Will Brexit happen?

phillw

Conina wrote: »

Why on earth would the EU bother when they see a divided parliament and (still) a possibility of the UK remaining by default?

Why would the EU bother if all they see is Boris threatening them with a no deal?
He isn't confident enough to share any of his suggestions with anyone, including the EU.

lvader wrote: »

There are only opinions here and facts very rarely changes those.

Some do. If you are respond to facts person you will have voted remain, if you respond to your feelings being manipulated then you voted leave.

lisyloo

lvader wrote: »

There are only opinions here and facts very rarely changes those.

I come here to challenge my views and occasionally learn something valuable.
However I am not challenged by people just stating their opinion with nothing to back it up.

Yes, in my view it’s worth taking the risk. That’s how high the stakes are.

More importantly that my vote is that 21 Tory rebels thought it was worth serious consequences as well. There is no doubt that’s significant.

Malthusian

lisyloo wrote: »

I don’t remember drug or fresh food shortages under labour.

There weren't drug or fresh food shortages the last time we weren't in the EU either (other than the more limited availability of produce in the 1970s generally). There was however a 98% top rate of income tax, rubbish piling up in the streets and power blackouts under the last hard left Labour government.

bioboybill

Malthusian wrote: »

There weren't drug or fresh food shortages the last time we weren't in the EU either (other than the more limited availability of produce in the 1970s generally). There was however a 98% top rate of income tax, rubbish piling up in the streets and power blackouts under the last hard left Labour government.

:rotfl: The Callaghan government certainly wasn't hard left. Strikes brought the Labour government down.

Malthusian

Arguably not by the standards of the time, but it would be now. Labour's centre left favours Blairite policies, the hard left favours going back to Callaghan-style policies or even further backward.

A 20% basic rate of income tax, a £12,500 personal allowance and married women having their own tax allowances would have been some sort of whacko alt-right libertarian fantasy in the 1970s UK, but it's mainstream centrist politics now.

maxie014

As a simple working class chap who has grafted away for nearly 40 years in various factories,when we have a vote for pay rises,if i vote against a bad deal and it goes through,i dont harp on about it for the next 3 years and try to get it changed.
I have to fully accept i was outvoted by a majority and move on.
Is that so hard to understand?
A lot of people i know will never vote again,myself included probably as it is looking like it is a complete waste of time.

LHW99

More importantly that my vote is that 21 Tory rebels thought it was worth serious consequences as well.

As I have said before though, if they really feel that no deal is so very damaging - why didn't they support the negotiated deal and then get on with the next stage. I can only surmise that they assumed they could keep pushing back the date of actually leaving indefinately - ie Remain, which was not the result of the referendum.
If the argument is that people didn't realise that they could be voting for no deal by voting leave in 2016 (which IMO is a very wide assumption with regard to 17.4m people) then any new referendum should only be a choice between no deal and the negotiated deal.

Filo25

LHW99 wrote: »

As I have said before though, if they really feel that no deal is so very damaging - why didn't they support the negotiated deal and then get on with the next stage. I can only surmise that they assumed they could keep pushing back the date of actually leaving indefinately - ie Remain, which was not the result of the referendum.
If the argument is that people didn't realise that they could be voting for no deal by voting leave in 2016 (which IMO is a very wide assumption with regard to 17.4m people) then any new referendum should only be a choice between no deal and the negotiated deal.

I would imagine nearly all of the rebels did support the negotiated deal

lvader

Filo25 wrote: »

I would imagine nearly all of the rebels did support the negotiated deal

But Labour didn't, which is why we are here.

phillw

Malthusian wrote: »

There weren't drug or fresh food shortages the last time we weren't in the EU either (other than the more limited availability of produce in the 1970s generally).

Can you show me what tariff schedules we operated on at the time? We were an EFTA member and not relying on WTO terms. This seems material to your argument. Only Switzerland and Norway remain as EFTA members, are you suggesting joining that?

If we were only able to afford the limited produce in the 1970s then that is because we couldn't afford to import a greater variety. Do you think people voted for food to go back to the 1970's? If we go to WTO instead of EFTA then I don't see how you can even argue that we can go back to the 1970's, it would be the 1950's.

Medicine has always improved since the 1970's, you can't argue that we survived in the 1970's and so we should be able to survive now. It ignores any kind of reality