Campaign members when they were on TV.

The £350m is a lie by omission as it ignores a considerable chunk of the equation very deliberately. It is like a company saying to potential investors we have an income of £15m while hiding that their costs are £30m.

It was repeated so many times (on TV, Social media, radio, the bus, leaflets etc) and throughout the campaign. To paraphrase a saying that repeat a lie enough times and it becomes the perceived truth. Plenty of people believed it was true, that you didn't fair enough but plenty did.
 
It’s a ploy used drawing parallels.
For example, we give away billions in benefits overseas that should go to our own people. Not many will disagree, however, it is always a sweeping generalisation.
The statement suggesting that £350m a week is wasted, of course is a gross figure that takes no account of benefits.
Company profits of £100m gross might look good on paper but could be a net deficit.
If there is a second referendum as Labour seem to want, prepare for more wild assertions of what might or not happen.
George Osborne and his predictions were ridiculous too, and that from a chancellor who was supposed to be in the know
 
It’s a ploy used drawing parallels.
For example, we give away billions in benefits overseas that should go to our own people. Not many will disagree, however, it is always a sweeping generalisation.
The statement suggesting that £350m a week is wasted, of course is a gross figure that takes no account of benefits.
Company profits of £100m gross might look good on paper but could be a net deficit.
If there is a second referendum as Labour seem to want, prepare for more wild assertions of what might or not happen.
George Osborne and his predictions were ridiculous too, and that from a chancellor who was supposed to be in the know

member of the Bullingdon club,.... ridiculous is expected :sneaky:
 
Maybe I have. I think it’s often the older generation that maintain we give millions away that should go to the elderly. But the point really is the two are not directly linked.
It’s easy to say we spend millions on foreign refugees but nothing on homeless soldiers. It’s an argument often made I think to suggest there is a direct relationship.
What you say is correct about us being wealthy and only small amounts are sent abroad.
How often do we hear the phrase charity begins at home..wherever that is
 
Maybe I have. I think it’s often the older generation that maintain we give millions away that should go to the elderly. But the point really is the two are not directly linked.
It’s easy to say we spend millions on foreign refugees but nothing on homeless soldiers. It’s an argument often made I think to suggest there is a direct relationship.
What you say is correct about us being wealthy and only small amounts are sent abroad.
How often do we hear the phrase charity begins at home..wherever that is

The overseas aid budget is also a soft projection of power (such as funding an organisation that helps locals in very poor rural India access benefits from their own Govt that was being appropriated for uses elsewhere by specific politicians as a shot across the bows) and presents long term benefit opportunities, as well as doing the right thing etc. So in the long term, it may be helping "home" as well.
 
Davis is an incompetent fool who has already failed, and the EU negotiators laughed at him because he was that unprepared and you think he would make the EU quake with fear!

Raab is equally incompetent considering he only realised how important Dover was for international trade after becoming Brexit Secretary!!! The current bunch make Iain Duncan-Smith seem competent which is quite an achievement.

And you really think telling somebody to "f**k off" will really make them negotiate differently and bring them into your way of thinking?! That was the sort of dismissive attitude David Davis had which just wasted time and achieved nothing.
No I said f**k off as a statement of how intent to do a no deal brexit, not a personal attack of “ f**k off “
 
Back
Top Bottom