A little quiz for leavers mainly, but anyone may answer

[PrincessMargaret]

If you voted leave, please answer at least three of these, it must include #6.

1. Can you name a bad EU law?
2. What will you do outside the EU that you couldn't do inside the EU?
3. How will WTO tariffs keep us competitive?
4. How will border controls keep our lorries moving?
5. Why would any Multinational stay in the UK with tariffs, mountains of “country of origin” paperwork, and border hold ups?
6. How can you solve the Northern Ireland problem?
7. The EU citizen Hostile Environment. We now have twice as many NON EU immigrants coming to the UK to work than EU, how is that better?
8. Under WTO rules any one of 163 countries can hold a trade deal up for years, is that taking back control?
9. Trade deals take 8 years on average, what do we do in the meantime?
10. Where do you get your information from, ever thought there may be a hidden agenda?

Very interested to see the responses.

You didn’t answer my question though mummmy

There is literally zero evidence that the EU is responsible for your woes and even less that leaving is going to help.

Don’t you ever think about the fact this decision is going to make your situation worse.

{This is a club you were never supposed to leave.}
Of course the UK can leave, but civilised people do it by proper negotiation. Since the vote in 2016, the EU has been waiting patiently for the UK government to define what 'Leaving' actually means.
Some because they are racist, some because the French eat too much garlic, some because they believe lies written on buses.
After 2 years the EU have negotiated the draft WA agreement which all EU 27 agree with. As you will be aware the UK gov, apart from Mrs May don't like it.
IF the UK has asked the EU how best to leave, and had thought about issues such as the NI border 10 years ago, or had not triggered A50 so that a 2 year timer was put into motion, it would have been perfectly possible to leave in a 'smooth' manner, but the UK gov have buggered about and resorted to insults to many European diplomats that things are getting a bit 'rocky'. Lying and bad behaviour does not work work as a negotiating strategy, try asking any toddler.

The UK leaving is FORCING the good people in the EU to lose around £450 per person to implement new infrastructure and personnel.
Leaving will FORCE all in the UK to lose around £1,000 per person.
This could have been used for all manner of things but now it is being 'wasted' or at least is being spent on things that weren't needed.

mummmy2017

Honestly, stop wasting your time talking to these people, they are fanatics.

Just think, we’ll be out of the EU in just a few short months. Nothing they can do about it.

The only fanatics around here are those supporting a deal which deep down they know isn’t delivering the ‘leave’ they wanted surfer just because it’s not Remain

In fact that’s lunacy.

Yes surfer, but then what?

I know... Can't wait... Too leave..
Said many times that there was no way to agree this.
We should have said going on... X date.
And all business should have been told this.
Plan for this... WTO rules...
Then anything else was a bonus...

Don’t you ever think about the fact this decision is going to make your situation worse.

*And

Stop wasting your time talking to people.They're fanatics.*

Who are the fanatics here?

The webchat with the specialists made me wonder which people it is worthwhile debating with.. It's clear that there is a high degree of consensus (even within government) that the country will be worse off as a result of Brexit.

Is this a platform most Leavers and Remainers can now agree?

On the webchat one of the panel said under the terms of their funding they had to be impartial. They did not express opinions on Brexit but merely explained and analysed the results of the research. So whilst their report forecast that the deal on the table will have a negative impact on the British economy, they do not extrapolate from that whether or not it is a good idea.

I think Leave ( voters and politicians) who deny the financial cost are 'fanatics' -to use the term in the post above?

It does seem a bit extreme to refuse to accept the consensus and evidence that relinquishing membership is bad news for the economy?

Leavers who accept the evidence and admit the financial cost seem more measured to start with. It makes sense to say Brexit to them about more than just economics?

I think many of us are obsessively concerned with this, so in so far as that is fanatical, we all are.

(I think my friend's Mum might be a fanatic she now does admit that the economy will be worse off. So far so good. Then she makes it clear that for her it's not about money -it's about Muslims as she thinks leaving the EU is a step towards making the U.K. an exclusively Christian country. )

Sorry that was a bit rambling but Surfer do you now admit that the country will be economically worse off as a result of Brexit.

I know Mummy can see this but thinks it's a price worth paying to shake everything up.

I know Mummy can see this but thinks it's a price worth paying to shake everything up.

I disagree. She’s refusing to accept it could make thing worse too.

So what's the most fanatical position? Denying the government's own financial forecasts, or accepting the financial reality but thinking its s worthwhile price to pay?

People get a divorce all the time, they know they will take a financial hit.
Even the parent who gets the house loses the income of the NR partner, but they move on maybe marry again, but it is accepted that there is an economic price to pay.
This happens thousands of times ever year, and does everyone scream your going to starve, or have no income.
NO, people look forward to being in a better place, without 100% guaranteed.
Leavers want the divorce and know given time all the hurdles of Brexit will be sorted, life is not always play it safe, accept what you have, even if it is not 100% right, because your too scared to ever vote for the change.

But people divorce for reasons and it generally effects direct family members and a few friends maybe. It doesn't fuck a whole country, how can you be so selfish?

I'm not sure that analogy works:

Married people can live longer and be happier.

Some divorced people remarry with varying degrees of success, some don't ever find another partner, some sink into depression.

Some divorcees find they have no friends as they all sided with the ex spouse.

Sometimes the children suffer.

Sometimes the couple remain locked in a dysfunctional relationship with never ending disputes over the children.

Sometimes the parties remarry and the second relationship fails too.

Sometimes the couple reconcile years later having wasted a lot of time and money.

Sometimes the couple spend a lot of time in counselling investing fully and wholeheartedly working on the relationship, and manage to turn it around.

