The remain side over-exaggerated, well Osbourne did as Chancellor, the impacts of a vote to leave and what would happen following that. He was right that the economy would slow and the pound would tank.
What other lies were told by remain in 2016?
I agree, but also think that in any negotiation as soon as you remove any option (even one nobody really wants) you are weakening your position some extent. There is a need to at least theoreticaly retain the 'nuclear option' of just walking away. I'm suggesting this in general terms btw, not specifically for Brexit. It's a similar issue with endless extensions - as soon as you remove the deadline, you remove the imperative (from both sides).
All the more reason to not weaken it further.We’re the man just kicked out of his home, trying to negotiate with a landlord to rent a flat when the landlord knows full well we’ve got nothing to walk away to.
We’re in a desperate position.
Sainsbury’s by us has just cut staff and put in more self service tills - that's brexit for you.How about the third world war that Cameron promised us.
Osbourne didn't say the economy would slow down, he said it would immediately crash, within days, and would need an emergency , austerity plus, budget to rectify it.
Of course, I'm still waiting for the millions of job losses we were promised when we didn't join the euro .
How about the third world war that Cameron promised us.
Osbourne didn't say the economy would slow down, he said it would immediately crash, within days, and would need an emergency , austerity plus, budget to rectify it.
Of course, I'm still waiting for the millions of job losses we were promised when we didn't join the euro .
All the more reason to not weaken it further.
B & Q have just done the opposite near me. We live in a crazy, crazy world.Sainsbury’s by us has just cut staff and put in more self service tills - that's brexit for you.
Absolutely. That was once Johnson's preferred option. If Leave wins, use that to renegotiate our relationship with the EU then have another referendum on that deal or remain.Or that it was totally naive to not have a 2nd round outlining the sort of agreement we should leave with and the fact that it was so vague a question, has put us into a constitutional crisis because nobody can agree what leave should look like.
Labour’s message is now clear, they’ll negotiate a deal if they win and will put it before the public.
It cannot get much fairer than that.
When the walk away option is a shoebox in the middle of the road, it's not much of a bargaining position.All the more reason to not weaken it further.
He had no plan. He has no plan.What was Boris' plan for getting a deal before 31 Oct then ?
Just the backstop going or renegotiate the whole thing ?
So if you had had the foresight to realise that there was no good deal to be had, you'd have voted remain in the first place....??? You must have missed the suggestion by the esteemed @Saddleworth2 that suggested that the options should be Remain or May's WA - I would vote Remain in that circumstance - yeah so totally loaded in Remain's favour
What did the rules of the EU have to do with our referendum?80% ????
The political procedures and rules you say?
In the 2016 referendum 1 vote greater than 50% was the procedure and rules of the EU - the mandate was to leave the EU.
Different shapes of deals are the consequence/outcomes of the negotiations
The math that matters though was that there is a large majority within the HoC that are EU sycophants and have not had the integrity to execute the outcome of the referendum and the vote to trigger A50
Therein is the explanation for the last 3 years
I agree, but also think that in any negotiation as soon as you remove any option (even one nobody really wants) you are weakening your position some extent. There is a need to at least theoreticaly retain the 'nuclear option' of just walking away. I'm suggesting this in general terms btw, not specifically for Brexit. It's a similar issue with endless extensions - as soon as you remove the deadline, you remove the imperative (from both sides).
Absolutely. That was once Johnson's preferred option. If Leave wins, use that to renegotiate our relationship with the EU then have another referendum on that deal or remain.
I agree, but also think that in any negotiation as soon as you remove any option (even one nobody really wants) you are weakening your position some extent. There is a need to at least theoreticaly retain the 'nuclear option' of just walking away. I'm suggesting this in general terms btw, not specifically for Brexit. It's a similar issue with endless extensions - as soon as you remove the deadline, you remove the imperative (from both sides).
He had no plan. He has no plan.