Brexit: give me a positive effect... XV

[miktec]

It is important to remember that the leave campaign was not the UK govt, the UK govt stood for remain, why on earth should a remain UK govt start planning for brexit ahead of a referendum? Why would a remain UK govt start working immediately on preparing for a no-deal brexit when it didn’t want to leave at all? There was not a majority for leave in the UK govt until 2019. People keep banging on about 5 years, it is simply not correct. There has actually been very little time to prepare properly for such a massive change.

That's a very interesting question ... but one with a very simple answer.

If, as a responsible government, you launch a referendum with two choices (maintaining the status quo or instituting radical change with far reaching consequences), you have to make reasonable preparations for both outcomes (as a responsible government).

One presumes that the Cameron crew were aware (as a responsible government) of the possibility that the vote could go either way and should therefore at least have begun preparatory work in earnest for radical change (as a responsible government) should that be the outcome.

If they were not prepared (as a responsible government) to carry out such preparatory work or follow through on the details then they should NEVER have countenanced doing something so f*cking stoopid as a referendum in the first place.

They did though ... so there were indeed 5 years to prepare for the changes that were required by the result.

There you go - simple really

 

[miktec]

My point was in reference to the UK govt, not the Irish govt. It is not bullshit to suggest much uncertainty was created while the UK govt was facing challenge after challenge from hard remainers intent on overturning the result of the referendum. It is bullshit to think this did not cause uncertainty for business, many times I heard business leaders complaining that all they wanted was some certainty which would enable them to do proper planning.

I find it nothing short of absolutely hilarious that anyone in their right mind would put the chronic lack of planning down to the existence of a still active 'remainer' movement post-referendum.

Pure comedy gold .....

ROFLMAO
(as we were wont to write before emojis rendered such redundant)

 

[KrisW]

Whatever.

Keep your sarcasm.

I'm sorry that you see my argument as sarcasm. I assure it is not.

 

[TheDecameron]

There is no benefit to Brexit. Matter closed. Move on.

You pessimist. Stop talkin Brexit down!

 

[TheDecameron]

I find it nothing short of absolutely hilarious that anyone in their right mind would put the chronic lack of planning down to the existence of a still active 'remainer' movement post-referendum.

Pure comedy gold .....

ROFLMAO
(as we were wont to write before emojis rendered such redundant)

This is where time can play tricks. HM Govt did carry out scenario planning and then attempted to conceal the product. That was because every version of Brexit showed a negative impact on the British economy. They lied to the people of N.Ireland, they signed a treaty then threatened to break international law yet they didn’t even make adequate provision for customs infrastructure and advice to business. That makes it all the more egregious.

Also arguing with one lone voice religiously chanting Brexity catch phrases as some sort of explanation for all this is a complete waste of time.

 

[Brian]

Is his name Owen Paterson?

No. Why would it be? I didn’t know Paterson was a farmer. Is he a friend of yours?

 

[Brian]

That's a very interesting question ... but one with a very simple answer.

If, as a responsible government, you launch a referendum with two choices (maintaining the status quo or instituting radical change with far reaching consequences), you have to make reasonable preparations for both outcomes (as a responsible government).

One presumes that the Cameron crew were aware (as a responsible government) of the possibility that the vote could go either way and should therefore at least have begun preparatory work in earnest for radical change (as a responsible government) should that be the outcome.

If they were not prepared (as a responsible government) to carry out such preparatory work or follow through on the details then they should NEVER have countenanced doing something so f*cking stoopid as a referendum in the first place.

They did though ... so there were indeed 5 years to prepare for the changes that were required by the result.

There you go - simple really

Who said we have a responsible govt?

 

[Brian]

I find it nothing short of absolutely hilarious that anyone in their right mind would put the chronic lack of planning down to the existence of a still active 'remainer' movement post-referendum.

Pure comedy gold .....

ROFLMAO
(as we were wont to write before emojis rendered such redundant)

I find the behaviour of hard remainers nothing short of pitiful, tbh.

Look, this latest exchange shows how impossible it is to have a discussion with hard remainers on this topic. Many are simply not honest about it, they are unable to accept there were any consequences of the actions of hard remainers in parliament. Kindred spirit, I guess.

Let’s look at what has been said to understand where there are any differences because believe me, there aren’t many.

