Meanwhile, over in Project Fear Everything's Going To Be Cake And Unicorns Really World,
https://news.sky.com/story/police-plan-for-civil-unrest-after-no-deal-brexit-11493685
Good spot Diss ! My bad. It’s my standard text on trade options – have got too familiar with it!!
Have we learned the difference between "making a mistake" and "lying" finally then? That's progress at least.
Yes, "making a mistake" is what THM does, rarely. "Lying" is what everyone else does, persistently.
Right THM.
Point out the lies from remains that you keep on banging on about. You will not be able to as there were none.
Now accept you have lied and been caught out.
Then you will be back in the vague area of the truth. Not your usual lies and obfustications.
Happy to share where you lied
Off you go, then.
I may have been wrong, but I have never intentionally lied on STW about anything ever. Which I think is broadly what I said last time you started slinging accusations around.
Or, @teamhurtmore might find we agree about lies from certain politicians who campaigned for Remain… that still doesn't give us a mandate for any plan, published or imaginary. Where do we go from here…?
For what it's worth, I think Conservatives in favour of remain tried to play it pretty clean, to reduce "blue on blue" action, for the sake of their party… they utterly misjudged what they'd be up against.
Nice edit - and you admitted thinking about your choice of words too. So doubling down now.
(Back to work now b4 this gets out of hand, especially as privilege rules)
More riddles? Or a point to make?
Back to work now
What happened to "Happy to share where you lied" then?
privilege rules
Liar.
Point proven. QED. Thanks, saved me the time
I don't know why I bother.
Facts don’t change but correct this specific para comes from a post vote Ctte report. Correct.
That is a rather important qualifier when talking about what people knew before the vote.
That the committee states it is important for people to understand the distinction implies a worry that people dont understand that detail. Especially when they include the government and parliament as well as the public in that number.
I am a tad confused as to what you are trying to argue. Yes the facts were available prior to the vote (well most of them).
However for that to be really relevant you would need to show that the people voting knew those facts were correct and voted knowing that. As opposed to believing some other claim was correct.
Where do we go from here…?
Sorry for repeating myself… 2016 news doesn't really inform what is/isn't going on now. Let's get back to 2018, if not 2019, if we can…
Diss - the pre vote doc I should have posted was the 54 page gov summary of alternative models published in Mar 16.
Same message - access and membership distinguished.
“None of the alternatives to full EU membership offer full access to the single market”
v specific on how Nor gives less access than the status quo in the text and ch 4 the conclusion - see 4.1
so it’s not true that this was all unknown. People just had to do their own research
the HMT panic lies were published in May itself
I thought you were going back to work. Did you make a mistake?
“None of the alternatives to full EU membership offer full access to the single market”
No shit Sherlock. One of many arguments for not giving up EU membership.
Now, if we're to going give up EU membership, what about the other (arguably inferior) ways we could still be part of the Single Market? Why are they currently ruled out (on "our" side), despite doing less damage to all sides than any of the alternatives "outlined" by Leave cheerleaders?
[ Disaster capitalists don't want damage limitation ? Those with transatlantic interests happy for UK to lose out in Europe if it benefits them? Politicians saw/see routes to power otherwise closed to them? I don't know. ]
People just had to do their own research
...and not listen to anything that the Leave campaign said, as they were lying - as identified in my last post (which I notice THM did not deign to answer). So I'm pretty puzzled how everyone could know what they were voting for, when THM says that they should all have known they were voting for something that prominent Leave campaigners clearly said was not going to happen. How were they supposed to know that they should ignore their leaders and instead base their vote on " the 54 page gov summary of alternative models published in Mar 16"? More to the point, please provide evidence that 17.4 million people did this - then there might be some credibility in the 'people knew what they were voting for' bollocks.
so it’s not true that this was all unknown. People just had to do their own research
Who was claiming the information wasnt available? How many people do you reckon spent the time reading through every document available and had the necessary skills to understand and rank them in terms of accuracy. Remember not everyone is in your elite circles.
So, with that in mind, exactly what point are you trying to make?
Ransos – you can happily compare them with EEA to see why some have a problem with it.
How do you know? As you keep saying, the question asked in the referendum was very simple.
Freedom of......
No shit Sherlock. One of many arguments for not giving up EU membership.
Thx kelvin - so people did know after all!!
Unison wants to stay
GMB wants to stay
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2018/07/04/whos-blame-brexit-going-badly/
Not many think it's going well
So obviously we need to try harder, and get right behind this thing
So when public opinion is solidly against Brexit, a good majority want to stay what will we do? Claim that despite the polling people voted for Leave parties? Shout will of the people and run towards the white cliffs?
Thx kelvin – so people did know after all!!
Knew what, oh cryptic one?
Whatever the people "knew" in 2016, we are set to Leave in 2019. Do that in a way that only the minority of people want… for what reward? How does that serve democracy, the people, or even just the narrow interests of your own party?
Unison wants to stay
GMB wants to stay
Key Labour people still not ruling out referring this all back to "the people"… May has to rule it out to stay Leader of her party… the pressures on Corbyn are quite different (although the Corbyn fans I know all seem to take any suggestion of a vote on Brexit as a personal attack on the man… oddly).
although the Corbyn fans I know treat all seem to take any suggestion of a vote as a personal attack on the man
I certainly don't. Although I do question the point of another vote on the same difficult topic with the same people voting based on what they don't know. Anyone thought that another vote may just give Brexit the nod again, what do you do then?
If it gives a mandate for a plan for a replacement for EU membership, that we could read, scrutinise, and accept, then we go for that. Democracy. It would get modified during negotiations, but the government would have a plan, with backing. It currently does not. And nor do its opponents.
