That Britain should rethink BREXIT

[WallisofWindsor]

David Davis admitting that the impact of Brexit will be equal to the credit crunch should surely make the country revisit the decision.
Why put your country through such a difficult period?

And, as an aside, what is the actual problem with Turkey joining?

Crackednips Turkey has been in a privileged position and customs union with the EU since 1965. It has for a long time been working on a plan to join the EU, but increasingly this is no longer something Turkey wants to do. A democratic Turkey, should be able to join the EU if it wished (the UK incidentally has always supported this) but Turkey itself is now more focused on becoming on developing its presence as a middle eastern power.

So, we cancel Brexit. Farage returns to lead UKIP. The core of voters who want rid of the EU is still there.
Then, we have a backlash - Britain gets far-right MP's. More referenda ad nauseum.

It's not really going to stop, a soft Brexit then time to reflect is the way Britain should go. Corbyn isn't the great hope - Kier Starmer is.

Ken & Cracked have you not seen the latest opinion polls? as many as 50% of the populace are now in favour of a second referendum versus only 34% against it.

The Brexiters are now in the boat that push is coming to shove. How long before they start trying to save their own necks and the whole thing comes crashing down? I don't know.

Another question that has always perplexed me. If the EU is constantly telling lies then has no-one else noticed? Is it only Farage along with the Sun and DM that have managed to pick this up across the whole of Europe?

Can someone tell me something - if we leave with 'no deal' in March 2019 does that mean there won't be the transition period

I think there has to be a deal and there has to be a transition period. There has to be legal certainty.

If there's no deal, I think that means no Brexit, not tumbling out without a deal like some of the gleeful Brexiteers seem to want. You can't have a situation where people don't know what laws to apply and how to deal with people, goods and services.

I'm not entirely sure that we should let Farage accuse anyone of telling lies .

The words pot and kettle come to mind.

To All those people that say we had controlled immigration, who pays for all the many people that would have to be employed to track down, and deport the people that outstayed their time, more tax payers money wasted on court cases and deportation

Ha ha user - I don't think you need to worry as according to the right-wing press we never do catch any of these criminals, and they commit a disproportionately large number of crimes.

Never mind, once we're free of Europol all will be good.

I would worry more about Calais-like camps all over the UK - people getting in, but not managing to survive once they are there, and not able to go "home" - mostly because they no longer have homes.

I think the UK as been lucky that France has taken the brunt of this. Post-Brexit, the UK will have to take over responsibility, I would have thought.

We'll be better off by regaining our sovereignty. This is important to people

You never lost it! How many ways does this need to be explained to you?

Do you really wish to get into a discussion on the lies the EU have been telling. Not just about Brexit?

You could try to give us just one. And explain to us how you know it's a lie and what the truth is?

All I see is soundbites with no meaning.

Ken & Cracked have you not seen the latest opinion polls? as many as 50% of the populace are now in favour of a second referendum versus only 34% against it.

Have you not learned to not trust opinion polls yet? If they were correct, we would be remaining within the EU, Hilary Clinton would be the American president and Conservatives would have a huge, strong majority in government right now.

MissionItsPossible

The polls actually reflected the voting in the last presidential election. Clinton won the popular vote.

Fwiw

Many of us took comfort from this --- for a while

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/15/the-guardian-view-on-turkey-and-europe-separating-facts-from-fiction

Turkey’s accession into the EU may be an old promise, but circumstances have changed in ways that make its fulfilment as good as impossible for the foreseeable future

France was so opposed to the idea of Turkey joining, the EU constitution was changed to guarantee the French a ref to block such a move. as you know it only takes 1 to Veto...

and then there was its failure over Cyprus --

www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/15/turkey-misses-deadline-visa-free-travel-eu-ambassador-withdraw

Can I take it you're happy with Turkey’s potential membership of the EU?

I see it's already been said. Turkey was trying to join for about 35 plus years, but had to satisfy a number of conditions, and met virtually non, and didn't look like doing so , and that's even less likely now. Who knows what might happen in the future, but it isn't on the cards at present.

Have you not learned to not trust opinion polls yet?

I don't get this slagging off the polling. Opinion polls flipped between win/lose in both those votes and were within their margin of error. Yougov called the last election right and Hilary Clinton, although not winning the presidency, won the most votes.

Yougov called the last election right, but I recall a lot of the others were hopelessly out.

Crackednips the reality is that for the forseeable future, Turkey will not meet the EU's criteria for membership and will not be able to join. In any event, Turkey no longer wants to join. It is therefore a non-issue.

The EU policy is that any European nation meeting the EU criteria should be allowed to join. This is both inclusive and non discriminatory and a very good position to take. At the moment, Turkey is not in that position nor does it wish to be.

Crackednips any other EU "lies" you wish to report?

Well crackednips as the lie you told us about was that Turkey would join the EU but actually hasn't and, as far as I'm aware, it's not scheduled for it to actually happen, then perhaps you could carry on with the list of lies?

Could you list a few at once as it makes it easier and less likely to digress into discussions about opinion polls - although I am sure you didn't do that just to deflect from responding to the question you were asked about your own statement.

@RubMyRhubarb numbers are irrelevant. It's percentages that matter and in this case it was too close to call either way.

Percentages ARE numbers, they translate to numbers - this isn't a difficult concept. I've already said 2% looks flimsy, but when you look at it in terms of how many PEOPLE that represents it paints a different picture.

If you have 1.5 million people in front of you (on some really big sofa) and you have to convince them to do a complete about turn, a 180 on a subject they already have very strong feelings on - I don't think I'd be off base in saying you've got your work cut out.

We're so used to bandying big numbers around we seem to be forgetting what they actually signify. How much to resurface this stretch of road? Oh umm £485 BILLION. How much to build this extension on my house? Here I've drawn a picture - Oh £954 TRILLION (just to get planning)

We talk about these numbers (yes obviously I'm exaggerating before anyone feels the need to point it out) as if they're fuck all. They aren't fuck all. 1.5 Million is a LOT of people.

My point is that all three examples were predicted and all three were wrong so trusting an opinion poll that suggests 50% of the populace want another referendum in the hope that it would overturn the result is unwise.

get this slagging off the polling. Opinion polls flipped between win/lose in both those votes and were within their margin of error. Yougov called the last election right and Hilary Clinton, although not winning the presidency, won the most votes

I agree, with how the vote turned out the opinion polls couldn't be any more accurate considering the margin of error.

As for Trump/Clinton though, it's much more partisan than it is here in the UK there where quite a few polls that had it more accurate iirc, it really highlighted the state of political reporting and bias at play in the states and somewhat the UK media by only picking certain polls, wasn't it CNN that had Hillary at ~90% chance of winning?