If we vote for Brexit what happens

BobQ

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

A theme that will be repeated all over the EU.

Those who claim it's not in the best interests of both parties are crazy.

The politicians on the continent talking tough, about punishment, are also crazy. They'll be out or gently persuaded to come around to reason.

True but the attitude of some in the UK advocating a hard Brexit does not help either. At the end of the day this country has enjoyed good relations with Sweden for decades, we should be trying to adopt a more positive approach that will maintain it, not posturing with the Eurocrats.

It would be more sensible to say that we want as soft a Brexit as possible (accepting that a hard Brexit may happen if the approach fails). But the likes of Davis and Fox do not want that, they are obsessed with teaching the EU some kind of pointless lesson.

TrickyTree83

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Brexitits and their ilk didn't vote Leave because they were mildly dissatisfied with a trade situation which few of them understand or have any direct involvement with.

They voted Leave because they were extremely dissatisfied with the presence of foreigners on their sacred little island and hoped this would drive them back into the sea, or wherever else they think foreigners come from.

Kudos for not even being able to spell 'thick' by the way, Conrad. Pretty much sums up your 'movement'.

You've been shamed so much on this forum and you continue to shame yourself further.

If an undecided voter reading this diatribe from you knew you were an ardent Corbyn supporter, do you think they would see you stand for tolerance or would they think you are a bigot?

Turn the mirror on yourself, do a search of your posts and have a look at the people you clearly hate.

- boomers, traditionally anyone over the age of 50, but for you it encompasses anyone who disagrees with your [STRIKE]socialist[/STRIKE] communist beliefs. (you do a dis-service to true socialism)

- people who voted to leave the EU, according to you they (we) all look like this:



- Conservative voters who organise charity events, I might be using a little creative licence here but it was almost a case of "you can shove your cake up your a***!". Despite them helping the elderly, needy, disabled by raising funds and actually assisting them directly.

I'm sure others can add to this list who have put up with your posts for longer than I.

You really are a hateful little [STRIKE]~$%![/STRIKE] so-and-so.

TrickyTree83

BobQ wrote: »

True but the attitude of some in the UK advocating a hard Brexit does not help either. At the end of the day this country has enjoyed good relations with Sweden for decades, we should be trying to adopt a more positive approach that will maintain it, not posturing with the Eurocrats.

It would be more sensible to say that we want as soft a Brexit as possible (accepting that a hard Brexit may happen if the approach fails). But the likes of Davis and Fox do not want that, they are obsessed with teaching the EU some kind of pointless lesson.

I don't see it that way.

I want EFTA/EEA to be the solution, but perhaps being a Remain voter makes you perceive the stance being taken differently to how I perceive it.

In the immediate aftermath of the result we saw the EU taking a strong line, out is out, it's not a-la-carte, you need to get on with it, etc..etc... From many in positions of power within the EU. That has toned down somewhat but still sits on the end of the spectrum and it looks like the UK government (to me at least) have taken up residence on the opposite end of the same spectrum. And all this is to me is setting the stall out of where we will start negotiations from, not what we are aiming for in reality, for both parties.

Tromking

Brexit was inevitable, you can't have a borderline dysfunctional relationship with a political entity for 40 years and expect continued membership especially when the avowed intention of the movers and shakers of that entity is to become a superstate eventually. Brits were never going to accept pre-summit Franco-German get togethers in order to thrash out a 'joint position' ad finitum and we don't do Luxembourger Drunks giving it the large either. Brexit was a shock to many but it was always going to happen.

Jon_B_2

Can somebody please detail what a good trade deal looks like?

Please don't just state names of countries. What does the impact need to be? What are the benefits?

As someone else upthread detailed. I accept the result, I'm not happy that parliament will not have a say in the way negotiations are going to play out - I'm not convinced Theresa May is going into negotiations with an agenda that even Brexiteers would approve of.

But we will see. What is sad is that plenty of Brexit supporters seem to be quite rude toward people who voted remain. Does that not highlight a problem?

Herzlos

Conrad wrote: »

So the question is, what will ardent Remainers say on the day this all becomes a reality? What coping mechanisms will they deploy?

If we get a trade deal* as good as we have now? My thoughts will be "Thank God that's all over. Let's have a beer!"

As a fanatical Brexiter; what's you're plan should we *not* get a deal as good as we have now? Blame the Remainers?

*That includes passporting or equivalent, and a similar customs set-up. There's more to trading with a continent than tariffs.

CLAPTON

Jon_B wrote: »

But we will see. What is sad is that plenty of Brexit supporters seem to be quite rude toward people who voted remain. Does that not highlight a problem?

But presumably you aren't concerned that 'remainers' are quite rude about brexiter (xenophobes, little englanders etc etc)

Does that not highlight a problem?

Herzlos

Conrad wrote: »

You see none of the upside opportunity of Brexit, so of course your instinct is to cling to the old idea.

Indeed I don't, because none have actually been presented to me. I genuinely don't see any upside to Brexit.

Actually, that's not true, the only upside I see to Brexit is that it's potentially triggering another Indyref, which means we might get rid of the Tories :j but we'll all going to be poorer in the process.

Herzlos

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

May I respectfully suggest that - instead of facile remarks - you actually read the link?
You may then avoid looking so foolish as you currently do.

The cost increase (from my link) is quoted as: That's one heck of a "barely anything".

Then there are a few reasons why ABS is actually less "safer to use on the roads" as you put it, including (from my link):
'Nuff said really.

Yeah, I'm not buying it though. They've said that tractors with a speed limit above 60km/h already have ABS in place, so the technology is already in place. This is moving it down to cover 40-60km/h, which is still relatively fast for a tractor, so not going to affect the bottom end of the market.

I also don't see how having ABS can cause more accidents on a road, or how it'll affect off-road behaviour. They don't affect traction and only improve braking when you're expecting the ground to block up the wheels, like with deep snow. It'll never trigger in normal tractor usage.

Tractors are currently alarmingly unregulated; You need a Class 2 license to drive an HGV with trailer, with an 90km/h speed limit, but you don't need any similar licensing (or insurance) to drive a similar sized tractor/trailer combo, albeit at a slightly lower speed.

The article reads largely like a complaint that regulation is being introduced, than a genuine issue with what the regulation is trying to do. There's a bit saying that safety would be better improved with signalling and lighting on tractors, but I don't see why they can't do both.

Bear in mind the tractors in question could potentially weigh in at almost 40 tons, with tyres that aren't intended to provide grip on tarmac.

mrginge

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

I don't see it that way.

I want EFTA/EEA to be the solution,

I really really really wouldn't hold much hope out for that.