Other couples see a mediator and work together over a long period agreeing the best relationship they can going forwards. ...on other occasions they flounce off with a Dear John letter and have an acrimonious bad deal afterwards.

But In this case we are divorcing and separating, we tried to negotiate but he wanted an arm and a leg in return for sod all.

But at least one Leaver comes on these threads to object to FoM for EU citizens, because they are predominantly white Christians. It doesn't sit easily with those who want to leave to kick out all mostly brown or Middle Eastern Muslims.

Mummmy

Separation and divorce are essentially emotional matters. How can anyone advocate tearing up a whole system affecting a whole country, with no certain replacement, for emotional reasons?
I don't care about leavers' feelings (anymore than they care about mine). I only care about the prosperity of the country where my kids are growing up.
Your silly divorce petition is costing everyone way too much.

One of the Dads of a child In DDs friendship group is (a fairly agnostic) Muslim -British Middle East born. He's a v. proactive Leave supporter.

Before the ref a group of us were having a drink, when I suggested that some other Leave voters supported things like Britain first or were motivated by xenophobic stuff -he absolutely refused to believe me. Point blank refused to accept this. He said maybe a handful, but hardly any. His family's views haven't changed either-I think he and his Dad have money in different jurisdictions and had some chance to profit a bit when the pound fell and by moving it around.

Where would we have been without that bloody, bloody ref. A better place anyway.

The other thing that gets me is that it's all so random. So now there's a newspaper headline saying ' the people' may support May 's deal but they wouldn't have a week ago, and they may not in a fortnight's time. It's like a game of musical chairs and the outcome you get randomly depends on when the music is paused. For something like this it should be measured and clear consensus not all this few percentage point differences, fly by the seat or your pants stuff.

A few months ago a black guy posted a video on Youtube on whether life was checkers or chess. I responded that it was both. In Tom Coughlin's book " Earn the Right To Win ", he stated that it's fine to set a goal for yourself that you really want that other people might say is too lofty or impractical BUT THEN you have to sit down and focus upon the technical details of how best to go about achieving that goal.

Checkers ( simplicity, emotion ) is WHY you want to do something, Chess ( technical details, reasoning ) is HOW you go about doing it.

The Leave campaign seems to have based on a strictly emotional component. It's hard in a way to argue with emotionally charged statements that makes one feel good such as " Taking back our Borders " or " Having total say in our own affairs ". That's like being against " Sunny blue skies " or " Great times with family and friends ".

The Leave campaign it appears was unwilling to do the dry, boring, tedious, non-emotional work of putting together a detailed plan on how exactly Brexit would work.

It reminds me of something Barrack Obama said about people at political rallies. They show up, they clap, yell, shout, sing, etc and then they go home and don't bother to go vote.

Why? They liked or loved the emotional high of being part of a tribe or movement but not the technical nature of driving to a polling station, standing in line, showing ID, getting your ballot, and then filling it in including amendments or referendums that you may have to study for a bit. There is no emotional kick out of that activity.

It's fine if the UK wants out of the EU, being a human institution it no doubt has it's faults. Given though the sheer immensity of all that's involved it would seem to need a timescale of 15 to 20 years for a satisfactory conclusion. If you really care about an issue or project then you will sit down and spend hours studying the boring, dry details and not just be all rah-rah about it.

When you though only have demand while others have supply, you are not in a position to negotiate with them ( especially with something as important as food ). Instead you throw yourself on their mercy.

The UK seems to be headed for no-deal based upon what I have read. There just too many complexities involved for me to see anything coming together and then the UK will be reduced to that of a beggar. It will take whatever trade deals are offered because it won't have a choice.

Winston Churchill didn't promise pleasant times in standing up to Nazi Germany, instead the only thing he could promise was " Blood, Sweat, and Tears ".

This morning's news on SKY is that the full text regarding the 'backstop' for NI will not be revealed, only a summary.
A government who is lying and using NDAs to conceal it's activities from the public is little more than a dictatorship.
The effects of the backstop will potentially effect millions.

I love the use of the word 'fanatic', always makes me chuckle, we all know why it gets used when it does

xebobfromUS
Thank you for that great observation.
I would like to add that at the conclusion of WW2 it was he who proposed that the countries of Europe should be united.
Germany, France and I think 4 others took this suggestion on.
France's Charles DeGaulle opposed the UK being a member. I did not do history so don't know details. There is probably some relevance to the UK (particularly Britain) being an 'Island State' which as a 'superpower' 150 or more years ago fitted the mentality. Now the UK is ONLY a little island and the government and some of the population need to come to terms with collaboration rather than outright rule.
They are badly letting down scientists and engineers who know that a collaborative approach is the best.

Churchill wasn't wholly committed though - he still saw the UK's future as being very much tied up with the Commonwealth. He also believed in a Special relationship with the US, which quite honestly, we haven't really got certainly by the end of the last war, or no more than Spain has with it's South American Empire, where they still have the ties of language, but probably not a great deal else.

Peregrina
I won't dispute what you say, I actually need to do some work soon so can't discuss.
I would however point out that many people suggest ideas that turn out to be good but don't actually follow through with them.
Some of Hitler's ideas for uniting Germany were good, but then the ways and means, followed by extremist views brought most of it crashing down with catastrophic consequences for many millions.

"we tried to negotiate but he wanted an arm and a leg in return for sod all."

Except that in the EU the UK had the best deal of all member states, the "divorce bill" is simply us paying up what we agreed to pay up till 2020 and for obligations such as UK MEP pensions etc.

Cameron got everything he wanted in negotiation apart from an emergency break on immigration, but then we didn't need it cause the only reasons to be against immigration are xenophobia.