Beans will be ****ing currency in post Brexit Land
You'll be a king if you get the ones with those little sausages in
Mad max 5- beyond Brexit
Beans will be ****ing currency in post Brexit Land
You'll be a king if you get the ones with those little sausages in
You must log in or register to see media




I'm not worried by all the scaremongering over trade. We will still have the ability to trade with the EU, though not as seamlessly as previously. Its in both parties interests to get as close to the status quo as possible. Obviously the EU have to be careful because what they don't want is member states saying well what is the point of being in this? But equally some of their member nations can't afford a tit for tat between the EU and Britain. So common sense will prevail there. We will also have the ability to set up our own trade deals with the rest of the world on our own terms, and not that of 28 nations all with varying interests. Obviously the EU arrive at the trade table in a stronger position than we will in many ways. The weight of 27 against the weight of 1. But we don't have to pick through all 27's interests to ensure everyone is satisfied. We can be selfish. There are pros and cons trade wise - most people can see that. We have a lot of people claiming to know what it will mean for Britain. This is unfortunately one of those things you only find out in practice. Once we leave we will know within 5 years whether trade wise it was a good idea.
The big concern seems to be how we manage the relationship with the US. But again this notion that any deal with the US is going to result in us being raped or ****ed over, is just scaremongering. The US manages to have many relationships around the world with big units like the EU, or small nations like ourselves, and they manage to do that without ****ing those countries over. Of course Trump is an aggressive deal maker and we will have to wary but even his term is time limited. However it doesn't mean he is looking to make the UK a colony to rape and pillage. Quite simply this is just more remoaner doomsday predictions.
Its the same with selling off of the NHS. They've taken one Trump comment out of context and decided we are selling our NHS. Its a load of rubbish. The US's main quibble about healthcare is they feel we and many others are paying less for our pharma than the US citizens because large state-funded health services like the NHS have massive bargaining power. They buy drugs in large quants and are good at negotiating discounts from the pharma companies. Obviously the set up in the US is different and fractured so they don't purchase like that - so they pay more. We can argue till we are blue in the face whether Trump has a point, but I think what they are talking about in relation to NHS and trade is that they may want us to pay more to help drive down prices in the US. Obviously that is not good for an already stretched NHS, but it certainly does not represent us selling off the NHS to America! Indeed Trump went back on his comments and their ambassador did once they saw how they were construed here.
The best thing about getting Brexit done is not having to listen to remoaners pontificate about how our demise will come about.
No one voted for no dealYou must log in or register to see media
No one voted for no deal
You do realise you are saying:
"We of course need a trade deal with the EU. Rather than negotiate one while we are in a position to implement it efficiently and while we are on somewhat good terms, let's wait until we suffer the disruption of an absence of any trading relationships and until we are an arms length third party to negotiate it."
I don't want to say anything insulting but that is not a smart way to proceed.
And if what you are saying is that we will survive a no deal, we of course will. We will just be poorer and have higher unemployment for quite a while (maybe a long while) as a result of proceeding in this way.
Back our country fella.
I am.
Sometimes in life you need to take a step back to take two forward.
This is not about who is backing our country and who isn't. I am. I don't know anyone who isn't.
If it were that simple, it could be written in crayon. The problem is that it is complicated and pretending it is crayon simple is not going to make it less complicated. It is only going to give us a crayon simple strategy to address a complex problem.
I agreed up until option 3. Remain should not be an option. The type of leave should be.I think what has bothered me most about this whole affair is how *nobody* - from any party - is defending *representative* democracy.
We invented representative democracy. It is arguably Britain's greatest gift to the world. It's certainly one of the things I'm most proud of about our country.
In direct democracy (i.e. referendums) nobody can be held responsible for the promises they make. In British democracy, if you promise the earth, you have to damn well deliver it, or get voted out 5 years later, or usually, sooner.
The result of the EU advisory referendum was clear: the people advised the government to prepare to leave the EU. Nobody knew what that would look like at the time. He We do now - either a no-deal brexit, or a deal that looks very much like what TM brought back.
In order for this to be democratic - as defined by the country that ****ing invented it - we now need an election with parties standing on *clear* policies:
Tory - No Deal
Labour - Deal (they need to be realistic and admit that any deal will look like what TM got, or set out very clearly what compromises their deal will make)
Lib Dem - Remain
Failing that we need a final referendum with ranked voting on those three options. But we would be better off having parties committing to deliver a particular outcome, and being judged on it.
I agreed up until option 3. Remain should not be an option. The type of leave should be.
Genuine question - would you *ban* from a political party standing on a remain platform at a GE? That's not British democracy at all.
And if you can't ban a party, how can you remove the option in a referendum?
I can see the point that it's possible to repeatedly ask a question until you get the answer you want. The EU have been guilty of this before, sure, as are the SNP.
Equally, we now know what Brexit *really* looks like - we rightly have spent the time and money, and incurred the cost of uncertainty, to find out.
But it looks very different to what many people claimed it would. That doesn't make them liars, or the voters stupid: it was genuine uncertainty. But now we know the nature of the choice, we must allow people to make it. If people want to leave, they can vote for it (and it should be RANKED preference, so the leave vote isn't unfairly split). The final decision (No deal, deal or remain) would have to get >50% of people's first and second choice votes.
I can see *tactically* why you might argue to remove the option - if you wanted to ensure we left. But is there a good democratic reason for doing so? If remain could win, surely it must be on the ballot in a democratic election? And if it can't win, what are you worried about?