I'm no fan of referendums*, but the call of "undemocrats" would be hurled at anyone who either doesn't Leave, or Leaves in a way that "doesn't probably reflect what people voted for in 2016"… we're at an impass…
[ * call them what you want ]
All this discussion and no mention recently that the Chequers plan is dead in the water. Its never going to be acceptable to the EU and this has been made clear. Why are May and co still persisting with something that is so obviously impossible?
that we could read, scrutinise, and accept,
The "we" you are referring to are not the 17 million are they? Touch misguided if that so the case.
If it gives a mandate for a plan for a replacement for EU membership, that we could read, scrutinise, and accept, then we go for that.
For any vote they would need to define to options on the table with some data that people can understand.
As they have failed to publish the original impact assessments and mostly failed to read them this would appear to be beyond them.
the time taken for this to be done and a vote to be made would probably take the country beyond march. The cynic in me thinks this is a deliberate ploy so that what ever is on the table becomes the only option. I would not be surprised if there is a clause in the agreement that allows renegotiation in say 7-10years. That way the can is kicked far enough for the current crop to have retired but not so soon as to cause businesses to have to adapt twice quickly
Touch misguided if that so the case.
I have more faith in people than you, clearly. But that's not my only point with wanting another vote.
Yes, the vote could very likely be "for" replacing EU membership with "something"… but at least the government could then claim an actual mandate, for an actual direction… rather than all this "not what people voted for" sniping from all directions. We need a direction. That direction needs the support of the public, because otherwise the result of the last referendum will be used to undermine and prevent it. I'd rather that direction was to be an EU member… but if it was something else… that's better than the current mess.
The cynic in me thinks this is a deliberate ploy so that what ever is on the table becomes the only option.
Yep, anything laid down on paper can be scruitiniized and rejected… May delayed as long as she could, to try and push her cabinet over the brink… but she failed. And, rip apart her current plan as much as you want… but it's almost irrelevant what's in it… her opponents can say "it goes against what the people said at the referendum" and it dies. If she (or her opponents if they replace her) try and do the same with the country… then what?
Delay?
Cancel?
Vote?
Follow them down their path that so few support… because… democracy?
Freedom of……
No shit Sherlock. One of many arguments for not giving up EU membership.
Thx kelvin – so people did know after all!!
Could someone translate?
Know what, kelvin??? You even conveniently highlighted the issue in question 😳 (Out of interest what is my party?
Assume it was just a slip that the RMT was excluded from the list above !!
love the contradiction between the idea that only "elite circles" (sic) read relevant details but now, hey presto, the thickos (apparently) are going to read and scrutinise the minutiae of the different means of accessing the SM post EU membership . 😀
Brexit, Italy, Sweden...notice anything....nah, don't worry, the project is in fine shape
Yes ransoms, kelvin was clarifying that, contrary to opinions expressed earlier, people did know the implications of voting to end membership and what that meant for access to SM. very helpful as others were pretending that this was not the case.
There needs to be a referendum on a proposal… "not EU membership" gives us no direction, as the last two years have made very clear.
kelvin was clarifying that, contrary to opinions expressed earlier, people did know the implications of voting to end membership and what that meant for access to SM
I said that one of the arguments made for EU membership is that all other ways of being part of the Single Market offer reduced access. I said nothing about who knew what about that.
I was making the point that many people thought, and had good reason to, that we could stay part of the Single Market, but would no longer be central to it, when they cast their vote. The examples of Norway and Switzerland were pointed out to is by Leave campaigners, with suggestions that we could do "even better" when it came to the Single Market. And we could. But it has been ruled out by politicians, not by "the people".
Part of - tut, tut
we can still have "access to" , someone aluded to that earlier with a list of quotes from some Brexshiteers
Part of
Yes indeedy… read the gov link I posted, I even did some copy and paste for you… I'll repeat it here again, especially for you…
The European Economic Area (EEA)
The EEA includes EU countries and also Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. It allows them to be part of the EU’s single market.
Switzerland is neither an EU nor EEA member but is part of the single market – this means Swiss nationals have the same rights to live and work in the UK as other EEA nationals.
very helpful as others were pretending that this was not the case.
You do seem quite keen on calling people liars, yet somewhat reticent in substantiating your claim. A poor man's BoJo, I suppose.
All this discussion and no mention recently that the Chequers plan is dead in the water.
We all knew and commented it was. DOA.
love the contradiction between the idea that only “elite circles” (sic) read relevant details but now, hey presto, the thickos (apparently) are going to read and scrutinise the minutiae of the different means of accessing the SM post EU membership .
Mr extrapolate is back...
The pay off must be big and remain must be the broke option....
Phew, since that (EEA) required FoM we can cross out the idea that leavers were racists. That was just the politicians. Good job we don't leave it to those racist bastards then. Forget the nasty Tories old Chukka reckons HM oppo is riddled with institutional racism.
Let the people decide instead....read, scrutinise, decide.
Evening all,
Judt checking in to see if the afternoon shift have managed to post any positive reason to support leaving.
Nope, still just 'will of the people ', maybe tomorrow then.....
Here's what one bloke said:
the RMT general secretary, Mick Cash, said trade unionists had voted for Brexit in droves and should not be ignored
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
Is littledave mooman playing both sides?
the RMT general secretary, Mick Cash, said trade unionists had voted for Brexit in droves and should not be ignored
Metric or imperial droves? What were the numbers surveyed this time and the splits. I know the rmt is used to dictating how the country is run but how many people do they represent and how does that stack up with the general **** brexit feeling going about
Are you suggesting good old Mick is a liar?
Are you? What is he actually saying, what are droves how are they defined?
Are you suggesting good old Mick is a liar?
Isn't that your department?