I agree that in simple terms there has been 5 years to plan and it hasn’t happened, however what we’re talking about are the obstacles to that planning.

I agree with many of the reasons put forward by Kris, such as the incompetence of the tory govt, govt lying etc, but it seems hard remainers remain in denial any uncertainty for businesses resulted from the efforts of those trying to overturn the result of the referendum. To ignore business leaders complaining about a lack of certainty over whether brexit would even happen, to ignore the UK govt at the time of the referendum campaigned for remain, to ignore we then had 2 GEs, to ignore we had a majority remain govt right through to 2019 trying to get a soft brexit agreed that was fought against not only by leave supporters, it is all simply dishonest. For people here to then pretend I place all responsibility on hard remainers for a lack of planning is also dishonest though no surprise these days.

So, while I agree with many of the reasons for the lack of planning mentioned by others, the group is steadfastly unable to see how trying to overturn the referendum result may have created uncertainty and negatively affected planning. Fair enough. We disagree but that’s all we disagree on.

The most hilarious stuff so far though is the conspiracy theory nonsense. That would require planning but there hasn’t been any.

 

[SteveS1]

Brian's two favourite straw men still going strong.

"Hard remainers prevent a 'sensible' Brexit' - completely igoring the fact that May (a former remainer) in a massive and totally unnecessary sop to the ERG and other loons, took a soft Brexit off the table completely with her Lancaster House speech and the now infamous red lines it created.

"Hard remainers trying to overturn the results of the referendum" - by trying to force a second vote on the final deal agreed. Even though some Brexiteers, including Rees-Mogg were in favour of this (before they narrowly won the vote). Brian interprets this as trying to overturn the vote rather than a democratic opportunity to confirm that Brexit lived up to the assurances. One can only wonder why someone so allegedly in favour of democracy would want to prevent a democratic vote once the facts around the deal were known as opposed to the outright lies that were never going to be part of it.

 

[stevec67]

Brian's two favourite straw men still going strong.

"Hard remainers prevent a 'sensible' Brexit' - completely igoring the fact that May (a former remainer) in a massive and totally unnecessary sop to the ERG and other loons, took a soft Brexit off the table completely with her Lancaster House speech and the now infamous red lines it created.

"Hard remainers trying to overturn the results of the referendum" - by trying to force a second vote on the final deal agreed. Even though some Brexiteers, including Rees-Mogg were in favour of this (before they narrowly won the vote). Brian interprets this as trying to overturn the vote rather than a democratic opportunity to confirm that Brexit lived up to the assurances. One can only wonder why someone so allegedly in favour of democracy would want to prevent a democratic vote once the facts around the deal were known as opposed to the outright lies that were never going to be part of it.

Nobody can seriously believe this. You'd have to be deranged. Of course the 48% who voted remain protested. It was the job of the government to make it happen in the 5 years between the vote and the event, and it's their job to plan for all eventualities too. As others have said, that's why we have an army when we aren't at war. The uncertainty about what would happen was 100% the fault of HMG. Of COURSE there were dissenting voices, there always are. We have a government opposition after all. Are we to imagine that the government can't do anything, despite a huge majority in the HoC, because someone somewhere says "I disagree?" No, you'd have to have a screw loose.

 

[Tony L]

I’m struggling to tell the difference between Brexiters and sea lions these days.

 

[Brian]

Brian's two favourite straw men still going strong.

"Hard remainers prevent a 'sensible' Brexit' - completely igoring the fact that May (a former remainer) in a massive and totally unnecessary sop to the ERG and other loons, took a soft Brexit off the table completely with her Lancaster House speech and the now infamous red lines it created.

"Hard remainers trying to overturn the results of the referendum" - by trying to force a second vote on the final deal agreed. Even though some Brexiteers, including Rees-Mogg were in favour of this (before they narrowly won the vote). Brian interprets this as trying to overturn the vote rather than a democratic opportunity to confirm that Brexit lived up to the assurances. One can only wonder why someone so allegedly in favour of democracy would want to prevent a democratic vote once the facts around the deal were known as opposed to the outright lies that were never going to be part of it.

I supported a second referendum. I would also have taken a soft brexit. I’ve said both before.

Note: I kept that short in the hope it will finally be clear enough.

 

[TheDecameron]

Brian's two favourite straw men still going strong.

