If there is a second referendum ...

Thrugelmir

MobileSaver wrote: »

Now you are being silly. The £590 per person is a one-off and is not payable every year.

Me being silly. :rotfl:

Basic question for you. Where's the £590 coming from?

Some wise words from Mark Carney.

“There has been no ‘kindness of strangers. Rather than a pauper relying on the charity of strangers, the UK is more like a member of the landed gentry, using its past foreign investment to fund its lifestyle of excess.”

MobileSaver

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Me being silly.

Basic question for you. Where's the £590 coming from?

Yes, you are being silly and getting sillier with each post.

Basic question for you. Is the £590 per person a one-off or is it payable every year?

kabayiri

I thought this thread was about a 2nd referendum.

It does seem that the prospect is receding. People like JRM are viewing May's deal as a price worth paying.

I didn't think she had a chance of pulling it off, but by bribing labour/tory seats with money and running the clock down she might just get her way.

The negotiation approach certainly does not warm the EU towards the kind of extension a 2nd ref would need. Another referendum could put them back in the same position they are in now, but with another 12 months gone by.

StevieJ

MobileSaver wrote: »

Yes, you are being silly and getting sillier with each post.

Basic question for you. Is the £590 per person a one-off or is it payable every year?

I think he means the interest on the £39 billion will be paid every year because it will be added to the National Debt?

Arklight

gfplux wrote: »

Has the possibility of another referendum gone away?

Even posters here are not mentioning it.

It was never realistic. Forcing one through would take big clanging balls of steel, a plan of where you want to go, and a government that is at least in control of its own MPs. Theresa May has none of these things.

It's nice to imagine a nice orderly day where everyone goes and votes again with a rephrased question based on what we know now. But that's not what would happen. You'd have rags like the Daily Mail fomenting chaos while screaming headlines about the Betrayal of the People, Brexiteers boycotting or picketing polling stations, Brexit Ultras bellowing that they refuse to recognise the vote.

The result would have to be a huge majority either way to look like something that would be accepted and it wouldn't be, it would be a slight win for Remain, another General Election which would see the Tories place someone like Rees-Mogg or Johnson as leader. And then, let's face it, seeing a repellent Tory Toff who had never done a day's work in his life preparing to give the working man the biggest shafting since Thatcher, almost everyone in England would go out and vote for them.

No one wants that. Not even all the English people who would vote for them and then spend the rest of their lives pretending that they hadn't at dinner parties.

MobileSaver

MobileSaver wrote: »

Basic question for you. Is the £590 per person a one-off or is it payable every year?

StevieJ wrote: »

I think he means the interest on the £39 billion will be paid every year because it will be added to the National Debt?

That had crossed my mind but that would mean we would all be paying just £16 a year extra to pay off the interest which makes the original "large sum of money" comment look even more ridiculous.

cogito

phillw wrote: »

Its you who is increasingly ridiculous, which I'm surprised was possible. The EU negotiated in good faith and agreed to the back stop we proposed.

Until you open your eyes and see the EU isn't the threat that you have been convinced they are, then your opinions will be continue to be seen in the negative light they deserve.

You need to open your eyes and see the EU for what it is - sly, devious and untrustworthy. The EU never does anything in good faith and the biggest mistake that the UK government made was to assume that it does.

Herzlos

cogito wrote: »

You need to open your eyes and see the EU for what it is - sly, devious and untrustworthy. The EU never does anything in good faith and the biggest mistake that the UK government made was to assume that it does.

Are you talking about the same EU? What's it done that's sly, devious or untrustworthy?

BobQ

MobileSaver wrote: »

+1

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that Leavers can't take a step back and look at the big picture but I do despair sometimes at the tunnel vision expressed here.

Everything in life is relative and so, while at first glance £39bn may seem a lot, if you think about it for a second you realise it equates to only £590 per head of the UK population. That's a one-off cost that is around the same as the average Sky TV subscriber pays every year!

Taking a step back is one thing and I agree that a second vote is unlikely to happen at present.

The problem is that no-deal is a terrible outcome for the UK, one liked by only the most obsessive supporters of Brexit who now openly admit it will have negative impact on the UK economy and possibly the Union itself.

The May deal is also a bad deal for the UK. The backstop is damaging yet she suggested it. The overall deal does not honour the promises made by the Leave campaign that it would negotiate frictionless tariff free trading with the EU. In fact it is entirely designed to appease the Conservative Party. The only positive thing to say is that it is better than a no deal.

The real test will be when May returns from the EU with nothing more than she has now. At that point we may find that MPs vote for a legally binding motion to reject any no-deal exit and then there may a majority for a second vote.

Kohoutek

cogito wrote: »

You need to open your eyes and see the EU for what it is - sly, devious and untrustworthy. The EU never does anything in good faith and the biggest mistake that the UK government made was to assume that it does.

How can any organisation the size of the EU be "sly, devious and untrustworthy", let alone one made up of representatives of 27 different countries?

It's one thing to support Brexit, it's quite another to hold such bizarre views to think that an international organisation has characteristics that an only a individual person can have.