"Hard remainers prevent a 'sensible' Brexit' - completely igoring the fact that May (a former remainer) in a massive and totally unnecessary sop to the ERG and other loons, took a soft Brexit off the table completely with her Lancaster House speech and the now infamous red lines it created.

"Hard remainers trying to overturn the results of the referendum" - by trying to force a second vote on the final deal agreed. Even though some Brexiteers, including Rees-Mogg were in favour of this (before they narrowly won the vote). Brian interprets this as trying to overturn the vote rather than a democratic opportunity to confirm that Brexit lived up to the assurances. One can only wonder why someone so allegedly in favour of democracy would want to prevent a democratic vote once the facts around the deal were known as opposed to the outright lies that were never going to be part of it.

It all sounds a bit fishy. Man pulls plug out of his inflatable swimming pool and is advised by onlookers that his rubber duck is circling the drain in a clockwise direction. Man insists his rubber duck swam away from the plug hole.

 

[miktec]

Of COURSE there were dissenting voices, there always are.

Worth reminding ourselves that this is the sole reason we had a referendum foisted on us in the first place.

Cameron thought he would shut up the dissenting Tory Eurosceptics and defuse the threat from Farage's rabble once and for all.

Apparently he got it wrong

 

[Brian]

I’m struggling to tell the difference between Brexiters and sea lions these days.

A brexiter is a piece of gammon. I’m not sure what that has to do with a sea lion. Perhaps ask the hard remainers about sealioning?

 

[Brian]

Worth reminding ourselves that this is the sole reason we had a referendum foisted on us in the first place.

Cameron thought he would shut up the dissenting Tory Eurosceptics and defuse the threat from Farage's rabble once and for all.

Apparently he got it wrong

This bit is actually correct, though apparently there are all manner of theories surrounding other reasons but that one looks the top suspect to me.

 

[miktec]

I find the behaviour of hard remainers nothing short of pitiful, tbh.

Look, this latest exchange shows how impossible it is to have a discussion with hard remainers on this topic. Many are simply not honest about it, they are unable to accept there were any consequences of the actions of hard remainers in parliament. Kindred spirit, I guess.

Let’s look at what has been said to understand where there are any differences because believe me, there aren’t many.

I agree that in simple terms there has been 5 years to plan and it hasn’t happened, however what we’re talking about are the obstacles to that planning.

I agree with many of the reasons put forward by Kris, such as the incompetence of the tory govt, govt lying etc, but it seems hard remainers remain in denial any uncertainty for businesses resulted from the efforts of those trying to overturn the result of the referendum. To ignore business leaders complaining about a lack of certainty over whether brexit would even happen, to ignore the UK govt at the time of the referendum campaigned for remain, to ignore we then had 2 GEs, to ignore we had a majority remain govt right through to 2019 trying to get a soft brexit agreed that was fought against not only by leave supporters, it is all simply dishonest. For people here to then pretend I place all responsibility on hard remainers for a lack of planning is also dishonest though no surprise these days.

So, while I agree with many of the reasons for the lack of planning mentioned by others, the group is steadfastly unable to see how trying to overturn the referendum result may have created uncertainty and negatively affected planning. Fair enough. We disagree but that’s all we disagree on.

The most hilarious stuff so far though is the conspiracy theory nonsense. That would require planning but there hasn’t been any.

More reams of arrant nonsense - keep 'em coming

(don't have much on today - got a tree this morning and need to pop it in water overnight ... but that's about it)

 

[miktec]

I supported a second referendum. I would also have taken a soft brexit. I’ve said both before.

Note: I kept that short in the hope it will finally be clear enough.

Ah - now we get to the nub..

You are a closet hard-remainer and trying to deflect attention from yourself via a very weird path.
Makes some kind of sense I suppose .....

 

[Brian]

More reams of arrant nonsense - keep 'em coming

(don't have much on today - got a tree this morning and need to pop it in water overnight ... but that's about it)

Ah righto. Efforts to overturn the referendum had no effect at all..

What were business leaders referring to when complaining about uncertainty causing them business planning issues? I’m happy to be shown I’m wrong as an alternative to you and others just shouting ‘nonsense’.

 

[TheDecameron]

I’m struggling to tell the difference between Brexiters and sea lions these days.

One likes fish the other one not so much it appears,